IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v156y2017icp105-114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combining environmentally and economically sustainable dairy and beef production in Sweden

Author

Listed:
  • Hessle, Anna
  • Bertilsson, Jan
  • Stenberg, Bo
  • Kumm, Karl-Ivar
  • Sonesson, Ulf

Abstract

To achieve a more sustainable food sector, a supply chain approach is needed. In this study, experts in different areas along supply chains co-operated in an interactive process to define future environmentally sustainable supply chains of milk and beef. The basis was to use existing techniques, to have production performance corresponding to the best quartile of today and to consider other sustainability aspects, such as economics. The work resulted in concrete descriptions of alternative product chains for delivered milk and beef. To also permit concrete descriptions of the latter part of the product chains, two consumer-packed end products were selected for monitoring, namely fresh milk and sirloin steak. The production systems investigated comprised cropping, livestock production, industrial processing and production, logistics, packaging and wastage and distribution, but not retailers or consumers. The study area was a Swedish county and the reference level was its production of milk and beef in 2012. The future product chains were assumed to deliver the same amounts of commodities as in 2012, but with reduced environmental impact. Primary production was required to be at least as profitable as today. Beside description of the current situation, three alternative scenarios were created, focusing on delivery of ecosystem services, plant nutrient circulation and minimising climate impact, respectively. Life cycle assessments were performed for these four scenarios (reference plus three alternative scenarios) for single-product chains and county-wide. Furthermore, production costs in primary production were calculated for the four scenarios. The results revealed great potential to reduce the negative environmental impact of Swedish dairy and beef production at current volumes, irrespective of whether ecosystem services, plant nutrient circulation or climate impact is in focus. The single most important factor for decreased environmental impact for livestock production was increased production efficiency. Measures in agriculture, especially concerning feeds, were critical, but actions in processing and distribution also contributed. All alternative scenarios resulted in lower production costs than at present. It was obvious that as dairy and beef systems are connected, the potential for their environmental improvement must be analysed together. In conclusion, increased efficiency can decrease the negative environmental impact of Swedish cattle production and also reduce costs to the farmer.

Suggested Citation

  • Hessle, Anna & Bertilsson, Jan & Stenberg, Bo & Kumm, Karl-Ivar & Sonesson, Ulf, 2017. "Combining environmentally and economically sustainable dairy and beef production in Sweden," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 105-114.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:156:y:2017:i:c:p:105-114
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.06.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17305437
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.06.004?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. Johan Rockström & Will Steffen & Kevin Noone & Åsa Persson & F. Stuart Chapin & Eric F. Lambin & Timothy M. Lenton & Marten Scheffer & Carl Folke & Hans Joachim Schellnhuber & Björn Nykvist & Cynthia , 2009. "A safe operating space for humanity," Nature, Nature, vol. 461(7263), pages 472-475, September.
    2. Flysjö, Anna & Henriksson, Maria & Cederberg, Christel & Ledgard, Stewart & Englund, Jan-Eric, 2011. "The impact of various parameters on the carbon footprint of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(6), pages 459-469, July.
    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. Karl-Ivar Kumm & Anna Hessle, 2020. "Economic Comparison between Pasture-Based Beef Production and Afforestation of Abandoned Land in Swedish Forest Districts," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-20, February.
    2. Zsolt Becskei & Mila Savić & Dragan Ćirković & Mladen Rašeta & Nikola Puvača & Marija Pajić & Sonja Đorđević & Snežana Paskaš, 2020. "Assessment of Water Buffalo Milk and Traditional Milk Products in a Sustainable Production System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-13, August.
    3. Malin Tälle & Lotten Wiréhn & Daniel Ellström & Mattias Hjerpe & Maria Huge-Brodin & Per Jensen & Tom Lindström & Tina-Simone Neset & Uno Wennergren & Geneviève Metson, 2019. "Synergies and Trade-Offs for Sustainable Food Production in Sweden: An Integrated Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-22, January.
    4. Olha Kravchenko & Anatolii Kucher & Maria Hełdak & Lesia Kucher & Joanna Wysmułek, 2020. "Socio-Economic Transformations in Ukraine towards the Sustainable Development of Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-16, July.

    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. Nijdam, Durk & Rood, Trudy & Westhoek, Henk, 2012. "The price of protein: Review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 760-770.
    2. Nelson, Ewan & Warren, Peter, 2020. "UK transport decoupling: On track for clean growth in transport?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 39-51.
    3. Richter, Andries & Dakos, Vasilis, 2015. "Profit fluctuations signal eroding resilience of natural resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 12-21.
    4. Rostami-Tabar, Bahman & Ali, Mohammad M. & Hong, Tao & Hyndman, Rob J. & Porter, Michael D. & Syntetos, Aris, 2022. "Forecasting for social good," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1245-1257.
    5. Huiyuan Guan & Yongping Bai & Chunyue Zhang, 2022. "Research on Ecosystem Security and Restoration Pattern of Urban Agglomeration in the Yellow River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-19, September.
    6. Filipa Correia & Philipp Erfruth & Julie Bryhn, 2018. "The 2030 Agenda: The roadmap to GlobALLizaton," Working Papers 156, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs.
    7. Birgit Kopainsky & Anita Frehner & Adrian Müller, 2020. "Sustainable and healthy diets: Synergies and trade‐offs in Switzerland," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 908-927, November.
    8. Hervé Corvellec & Johan Hultman & Anne Jerneck & Susanne Arvidsson & Johan Ekroos & Niklas Wahlberg & Timothy W. Luke, 2021. "Resourcification: A non‐essentialist theory of resources for sustainable development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 1249-1256, November.
    9. Pérez-Sánchez, Laura & Velasco-Fernández, Raúl & Giampietro, Mario, 2021. "The international division of labor and embodied working time in trade for the US, the EU and China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    10. Islam, Moinul & Kotani, Koji & Managi, Shunsuke, 2016. "Climate perception and flood mitigation cooperation: A Bangladesh case study," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 117-133.
    11. Yutong Zhang & Wei Zhou & Danxue Luo, 2023. "The Relationship Research between Biodiversity Conservation and Economic Growth: From Multi-Level Attempts to Key Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, February.
    12. Carina Mueller & Christopher West & Mairon G. Bastos Lima & Bob Doherty, 2023. "Demand-Side Actors in Agricultural Supply Chain Sustainability: An Assessment of Motivations for Action, Implementation Challenges, and Research Frontiers," World, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-20, September.
    13. Janet Judy McIntyre‐Mills, 2013. "Anthropocentrism and Well‐being: A Way Out of the Lobster Pot?," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 136-155, March.
    14. Hametner, Markus, 2022. "Economics without ecology: How the SDGs fail to align socioeconomic development with environmental sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    15. Ronja Teschner & Jessica Ruppen & Basil Bornemann & Rony Emmenegger & Lucía Aguirre Sánchez, 2021. "Mapping Sustainable Diets: A Comparison of Sustainability References in Dietary Guidelines of Swiss Food Governance Actors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, November.
    16. Kim, Yeon-Su & Rodrigues, Marcos & Robinne, François-Nicolas, 2021. "Economic drivers of global fire activity: A critical review using the DPSIR framework," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    17. Barbara Predan & Petra Černe Oven, 2023. "Developing a Pedagogical Approach with the Aim of Empowering Educators and Students to Address Emerging Global Issues such as Climate Change and Social Justice: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-22, December.
    18. Kaltenegger, Oliver & Löschel, Andreas & Pothen, Frank, 2017. "The effect of globalisation on energy footprints: Disentangling the links of global value chains," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(S1), pages 148-168.
    19. Hörisch, Jacob & Ortas, Eduardo & Schaltegger, Stefan & Álvarez, Igor, 2015. "Environmental effects of sustainability management tools: An empirical analysis of large companies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 241-249.
    20. Zhang, Yanjie & Pan, Ying & Li, Meng & Wang, Zhipeng & Wu, Junxi & Zhang, Xianzhou & Cao, Yanan, 2021. "Impacts of human appropriation of net primary production on ecosystem regulating services in Tibet," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(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:156:y:2017:i:c:p:105-114. 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.