Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:27:37.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating environmental impacts of contrasting pig farming systems with life cycle assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2014

J. Y. Dourmad ,
J. Ryschawy ,
T. Trousson ,
M. Bonneau ,
J. Gonzàlez ,
H. W. J. Houwers ,
M. Hviid ,
C. Zimmer ,
T. L. T. Nguyen  and
L. Morgensen
J. Y. Dourmad*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 Pegase, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, F-35000 Rennes, France
J. Ryschawy
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 Pegase, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, F-35000 Rennes, France
T. Trousson
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 Pegase, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, F-35000 Rennes, France
M. Bonneau
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 Pegase, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, F-35000 Rennes, France
J. Gonzàlez
Affiliation:
IRTA, Finca Camps i Armet, 17121 Monells, Girona, Spain
H. W. J. Houwers
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
M. Hviid
Affiliation:
DMRI, Maglegaardsvej 2, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark
C. Zimmer
Affiliation:
BESH, Haller Street 20, 74549 Wolpertshausen, Germany
T. L. T. Nguyen
Affiliation:
Aarhus University, Blichers Alle 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
L. Morgensen
Affiliation:
Aarhus University, Blichers Alle 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Environmental impacts of 15 European pig farming systems were evaluated in the European Union Q-PorkChains project using life cycle assessment. One conventional and two non-conventional systems were evaluated from each of the five countries: Denmark, The Netherlands, Spain, France and Germany. The data needed for calculations were obtained from surveys of 5 to 10 farms from each system. The systems studied were categorised into conventional (C), adapted conventional (AC), traditional (T) and organic (O). Compared with C systems, AC systems differed little, with only minor changes to improve meat quality, animal welfare or environmental impacts, depending on the system. The difference was much larger for T systems, using very fat, slow-growing traditional breeds and generally outdoor raising of fattening pigs. Environmental impacts were calculated at the farm gate and expressed per kg of pig live weight and per ha of land used. For C systems, impacts per kg LW for climate change, acidification, eutrophication, energy use and land occupation were 2.3 kg CO2-eq, 44.0 g SO2-eq, 18.5 g PO4-eq, 16.2 MJ and 4.1 m2, respectively. Compared with C, differences in corresponding mean values were +13%, +5%, 0%, +2% and +16% higher for AC; +54%, +79%, +23%, +50% and +156% for T, and +4%, −16%, +29%, +11% and +121% for O. Conversely, when expressed per ha of land use, mean impacts were 10% to 60% lower for T and O systems, depending on the impact category. This was mainly because of higher land occupation per kg of pig produced, owing to feed production and the outdoor raising of sows and/or fattening pigs. The use of straw bedding tended to increase climate change impact per kg LW. The use of traditional local breeds, with reduced productivity and feed efficiency, resulted in higher impacts per kg LW for all impact categories. T systems with extensive outdoor raising of pigs resulted in markedly lower impact per ha of land used. Eutrophication potential per ha was substantially lower for O systems. Conventional systems had lower global impacts (global warming, energy use, land use), expressed per kg LW, whereas differentiated systems had lower local impacts (eutrophication, acidification), expressed per ha of land use.

Keywords

pig productionagricultural systemsenvironmentlife cycle assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 12 , December 2014 , pp. 2027 - 2037
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AGRESTE 2006. Enquête pratiques culturales. Retrieved January 2013 from http://agreste.maapar.lbn.fr/ReportFolders/ReportFolders.aspx Google Scholar
Basset-Mens, C and Van der Werf, HMG 2005. Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 105, 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonneau, M, Antoine-Ilari, E, Phatsara, C, Brinkmann, D, Hviid, M, Christiansen, MG, Fàbrega, E, Rodríguez, P, Rydhmer, L, Enting, I, de Greef, KH, Edge, H, Dourmad, JY and Edwards, S 2011. Diversity of pig production systems at farm level in Europe. Journal on Chain and Network Science 11, 115–135.Google Scholar
Bonneau, M, de Greef, K, Brinkman, D, Cinar, MU, Dourmad, JY, Edge, HL, Fàbrega, E, Gonzàlez, J, Houwers, HWJ, Hviid, M, Ilari-Antoine, E, Klauke, TN, Phatsara, C, Rydhmer, L, Van der Oever, B, Zimmer, C and Edwards, SA 2014a. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming system: the procedure, the evaluated systems and the evaluation tools. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731114002110.Google ScholarPubMed
Bonneau, M, Klauke, TN, Gonzàlez, J, Rydhmer, L, Ilari-Antoine, E, Dourmad, JY, de Greef, K, Houwers, HWJ, Cinar, MU, Fàbrega, E, Zimmer, C, Hviid, M, Van der Oever, B and Edwards, SA 2014b. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: Integrated evaluation. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731114002122.Google ScholarPubMed
Cederberg, C and Darelius, K 2002. Using LCA methodology to assess the potential environmental impact of intensive beef and pork production. In Life cycle assessment of animal production (ed. C Cederberg), thesis, Department of Applied Environmental Science, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden.Google Scholar
de Boer, IJM 2003. Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic milk production. Livestock Production Science 80, 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, M and de Boer, IJM 2010. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessment. Livestock Science 128, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degré, A, Debouche, C and Verhève, D 2007. Conventional versus alternative pig production assessed by multicriteria decision analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 27, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dourmad, JY, Hermansen, JE and Bonneau, M 2008. Tools for assessing environmental sustainability of pork production systems. Vilnius. EAAP Book of abstracts, p. 8.Google Scholar
Edwards, SA, Dourmad, JY, Edge, HL, Fabrega, E, de Greef, K, Antoine-Ilari, E, Phatsara, C, Rydhmer, L and Bonneau, M 2008. Q-PorkChains: tools for assessing sustainability of pigmeat production systems. In Proceedings 59th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Vilnius, Lithuania, p. 7.Google Scholar
Frischknecht, R, Jungbluth, N, Althaus, HJ, Bauer, C, Doka, G, Dones, R, Hischier, R, Hellweg, S, Humbert, S, Köllner, T, Loerincik, Y, Margni, M and Nemecek, T 2007. Implementation of life cycle impacts assessment methods. Ecoinvent Report no. 3, v2.0, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dubendorf, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Gonzàlez, J, Gispert, M, Gil, M, Hviid, M, Dourmad, JY, de Greef, K, Zimmer, C and Fàbrega, E 2014. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: development of a market conformity tool for pork products based on technological quality traits. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731114002146.Google Scholar
Guinée, JB, Gorrée, M, Heijungs, R, Huppes, G, Kleijn, R, de Koning, A, van Oers, L, Wegener Sleeswijk, A, Suh, S, Udo de Haes, HA, de Bruijn, H, van Duin, R and Huijbregts, MAJ 2002. Life cycle assessment. An operational guide to the ISO standards. Centre of Environmental Science, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, G, Wetterich, F and Kopke, U 2001. Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment 83, 43–53.Google Scholar
Halberg, N, Van der Werf, H, Basset-Mens, C, Dalgaard, R and de Boer, IJM 2005. Environmental assessment tools for the evaluation and improvement of European livestock production systems. Livestock Production Science 96, 33–50.Google Scholar
Halberg, N, Hermansen, JE, Kristensen, IS, Eriksen, J, Tvedegaard, N and Petersen, BM 2010. Impact of organic pig production on CO2 emission, C sequestration and nitrate pollution. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30, 721–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilari-Antoine, E, Bonneau, M, Klauke, TN, Gonzàlez, J, Dourmad, JY, de Greef, K, Houwers, HWJ, Fàbrega, E, Zimmer, C, Hviid, M, Van der Oever, B and Edwards, SA 2014. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig husbandry systems: Economy. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731114002158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories (ed. Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T and Tanabe K), pp. 1–87. Volume 4 – Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use, Chapter 10 – Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management. IGES, Japan.Google Scholar
Jungbluth, N, Chudacoff, M, Dauriat, A, Dinkel, F, Doka, G, Faist Emmenegger, M, Gnansounou, E, Kljun, N, Schleiss, K, Spielmann, M, Stettler, C and Sutter, J 2007. Life cycle inventories of bioenergy. Ecoinvent Report no. 17, Swiss Centre for the Life Cycle Inventories, Dubendorf, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Kanis, E, Groen, AF and de Greef, KH 2003. Societal concerns about pork and pork production and their relationships to the production system. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16, 137–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krystallis, A, Dutra de Barcellos, M, Kügler, JO, Verbeke, W and Grunert, KG 2009. Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems. Livestock Science 126, 46–56.Google Scholar
LCA Food Database 2007. Retrieved January 2013 from http://www.lcafood.dk/ Google Scholar
Mosnier, E, Van der Werf, HMG, Boissy, J and Dourmad, JY 2011. Evaluation of the environmental implications of the incorporation of feed-use amino acids in the manufacturing of pig and broiler feed using life cycle Assessment. Animal 5, 1973–1983.Google Scholar
Nemecek, T and Kägi, T 2007. Life cycle inventories of Swiss and European agricultural production systems. Final report ecoinvent Report no. 15, v 2.0, Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research Station ART, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich and Dübendorf, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Nemecek, T, Frick, C, Dubois, D and Gaillard, G 2001. Comparing farming systems at crop rotation level by LCA. Proceedings of International Conference on LCA in Foods, The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden, pp. 65–69.Google Scholar
Nguyen, TLT, Hermansen, JE and Mogensen, L 2010. Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU. Energy Policy 38, 2561–2571.Google Scholar
Nguyen, TLT, Hermansen, JE and Mogensen, L 2011. Environmental assessment of Danish pork. Internal Report, Faculty of Agricultural Science, Aarhus University, 31pp. http://web.agrsci.dk/djfpublikation/djfpdf/ir_103_54761_indhold_internet.pdf Google Scholar
Payraudeau, S and Van der Werf, HMG 2005. Environmental impact assessment for a farming region: a review of methods. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 104, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petit, J and Van der Werf, HMG 2003. Perception of the environmental impacts of current and alternative modes of pig production by stakeholder groups. Journal of Environmental Management 68, 377–386.Google Scholar
Peyraud, JL, Cellier, P, Aarts, F, Béline, F, Bockstaller, C, Bourblanc, M, Delaby, L, Donnars, C, Dourmad, JY, Dupraz, P, Durand, P, Faverdin, P, Fiorelli, JL, Gaigné, C, Girard, A, Guillaume, F, Kuikman, P, Langlais, A, Le Goffe, P, Le Perchec, S, Lescoat, P, Morvan, T, Nicourt, C, Parnaudeau, V, Peyraud, JL, Réchauchère, O, Rochette, P, Vertes, F, Veysset, P 2012. Les flux d’azote liés aux élevages, réduire les pertes, rétablir les équilibres. Expertise scientifique collective, rapport, INRA, France, 503pp.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2008. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Retrieved March 2013 from http://www.R-project.org Google Scholar
Rigolot, C, Espagnol, S, Pomar, C and Dourmad, JY 2010a. Modelling of manure production by pigs and NH3, N2O and CH4 emissions. Part I: animal excretion and enteric CH4, effect of feeding and performance. Animal 4, 1401–1412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rigolot, C, Espagnol, S, Robin, P, Hassouna, M, Béline, F, Paillat, JM and Dourmad, JY 2010b. Modelling of manure production by pigs and NH3, N2O and CH4 emissions. Part II: effect of animal housing, manure storage and treatment practices. Animal 4, 1413–1424.Google Scholar
Rydhmer, L, Gourdine, JL, de Greef, K and Bonneau, M 2014. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: breeding programmes. Animal, doi:10.1017/S175173111400216X.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M and de Haan, C 2006. Livestock’s long shadow. Environmental issues and options. Livestock, environment and development initiative. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.Google Scholar
Van der Werf, H and Petit, J 2002. Evaluation of the environmental impact of agriculture at the farm level: a comparison and analysis of 12 indicator-based methods. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93, 131–145.Google Scholar
Williams, AG, Audsley, E and Sandars, DL 2006. Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0205. Cranfield University and Defra, Bedford. Retrieved from www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk and www.defra.gov.uk Google Scholar