Abstract
Purpose
In agricultural life cycle assessment (LCA), the allocation method chosen to divide impacts among co-products is an important issue, since it may change conclusions about a product’s impacts. We developed a biophysical allocation method to assign upstream environmental burdens and the use of raw materials at farm gate to the livestock co-products at the slaughterhouse based on their metabolic energy requirements.
Methods
Biophysical allocation is designed to build a relationship between co-products of a meat-production system and their associated net metabolic energy requirements. A metabolic growth model (Gompertz function) was combined with an energy calculation model to estimate metabolic energy requirements for the growth of an animal from birth to slaughter age. Allocation factors were calculated based on the energy required to maintain and produce body tissues (excluding waste), as a function of their chemical (protein and lipid) and physiological properties. This method was applied for an average beef cow and then compared to other allocation methods (e.g., mass, dry matter, protein, and economic).
Results and discussion
At slaughter age, carcass tissues required the most energy (44 %) due to their high quantity of protein; the gastrointestinal tract and liver required about 28 and 5 %, respectively, of total metabolic energy requirements due to their roles in body metabolism. Biophysical allocation considers the energy cost of building and maintaining the tissues, regardless of their final uses. It reflects physical relationships among co-products as well as other allocation methods do. It also reveals the cause-effect relationship between tissues according to the energy required to maintain physiological functions. Once the growing time until slaughter is set, biophysical allocation factors are not influenced over time, unlike those of economic allocation, which is highly influenced by price variability.
Conclusions
This study provides a generic and robust biophysical allocation method for estimating environmental burdens of co-products, in accordance with ISO allocation rules. The method can be considered an original contribution to international debates on allocation methods applied to livestock products in LCA. In this paper, it is applied to cattle-related product, but it is generic and the principles can be adapted to any kind of livestock species. It should be considered and discussed by stakeholders in livestock production industries.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ADEME (2010) Analyses de Cycle de Vie appliquées aux biocarburants de première génération consommés en France. Direction Production et Energies Durables (DEPD)-ADEME
Agabriel J (2007) Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins: besoins des animaux, valeurs des aliments: tables Inra 2007. Editions Quae
Agri-footprint (2011) Agri-footprint. Dynamic environmental knowledge base for agri and food products. Site web financé par les Ministères de l'Environnement et de l'Agriculture des Pays-Bas
Ardente F, Cellura M (2012) Economic allocation in life cycle assessment. The state of the art and discussion of examples. J Ind Ecol 16:387–398
Ayer NW, Tyedmers PH, Pelletier NL, Sonesson U, Scholz A (2007) Co-product allocation in life cycle assessments of seafood production systems: review of problems and strategies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:480–487
Basset-Mens C, Ledgard S, Boyes M (2009) Eco-efficiency of intensification scenarios for milk production in New Zealand. Ecol Econ 68:1615–1625
Black J, Campbell R, Williams I, James K, Davies G (1986) Simulation of energy and amino acid utilisation in the pig. J Agri Res Dev 3:121–145
Cederberg C, Stadig M (2003) System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:350–356
CMWG (2015) Baseline approaches for the cross-cutting issues of the cattle related product environmental footprint pilots in the context of the pilot phase 2013–2016. Cattle Model Working Group
Dollé J, Gac A (2012) Milk and meat biophysical allocation in dairy farms. In: 8th International Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector, pp 1–4
Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2001) Allocation in ISO 14041—a critical review. J Clean Prod 9:197–208
Emmans G (1994) Effective energy: a concept of energy utilization applied across species. Brit. J Nutr 71:801–821
Emmans G (1997) A method to predict the food intake of domestic animals from birth to maturity as a function of time. J Theor Biol 186:189–200
EPD (2012) Product category rules-meat of mammals-version 1.0. Environmental Product Declaration, Sweden
France J, Thornley JH (1984) Mathematical models in agriculture. Butterworths, London
Gac A, Tribot-Laspière P, Scislowski V, Lapasin C, Ponchant P, Guardia S, Nassy G, Chevillon P (2012) Recherche de méthodes d'évaluation de l'expression de l'empreinte carbone des produits viande. Institut de l'Elevage
Gac A, Salou T, Espagnol S, Ponchant P, Dollé J-B, van der Werf HM (2014) An original way of handling co-products with a biophysical approach in LCAs of livestock systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014), pp 8–10
Gill M, France J, Summers M, McBride BW, Milligan LP (1989) Mathematical integration of protein metabolism in growing lambs. J Nutr 119:1269–1286
Hoch T, Agabriel J (2004a) A mechanistic dynamic model to estimate beef cattle growth and body composition: 1. Model description. Agric Syst 81:1–15
Hoch T, Agabriel J (2004b) A mechanistic dynamic model to estimate beef cattle growth and body composition: 2. Model evaluation. Agric Syst 81:17–35
IDF (2010) A common carbon footprint approach for dairy: the IDF guide to standard lifecycle assessment methodology for the dairy sector. International Dairy Federation
IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Volume 4, Chapter 10, Emissions from livestock and manure management Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISO (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044: 2006). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
Johnson I, France J, Thornley J, Bell M, Eckard R (2012) A generic model of growth, energy metabolism, and body composition for cattle and sheep. J Anim Sci 90:4741–4751
Kozloski GV, Rocha JBT, Ciocca MLS (2001) Visceral metabolism and efficiency of energy use by ruminants. Cienc Rural 31:903–908
LEAP (2014) Environmental performance of animal feed supply chains: guidelines for quantification: draft for public review. Livestock environmental assessment and performance partnership. FAO, Rome, Italy
LEAP (2016) Environmental performance of large ruminant supply chains, guidelines for assessment, livestock environmental assessment and performance partnership. FAO, Rome
Lobley G, Milne V, Lovie JM, Reeds P, Pennie K (1980) Whole body and tissue protein synthesis in cattle. Brit J Nutr 43:491–502
Micol D, Robelin J, Geay Y (1993) Composition corporelle et caractéristiques biologiques des muscles chez les bovins en croissance et à l'engrais. INRA Prod Anim 6:61–69
Nguyen TTH, van der Werf HMG, Eugène M, Veysset P, Devun J, Chesneau G, Doreau M (2012) Effects of type of ration and allocation methods on the environmental impacts of beef-production systems. Livest Sci 145:239–251
Nguyen TTH et al. (2013) Effect of dairy production system, breed and co-product handling methods on environmental impacts at farm level. J Environ Manag 120:127–137
Noblet J, Van Milgen J (2004) Energy value of pig feeds: effect of pig body weight and energy evaluation system. J Anim Sci 82:E229–E238
NRC (1996) Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 7th edn. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
NRC (1998) Nutrient requirements of swine. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Ortigues I, Doreau M (1995) Responses of the splanchnic tissues of ruminants to changes in intake: absorption of digestion end products, tissue mass, metabolic activity and implications to whole animal energy metabolism. Ann Zootech 4:321–346
Owens FN, Gill DR, Secrist DS, Coleman S (1995) Review of some aspects of growth and development of feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 73:3152–3172
Pelletier N, Tyedmers P (2011) An ecological economic critique of the use of market information in life cycle assessment research. J Ind Ecol 15:342–354
Pelletier N, Ardente F, Brandao M, De Camillis C, Pennington D (2015) Rationales for and limitations of preferred solutions for multi-functionality problems in LCA: is increased consistency possible? Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:74–86
Regulation CE/1069/2009 (2009) Of the Parliament and Council of Europe of 21st October. Off J Eur Union 300:1–33
Regulation CE/999/2001 (2001) Of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Off J Eur Union L147:1–40
Robelin J (1986) Growth of adipose tissues in cattle; partitioning between depots, chemical composition and cellularity. A review. Livest Prod Sci 14:349–364
Roux CZ (2014) Use of theoretical efficiencies of protein and fat synthesis to calculate energy requirements for growth in ruminants. S Afr J Anim Sci 43:435–456
SCA (1990) Feeding standards for Australian livestock: ruminants. Standing committee on agriculture and resource management. Ruminants Subcommittee, Melbourne
Taylor S, Murray J (1991) Effect of feeding level, breed and milking potential on body tissues and organs of mature, non-lactating cows. Anim Prod 53:27–38
Thoma G, Jolliet O, Wang Y (2013) A biophysical approach to allocation of life cycle environmental burdens for fluid milk supply chain analysis. Int Dairy J 31:41–49
van der Werf HM, Nguyen TTH (2015) Construction cost of plant compounds provides a physical relationship for co-product allocation in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:777–784
van der Werf HM, Kanyarushoki C, Corson MS (2009) An operational method for the evaluation of resource use and environmental impacts of dairy farms by life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 90:3643–3652
van Milgen J, Valancogne A, Dubois S, Dourmad J-Y, Sève B, Noblet J (2008) InraPorc: a model and decision support tool for the nutrition of growing pigs. Anim Feed Sci Tech 143:387–405
Wang Z, Zuidhof M (2004) Estimation of growth parameters using a nonlinear mixed Gompertz model. Poult Sci 83:847–852
Weidema B (2000) Avoiding co-product allocation in life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4:11–33
Wellock I, Emmans G, Kyriazakis I (2004) Describing and predicting potential growth in the pig. Anim Sci 78:379–388
Whittemore C, Tullis J, Emmans G (1988) Protein growth in pigs. Anim Prod 46:437–445
Wiedemann SG, Ledgard SF, Henry BK, Yan M-J, Mao N, Russell SJ (2015) Application of life cycle assessment to sheep production systems: investigating co-production of wool and meat using case studies from major global producers. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:463–476
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Jacques Agabriel, Etienne Labussière, and Armelle Gac for their help and expertise guides, and we also appreciate the help from Christophe Lapasin for providing data of co-products classification. This study was supported by CELENE (Cellule Energie, Environnement) in France.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Thomas Jan Nemecek
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, X., Wilfart, A., Puillet, L. et al. A new method of biophysical allocation in LCA of livestock co-products: modeling metabolic energy requirements of body-tissue growth. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22, 883–895 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1201-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1201-y