Environmental impact of a cereal-based intensive beef fattening system according to a partial Life Cycle Assessment approach

Berton, Marco; Cesaro, Giacomo; Gallo, Luigi; Pirlo, G.; Ramanzin, Maurizio; Tagliapietra, Franco; Sturaro, Enrico

doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2016.06.007

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This system integrates the extensive suckler cow-calf farms of the French Massif Central, which provide stock calves, with the intensive beef herds of northern Italy, where imported stock calves are finished using total mixed rations based on maize silage and concentrates (Cozzi 2007;Gallo et al 2014). In a previous research published by our group, aiming to assess the environmental impact of this beef system (Berton et al 2016), we found a notable variation in different impact categories. In order to contribute to the understanding of such variability, the aim of this study was to assess the effects of beef category (genetic line Â gender) and dietrelated factors on the environmental impact of the north-eastern Italy beef fattening system computed according to a partial LCA method.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…a group of animals homogenous for genetic type, sex, origin, fattening farm and finishing period) involving 15,614 beef bulls and heifers (64 ± 34 heads per batch on average) reared in 17 fattening farms in north-eastern Italy during 2014. The methodology developed in this study improves the approach used in Berton et al (2016). To study the sources of variation affecting the impact categories values, a new database was collected and considered, and, for each batch, an accurate monthly recording of the ingredient and chemical composition of the diets was performed.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Partial LCA structure and computation of the impacts The partial LCA model was derived from that used by Berton et al (2016). The reference unit for computing the environmental impact was the batch and, within each batch, 1 kg BWG was taken as the functional unit.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Ecoinvent and Agri-footprint databases were also used to derive the impact factors for computing the impact due to the off-farm inputs and related background processes. The origin and transport of soybean meal, maize by-products and sugar beet by-products were supposed equal to those described by Berton et al (2016). All the single pollutant emissions computed for GWP, AP and EP were aggregated into the common unit of each impact category by using the conversion factors adopted in Berton et al (2016).…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Sources of variation of the environmental impact of cereal-based intensive beef finishing herds

Berton

Cesaro

Gallo

et al. 2018

Italian Journal of Animal Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to investigate the effect of beef category, feedstuffs self-sufficiency (SELF), crude protein (CPI) and phosphorus (PI) daily intake on the environmental impact of the beef fattening system typical of north-eastern Italy according to a partial Life Cycle Assessment. The reference unit was the batch (group of animals homogeneous for genotype, sex, fattening farm, finishing period). The study involved 245 batches (64 ± 34 heads) herded in 17 fattening farms. The system boundaries were set from animals arrival at the fattening farm to the sale to the slaughterhouse. The functional unit was 1 kg BW gain (BWG). Data on animal performance and farm input were collected for each batch and farm, respectively. Data on feed intake, ingredient formulation and chemical composition of diets were monthly collected for each batch. Impact categories assessed were (mean ± SD per kg BWG in brackets): global warming (8.8 ± 1.6 kg CO 2 -eq), acidification (142 ± 22 g SO 2 -eq) and eutrophication (55 ± 8 g PO 4 -eq) potentials, cumulative energy demand (53 ± 18 MJ), land occupation (7.9 ± 1.2 m 2 /year). Beef category and SELF, CPI and PI classes significantly affected all the impact categories, with lower values observed with decreasing values of CPI and PI and increasing values of SELF as well as more productive beef categories. This study evidences that beef category and diet-related factors affect the environmental impact of cereal-based intensive beef finishing herds. In conclusion, there is space to develop mitigation strategies based on enhancing the self-sufficiency rate of the diet and lowering the daily intake of crude protein and phosphorus.ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sources of variation of the environmental impact of cereal-based intensive beef finishing herds

Berton

Cesaro

Gallo

et al. 2018

Italian Journal of Animal Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The CAP'2ER LCA model was chosen for French farms for similar reasons. Although tools are available to quantify the main environmental categories of Italian beef systems (e.g., Berton et al, 2016), CAP'2ER was chosen for Italy in order to use a consistent approach to link commercial French suckler to weaning systems to Italian finishing systems (Gac and Boselli, 2014). Furthermore, research by Boselli et al (2015) and Berton et al (2017) demonstrated it was suitable to use for common commercial Italian beef systems.…”

Section: Selection Of Beef Modelling Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

LIFE BEEF CARBON: a common framework for quantifying grass and corn based beef farms’ carbon footprints

O’Brien

Herron

Andurand

et al. 2020

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Europe’s roadmap to a low-carbon economy aims to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Beef production is an important source of GHG emissions and is expected to increase as the world population grows. LIFE BEEF CARBON is a voluntary European initiative that aims to reduce GHG emissions per unit of beef (carbon footprint) by 15% over a 10-year period on 2172 farms in four large beef-producing countries. Changes in farms beef carbon footprint are normally estimated via simulation modelling, but the methods current models apply differ. Thus, our initial goal was to develop a common modelling framework to estimate beef farms carbon footprint. The framework was developed for a diverse set of Western Europe farms located in Ireland, Spain, Italy and France. Whole farm and life cycle assessment (LCA) models were selected to quantify emissions for the different production contexts and harmonized. Carbon Audit was chosen for Ireland, Bovid-CO2 for Spain and CAP’2ER for France and Italy. All models were tested using 20 case study farms, that is, 5 per country and quantified GHG emissions associated with on-farm live weight gain. The comparison showed the ranking of beef systems gross carbon footprint was consistent across the three models. Suckler to weaning or store systems generally had the highest carbon footprint followed by suckler to beef systems and fattening beef systems. When applied to the same farm, Carbon Audit’s footprint estimates were slightly lower than CAP’2ER, but marginally higher than Bovid-CO2. These differences occurred because the models were adapted to a specific region’s production circumstances, which meant their emission factors for key sources; that is, methane from enteric fermentation and GHG emissions from concentrates were less accurate when used outside their target region. Thus, for the common modelling framework, region-specific LCA models were chosen to estimate beef carbon footprints instead of a single generic model. Additionally, the Carbon Audit and Bovid-CO2 models were updated to include carbon removal by soil and other environmental metrics included in CAP’2ER, for example, acidification. This allows all models to assess the effect carbon mitigation strategies have on other potential pollutants. Several options were identified to reduce beef farms carbon footprint, for example, improving genetic merit. These options were assessed for beef systems, and a mitigation plan was created by each nation. The cumulative mitigation effect of the LIFE BEEF CARBON plan was estimated to exceed the projects reduction target (−15%).

show abstract

Trade-offs between higher productivity and lower environmental impacts for biodiversity-friendly and conventional cattle-oriented systems

Mondière,

Corson,

Auberger

et al. 2024

Agricultural Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental impact of a cereal-based intensive beef fattening system according to a partial Life Cycle Assessment approach

Cited by 10 publications

References 24 publications

Sources of variation of the environmental impact of cereal-based intensive beef finishing herds

Sources of variation of the environmental impact of cereal-based intensive beef finishing herds

LIFE BEEF CARBON: a common framework for quantifying grass and corn based beef farms’ carbon footprints

Trade-offs between higher productivity and lower environmental impacts for biodiversity-friendly and conventional cattle-oriented systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About