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. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Pelletier, N. & Lammers, P. & Stender, D. & Pirog, R., 2010. "Life cycle assessment of high- and low-profitability commodity and deep-bedded niche swine production systems in the Upper Midwestern United States," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(9), pages 599-608, November.
    11. Jennifer S. Ford & Nathan L. Pelletier & Friederike Ziegler & Astrid J. Scholz & Peter H. Tyedmers & Ulf Sonesson & Sarah A. Kruse & Howard Silverman, 2012. "Proposed Local Ecological Impact Categories and Indicators for Life Cycle Assessment of Aquaculture," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 16(2), pages 254-265, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Aimee N. Hafla & Jennifer W. MacAdam & Kathy J. Soder, 2013. "Sustainability of US Organic Beef and Dairy Production Systems: Soil, Plant and Cattle Interactions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(7), pages 1-26, July.
    14. 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.
    15. Koesling, Matthias & Hansen, Sissel & Bleken, Marina Azzaroli, 2017. "Variations in nitrogen utilisation on conventional and organic dairy farms in Norway," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 11-21.
    16. Esteve Nadal-Roig & Adela Pagès-Bernaus & Lluís M. Plà-Aragonès, 2018. "Bi-Objective Optimization Model Based on Profit and CO 2 Emissions for Pig Deliveries to the Abattoir," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-13, May.
    17. Oudshoorn, Frank W. & Sørensen, Claus Aage G. & de Boer, Imke I.J.M., 2011. "Economic and environmental evaluation of three goal-vision based scenarios for organic dairy farming in Denmark," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(4), pages 315-325, April.
    18. Anna Kuczuk & Janusz Pospolita, 2020. "Sustainable Agriculture – Energy and Emergy Aspects of Agricultural Production," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4), pages 1000-1018.
    19. Marco Remondino & Luigi Valdenassi, 2018. "Different Uses of Ozone: Environmental and Corporate Sustainability. Literature Review and Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-18, December.
    20. Lambotte, Mathieu & De Cara, Stéphane & Brocas, Catherine & Bellassen, Valentin, 2021. "Carbon footprint and economic performance of dairy farms: The case of protected designation of origin farms in France," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 186(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: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.