Impacts of European livestock production: nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus and greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, water eutrophication and biodiversity

Abstract

Livestock production systems currently occupy around 28% of the land surface of the European Union (equivalent to 65% of the agricultural land). In conjunction with other human activities, livestock production systems affect water, air and soil quality, global climate and biodiversity, altering the biogeochemical cycles of nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon. Here, we quantify the contribution of European livestock production to these major impacts. For each environmental effect, the contribution of livestock is expressed as shares of the emitted compounds and land used, as compared to the whole agricultural sector. The results show that the livestock sector contributes significantly to agricultural environmental impacts. This contribution is 78% for terrestrial biodiversity loss, 80% for soil acidification and air pollution (ammonia and nitrogen oxides emissions), 81% for global warming, and 73% for water pollution (both N and P). The agriculture sector itself is one of the major contributors to these environmental impacts, ranging between 12% for global warming and 59% for N water quality impact. Significant progress in mitigating these environmental impacts in Europe will only be possible through a combination of technological measures reducing livestock emissions, improved food choices and reduced food waste of European citizens.

Framework for life cycle assessment of livestock production systems to account for the nutritional quality of final products

“…(2016), whereby endpoint impacts on health and environmental were concomitantly quantified, has paved the way to implement this concept. Finally, it should also be noted that GWP is one of many aspects of sustainability (Takahashi et al., 2018); in order to achieve a truly holistic comparison of livestock systems, a suite of metrics should collectively be considered, including those representing animal welfare (Edgar, Mullan, Pritchard, McFarlane, & Main, 2013), land use (Wilkinson & Lee, 2017), and water quality (Leip et al., 2015), to name a few.…”

Declining spatial efficiency of global cropland nitrogen allocation

“…While a host of policies can promote more spatially efficient configurations of N use, there would be both benefits and drawbacks to such actions. Increasing NUE in global croplands should be accompanied by efforts to reduce N pollution through improved livestock management, reductions in food waste, and dietary change Westhoek et al, 2014;Leip et al, 2015;Lassaletta et al, 2016].…”

Hotspots analysis and critical interpretation of food life cycle assessment studies for selecting eco-innovation options and for policy support

“…Audsley and Wilkinson, 2014;Leip et al, 2014Leip et al, , 2015Smill, 2002). Those impacts are only partially captured by LCA: e.g., they are not assessed in the resource depletion impact category and only partially accounted for eutrophication (which in the case of BoP nutrition is mainly driven by the emissions of nutrients in sewage from human excretion).…”