IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ragrxx/v51y2012i4p105-128.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative life cycle assessment of Flemish and Western Cape pork production

Author

Listed:
  • L. Devers
  • T.E. Kleynhans
  • E. Mathijs

Abstract

This study compares a life cycle assessment (LCA) of pork production in the Western Cape with pork production in Flanders. The objectives of this study were to map and quantify the environmental impacts of producing pork in the Western Cape and exporting it to Antwerp in Flanders with the environmental impacts of producing pork in Flanders and delivering it to the same location. The impact categories included are (i) global warming potential (GWP), (ii) eutrophication potential, (iii) acidification potential, and (iv) energy use. By pointing out weak points in the different environmental impact categories, suggestions are made to lower the environmental burdens of pork production. Four main activities of the pork production chain were covered by the LCA, namely: (i) the feed provision activity, which includes the production of raw materials and feed, (ii) the pig farming activity, (iii) the slaughter house activity and (iv) the slurry (treatment) activity. An additional (v) pork shipping activity was added in the case of the Western Cape pork chain. A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment was carried out, with a functional unit (FU) of one kg of Western Cape or Flemish pork (carcass weight) delivered to the distribution centre in Antwerp. Flemish GWP, eutrophication potential, acidification potential and energy use are 56%, 65%, 62% and 59% respectively of the Western Cape equivalents. The exporting of pork accounts for less than 8% of environmental impacts in all impact categories. Potential exists in the Western Cape to compete on an environmental par when impacts are measured in terms of a per-area unit. It is therefore recommended that for future comparative South African-European LCA studies of pork or other intensive livestock or poultry production chains, an FU of one kg meat as well as an area unit be used when measuring total eutrophication and acidification impacts.

Suggested Citation

  • L. Devers & T.E. Kleynhans & E. Mathijs, 2012. "Comparative life cycle assessment of Flemish and Western Cape pork production," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(4), pages 105-128, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ragrxx:v:51:y:2012:i:4:p:105-128
    DOI: 10.1080/03031853.2012.741208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03031853.2012.741208
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03031853.2012.741208?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Oriana Gava & Francesca Galli & Fabio Bartolini & Gianluca Brunori, 2018. "Linking Sustainability with Geographical Proximity in Food Supply Chains. An Indicator Selection Framework," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-22, August.
    2. Mayra L. Pazmiño & Angel D. Ramirez, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment as a Methodological Framework for the Evaluation of the Environmental Sustainability of Pig and Pork Production in Ecuador," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, October.
    3. Klara Van Mierlo & Louise Baert & Ellen Bracquené & Johan De Tavernier & Annemie Geeraerd, 2021. "The Influence of Farm Characteristics and Feed Compositions on the Environmental Impact of Pig Production in Flanders: Productivity, Energy Use and Protein Choices Are Key," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-28, October.
    4. 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.

    More about this item

    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:taf:ragrxx:v:51:y:2012:i:4:p:105-128. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/ragr20 .

    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.