IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v121y2013icp33-42.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the environmental impacts of alternative protein crops in poultry diets: The consequences of uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Leinonen, Ilkka
  • Williams, Adrian G.
  • Waller, Anthony H.
  • Kyriazakis, Ilias

Abstract

The statistical significance of the effects of including different protein sources in poultry diets on the environmental impacts Global Warming Potential (GWP), Eutrophication Potential (EP) and Acidification Potential (AP) of typical UK broiler meat and egg production systems was quantified using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method combined with an uncertainty analysis. The broiler and layer diets compared in the study were either standard soya-based, or alternative diets based on European-grown protein crops, including field beans, field peas, sunflower meal and whole rapeseed. Different methods for accounting for land use change (LUC) in feed crop production were applied, including (1) a weighted average of “new” and “mature” agricultural land used for soya production (“best estimate” scenario), (2) assuming no LUC in the production of soya used in these diets (“sustainable soya” scenario) and (3) including indirect LUC for all arable crop production (“top-down” scenario). Monte Carlo simulations were used to quantify uncertainties in predicted impacts and to perform statistical comparisons between the effects of different diet compositions. The results showed that when included at relatively high levels in the diets (10–30% by mass), peas, beans and rapeseed could slightly reduce the simulated mean value of GWP (up to 12%) of broiler meat and egg production. However, when uncertainties in the data were taken into account, these reductions were not statistically significant. Furthermore, the reduction in GWP strongly depended on the method of LUC accounting applied in the analysis. With the “sustainable soya” and “top-down” scenarios, only small, non-significant differences between the different diets were found. In the case of EP, only small non-significant changes could be achieved with the alternative protein sources. For AP, a significant reduction of more than 20% could be achieved if the crude protein content of the broiler diet was reduced by using peas in combination with pure amino acids. This study demonstrates the importance of a holistic approach, coupled with Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis, to evaluate the environmental impacts of livestock systems. It takes into account the environmental burdens related, for example, to feed production and transport and differences in emissions from housing and the end use of the manure. Furthermore, due to the systematic uncertainty analysis, the statistical significance of the effects of different feeding scenarios can now be evaluated.

Suggested Citation

  • Leinonen, Ilkka & Williams, Adrian G. & Waller, Anthony H. & Kyriazakis, Ilias, 2013. "Comparing the environmental impacts of alternative protein crops in poultry diets: The consequences of uncertainty," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 33-42.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:121:y:2013:i:c:p:33-42
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2013.06.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X13000784
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.06.008?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van der Werf, Hayo M. G. & Petit, Jean & Sanders, Joost, 2005. "The environmental impacts of the production of concentrated feed: the case of pig feed in Bretagne," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 153-177, February.
    2. 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, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 67-73, September.
    3. Thomassen, M.A. & van Calker, K.J. & Smits, M.C.J. & Iepema, G.L. & de Boer, I.J.M., 2008. "Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 95-107, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Niero, Monia & Ingvordsen, Cathrine H. & Peltonen-Sainio, Pirjo & Jalli, Marja & Lyngkjær, Michael F. & Hauschild, Michael Z. & Jørgensen, Rikke B., 2015. "Eco-efficient production of spring barley in a changed climate: A Life Cycle Assessment including primary data from future climate scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 46-60.
    2. Alessio Cimini & Mauro Moresi, 2018. "Effect of Brewery Size on the Main Process Parameters and Cradle‐to‐Grave Carbon Footprint of Lager Beer," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(5), pages 1139-1155, October.
    3. Ilkka Leinonen & Michael MacLeod & Julian Bell, 2018. "Effects of Alternative Uses of Distillery By-Products on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Scottish Malt Whisky Production: A System Expansion Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.
    4. Tallentire, C.W. & Mackenzie, S.G. & Kyriazakis, I., 2017. "Environmental impact trade-offs in diet formulation for broiler production systems in the UK and USA," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 145-156.
    5. Cai, Yanpeng & Yue, Wencong & Xu, Linyu & Yang, Zhifeng & Rong, Qiangqiang, 2016. "Sustainable urban water resources management considering life-cycle environmental impacts of water utilization under uncertainty," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 21-40.
    6. Putman, Ben & Thoma, Greg & Burek, Jasmina & Matlock, Marty, 2017. "A retrospective analysis of the United States poultry industry: 1965 compared with 2010," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-117.

    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. Oishi, Kazato & Kato, Yohei & Ogino, Akifumi & Hirooka, Hiroyuki, 2013. "Economic and environmental impacts of changes in culling parity of cows and diet composition in Japanese beef cow–calf production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 95-103.
    2. White, Robin R., 2016. "Increasing energy and protein use efficiency improves opportunities to decrease land use, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions from dairy production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 20-29.
    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.
    4. Jongeneel, Roel & Polman, Nico & van der Ham, Corinda, 2014. "Costs and benefits associated with the externalities generated by Dutch agriculture," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182705, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Jan Willem Erisman & Allison Leach & Albert Bleeker & Brooke Atwell & Lia Cattaneo & James Galloway, 2018. "An Integrated Approach to a Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) Indicator for the Food Production–Consumption Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-29, March.
    6. Bonamigo, Andrei & Ferenhof, Helio Aisenberg & Forcellini, Fernando Antonio, 2017. "Dairy Ecosystem Barriers Exposed - A Case Study In A Family Production Unit At Western Santa Catarina, Brazil," Organizações Rurais e Agroindustriais/Rural and Agro-Industrial Organizations, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Departamento de Administracao e Economia, vol. 19(1), January.
    7. Hoffman, Eric & Cavigelli, Michel A. & Camargo, Gustavo & Ryan, Matthew & Ackroyd, Victoria J. & Richard, Tom L. & Mirsky, Steven, 2018. "Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in organic and conventional grain crop production: Accounting for nutrient inflows," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 89-96.
    8. Kraatz, Simone, 2012. "Energy intensity in livestock operations – Modeling of dairy farming systems in Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 90-106.
    9. Tuomisto, H.L. & Hodge, I.D. & Riordan, P. & Macdonald, D.W., 2012. "Comparing energy balances, greenhouse gas balances and biodiversity impacts of contrasting farming systems with alternative land uses," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 42-49.
    10. Ledgard, Stewart F. & Wei, Sha & Wang, Xiaoqin & Falconer, Shelley & Zhang, Nannan & Zhang, Xiying & Ma, Lin, 2019. "Nitrogen and carbon footprints of dairy farm systems in China and New Zealand, as influenced by productivity, feed sources and mitigations," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 155-163.
    11. Mathieu Lambotte & Stéphane de Cara & Catherine Brocas & Valentin Bellassen, 2021. "Carbon footprint and economic performance of dairy farms: the case of protected designation of origin dairy farms in France [Bilan carbone et performance économique des exploitations laitières : le," Post-Print hal-03021963, HAL.
    12. O'Brien, D. & Bohan, A. & McHugh, N. & Shalloo, L., 2016. "A life cycle assessment of the effect of intensification on the environmental impacts and resource use of grass-based sheep farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 95-104.
    13. 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.
    14. Thomassen, M.A. & Dolman, M.A. & van Calker, K.J. & de Boer, I.J.M., 2009. "Relating life cycle assessment indicators to gross value added for Dutch dairy farms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2278-2284, June.
    15. Mack, Gabriele & Kohler, Andreas, 2017. "Short- and long-run policy evaluation: support for grassland-based milk production in Switzerland," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261116, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Akifumi Ogino & Kazato Oishi & Akira Setoguchi & Takashi Osada, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment of Sustainable Broiler Production Systems: Effects of Low-Protein Diet and Litter Incineration," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, September.
    17. Hoang, Viet-Ngu & Rao, D.S. Prasada, 2010. "Measuring and decomposing sustainable efficiency in agricultural production: A cumulative exergy balance approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1765-1776, July.
    18. Céline Bonnet & Zohra Bouamra-Mechemache, 2016. "Organic Label, Bargaining Power, and Profit-sharing in the French Fluid Milk Market," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(1), pages 113-133.
    19. 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, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 67-73, September.
    20. repec:lib:0000of:v:1:y:2015:i:1:p:38-45 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Payandeh, Z. & Kheiralipour, K. & Karimi, M. & Khoshnevisan, B., 2017. "Joint data envelopment analysis and life cycle assessment for environmental impact reduction in broiler production systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 768-774.

    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:eee:agisys:v:121:y:2013:i:c:p:33-42. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    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.