Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:57:10.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental impact evaluation of conventional, organic and organic-plus poultry production systems using life cycle assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2010

A. BOGGIA ,
L. PAOLOTTI  and
C. CASTELLINI
A. BOGGIA
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Appraisal, University of Perugia. Borgo XX Giugno, 74, Perugia 06121 Italy
L. PAOLOTTI
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Appraisal, University of Perugia. Borgo XX Giugno, 74, Perugia 06121 Italy
C. CASTELLINI*
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biology, University of Perugia. Borgo XX Giugno, 74, Perugia 06121 Italy
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The concept of environmental sustainability is crucial for the development of human actions, and it is one of the most important concerns of the European Union that requires attention in all of the economic sectors. In particular, the potential environmental impact of livestock is well known and has been one of the most important constraints on the development of animal breeding in certain areas. The main aim of this paper is to compare the environmental impact of different poultry production systems: conventional, organic and organic-plus. Organic-plus has more restrictive requirements than the organic system for improving animal welfare (i.e., use of slow-growing strains and 10 m2 pasture/bird), and the quality of the product. For environmental evaluation, life cycle assessment (LCA) has been used in this review, which is a method to evaluate the environmental impact of products, activities and services, based on a 'cradle-to-grave' approach. This article provides information for improving the environmental impacts in a process of assessing the sustainability that is specific for poultry production. An important recommendation can be drawn from this study: great attention has to be paid to the feed production phase, since it contributes more to the systems than animal rearing does to the environmental impact of the overall system. With reference to the comparison among the systems, our results show that the organic system has the best environmental performance because it not only has the lowest impact values for two of the most important impact categories (i.e., respiratory inorganics and fossil fuels), but it also has the lowest values for most of the remaining categories. LCA provides important data and specific indicators that can be used in a wider process for the analysis of sustainability, and to adapt and improve production systems. Taking into account the entire life cycle, the organic system has shown a better environmental performance than the organic-plus system. On the other hand, the organic-plus system improves animal welfare and meat quality, which are not considered by LCA. Therefore, to reach an equilibrium among all of these factors (namely environment protection, animal welfare and meat quality), it would be necessary to find a production system that conciliates them into one coherent scheme.

Keywords

environmental impactsustainabilitylife cycle assessmentpoultryconventionalorganic
Type
Review Article
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 95 - 114
Copyright
World's Poultry Science Association 2010

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

ABBOZZO, P., BOGGIA, A. and BRUNETTI, M. (1996) Environmental Quality and Hog Production. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 41: 171-182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
AVIAGEN TECHNICAL TEAM, (1999) Ross breeders broiler management manual. Aviagen Ltd., Newbridge, Midlothian, Scotland.Google Scholar
ATTRA, Publication IP300 http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/poultryoverview.html Alternative Poultry Production Systems and Outdoor Access.Google Scholar
BASSET-MENS, C. and VAN DER WERF, H.M.G. (2005) Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 105: 127-144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BELL, S. and MORSE, S. (1999) Sustainability indicators, in: Measuring the Immeasurable, Earthscan Publications Ltd., London.Google Scholar
BINI, G. and MAGISTRO, S. (2002) Manuale dei fattori di emissione nazionali. Centro Tematico Nazionale Atmosfera Clima ed Emissioni in Aria, Rapporto n.01.Google Scholar
BROWN, M.T. and HERENDEEN, R.A. (1996) Embodied energy analysis and emergy analysis: a comparative view. Ecological Economics 19: 219-235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CASTELLINI, C., BASTIANONI, S., GRANAI, C., DAL BOSCO, A. and BRUNETTI, M. (2006) Sustainability of poultry production using the emergy approach: Comparison of conventional and organic rearing systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114: 343-350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CASTELLINI, C., BERRI, C., LE BIHAN-DUVAL, E. and MARTINO, G. (2008) Qualitative attributes and consumer perception of organic and free-range poultry meat. World's Poultry Science Journal 65: 120-135.Google Scholar
CEDERBERG, C. and MATTSSON, B. (2000) Life Cycle Assessment of milk production - a comparison of conventional and organic farming. Journal of Cleaner production 8: 49-60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC), (1999) No 1804/99 of July 1999 supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products. Off. J., L 222, 24/08/1999, pp.1-28.Google Scholar
CORNELISSEN, A.M.G. (2003) Common ground for sustainable development, and ground covered by selected sustainability indicators. The Two Faces of Sustainability. Ph.D. Thesis, Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University.Google Scholar
DALY, H.E. (1996) Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Beacon Press, Boston.Google Scholar
ELLINGSEN, H. and AANONDSEN, A. (2006) Environmental impacts of wild caught cod and farmed salmon - A comparison with chicken. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11: 60-65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ERIKSSON, I.S., ELMQUIST, H., STERN, S. and NYBRANT, T. (2005) Environmental Systems Analysis of Pig Production, the impact of feed choice. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10: 143-154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, (2003) Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs (BREF).Google Scholar
FARRELL D.J., PEREZ-MALDONADO R.A. and MANNION P.F., (1999) Optimum inclusion of field peas, faba beans, chick peas and sweet lupins in poultry diets. II. Broiler experiments British Poultry Science 40: 674-680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GOEDKOOP, M. and SPRIENSMA, R. (2001) The Eco-indicator 99 - A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology Report, Product Ecology Consultants, Plotterweg, Netherlands, third edition.Google Scholar
GOEDKOOP, M., DE SCHRYVER, A. and OELE, M. (2008) Introduction to LCA with SimaPro 7. Product Ecology Consultants, Plotterweg, Netherlands.Google Scholar
GUINÉE, J.B., GORRÉE, M., HEIJUNGS, R., HUPPES, G., KLEIJN, R., DE KONING, A., VAN OERS, L., WEGE-NER SLEESWIJK, A., SUH, S., UDO DE HAES, H.A., DE BRUIJN, H., HUIJBREGTS, M.A.J., LINDEIJER, E., ROORDA, A.A.H., VAN DERVEN, B.L. and WIEDEMA, B.P. (2002) Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment; operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
HAAS, G., WETTERICH, F. and KÖPKE, U. (2001) Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 83: 43-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HALBERG, N., VAN DER WERF, H.M.G., BASSET-MENS, C., DALGAARD, R. and DE BOER, I.J.M. (2005) Environmental assessment tools for the evaluation and improvement of European livestock production systems. Livestock Production Science 96: 33-50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION, (2006) Environmental management - Life cycle assessment: Principles and framework, ISO 14040.Google Scholar
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION, (2006) Environmental management - Life cycle assessment: Requirements and Guidelines, ISO 14044.Google Scholar
LEWIS, P.D., PERRY, G.C., FARMER, L.J. and PATTERSON, R.L.S. (1997) Responses of Two Genotypes of Chicken to the Diets and Stocking Densities Typical of UK and ‘Label Rouge’ Production Systems: I. Performance, Behaviour and Carcass Composition. Meat Science 45: 501-516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MIETTINEN, P. and HÄMÄLÄINEN, R.P. (1997) How to benefit from decision analysis in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA). European Journal of Operational Research 102: 279-294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MITCHELL, G., MAY, A. and MCDONALD, A. (1995) PICABUE: a methodological framework for the development of indicators of sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 2: 104-123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MOURAD, A.L., COLTRO, L., OLIVEIRA, P.A.P.L.V., KLETECKE, R.M. and BADDINI, J.P.O.A. (2007) A simple methodology for elaborating the life cycle inventory of agricultural products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12: 408-413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, (1994) Nutrient requirements of poultry. 9th rev. ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
NEMECEK, T., HEIL, A., HUGUENIN, O., MEIER, S., ERZINGER, S., BLASER, S., DUX, D. and ZIMMERMANN, A. (2004) Life Cycle Inventories of Agricultural Production Systems. Final report ecoinvent 2000, No. 15, Agroscope FAL Reckenholz and FAT Taenikon, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, CH, retrieved from: www.ecoinvent.ch.Google Scholar
ODUM H.T., (1996) Environmental Accounting. Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
OWENS J.W., (1997) Life-Cycle Assessment. Constraints on Moving from Inventory to Impact Assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 1: 37-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PEARCE, D.W., BARBIER, E. and MARKANDYA, A. (1988) Sustainable Development and Cost Benefit Analysis. Paper 88/03, Environmental Economics Centre, IIED/UCL London,.Google Scholar
PELLETIER, N. (2008) Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: Life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions. Agricultural Systems 98: 67-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PIZZIGALLO, A.C.I., GRANAI, C. and BORSA, S. (2008) The joint use of LCA and emergy evaluation for the analysis of two Italian wine farms. Journal of Environmental Management 86: 396-406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PRODUCT ECOLOGY CONSULTANTS, (1990) SimaPro LCA software. Plotterweg, Netherlands.Google Scholar
THOMASSEN, M.A. and DE BOER, I.J.M. (2005) Evaluation of indicators to assess the environmental impact of dairy production systems. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 111: 185-199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TILLMAN, A.M. (2000) Significance of decision making for LCA methodology. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20: 113-123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar