IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/polpwa/280712.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle in a Conventional Production System: a Case Study of a Large-Area Farming Enterprise in the Wielkopolska Region

Author

Listed:
  • Bieńkowski, Jerzy
  • Holka, Małgorzata
  • Dąbrowicz, Radosław
  • Jankowiak, Janusz

Abstract

Animal production is a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. One of the major challenges in sustainable management is to mitigate the effects of climate change by reducing GHG emissions. The diversity of animal production systems and accompanying diversification of technological processes, mean that specific production effects can be obtained at different levels of GHG emissions. The aim of the study was to determine the carbon footprint (CF) of beef cattle grown in a conventional system (i.e. indoor confinement). The research was carried out on the beef cattle farm belonging to a large-area enterprise, Długie Stare Ltd. The beef cattle production system consisted of the following subsystems: a basic breeding herd (consisting of suckler cows, replacement heifers and calves up to 6.5 months), breeding heifers, breeding bulls and fattening bulls. The method of life cycle analysis (LCA) in the stages from "cradle-to-farmgate" was used to assess the GHG emissions associated with the production of beef cattle. The average CF in the entire beef cattle production system was 25.43 kg of CO2 kg-1 of live weight of marketed cattle, while in the individual subsystems of basic breeding herd, breeding heifers, breeding bulls and fattening bulls, the CF (after GHG allocation) was: 11.0 kg CO2 eq., 34.30 kg CO2 eq., 27.32 and 25.40 kg CO2 eq., respectively. GHG emissions associated with young calves staying in the cow-calf pairs until weaning (in the period from 0-6.5 months), had a decisive influence on the final CF in each of the subsystems of beef cattle production. The second important factor directly affecting the CF was GHG emissions related to methane (CH4) enteric fermentation and manure management. Knowledge of factors affecting the CF structure allows better identification of critical areas in production processes with high GHG emission potential. Information on the CF of beef cattle and beef meat responds to a wider societal demand for the ecological characteristics of market products, which ultimately contributes to improving their market competitiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Bieńkowski, Jerzy & Holka, Małgorzata & Dąbrowicz, Radosław & Jankowiak, Janusz, . "Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle in a Conventional Production System: a Case Study of a Large-Area Farming Enterprise in the Wielkopolska Region," Problems of World Agriculture / Problemy Rolnictwa Światowego, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, vol. 18(33, Part ).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:polpwa:280712
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.280712
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/280712/files/23_BIENKOWSKI_I_INNI_art._252A.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.280712?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raymond L. Desjardins & Devon E. Worth & Xavier P. C. Vergé & Dominique Maxime & Jim Dyer & Darrel Cerkowniak, 2012. "Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(12), pages 1-23, December.
    2. Casey, J.W. & Holden, N.M., 2006. "Quantification of GHG emissions from sucker-beef production in Ireland," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 90(1-3), pages 79-98, October.
    3. Pelletier, Nathan & Pirog, Rich & Rasmussen, Rebecca, 2010. "Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 380-389, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elina Lehikoinen & Tuure Parviainen & Juha Helenius & Mika Jalava & Arto O. Salonen & Matti Kummu, 2019. "Cattle Production for Exports in Water-Abundant Areas: The Case of Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-20, February.
    2. Giulio Lazzerini & Jacopo Manzini & Stefano Lucchetti & Stefania Nin & Francesco Paolo Nicese, 2022. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Sequestration from Conventional and Organic Olive Tree Nurseries in Tuscany, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-13, December.
    3. González-Quintero, Ricardo & van Wijk, Mark T. & Ruden, Alejandro & Gómez, Manuel & Pantevez, Heiber & Castro-Llanos, Fabio & Notenbaert, An & Arango, Jacobo, 2022. "Yield gap analysis to identify attainable milk and meat productivities and the potential for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in cattle systems of Colombia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Bradley G. Ridoutt & Peerasak Sanguansri & Gregory S. Harper, 2011. "Comparing Carbon and Water Footprints for Beef Cattle Production in Southern Australia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(12), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Raymond L. Desjardins & Devon E. Worth & Xavier P. C. Vergé & Dominique Maxime & Jim Dyer & Darrel Cerkowniak, 2012. "Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(12), pages 1-23, December.
    6. Kearney, M. & O'Riordan, E.G. & McGee, M. & Breen, J. & Crosson, P., 2022. "Farm-level modelling of bioeconomic, greenhouse gas emissions and feed-food performance of pasture-based dairy-beef systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    7. Pedro Henrique Presumido & Fernando Sousa & Artur Gonçalves & Tatiane Cristina Dal Bosco & Manuel Feliciano, 2018. "Environmental Impacts of the Beef Production Chain in the Northeast of Portugal Using Life Cycle Assessment," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-19, October.
    8. María I. Nieto & Olivia Barrantes & Liliana Privitello & Ramón Reiné, 2018. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Grazing Systems in Semi-Arid Rangelands of Central Argentina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, November.
    9. Stanley, Paige L. & Rowntree, Jason E. & Beede, David K. & DeLonge, Marcia S. & Hamm, Michael W., 2018. "Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 249-258.
    10. Li, Xiaogu & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Clark, Christopher D. & Lambert, Dayton M., 2016. "Consumer willingness to pay for beef grown using climate friendly production practices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 93-106.
    11. Herron, Jonathan & Curran, Thomas P. & Moloney, Aidan P. & O'Brien, Donal, 2019. "Whole farm modelling the effect of grass silage harvest date and nitrogen fertiliser rate on nitrous oxide emissions from grass-based suckler to beef farming systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 66-78.
    12. Nijdam, Durk & Rood, Trudy & Westhoek, Henk, 2012. "The price of protein: Review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 760-770.
    13. Rasadhika Sharma & Trung Thanh Nguyen & Ulrike Grote, 2018. "Changing Consumption Patterns—Drivers and the Environmental Impact," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    14. Alemu, Aklilu W. & Janzen, Henry & Little, Shannan & Hao, Xiying & Thompson, Donald J. & Baron, Vern & Iwaasa, Alan & Beauchemin, Karen A. & Kröbel, Roland, 2017. "Assessment of grazing management on farm greenhouse gas intensity of beef production systems in the Canadian Prairies using life cycle assessment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 1-13.
    15. Tiago G. Morais & Ricardo F. M. Teixeira & Nuno R. Rodrigues & Tiago Domingos, 2018. "Characterizing Livestock Production in Portuguese Sown Rainfed Grasslands: Applying the Inverse Approach to a Process-Based Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, November.
    16. Kar Ho Lim & Michael Vassalos & Michael Reed, 2018. "Point-of-Sale Specific Willingness to Pay for Quality-Differentiated Beef," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.
    17. Fabio Gaetano Santeramo & Emilia Lamonaca & Marco Tappi & Leonardo Di Gioia, 2019. "Considerations on the Environmental and Social Sustainability of Animal-Based Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-12, April.
    18. Danilo Bertoni & Daniele Cavicchioli & Franco Donzelli & Giovanni Ferrazzi & Dario G. Frisio & Roberto Pretolani & Elena Claire Ricci & Vera Ventura, 2018. "Recent Contributions of Agricultural Economics Research in the Field of Sustainable Development," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    19. Forte, Annachiara & Zucaro, Amalia & De Vico, Gionata & Fierro, Angelo, 2016. "Carbon footprint of heliciculture: A case study from an Italian experimental farm," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 99-111.
    20. Ashraf J. Zaied & Hatim M.E. Geli & Jerry L. Holechek & Andres F. Cibils & Mohammed N. Sawalhah & Charlotte C. Gard, 2019. "An Evaluation of Historical Trends in New Mexico Beef Cattle Production in Relation to Climate and Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-17, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:polpwa:280712. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wesggpl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.