IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i15p9481-d878375.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Cattle Breeding Based on the Ecological Cycle Model

Author

Listed:
  • Hongpeng Guo

    (College of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Jilin University, 5988 Renmin Street, Changchun 130022, China)

  • Zixu Su

    (College of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Jilin University, 5988 Renmin Street, Changchun 130022, China)

  • Xiao Yang

    (College of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Jilin University, 5988 Renmin Street, Changchun 130022, China)

  • Shuang Xu

    (College of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Jilin University, 5988 Renmin Street, Changchun 130022, China)

  • Hong Pan

    (College of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Jilin University, 5988 Renmin Street, Changchun 130022, China)

Abstract

Over the past few decades, the supply of beef has increasingly become available with the great improvement of the quality of life, especially in developing countries. However, along with the demand for meat products of high quality and the transformation of dietary structure, the impact of massive agricultural greenhouse gas emissions on the environmental load cannot be ignored. Therefore, the objective of this study is to predict the annual greenhouse gas emissions of 10 million heads of beef cattle under both the ecological cycle model (EC model) and the non-ecological cycle model (non-EC model), respectively, in order to compare the differences between these two production models in each process, and thus explore which one is more sustainable and environmentally friendly. To this end, through the life cycle assessment (LCA), this paper performs relevant calculations according to the methodology of 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2019 IPCC Inventories). The results have shown that the total GHG emissions of the non-EC model were almost 4 times higher than those of the EC model, and feed-grain cultivation and manure management were main emission sources in both models. The non-EC model produced significantly more emissions than the EC model in each kind of GHG, especially the largest gap between these two was in CO 2 emissions that accounted for 68.01% and 56.17% of the respective planting and breeding systems. This study demonstrates that the transformation of a beef cattle breeding model has a significant direct impact on cutting agricultural GHG emissions, and persuades other countries in the similar situation to vigorously advocate ecological cycling breeding model instead of the traditional ones so that promotes coordinated development between planting industry and beef cattle breeding industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Hongpeng Guo & Zixu Su & Xiao Yang & Shuang Xu & Hong Pan, 2022. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Cattle Breeding Based on the Ecological Cycle Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-15, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9481-:d:878375
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9481/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9481/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aneurin Grant & Robert Ries & Charles Kibert, 2014. "Life Cycle Assessment and Service Life Prediction," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(2), pages 187-200, April.
    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. Dario Caro & Steven Davis & Simone Bastianoni & Ken Caldeira, 2014. "Global and regional trends in greenhouse gas emissions from livestock," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 203-216, September.
    4. Huilong Lin & Yanfei Pu & Xueni Ma & Yue Wang & Charles Nyandwi & Jean de Dieu Nzabonakuze, 2020. "The Environmental Impacts of the Grassland Agricultural System and the Cultivated Land Agricultural System: A Comparative Analysis in Eastern Gansu," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Tanklevska, Natalia & Petrenko, Viktoriia & Karnaushenko, Alla & Melnykova, Kateryna, 2020. "World corn market: analysis, trends and prospects of its deep processing," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 6(3), September.
    6. Cerutti, Alessandro K. & Contu, Simone & Ardente, Fulvio & Donno, Dario & Beccaro, Gabriele L., 2016. "Carbon footprint in green public procurement: Policy evaluation from a case study in the food sector," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 82-93.
    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. Yekimov Sergiy, 2023. "Study of the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agricultural production Czech Republic," Papers 2305.13253, arXiv.org.
    2. Xinxin Zhou & Tong Chen & Bangbang Zhang, 2023. "Research on the Impact of Digital Agriculture Development on Agricultural Green Total Factor Productivity," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, January.
    3. Kedong Yin & Lu Liu & Haolei Gu, 2022. "Green Paradox or Forced Emission Reduction—The Dual Effects of Environmental Regulation on Carbon Emissions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-15, September.

    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. Krieger, Bastian & Zipperer, Vera, 2022. "Does green public procurement trigger environmental innovations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    2. Morena Bruno & Marianne Thomsen & Federico Maria Pulselli & Nicoletta Patrizi & Michele Marini & Dario Caro, 2019. "The carbon footprint of Danish diets," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 489-507, October.
    3. Mastrucci, Alessio & Marvuglia, Antonino & Leopold, Ulrich & Benetto, Enrico, 2017. "Life Cycle Assessment of building stocks from urban to transnational scales: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 316-332.
    4. Anna Furberg & Rickard Arvidsson & Sverker Molander, 2022. "A practice‐based framework for defining functional units in comparative life cycle assessments of materials," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(3), pages 718-730, June.
    5. Oriana Gava & Fabio Bartolini & Francesca Venturi & Gianluca Brunori & Alberto Pardossi, 2020. "Improving Policy Evidence Base for Agricultural Sustainability and Food Security: A Content Analysis of Life Cycle Assessment Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-29, February.
    6. 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).
    7. Daniel H. Pope & Johan O. Karlsson & Phillip Baker & David McCoy, 2021. "Examining the Environmental Impacts of the Dairy and Baby Food Industries: Are First-Food Systems a Crucial Missing Part of the Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems Agenda Now Underway?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-15, December.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Xiao Chen & Tao Tao & Jiaxin Zhou & Helong Yu & Hongliang Guo & Hongbing Chen, 2023. "Simulation and Prediction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Cattle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-14, August.
    11. Kearney, M. & O'Riordan, E.G. & Byrne, N. & Breen, J. & Crosson, P., 2023. "Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in pasture-based dairy-beef production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    12. Alastair Greig & Ziping Wu, 2021. "The impacts of a reduction in British meat and dairy consumption on Northern Ireland’s agri-food sector," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 36(2), pages 133-148, March.
    13. Plaza, Pablo Ignacio & Lambertucci, Sergio Agustín, 2022. "Mitigating GHG emissions: A global ecosystem service provided by obligate scavenging birds," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    14. Elvira Molin & Michael Martin & Anna Björklund, 2021. "Addressing Sustainability within Public Procurement of Food: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, December.
    15. Olavo Pinto & Beatriz Casais, 2023. "Multilevel implications for anti-consumption social marketing within the public policy framework for SDG realization: a systematic literature review," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 20(3), pages 605-634, September.
    16. Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Lamonaca, Emilia & Tappi, Marco & Di Gioia, Leonardo, 2020. "On the Environmental Impacts of Voluntary Animal-based Policies in the EU: Technical and Political Considerations," MPRA Paper 99932, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. 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.
    18. Tianyi Cai & Degang Yang & Xinhuan Zhang & Fuqiang Xia & Rongwei Wu, 2018. "Study on the Vertical Linkage of Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity Change of the Animal Husbandry Sector between China and Its Provinces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, July.
    19. 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.
    20. Ortega, David L. & Sun, Jiayu & Lin, Wen, 2022. "Identity labels as an instrument to reduce meat demand and encourage consumption of plant based and cultured meat alternatives in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).

    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:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9481-:d:878375. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.