No abstract

Purpose The nutritional quality of final products is attracting an increased level of attention within life cycle assessment (LCA) literature of agri-food systems. The majority of these studies, however, are based on comparisons at the dietary level and, therefore, are unable to offer immediate implications for farmers as to how best to produce food. This article evaluates recent literature examining the nutrition-environment nexus at the commodity level, with the aim to identify potential pathways towards sustainability analysis that can inform both consumers and producers. Methods A systematic search of literature was carried out to produce a shortlist of studies, and strict exclusion criteria were applied to them afterwards to eliminate irrelevant material. The studies thus selected were classified into one of three tiers based on the level of complexity with regard to their functional units: (1) based on single nutrients, (2) based on composite indicators derived from multiple nutrients and (3) based on commodity-level analysis in a dietary context. Results and discussion Sixteen papers were identified for inclusion in the review. All of them accounted for climate change either directly or indirectly, whilst only five addressed different impact categories at the same time. Nine studies estimated environmental impacts under functional units associated with nutrient density scores, and the others utilised alternative approaches to account for nutritional value such as linear programming and end-point modelling combined with epidemiological data. A recently developed method to calculate the marginal contribution of a commodity to the overall nutritional value of a specific diet was considered to be a successful first step in bridging the aforementioned knowledge gap. Conclusions The LCA community should continue the ongoing effort to link farm management decisions to diet-level environmental impacts through an enhanced focus on human nutrition across the entire value chain. Future research comparing environmental performances of multiple food groups or multiple production systems should acknowledge differences in nutritional composition and bioavailability between the final products and, ideally, the effects of these nutrients on overall dietary quality.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of livestock production systems is often based on inventory data for farms typical of a study region. As information on individual animals is often unavailable, livestock data may already be aggregated at the time of inventory analysis, both across individual animals and across seasons. Even though various computational tools exist to consider the effect of genetic and seasonal variabilities in livestock-originated emissions intensity, the degree to which these methods can address the bias suffered by representative animal approaches is not well-understood. Using detailed on-farm data collected on the North Wyke Farm Platform (NWFP) in Devon, UK, this paper proposes a novel approach of life cycle impact assessment that complements the existing LCA methodology. Field data, such as forage quality and animal performance, were measured at high spatial and temporal resolutions and directly transferred into LCA processes. This approach has enabled derivation of emissions intensity for each individual animal and, by extension, its intra-farm distribution, providing a step towards reducing uncertainty related to agricultural production inherent in LCA studies for food. Depending on pasture management strategies, the total emissions intensity estimated by the proposed method was higher than the equivalent value recalculated using a representative animal approach by 0.9–1.7 kg CO2-eq/kg liveweight gain, or up to 10% of system-wide emissions. This finding suggests that emissions intensity values derived by the latter technique may be underestimated due to insufficient consideration given to poorly performing animals, whose emissions becomes exponentially greater as average daily gain decreases. Strategies to mitigate life-cycle environmental impacts of pasture-based beef productions systems are also discussed.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is widely regarded as a useful tool for comparing the environmental impacts of multiple livestock production systems. While LCA results are typically communicated in the form of environmental burdens per mass unit of the end product, it is increasingly becoming recognized that the product quality also needs to be accounted for to truly understand the value of a farming system to society. To date, a number of studies have examined environmental consequences of different food consumption patterns at the diet level; however, few have addressed nutritional variations of a single commodity attributable to production systems, leaving limited insight into how on‐farm practices can be improved to better balance environment and human nutrition. Using data from seven livestock production systems encompassing cattle, sheep, pigs, and poultry, this paper proposes a novel framework to incorporate nutritional value of meat products into livestock LCA. The results of quantitative case studies demonstrate that relative emissions intensities associated with different systems can be dramatically altered when the nutrient content of meat replaces the mass of meat as the functional unit, with cattle systems outperforming pig and poultry systems in some cases. This finding suggests that the performance of livestock systems should be evaluated under a whole supply chain approach, whereby end products originating from different farm management strategies are treated as competing but separate commodities.

Production of pork, the most consumed meat globally, is estimated to emit 668 m tonnes CO2-eq of greenhouse gases each year. Amongst various production systems that comprise the pig industry, grain-based intensive production is widely regarded as the largest polluter of the environment, and thus it is imperative to develop alternative systems that can provide the right balance between sustainability and food security. Using an original dataset from the Republic of Ireland, this paper examines the life-cycle environmental impacts of representative pig farms operating under varying production efficiencies. For the baseline farm with an average production efficiency, global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP) and eutrophication potential (EP) per kg carcass weight departing the slaughterhouse were estimated to be 3.5 kg CO2-eq, 43.8 g SO2-eq and 32.1 g PO4-eq, respectively. For herds with a higher production efficiency, a 9% improvement in feed conversion ratio was met by 6%, 15% and 12% decreases in GWP, EP, AP, respectively. Scenario and sensitivity analyses also revealed that (a) a switch to high-protein diets results in lower GWP and higher AP and EP, and (b) reducing transportation distances by sourcing domestically produced wheat and barley does not lower environmental impacts in any notable manner. To improve cross-study comparability of these findings, results based on an auxiliary functional unit, kg liveweight departing the farm gate, are also reported.

For livestock production systems to play a positive role in global food security, the balance between their benefits and disbenefits to society must be appropriately managed. Based on the evidence provided by field-scale randomised controlled trials around the world, this debate has traditionally centred on the concept of economic-environmental trade-offs, of which existence is theoretically assured when resource allocation is perfect on the farm. Recent research conducted on commercial farms indicates, however, that the economic-environmental nexus is not nearly as straightforward in the real world, with environmental performances of enterprises often positively correlated with their economic profitability. Using high-resolution primary data from the North Wyke Farm Platform, an intensively instrumented farm-scale ruminant research facility located in southwest United Kingdom, this paper proposes a novel, information-driven approach to carry out comprehensive assessments of economic-environmental trade-offs inherent within pasture-based cattle and sheep production systems. The results of a data-mining exercise suggest that a potentially systematic interaction exists between 'soil health', ecological surroundings and livestock grazing, whereby a higher level of soil organic carbon (SOC) stock is associated with a better animal performance and less nutrient losses into watercourses, and a higher stocking density with greater botanical diversity and elevated SOC. We contend that a combination of farming system-wide trials and environmental instrumentation provides an ideal setting for enrolling scientifically sound and biologically informative metrics for agricultural sustainability, through which agricultural producers could obtain guidance to manage soils, water, pasture and livestock in an economically and environmentally acceptable manner. Priority areas for future farm-scale research to ensure long-term sustainability are also discussed.

The role of beef in human diets has been questioned over the last few decades, due largely to its typically high mass-based carbon footprint. However, recent advancements in sustainability literature challenge this paradigm based on the new theory that climate impacts of food commodities should be measured relative to their overall nutritional value rather than their nominal mass. This shift has opened a new opportunity for the global beef industry, and especially for pasture-based systems that can avoid food-feed competition for land and other resources, as beef is a nutritionally dense food. Nonetheless, the sector’s true capability to supply a wide range of nutrients for humans, consistently across multiple systems under multiple weather patterns, has not been well-documented. Using whole-system datasets from the North Wyke Farm Platform in the South West of England, we investigated the nutritional value of beef produced from the three most common pasture systems in temperate regions: permanent pasture ( PP ), grass and white clover ( GWC ) and a short-term monoculture grass ley ( MG ). Beef produced from these three pasture systems was analysed for key nutrients (fatty acids, minerals and vitamin E) over three production cycles (2015–2017) to determine potential differences between systems. Fatty acid, mineral and vitamin E profiles of the pasture and silage fed to each group were also assessed, with subtle differences between pastures reported. For beef, subtle differences were also observed between systems, with GWC having higher omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid ( PUFA ) concentrations than PP and MG. However, the overall nutritional quality of beef was found to be largely comparable across all systems, suggesting that temperate pasture-based beef can be classified as a single commodity in future sustainability assessments, regardless of specific sward types. A 100 g serving of temperate pasture-based beef was found to be a high source (>20% recommended daily intake: RDI ) of protein, monounsaturated fatty acids, saturated fatty acids, vitamins – B2, B3, B12 and minerals – Fe, P, Zn; a good source (10–19% RDI) of vitamin – B6 and mineral – K; and a complementary source (5–9% RDI) of omega-3 PUFA, vitamin – B9 and minerals – Cu, Mg, Se. The nutritional value of a food item should be used in defining its environmental cost (e.g. carbon footprint) to make fair comparisons across different food groups (e.g. protein sources). Here, we showed that pasture-based beef had a nutrient indexed carbon footprint of between 0.19 and 0.23 Kg CO2-eq/1% RDI of key nutrients.

Reductionist approaches to food focus on isolated nutritional criteria, ignoring the broader physiological and societal benefits and trade-offs involved. They can lead to the inadvertent or, potentially, intentional labelling of foods as good or bad. Both can be considered worrisome. Among our present-day array of issues is the disproportionate stigmatisation of animal-source foods as harmful for human and planetary health. The case for a protein transition reinforces this trend, overemphasising one particular nutritional constituent (even if an important one). In its strongest formulation, animal-source foods (reduced to the notion of ‘animal protein’) are represented as an intrinsically harmful food category that needs to be minimised, thereby falsely assuming that ‘proteins’ are nutritionally interchangeable. We caution against using the word ‘protein’ in food policy-making to describe a heterogenous set of foods. Rather, we suggest referring to said foods as ‘protein-rich foods’, while acknowledging the expanded pool of non-protein nutrients that they provide and their unique capabilities to support a much broader range of bodily functions. Several essential or otherwise beneficial nutrients are generally more bioavailable in animal-source foods than in plant-source foods. A similar complementarity exists in reverse. Nutritional and environmental metrics should be carefully interpreted, as considerable contextuality is involved. This needs to be undertaken, for instance, with respect to the biochemistry of food and in light of individual and genetically inherited human physiology. Also, the assessments of the environmental impact need a fine-grained approach, especially when examining a product at the system scale. Harms and benefits are multiple, multi-dimensional, and difficult to measure on the basis of the narrow sets of descriptive metrics that are often used (e.g. CO2-eq/kg). A more appropriate way forward would consist of combining and integrating the best of animal and plant solutions to reconnect with wholesome and nourishing diets that are rooted in undervalued benefits such as conviviality and shared traditions, thus steering away from a nutrient-centric dogma. Humans do not consume isolated nutrients, they consume foods, and they do so as part of culturally complex dietary patterns that, despite their complexity, need to be carefully considered in food policy making.