No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Utilisation of water, energy and land resources is under pressure globally because of increased demand for food, fibre and fuel production. Australian pork production utilises these resources both directly to grow and process pigs, and indirectly via the consumption of feed and other inputs. With increasing demand and higher costs associated with these resources, supply chain efficiency is a growing priority for the industry. This study aimed to quantify fresh water consumption, stress-weighted water use, fossil fuel energy use and land occupation from six case study supply chains and the national herd using a life cycle assessment approach. Two functional units were used: 1 kg of pork liveweight (LW) at the farm-gate, and 1 kg of wholesale pork (chilled, bone-in). At the farm-gate, fresh water consumption from the case study supply chains ranged from 22.2 to 156.7 L/kg LW, with a national average value of 107.5 L/kg LW. Stress-weighted water use ranged from 6.6 to 167.5 L H2O-e /kg LW, with a national average value of 103.2 L H2O-e /kg LW. Fossil fuel energy demand ranged from 12.9 to 17.4 MJ/kg LW, with a national average value of 14.5 MJ/kg LW, and land occupation ranged from 10.9 to 16.1 m2/kg LW, with a national average value of 16.1 m2/kg LW and with arable land representing 97% to 99% of total land occupation. National average impacts associated with production of wholesale pork, including impacts from meat processing, were 184 ± 43 L fresh water consumption, 172 ± 53 L H2O-e stress-weighted water, 27 ± 2.6 MJ fossil fuel energy demand and 25.9 ± 5.5 m2 land/kg wholesale pork. Across all categories through to the wholesale product, resource use was highest from the production of feed inputs, indicating that improving feed conversion ratio is the most important production metric for reducing the resource use. Housing type and energy generation from manure management also influence resource use requirements and may offer improvement opportunities.

Resource use and environmental impacts are important factors relating to the sustainability of beef production in Australia. This study used life cycle assessment to investigate impacts from grass-finished beef production in eastern Australia to the farm gate, reporting impacts per kilogram of liveweight (LW) produced. Mean fossil fuel energy demand was found to vary from 5.6 to 8.4 MJ/kg LW, mean estimated fresh water consumption from 117.9 to 332.4 L/kg LW and crop land occupation from 0.3 to 6.4 m2/kg LW. Mean greenhouse gas emissions ranged from 10.6 to 12.4 kg CO2-e/kg LW (excluding land use and direct land-use change emissions) and were not significantly different (P > 0.05) for export or domestic market classes. Enteric methane was the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and multiple linear regression analysis revealed that weaning rate and average daily gain explained 80% of the variability in supply chain greenhouse gas emissions. Fresh water consumption was found to vary significantly among individual farms depending on climate, farm water supply efficiency and the use of irrigation. The impact of water use was measured using the stress-weighted water use indicator, and ranged from 8.4 to 104.2 L H2O-e/kg LW. The stress-weighted water use was influenced more by regional water stress than the volume of fresh water consumption. Land occupation was assessed with disaggregation of crop land, arable pasture land and non-arable land, which revealed that the majority of beef production utilised non-arable land that is unsuitable for most alternative food production systems.

Abstract. Agricultural industries are under increasing pressure to measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the supply chain. The Australian pork industry has established proactive goals to improve greenhouse-gas (GHG) performance across the industry, but while productivity indicators are benchmarked by industry, similar data have not previously been collected to determine supply chain GHG emissions. To assess total GHG emissions from Australian pork production, the present study conducted a life-cycle assessment of six case study supply chains and the national herd for the year 2010. The study aimed to determine total GHG emissions and hotspots, and to determine the mitigation potential from alternative manure treatment systems. Two functional units were used: 1 kg of pork liveweight (LW) at the farm gate, and 1 kg of wholesale pork (chilled, bone-in) ready for packaging and distribution. Mean GHG emissions from the case study supply chains ranged from 2.1 to 4.5 kg CO 2 -e/kg LW (excluding land-use (LU) and direct land use-change (dLUC) emissions). Emissions were lowest from the piggeries that housed grower-finisher pigs on deep litter and highest from pigs housed in conventional systems with uncovered anaerobic effluent ponds. Mean contribution from methane from effluent treatment was 64% of total GHG at the conventional piggeries. Nitrous oxide arose from both grain production and manure management, comprising 7-33% of the total emissions. The GHG emissions for the national herd were 3.6 kg CO 2 -e/kg LW, with the largest determining factor on total emissions being the relative proportion of pigs managed with high or low emission manure management systems. Emissions from LU and dLUC sources ranged from 0.08 to 0.7 kg CO 2 -e/kg LW for the case study farms, with differences associated with the inclusion rate of imported soybean meal in the ration and feed-conversion ratio. GHG intensity (excluding LU, dLUC) from the national herd was 6.36 AE 1.03 kg CO 2 -e/kg wholesale pork, with the emission profile dominated by methane from manure management (50%), followed by feed production (27%) and then meat processing (8%). Inclusion of LU and dLUC emissions had a minor effect on the emission profile. Scenarios testing showed that biogas capture from anaerobic digestion with combined heat and power generation resulted in a 31-64% reduction in GHG emissions. Finishing pigs on deep litter as preferred to conventional housing resulted in 38% lower GHG emissions than conventional finishing.

Aims: To assist in the development of safe piggery effluent re-use guidelines by determining the level of selected pathogens and indicator organisms in the effluent ponds of 13 south-east Queensland piggeries. Methods and Results: The numbers of thermotolerant coliforms, Campylobacter jejuni/coli, Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, Escherichia coli, Salmonella and rotavirus were determined in 29 samples derived from the 13 piggeries. The study demonstrated that the 13 final effluent ponds contained an average of 1AE2 · 10 5 colony-forming units (CFU) 100 ml )1 of thermotolerant coliforms and 1AE03 · 10 5 CFU 100 ml )1 of E. coli. The Campylobacter level varied from none detectable (two of 13 piggeries) to a maximum of 930 most probable number (MPN) 100 ml )1 (two of 13 piggeries). Salmonella was detected in the final ponds of only four of the 13 piggeries and then only at a low level (highest level being 51 MPN 100 ml )1 ). No rotavirus and no Erysip. rhusiopathiae were detected. The average log 10 reductions across the ponding systems to the final irrigation pond were 1AE77 for thermotolerant coliforms, 1AE71 for E. coli and 1AE04 for Campylobacter.Conclusions: This study has provided a baseline knowledge on the levels of indicator organisms and selected pathogens in piggery effluent. Significance and Impact of the Study: The knowledge gained in this study will assist in the development of guidelines to ensure the safe and sustainable re-use of piggery effluent.

Bedding material or litter is an important requirement of meat chicken production which can influence bird welfare, health, and food safety. A substantial increase in demand and cost of chicken bedding has stimulated interest in alternative bedding sources worldwide. However, risks arising from the use of alternative bedding materials for raising meat chickens are currently unknown. Organic chemicals, elemental, and biological contaminants, as well as physical and management hazards need to be managed in litter to protect the health of chickens and consequently that of human consumers. This requires access to information on the transfer of contaminants from litter to food to inform risk profiles and assessments to guide litter risk management. In this review, contaminants and hazards of known and potential concern in alternative bedding are described and compared with existing standards for feed. The contaminants considered in this review include organic chemical contaminants (e.g., pesticides), elemental contaminants (e.g., arsenic, cadmium, and lead), biological contaminants (phytotoxins, mycotoxins, and microorganisms), physical hazards, and management hazards. Reference is made to scientific literature for acceptable levels of the above contaminants in chicken feed that can be used for guidance by those involved in selecting and using bedding materials.