IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/agreko/345084.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative life cycle assessment of Flemish and Western Cape pork production

Author

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

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

  • Devers, L. & Kleynhans, T.E. & Mathijs, E., 2013. "Comparative life cycle assessment of Flemish and Western Cape pork production," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 51(4), February.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:agreko:345084
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.345084
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/345084/files/Comparative%20life%20cycle%20assessment%20of%20Flemish%20and%20Western%20Cape%20pork%20production.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.345084?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. Vezjak, M. & Savsek, T. & Stuhler, E. A., 1998. "System dynamics of euthrophication processes in lakes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 442-451, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Carlsson-Kanyama, Annika, 1998. "Climate change and dietary choices -- how can emissions of greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3-4), pages 277-293, November.
    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. repec:ags:ijag24:345084 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Martina Schäfer & Melanie Jaeger-Erben & Aguinaldo Santos, 2011. "Leapfrogging to Sustainable Consumption? An Explorative Survey of Consumption Habits and Orientations in Southern Brazil," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 175-196, March.
    3. Suzanne Kapelari & Georgios Alexopoulos & Theano Moussouri & Konstantin J. Sagmeister & Florian Stampfer, 2020. "Food Heritage Makes a Difference: The Importance of Cultural Knowledge for Improving Education for Sustainable Food Choices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-23, February.
    4. Vázquez-Rowe, Ian & Villanueva-Rey, Pedro & Moreira, Mª Teresa & Feijoo, Gumersindo, 2013. "The role of consumer purchase and post-purchase decision-making in sustainable seafood consumption. A Spanish case study using carbon footprinting," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 94-102.
    5. Degerli, Bahar & Nazir, Serap & Sorgüven, Esra & Hitzmann, Bernd & Özilgen, Mustafa, 2015. "Assessment of the energy and exergy efficiencies of farm to fork grain cultivation and bread making processes in Turkey and Germany," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 93(P1), pages 421-434.
    6. 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.
    7. Halloran, Afton & Clement, Jesper & Kornum, Niels & Bucatariu, Camelia & Magid, Jakob, 2014. "Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 294-301.
    8. Azhar Khan, Muhammad & Zahir Khan, Muhammad & Zaman, Khalid & Naz, Lubna, 2014. "Global estimates of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 336-344.
    9. Gerbens-Leenes, P. W. & Moll, H. C. & Schoot Uiterkamp, A. J. M., 2003. "Design and development of a measuring method for environmental sustainability in food production systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 231-248, September.
    10. Ghada Talat Alhothali & Noha M. Almoraie & Israa M. Shatwan & Najlaa M. Aljefree, 2021. "Sociodemographic Characteristics and Dietary Choices as Determinants of Climate Change Understanding and Concern in Saudi Arabia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-14, October.
    11. Kissinger, Meidad, 2012. "International trade related food miles – The case of Canada," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 171-178.
    12. Laurent Muller & Anne Lacroix & Bernard Ruffieux, 2019. "Environmental Labelling and Consumption Changes: A Food Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 871-897, July.
    13. 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.
    14. Cho, Yoon-Na & Baskin, Ernest, 2018. "It's a match when green meets healthy in sustainability labeling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 119-129.
    15. 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.
    16. Druckman, Angela & Jackson, Tim, 2010. "The bare necessities: How much household carbon do we really need?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1794-1804, July.
    17. 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.
    18. Marimon, Zachary A. & Xuan, Zhemin & Chang, Ni-Bin, 2013. "System dynamics modeling with sensitivity analysis for floating treatment wetlands in a stormwater wet pond," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 267(C), pages 66-79.
    19. Wood, Richard & Lenzen, Manfred & Dey, Christopher & Lundie, Sven, 2006. "A comparative study of some environmental impacts of conventional and organic farming in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 89(2-3), pages 324-348, September.
    20. Fanzo, Jessica & McLaren, Rebecca & Davis, Claire & Choufani, Jowel, 2017. "Climate change and variability: What are the risks for nutrition, diets, and food systems?," IFPRI discussion papers 1645, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    21. Javier García-Gudiño & Alessandra N. T. R. Monteiro & Sandrine Espagnol & Isabel Blanco-Penedo & Florence Garcia-Launay, 2020. "Life Cycle Assessment of Iberian Traditional Pig Production System in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Climate Change;

    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:agreko:345084. 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/aeasaea.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.