IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v7y2017i8p62-d106104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyzing the Environmental Impact of Chemically-Produced Protein Hydrolysate from Leather Waste vs. Enzymatically-Produced Protein Hydrolysate from Legume Grains

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Colantoni

    (Department of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences (DAFNE), University of Tuscia, Via S. Camillo de Lellis snc, Viterbo 01100, Italy)

  • Lucia Recchia

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation, Guglielmo Marconi University, via Plinio 44, Roma 00193, Italy)

  • Guido Bernabei

    (Department of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences (DAFNE), University of Tuscia, Via S. Camillo de Lellis snc, Viterbo 01100, Italy)

  • Mariateresa Cardarelli

    (Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agraria, Centro di ricerca Agricoltura e Ambiente (CREA-AA), via della Navicella 2-4, Roma 00184, Italy)

  • Youssef Rouphael

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, via Università, 100, Portici 80138, Italy)

  • Giuseppe Colla

    (Department of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences (DAFNE), University of Tuscia, Via S. Camillo de Lellis snc, Viterbo 01100, Italy)

Abstract

Protein hydrolysates are largely used as plant biostimulants for boosting crop growth, and improving crop tolerance to abiotic stresses and fruit quality. Protein hydrolysate-based biostimulants are mostly produced by chemical hydrolysis starting from animal wastes. However, an innovative process of enzymatic hydrolysis of legume-derived proteins has been recently introduced by few companies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the energy use and environmental impact of the production processes of enzymatically-produced protein hydrolysate starting from lupine seeds and protein hydrolysate obtained from chemical hydrolysis of leather wastes through the application of life cycle assessment (LCA). The LCA method was applied through the software GEMIS “Global Emission Model for Integrated Systems”, elaborated at L’Oko-Institute in Germany, and the parameters taken into account were: CO 2 emissions in g per kg of protein hydrolysate; the consumption of fossil energy expressed in MJ per kg of protein hydrolysate; and water consumption reported in kg per kg of protein hydrolysate. In the case of legume-derived protein hydrolysate, the evaluation of the energy use and the environmental impact started from field production of lupine grains and ended with the industrial production of protein hydrolysate. In the case of animal-derived protein hydrolysate, the LCA method was applied only in the industrial production process, because the collagen is considered a waste product of the leather industry. The type of hydrolysis is the step that most affects the energy use and environmental impact on the entire industrial production process. The results obtained in terms of CO 2 emissions, fossil energy consumption and water use through the application of LCA showed that the production process of the animal-derived protein hydrolysate was characterized by a higher energy use (+26%) and environmental impact (+57% of CO 2 emissions) in comparison with the enzymatic production process of lupine-derived protein hydrolysate. In conclusion, the production of legume-derived protein hydrolysate by enzymatic hydrolysis is more environmentally friendly than the production of animal-derived protein hydrolysate through chemical hydrolysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Colantoni & Lucia Recchia & Guido Bernabei & Mariateresa Cardarelli & Youssef Rouphael & Giuseppe Colla, 2017. "Analyzing the Environmental Impact of Chemically-Produced Protein Hydrolysate from Leather Waste vs. Enzymatically-Produced Protein Hydrolysate from Legume Grains," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-9, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:7:y:2017:i:8:p:62-:d:106104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/7/8/62/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/7/8/62/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miguel A. Altieri & Clara I. Nicholls & Rene Montalba, 2017. "Technological Approaches to Sustainable Agriculture at a Crossroads: An Agroecological Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, February.
    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. Debora Puglia & Daniela Pezzolla & Giovanni Gigliotti & Luigi Torre & Maria Luce Bartucca & Daniele Del Buono, 2021. "The Opportunity of Valorizing Agricultural Waste, Through Its Conversion into Biostimulants, Biofertilizers, and Biopolymers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-25, March.
    2. Jarosław Pobereżny & Małgorzata Szczepanek & Elżbieta Wszelaczyńska & Piotr Prus, 2020. "The Quality of Carrot after Field Biostimulant Application and after Storage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-13, February.
    3. Sara Rajabi Hamedani & Youssef Rouphael & Giuseppe Colla & Andrea Colantoni & Mariateresa Cardarelli, 2020. "Biostimulants as a Tool for Improving Environmental Sustainability of Greenhouse Vegetable Crops," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-10, June.

    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. Sung Kyu Kim & Fiona Marshall & Neil M. Dawson, 2022. "Revisiting Rwanda’s agricultural intensification policy: benefits of embracing farmer heterogeneity and crop-livestock integration strategies," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(3), pages 637-656, June.
    2. Ishwari Singh Bisht & Jai Chand Rana & Sudhir Pal Ahlawat, 2020. "The Future of Smallholder Farming in India: Some Sustainability Considerations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-25, May.
    3. Birthal, Pratap S. & Hazrana, Jaweriah & Roy, Devesh & Satyasai, K. J. S, 2024. "Can Finance Mitigate Climate Risks in Agriculture? Farm-level Evidence from India," Policy Papers 344992, ICAR National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NIAP).
    4. Danuta Leszczyńska & Agnieszka Klimek-Kopyra & Krzysztof Patkowski, 2020. "Evaluation of the Productivity of New Spring Cereal Mixture to Optimize Cultivation under Different Soil Conditions," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-13, August.
    5. Matthew C. LaFevor & Aoife K. Pitts, 2022. "Irrigation Increases Crop Species Diversity in Low-Diversity Farm Regions of Mexico," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, June.
    6. Conrad Baker & Albert Thembinkosi Modi & Adornis D. Nciizah, 2021. "Weeding Frequency Effects on Growth and Yield of Dry Bean Intercropped with Sweet Sorghum and Cowpea under a Dryland Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-15, November.
    7. Rita Biasi & Roberta Farina & Elena Brunori, 2021. "Family Farming Plays an Essential Role in Preserving Soil Functionality: A Study on Active Managed and Abandoned Traditional Tree Crop-Based Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, April.
    8. Susanne Wiesner & Alison J. Duff & Ankur R. Desai & Kevin Panke-Buisse, 2020. "Increasing Dairy Sustainability with Integrated Crop–Livestock Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, January.
    9. Kiefer, Katharina & Kremer, Jasper & Zeitner, Philipp & Winkler, Bastian & Wagner, Moritz & von Cossel, Moritz, 2023. "Monetizing ecosystem services of perennial wild plant mixtures for bioenergy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    10. Cristiana Peano & Stefano Massaglia & Chiara Ghisalberti & Francesco Sottile, 2020. "Pathways for the Amplification of Agroecology in African Sustainable Urban Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-13, March.
    11. Hamid El Bilali, 2019. "The Multi-Level Perspective in Research on Sustainability Transitions in Agriculture and Food Systems: A Systematic Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-24, April.
    12. Manuel López-Vicente & Elena Calvo-Seas & Sara Álvarez & Artemi Cerdà, 2020. "Effectiveness of Cover Crops to Reduce Loss of Soil Organic Matter in a Rainfed Vineyard," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-16, July.
    13. Stéphane Bellon & Guillaume Ollivier, 2018. "Institutionalizing Agroecology in France: Social Circulation Changes the Meaning of an Idea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-30, April.
    14. Bachev, Hrabrin & Ivanov, Bojidar & Toteva, Dessislava & Sokolova, Emilia, 2018. "Оценка На Аграрната Устойчивост В България На Ниво Район, Екосистема, Подотрасъл И Стопанска Организация [Assessment of agrarian sustainability at regional, ecosystem, sectioal and farm levels in B," MPRA Paper 83690, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Luis Gomes & Tânia Nobre & Adélia Sousa & Fernando Rei & Nuno Guiomar, 2020. "Hyperspectral Reflectance as a Basis to Discriminate Olive Varieties—A Tool for Sustainable Crop Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-21, April.
    16. Luke Bergmann & Luis Fernando Chaves & Carolyn R. Betz & Serena Stein & Brian Wiedenfeld & Ann Wolf & Robert G. Wallace, 2022. "Mapping Agricultural Lands: From Conventional to Regenerative," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-41, March.
    17. Meaghan J. Wilton & Jim D. Karagatzides & Leonard J. S. Tsuji, 2017. "Nutrient Concentrations of Bush Bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and Potato ( Solanum tuberosum L.) Cultivated in Subarctic Soils Managed with Intercropping and Willow ( Salix spp.) Agroforestry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    18. Maywa Montenegro de Wit, 2022. "Can agroecology and CRISPR mix? The politics of complementarity and moving toward technology sovereignty," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 733-755, June.
    19. Bachev, Hrabrin & Ivanov, Bojidar & Toteva, Dessislava & Sokolova, Emilia & Terziev, Dimitar & Nikolov, Dimitar & Radeva, Donka & Chopeva, Minka & Li, Hongfei & Che, Shengquan, 2018. "Управление И Оценка На Аграрната Устойчивост – Опит, Предизвикателства И Уроци От България И Китай [Governing and assessment of agrarian sustainability - experiences, challenges, and lessons from B," MPRA Paper 83998, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Camel, Afaf & Belhadi, Amine & Kamble, Sachin & Tiwari, Sunil & Touriki, Fatima Ezahra, 2024. "Integrating smart Green Product Platforming for carbon footprint reduction: The role of blockchain technology and stakeholders influence within the agri-food supply chain," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 272(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:gam:jagris:v:7:y:2017:i:8:p:62-:d:106104. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.