IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v38y2010i5p2561-2571.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU

Author

Listed:
  • Nguyen, Thu Lan T.
  • Hermansen, John E.
  • Mogensen, Lisbeth

Abstract

In Europe, the highly developed livestock industry places a high burden on resource use and environmental quality. This paper examines pig meat production in North-West Europe as a base case and runs different scenarios to investigate how improvements in terms of energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) savings can be feasibly achieved. As shown in the results of the analysis, pig farming in the EU has a high potential to reduce fossil energy use and GHG emissions by taking improvement measures in three aspects: (i) feed use; (ii) manure management; and (iii) manure utilization. In particular, a combination of improvements in all mentioned aspects offers the highest savings potential of up to 61% fossil energy and 49% GHG emissions. In weighing these three aspects, manure utilization for energy production is found to be the most important factor in reducing fossil energy use and GHG emissions. However, when GHG implications of land use change and land opportunity cost associated with the production of feed crops (e.g. soy meal, cereals) are considered, reducing feed use becomes the main factor in improving GHG performance of EU pork.

Suggested Citation

  • Nguyen, Thu Lan T. & Hermansen, John E. & Mogensen, Lisbeth, 2010. "Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2561-2571, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:38:y:2010:i:5:p:2561-2571
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(10)00007-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    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. Ali, Beshir Melkaw & Berentsen, Paul & Bastiaansen, John W.M. & Oude Lansink, Alfons, 2017. "A Stochastic Bio-Economic Farm Model for Brazilian Farrow-to-finish Pig Production System," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261431, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Lucas A. C. Esteves & Alessandra N. T. R. Monteiro & Natália Y. Sitanaka & Paula C. Oliveira & Leandro D. Castilha & Vinicius R. C. Paula & Paulo C. Pozza, 2021. "The Reduction of Crude Protein with the Supplementation of Amino Acids in the Diet Reduces the Environmental Impact of Growing Pigs Production Evaluated through Life Cycle Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Lehmann, Richard J. & Fritz, Melanie & Schiefer, Gerhard, 2011. "Information Reference Models for European Pork Supply Networks," 2011 International European Forum, February 14-18, 2011, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 122014, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    4. Nguyen, Thu Lan T. & Hermansen, John E. & Mogensen, Lisbeth, 2013. "Environmental performance of crop residues as an energy source for electricity production: The case of wheat straw in Denmark," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 633-641.
    5. 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.
    6. Mayerle, Sérgio Fernando & Neiva de Figueiredo, João, 2016. "Designing optimal supply chains for anaerobic bio-digestion/energy generation complexes with distributed small farm feedstock sourcing," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 46-54.
    7. Mahmoud Sharara & Daesoo Kim & Sammy Sadaka & Greg Thoma, 2019. "Consequential Life Cycle Assessment of Swine Manure Management within a Thermal Gasification Scenario," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-15, October.
    8. Hauke F. Deeken & Alexandra Lengling & Manuel S. Krommweh & Wolfgang Büscher, 2023. "Improvement of Piglet Rearing’s Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Using Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers—A Two-Year Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-30, February.
    9. Gwendolyn Rudolph & Stefan Hörtenhuber & Davide Bochicchio & Gillian Butler & Roland Brandhofer & Sabine Dippel & Jean Yves Dourmad & Sandra Edwards & Barbara Früh & Matthias Meier & Armelle Prunier &, 2018. "Effect of Three Husbandry Systems on Environmental Impact of Organic Pigs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    10. Cristóvão Fraga Andrade Pereira da Rocha & Catarina de Sousa Tavares Pinho da Silva & Rafaela Martins da Silva & Manuel Joaquim da Silva Oliveira & Belmira de Almeida Ferreira Neto, 2023. "The Dietary Carbon Footprint of Portuguese Adults: Defining and Assessing Mitigation Scenarios for Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-22, March.
    11. Song, Ke & Wang, Yimin & Ding, Yuhang & Xu, Hongjie & Mueller-Welt, Philip & Stuermlinger, Tobias & Bause, Katharina & Ehrmann, Christopher & Weinmann, Hannes W. & Schaefer, Jens & Fleischer, Juergen , 2022. "Assembly techniques for proton exchange membrane fuel cell stack: A literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    12. Sgarbossa, Fabio & Russo, Ivan, 2017. "A proactive model in sustainable food supply chain: Insight from a case study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(PB), pages 596-606.
    13. Yazan, Devrim Murat & Fraccascia, Luca & Mes, Martijn & Zijm, Henk, 2018. "Cooperation in manure-based biogas production networks: An agent-based modeling approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 820-833.
    14. Mirade, Pierre-Sylvain & Perret, Bruno & Guillemin, Hervé & Picque, Daniel & Desserre, Béatrice & Montel, Marie-Christine & Corrieu, Georges, 2012. "Quantifying energy savings during cheese ripening after implementation of sequential air ventilation in an industrial cheesemaking plant," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 248-258.
    15. James Gaffey & Cathal O’Donovan & Declan Murphy & Tracey O’Connor & David Walsh & Luis Alejandro Vergara & Kwame Donkor & Lalitha Gottumukkala & Sybrandus Koopmans & Enda Buckley & Kevin O’Connor & Jo, 2023. "Synergetic Benefits for a Pig Farm and Local Bioeconomy Development from Extended Green Biorefinery Value Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-22, May.
    16. Antonia Katharina Ruckli & Sabine Dippel & Nora Durec & Monika Gebska & Jonathan Guy & Juliane Helmerichs & Christine Leeb & Herman Vermeer & Stefan Hörtenhuber, 2021. "Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Pig Farms in Selected European Countries: Combining LCA and Key Performance Indicators for Biodiversity Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    17. Nelė Jurkėnaitė, 2023. "Analysis of the Nexus between Structural and Climate Changes in EU Pig Farming," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-19, September.
    18. Glover, J.L. & Champion, D. & Daniels, K.J. & Dainty, A.J.D., 2014. "An Institutional Theory perspective on sustainable practices across the dairy supply chain," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 102-111.

    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. Canabarro, N.I. & Silva-Ortiz, P. & Nogueira, L.A.H. & Cantarella, H. & Maciel-Filho, R. & Souza, G.M., 2023. "Sustainability assessment of ethanol and biodiesel production in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Guatemala," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. Baka, Jennifer & Roland-Holst, David, 2009. "Food or fuel? What European farmers can contribute to Europe's transport energy requirements and the Doha Round," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2505-2513, July.
    3. Sarah Jansen & William Foster & Gustavo Anríquez & Jorge Ortega, 2021. "Understanding Farm-Level Incentives within the Bioeconomy Framework: Prices, Product Quality, Losses, and Bio-Based Alternatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    4. Argueyrolles, Robin & Delzeit, Ruth, 2022. "The interconnections between Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reforms and biofuels," Conference papers 333492, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    5. Aruga, Kentaka, 2011. "非遺伝子組換え大豆とエネルギーの価格関係について [Relationships among the Non-Genetically Modified Soybean and Energy Prices]," MPRA Paper 38186, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 20 Aug 2011.
    6. Ribeiro, Lauro André & Silva, Patrícia Pereira da, 2013. "Surveying techno-economic indicators of microalgae biofuel technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 89-96.
    7. Gal Hochman & Chrysostomos Tabakis, 2020. "Biofuels and Their Potential in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-17, September.
    8. Mohlin, Kristina & Camuzeaux, Jonathan R. & Muller, Adrian & Schneider, Marius & Wagner, Gernot, 2018. "Factoring in the forgotten role of renewables in CO2 emission trends using decomposition analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 290-296.
    9. Khoo, Hsien H., 2015. "Review of bio-conversion pathways of lignocellulose-to-ethanol: Sustainability assessment based on land footprint projections," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 100-119.
    10. Shirizadeh, Behrang & Quirion, Philippe, 2022. "The importance of renewable gas in achieving carbon-neutrality: Insights from an energy system optimization model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    11. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    12. Stefan Mann, 2016. "Governing complementary responsibility goods through hybrid systems in a globalizing world," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 9(1), pages 14-21.
    13. Winden, Matthew & Cruze, Nathan & Haab, Tim & Bakshi, Bhavik, 2015. "Monetized value of the environmental, health and resource externalities of soy biodiesel," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 18-24.
    14. Stephen P. Holland & Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel & Nathan C. Parker, 2013. "Unintended Consequences of Transportation Carbon Policies: Land-Use, Emissions, and Innovation," NBER Working Papers 19636, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Reijnders, L., 2009. "Are forestation, bio-char and landfilled biomass adequate offsets for the climate effects of burning fossil fuels?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 2839-2841, August.
    16. Yuqing An & Jin Yeu Tsou & Kapo Wong & Yuanzhi Zhang & Dawei Liu & Yu Li, 2018. "Detecting Land Use Changes in a Rapidly Developing City during 1990–2017 Using Satellite Imagery: A Case Study in Hangzhou Urban Area, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-14, September.
    17. Abdul-Manan, Amir F.N., 2017. "Lifecycle GHG emissions of palm biodiesel: Unintended market effects negate direct benefits of the Malaysian Economic Transformation Plan (ETP)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 56-65.
    18. Kanlaya J. Barr & Bruce A. Babcock & Miguel A. Carriquiry & Andre M. Nassar & Leila Harfuch, 2011. "Agricultural Land Elasticities in the United States and Brazil," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 449-462.
    19. Julia Tomei & Stella Semino & Helena Paul & Lilian Joensen & Mario Monti & Erling Jelsøe, 2010. "Soy production and certification: the case of Argentinean soy-based biodiesel," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 371-394, April.
    20. Jussila Hammes, Johanna, 2011. "Path dependence: Biofuels policy under uncertainty about greenhouse gas emissions," Working Papers 2011:1, Swedish National Road & Transport Research Institute (VTI).

    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:enepol:v:38:y:2010:i:5:p:2561-2571. 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/enpol .

    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.