Evaluating environmental impacts of the Japanese beef cow–calf system by the life cycle assessment method

Ogino, Akifumi; Orito, Hideki; Shimada, Kazuhiro; Hirooka, Hiroyuki

doi:10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00457.x

Cited by 124 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although there is a less soil erosion in the IS due to the control of the animal's permanence in the paddocks and forage supply, there is decrease in soil cover and increased the potential losses of nutrients in the ES from the continuous selective grazing. The values obtained in this category (0.0028 and 0.0038 kg SO 2 eq/kg LWG for the ES and the IS, respectively) are different to the values found by Ogino et al (2007) in Japan (0.248 kg SO 2 eq/kg LWG), and by Nguyen et al (2010) in the EU (210 g SO 2 eq/kg HSCW, which corresponds to approximately 0.1 kg SO 2 eq/kg LWG). The appreciation of these relationships should consider the greater degree of intensity of the systems studied by these authors.…”

Section: Terrestrial Acidification and Freshwater Eutrophicationmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…GHG emissions Beef production (kg) GHG intensity (kg CO 2 eq/kg) 32%e42% (Weiss and Leip, 2012), 48.16% (Mc Geough et al, 2012), and 61.2% (Ogino et al, 2007) of the total emissions, respectively. The lower fraction of enteric emissions obtained by these authors is due to the greater contribution of emissions from manure management and animal production with large amounts of concentrates.…”

Section: Global Warmingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The impact categories and environmental indicators were selected for their demonstrated relevance in similar studies by other authors (Haas et al, 2001;Ogino et al, 2007) and as suggested by international institutions to be used in ACV studies (Consoli, 1993;ISO14044, 2006). Although the Recipe method enabled the evaluation of 18 impact categories, the emphasis of this study was on: global warming (kg CO 2 eq), land occupation (m 2 a), terrestrial acidification (kg SO 2 eq), freshwater eutrophication (kg P eq), and depletion of freshwater (m 3 ), metal (kg Fe eq) and fossil (kg oil eq).…”

Section: Environmental Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To evaluate production systems based on these principles, the life cycle assessment method (LCA) can be used, due to amplitude with respect to categories and indicators of environmental impact, global spread, and scope (Goedkoop et al, 2009). Some works have applied LCA on different beef production systems (Beauchemin et al, 2010;Nguyen et al, 2010;Ogino et al, 2007Ogino et al, , 2004 or scenarios (Beauchemin et al, 2011). Factors such as the geography and the adopted time scale (Casey and Holden, 2006) punctuate the flexibility of this analysis and the care necessary for interpretation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Life cycle assessment of beef cattle production in two typical grassland systems of southern Brazil

Dick

Silva

Dewes

2015

Journal of Cleaner Production

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe importance of animal production in the overall context of human activity is undisputed and influences food supply, job security, income producing, as well as landscape and local ecosystems conservation. This relevance enhances the charges by society as the environmental impacts of various activities, especially in relation to ruminant production amid the current problems of climate changes. In this context, we analyzed the main environmental impacts of two typical beef cattle production systems from southern Brazil, namely the extensive system (ES) and the improved system (IS), and identified the components that have the greatest environmental impacts using the life cycle assessment method. The basis of the system construction was a cattle herd that originated from 100 weaned heifers, four weaned calves, and the progeny of these cattle during their productive life (12 years), and the land areas, external inputs, and other natural resources and technologies necessary to the operations. The functional unit was the production of 1 kg of live weight. The values of greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and freshwater depletion in the ES were higher compared with those values obtained for the IS (22.52 and 9.16 kg CO 2 equivalents; 234.78 and 21.03 m 2 a; and 0.217 and 0.0949 m 3 , respectively). These variations were attributed to the permanence time of the animals in each system and to the quality and production of the pastures. The ES presented lower potential impacts than the IS on metal depletion and soil acidification (0.000519 and 0.0536 kg Fe equivalents; and 0.0028 and 0.0038 kg SO 2 equivalents, respectively) mainly due to the pasture improvement practices and the salt supply to the animals. Moreover, the values of freshwater eutrophication and fossil depletion were higher in the ES than in the IS (0.00383 and 0.00219 kg P equivalents and 0.0042 and À0.1255 kg oil equivalents, respectively). While the pasture nutrient loss from runoff and leaching defined the values of eutrophication, the introduction of legumes compensates the use of fossil fuels. The diversity of the results provides a better understanding of the environmental impacts of different production systems and of regional singularities.

show abstract

Section: Terrestrial Acidification and Freshwater Eutrophicationmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Global Warmingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Environmental Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Life cycle assessment of beef cattle production in two typical grassland systems of southern Brazil

Dick

Silva

Dewes

2015

Journal of Cleaner Production

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The contribution of these three gases to the different activities involved in livestock farming has been estimated using the life cycle assessment method. It has been reported that enteric CH 4 is the most important GHG emitted (50% to 60%), at the farm scale, in ruminant production systems (Ogino et al, 2007). Methane represents also a significant energy loss to the animal ranging from 2% to 12% of gross energy (GE) intake (Johnson and Johnson, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale

Martin

Morgavi

Doreau

2010

Animal

736

699

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decreasing enteric methane (CH 4 ) emissions from ruminants without altering animal production is desirable both as a strategy to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and as a means of improving feed conversion efficiency. The aim of this paper is to provide an update on a selection of proved and potential strategies to mitigate enteric CH 4 production by ruminants. Various biotechnologies are currently being explored with mixed results. Approaches to control methanogens through vaccination or the use of bacteriocins highlight the difficulty to modulate the rumen microbial ecosystem durably. The use of probiotics, i.e. acetogens and live yeasts, remains a potentially interesting approach, but results have been either unsatisfactory, not conclusive, or have yet to be confirmed in vivo. Elimination of the rumen protozoa to mitigate methanogenesis is promising, but this option should be carefully evaluated in terms of livestock performances. In addition, on-farm defaunation techniques are not available up to now. Several feed additives such as ionophores, organic acids and plant extracts have also been assayed. The potential use of plant extracts to reduce CH 4 is receiving a renewed interest as they are seen as a natural alternative to chemical additives and are well perceived by consumers. The response to tannin-and saponincontaining plant extracts is highly variable and more research is needed to assess the effectiveness and eventual presence of undesirable residues in animal products. Nutritional strategies to mitigate CH 4 emissions from ruminants are, without doubt, the most developed and ready to be applied in the field. Approaches presented in this paper involve interventions on the nature and amount of energy-based concentrates and forages, which constitute the main component of diets as well as the use of lipid supplements. The possible selection of animals based on low CH 4 production and more likely on their high efficiency of digestive processes is also addressed. Whatever the approach proposed, however, before practical solutions are applied in the field, the sustainability of CH 4 suppressing strategies is an important issue that has to be considered. The evaluation of different strategies, in terms of total GHG emissions for a given production system, is discussed.Keywords: methane, greenhouse gases, ruminant, mitigation strategies Implications Methane (CH 4 ) mitigation in ruminants is possible through various strategies. Today, the feeding management approach is the most developed. Other strategies (biotechnologies, additives) are promising but the diversity and plasticity of functions of the rumen bacterial and methanogenic communities may be a limiting factor for their successful application. A possible selection of animals on CH 4 production and more likely on digestive processes is evocated. In any case, before practical solutions are proposed for field application more research in vivo is needed. The sustainability of CH 4 -suppressing strategies is also an important issue and they mi...

show abstract