Scientia Agricultura Sinica ›› 2015, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (1): 93-111.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2015.01.10

• SOIL & FERTILIZER·WATER-SAVING IRRIGATION·AGROECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Research Progress and Analysis of Carbon Footprint of Livestock Products

HUANG Wen-qiang, DONG Hong-min, ZHU Zhi-ping, LIU Chong, TAO Xiu-ping, WANG Yue   

  1. Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences/The Key Laboratory of Energy Conservation and Waste Treatment of Agricultural Structures, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing 100081
  • Received:2014-05-19 Online:2015-01-01 Published:2015-01-01

Abstract: Livestock production is one of the important emission sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs), evaluation of the carbon footprint of livestock products is vital for selection of mitigation technology and promotion of low-carbon agriculture. Based on current evaluation methods of carbon footprint, this study summarized the domestic and overseas researches on assessment of the carbon footprint of animal products (eggs, pork, beef and milk), and made a comprehensive analysis based on the present research achievements. Carbon footprint of livestock products varies with unit of animal products. The carbon footprint in producing 1 kg of beef is the greatest and reaches (20.51±8.39) kg CO2-eq, followed by 1 kg of pork and eggs production with (4.24±1.07) kg CO2-eq and (2.24±0.83) kg CO2-eq, respectively, while that in producing 1 kg milk is the minimum of (1.19±0.40) kg CO2-eq. The carbon footprint in producing 1 kg protein from animal products is in a descending order as beef>milk>pork and egg, with values of (103.05±42.14), (39.72±13.20), (32.09±8.14) and (19.37±7.15) kg CO2-eq, respectively. The carbon footprint in producing 1 kg fat from animal products is in a descending order as beef>milk>egg and pork, with values of (488.25±199.65), (37.23±12.37), (29.28±10.80) and (11.45±2.91) kg CO2-eq, respectively. The carbon footprint of 1 000 kcal energy from animal products are beef, milk, egg and pork in descending order, with values of (16.41±6.71), (2.21±0.73), (1.56±0.57) and (1.07±0.27) kg CO2-eq, respectively. Analyses on different links of animal products revealed that the share of greenhouse gas emissions reaches maximum in feed crop planting and producing & processing during egg and pork production, accounting for (74.0±16.5)% and (61.3±7.6)%, respectively. The methane emission from enteric fermentation delivers the greatest contribution to carbon footprint during beef and milk production, accounting for (53.7±8.2)% and (52.7±6.1)%, respectively. Analyses on GHGs emissions from animal products showed that CO2 contributes the maximum to the carbon footprint during egg production, whose emission covers (55.42±2.7)% of the entire system. N2O contributes the maximum during pork production, with (56.8±10.4)% of the entire system. CH4 contributes the maximum during beef and milk production, with (50.2±8.3)% and (58.6±8.3)%, respectively. Although researches on carbon footprint of livestock products based on different methodologies are mostly in abroad, unified assessment guidance needs to be developed to evaluate the carbon footprint of livestock products. There is little research on carbon footprint in China, so it’s suggested that an assessment method suitable for actual production in China should be established. The result of this study could provide some preliminary data to the assessment of carbon footprint of livestock product and identification of mitigation options.

Key words: animal, greenhouse gas, carbon footprint, assessment method

[1]    IPCC. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2007: 63-67.
[2]    中华人民共和国国家发展与改革委员会. 中华人民共和国气候变化第二次国家信息通报. http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/archiver/ ccchinacn/UpFile/Files/Default/20130218142020138656.pdf. 2013: 74-77.
National Development and Reform Commission. The Second National Communication on Climate Change of The People’s Republic of China. http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/archiver/ccchinacn/UpFile/Files/ Default/20130218142020138656.pdf. 2013: 74-77. (in Chinese)
[3]    中华人民共和国农业部. 中国农业年鉴: 2012. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2012.
Ministry of Agriculture of P. R. China. China Agriculture Yearbook: 2012. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2012. (in Chinese)
[4]    樊霞, 董红敏, 韩鲁佳. 反刍动物甲烷排放预测模型研究现状.农业工程学报, 2004, 20(4): 250-254.
Fan X, Dong H M, Han L J. Research progress of models for predicting ruminant methane emissions. Transaction of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2004, 20(4): 250-254. (in Chinese)
[5]    游玉波, 董红敏. 家畜肠道和粪便甲烷排放研究进展. 农业工程学报, 2006, 22(suppl2): 193-196.
You Y B, Dong H M. Research advance in enteric and manure-derived methane emissions from domestic animals. Transaction of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2006, 22(suppl2): 193-196. (in Chinese)
[6]    董红敏, 李玉娥, 陶秀萍, 彭小培, 李娜, 朱志平. 中国农业源温室气体排放与减排技术对策. 农业工程学报, 2008, 24(10): 269-273.
Dong H M, Li Y E, Tao X P, Li N, Zhu Z P. China greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural activities and its mitigation strategy. Transaction of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2008, 24(10): 269-273. (in Chinese)
[7]    Zhu Z, Dong H, Zhou Z. Ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from a dairy cattle barn with a daily manure collection system. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2012, 55(5): 1959-1964.
[8]    Dong H, Tao X, Xin H, He Q. Comparison of enteric methane emissions in china for different IPCC estimation methods and production schemes. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 2004, 47(6): 2051-2057.
[9]    Amon B, Kryvoruchko V, Amon T, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S. Methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions during storage and after application of dairy cattle slurry and influence of slurry treatment. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2006, 112(2): 153-162.
[10]   FAO. Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/k7930e/k7930e00.pdf, 2011-08-01.
[11]   耿涌, 董会娟, 郗凤明, 刘竹. 应对气候变化的碳足迹研究综述. 中国人口资源与环境, 2010, 20(10): 6-12.
Geng Y, Dong H J, Xi F M, Liu Z. A review of the research on carbon footprint responding to climate change. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2010, 20(10): 6-12. (in Chinese)
[12]   Wiedmann T, Minx J. A definition of carbon footprint. Ecological Economics Research Trends, 2007, 2: 55-65.
[13]   Pandey D, Agrawal M, Pandey J S. Carbon footprint: current methods of estimation. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2011, 178(1/4): 135-160.
[14]   计军平, 马晓明. 碳足迹的概念和核算方法研究进展. 生态经济, 2011(4): 76-80.
Ji J P, Ma X M. Review of carbon footprint: definitions and accounting methods. Ecological Economy, 2011(4):76-80. (in Chinese)
[15]   Cederberg C, Sonesson U, Henriksson M, Sund V, Davis J. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Swedish Production of Meat, Milk and Eggs 1990 and 2005. Swedish: The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, 2009: 12-59.
[16]   Vergé X P C, Dyer J A, Desjardins R L, Worth D. Long-term trends in greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian poultry industry. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 2009, 18(2): 210-222.
[17]   Dekker S E M, De Boer I J M, Vermeij I, Aarnink A J A, Groot Koerkamp P W G. Ecological and economic evaluation of Dutch egg production systems. Livestock Science, 2011, 139(1): 109-121.
[18]   Pelletier N, Ibarburu M, Xin H. A carbon footprint analysis of egg production and processing supply chains in the Midwestern United States. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2013, 54: 108-114.
[19]   Wiedemann S, McGahan E. Environmental Assessment of an Egg Production Supply Chain Using Life Cycle Assessment. Australian Egg Corporation Limited, 2011.
[20]   Anton Kool, Hans Blonk, Tommie Ponsioen. Carbon Footprints of Conventional and Organic Pork. Netherlands: Blonk Milieu Advies BV, 2009.
[21]   Basset-Mens C, Van der Werf H M G. Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2005, 105(1): 127-144.
[22]   Beauchemin K A, Henry Janzen H, Little S M, McAllister T A, McGinn S M. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada: a case study. Agricultural Systems, 2010, 103(6): 371-379.
[23]   Vergé X P C, Dyer J A, Desjardins R L, Worth D. Greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian beef industry. Agricultural Systems, 2008, 98(2): 126-134.
[24]   Casey J W, Holden N M. Quantification of GHG emissions from sucker-beef production in Ireland. Agricultural Systems, 2006, 90(1): 79-98.
[25]   Cederberg C, Stadig M. System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2003, 8(6): 350-356.
[26]   Ogino A, Orito H, Shimada K, Hirooka H. Evaluating environmental impacts of the Japanese beef cow-calf system by the life cycle assessment method. Animal Science Journal, 2007, 78(4): 424-432.
[27]   马宗虎, 王美芝, 丁露雨, 刘继军. 规模化肉牛育肥场温室气体排放的生命周期评估. 农业环境科学学报, 2010, 29(11): 2244-2252.
Ma Z H, Wang M Z, Ding L Y, Liu J J. Emissions of greenhouse gases from an industrial beef feedlot farm as evaluated by a life-cycle assessment method. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2010, 29(11): 2244-2252. (in Chinese)
[28]   Cederberg C, Flysjö A. Life Cycle Inventory of 23 Dairy Farms in South-Western Sweden. Sweden: The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, 2004: 4-40.
[29]   Casey J W, Holden N M. Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from the average Irish milk production system. Agricultural systems, 2005, 86(1): 97-114.
[30]   Flysjö A, Henriksson M, Cederberg C, Ledgard S, Englund J E. The impact of various parameters on the carbon footprint of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden. Agricultural systems, 2011, 104(6): 459-469.
[31]   Vergé X P, Maxime D, Dyer J A, Desjardins R L,Arcand Y, Vanderzaag A. Carbon footprint of Canadian dairy products: Calculations and issues. Journal of Dairy Science, 2013, 96: 6091-6104.
[32]   Thomassen M A, Van Calker K J, Smits M C J, Iepema G L, de Boe I J M. Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands. Agricultural Systems, 2008, 96(1): 95-107.
[33]   Rotz C A, Montes F, Chianese D S. The carbon footprint of dairy production systems through partial life cycle assessment. Journal of Dairy Science, 2010, 93(3): 1266-1282.
[34]   王效琴, 梁东丽, 王旭东, 彭莎, 郑金正. 运用生命周期评价方法评估奶牛养殖系统温室气体排放量. 农业工程学报, 2012, 28(13): 179-184.
Wang X Q, Liang D L, Wang X D, Peng S, Zheng J Z. Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farming systems based on LCA. Transaction of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2012, 28(13): 179-184. (in Chinese)
[35]   Flysjö A, Cederberg C, Henriksson M, Ledgard S. How does co- product handling affect the carbon footprint of milk? Case study of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2011, 16(5): 420-430.
[36]   LBP-Gabi. Gabi software for students & teachers. http://www.gabi- software.com/china//gabi/.
[37]   Simapro. Simapro software for download. http://www.pre-sustainability. com/simapro-demo.
[38]   耿爱莲, 李保明. 蛋鸡笼养福利问题以及蛋鸡养殖模式. 农业工程学报, 2006, 22(14): 121-126.
Geng A L, Li B M. Discussion on welfare problems of caged layer and layer’s rearing system in future. Transaction of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2006, 22(14): 121-126. (in Chinese)
[39]   杨宁. 我国蛋鸡生产现状和发展趋势. 中国禽业导刊, 2005, 22(10): 8-9.
Yang N. Current situation and development trend of egg production in China. Guide to Chinese Poultry, 2005, 22(10): 8-9. (in Chinese)
[40]   陈宁玲, 李周权, 李爱科, 周天兵, 蒋金津. 十二五期间我国养猪业饲料粮需求预测. 中国畜牧杂志, 2010, 46(22): 34-39.
Chen N L, Li Z Q, Li A K, Zhou T B, Jiang J J. Forecast the demand for feed grain of pig in China during “the Twelfth Five-year Plan”. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2010, 46(22): 34-39. (in Chinese)
[41]   Cederberg C, Persson U M, Neovius K, Molander S, Clift R. Including carbon emissions from deforestation in the carbon footprint of Brazilian beef. Environmental Science & Technology, 2011, 45(5): 1773-1779.
[42]   Cerri C C, Maia S M F, Galdos M V, Cerri C E P, Feigl B J, Bernoux M. Brazilian greenhouse gas emissions: the importance of agriculture and livestock. Scientia Agricola, 2009, 66(6): 831-843.
[43]   FAO. FAO/INFOODS Food Composition Database for Biodiversity- Version2.1. http://www.fao.org /infoods/infoods/ tables-and-databases/ faoinfoods-databases/en/.
[44]   Gerber P J, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Falcucci A, Tempio G. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: a Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Rome: FAO, 2013.
[1] CHEN XiaoWei, WANG XiaoLong. Accounting Framework of Carbon Footprint on Integrated Cropping-Breeding Farming System: A Case on Maize-Cow-Recycling Manure Model [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(2): 314-332.
[2] ZHAI XiaoHu,LI LingXu,CHEN XiaoZhu,JIANG HuaiDe,HE WeiHua,YAO DaWei. Quantitative Detection Technology of Porcine-Derived Materials in Meat by Real-time PCR [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(1): 156-164.
[3] LI XiaoLi,HE TangQing,ZHANG ChenXi,TIAN MingHui,WU Mei,LI ChaoHai,YANG QingHua,ZHANG XueLin. Effect of Organic Fertilizer Replacing Chemical Fertilizers on Greenhouse Gas Emission Under the Conditions of Same Nitrogen Fertilizer Input in Maize Farmland [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(5): 948-961.
[4] ZHANG XueLin, WU Mei, HE TangQing, ZHANG ChenXi, TIAN MingHui, LI XiaoLi, HOU XiaoPan, HAO XiaoFeng, YANG QingHua, LI ChaoHai. Effects of Crop Residue Decomposition on Soil Inorganic Nitrogen and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fluvo-Aquic Soil and Shajiang Black Soil [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(4): 729-742.
[5] CHEN XuHao,GAO Qiang,CHEN XinPing,ZHANG WuShuai. Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Resources Input and Environmental Effects for Maize Production in the Three Provinces of Northeast China [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(16): 3170-3184.
[6] MAO AnRan,ZHAO HuBing,YANG HuiMin,WANG Tao,CHEN XiuWen,LIANG WenJuan. Effects of Different Mulching Periods and Mulching Practices on Economic Return and Environment [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(3): 608-618.
[7] ZHANG WeiJian,CYAN ShengJi,CZHANG Jun,CJIANG Yu,CDENG Aixing. Win-Win Strategy for National Food Security and Agricultural Double-Carbon Goals [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(18): 3892-3902.
[8] LI Xin,ZHANG WenJu,WU Lei,REN Yi,ZHANG JunDa,XU MingGang. Advance in Indicator Screening and Methodologies of Soil Quality Evaluation [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(14): 3043-3056.
[9] ZHU XiaoQing,AN Jing,MA Ling,CHEN SongLing,LI JiaQi,ZOU HongTao,ZHANG YuLong. Effects of Different Straw Returning Depths on Soil Greenhouse Gas Emission and Maize Yield [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(5): 977-989.
[10] DING Shang,FU Yang,GUO HaoHao,SONG ChenYang,LI BoLing,ZHAO HongWei. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loads and Their Environmental Effects of Animal Manure in Hainan Island from 1988 to 2018 [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(18): 3752-3763.
[11] YUAN Wu,JIN ZhenJiang,CHENG YueYang,JIA YuanHang,LIANG JinTao,QIU JiangMei,PAN FuJing,LIU DeShen. Characteristics of Soil Enzyme Activities and CO2 and CH4 Emissions from Natural Wetland and Paddy Field in Karst Areas [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(14): 2897-2906.
[12] JIANG MingHong, LIU XinChao, TANG HuaJun, XIN XiaoPing, CHEN JiQuan, DONG Gang, WU RuQun, SHAO ChangLiang. Research Progress and Prospect of Life Cycle Assessment in Animal Husbandry [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 52(9): 1635-1645.
[13] LI ShuMin, FANG LiangXing, LI Liang, ZHAO Meng, LU Xiao, GU WeiQi, LIAO XiaoPing, SUN Jian, XIONG YanQiong, LIU YaHong. Investigation on the Antibiotic Resistance of Staphylococcus Methicillin-Resistant MLSB from Food Animals in Six Provinces of China [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 52(9): 1646-1656.
[14] LIU Qiao,JI YanZhi,GUO YanJie,ZHANG LiJuan,ZHANG Jie,HAN Jian. Effects of Water and Nitrogen Regulation on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Warming Potential in Vineyard Soil [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 52(8): 1413-1424.
[15] XIAO ZhiMing, WANG Jun, SUO DeCheng, WEI ShuLin, JIA Zheng, LIU ChengXin, FAN Xia. Quantitative Determination of Diludine in Animal Feeds by Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2018, 51(9): 1806-1814.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!