ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Quick View

OR SEARCH CITATIONS

My Activity
Publications
CONTENT TYPES

Figure 1Loading Img
Download Hi-Res ImageDownload to MS-PowerPointCite This:Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 9, 5133-5142
RETURN TO ISSUEPREVArticleNEXT

Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of the German Meat Supply Chain

  • Li Xue
    Li Xue
    Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100101 Beijing, P. R. China
    SDU Life Cycle Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Environmental Technology, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense, Denmark
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100049 Beijing, P. R. China
    More by Li Xue
    Orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-6802-6034
  • , 
  • Neele Prass
    Neele Prass
    SDU Life Cycle Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Environmental Technology, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense, Denmark
    More by Neele Prass
  • , 
  • Sebastian Gollnow
    Sebastian Gollnow
    University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Department of Water-Atmosphere-Environment, Institute of Waste Management, 1190 Vienna, Austria
    More by Sebastian Gollnow
  • , 
  • Jennifer Davis
    Jennifer Davis
    RISE Agrifood and Bioscience, SE 402 29 Gothenburg, Sweden
    More by Jennifer Davis
  • , 
  • Silvia Scherhaufer
    Silvia Scherhaufer
    University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Department of Water-Atmosphere-Environment, Institute of Waste Management, 1190 Vienna, Austria
    More by Silvia Scherhaufer
  • , 
  • Karin Östergren
    Karin Östergren
    RISE Agrifood and Bioscience, SE 402 29 Gothenburg, Sweden
    More by Karin Östergren
  • , 
  • Shengkui Cheng
    Shengkui Cheng
    Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100101 Beijing, P. R. China
    More by Shengkui Cheng
  • , and 
  • Gang Liu*
    Gang Liu
    SDU Life Cycle Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Environmental Technology, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense, Denmark
    *Phone: +45-65009441; e-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
    More by Gang Liu
    Orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-7613-1985
Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 9, 5133–5142
Publication Date (Web):April 10, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06079

Copyright © 2019 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Request reuse permissions
  • Open Access

Article Views

10750

Altmetric

-

Citations

36
LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
PDF (4 MB)
Get e-Alerts
Supporting Info (1)»
SUBJECTS:

Abstract

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide

Meat production and consumption contribute significantly to environmental impacts such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These emissions can be reduced via various strategies ranging from production efficiency improvement to process optimization, food waste reduction, trade pattern change, and diet structure change. On the basis of a material flow analysis approach, we mapped the dry matter mass and energy balance of the meat (including beef, pork, and poultry) supply chain in Germany and discussed the emission reduction potential of different mitigation strategies in an integrated and mass-balance consistent framework. Our results reaffirmed the low energy conversion efficiency of the meat supply chain (among which beef was the least efficient) and the high GHG emissions at the meat production stage. While diet structure change (either reducing the meat consumption or substituting meat by edible offal) showed the highest emissions reduction potential, eliminating meat waste in retailing and consumption and byproducts generation in slaughtering and processing were found to have profound effect on emissions reduction as well. The rendering of meat byproducts and waste treatment were modeled in detail, adding up to a net environmental benefit of about 5% of the entire supply chain GHG emissions. The combined effects based on assumed high levels of changes of important mitigation strategies, in a rank order considering the level of difficulty of implementation, showed that the total emission could be reduced by 43% comparing to the current level, implying a tremendous opportunity for sustainably feeding the planet by 2050.

 Note

This article originally published with a missing reference and incorrect references in the Supporting Information file. The corrected article published April 11, 2019.

1. Introduction

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To
The past decades have witnessed an increase of meat production by 15.8% between 1990 and 2016 in the European Union (EU 28), and this increase is expected to continue until 2025. (1) The meat consumption in EU 28, on a per capita level, will increase from 63.4 kg in 2010 to 65.8 kg in 2020. (2) Such a growing trend of meat consumption leads to aggravated environmental burdens of the animal production sector, (3) because meat production requires more natural resources (land, water, and energy) and emits more greenhouse gases (GHGs) than grain-based food. (4,5)
For example, the animal production sector occupies about 65% of the arable agricultural land in Europe, (6) and also contributes to about 12–17% of the total EU-27 GHG emissions. (7,8) While methane from enteric fermentation is the main source (9−13) (approximately 65% of the total GHG emissions, with a time horizon of 100 years, of this sector (14)), methane and N2O emissions from manure management also contribute significantly with about 10%–18% of the sector’s total emissions. (10,15−17) Although the GHG emissions from animal production in total declined by over 20% from 1990 to 2007 in the EU, (18) mainly due to the collapse in Eastern Europe, the establishment of the milk quota, and the implementation of the Nitrates Directive and consequent reduction in use of nitrogen fertilizer, (19) further reduction of GHG emissions in this sector would still be important for EU’s ambitious climate target in an increasing climate constraint future.
The environmental impacts of the animal production sector could be mitigated via different approaches throughout the meat production and consumption chain.

  • On the production side, GHG emissions can be mitigated through improved animal productivity, reduced enteric methane production through adapted breeding and feeding, covering of manure stores, (20) as well as limiting manure application rates to plant requirements (21,22) and local conditions. (21)

  • From a consumption perspective, dietary change would have great effect on the reduction of GHG emissions. (23) For example, it was reported that a potential GHG reduction of 25% per capita in the UK could be achieved by shifting the current U.K.-average diet to the vegetarian diet (replacing meat by plant-based alternatives). (24) Hallström et al. (2015) (25) came to a similar conclusion based on a review of the sustainable food consumption literature.

  • In addition, reducing meat loss and waste is often considered as a strategy to help reduce GHG emissions as well because food waste leads to both indirect embedded emissions in production, processing, distribution, and consumption, as well as direct emissions in waste disposal. (26) However, such a whole chain efficiency of meat production and consumption and meat waste related GHG emissions reduction potentials have been less understood and characterized in the literature. (27,28) It was reported that meat waste related GHG emissions were estimated to be as high as 186 Mt CO2-eq in Europe, or nearly 16% of the entire food supply chain emissions. (29)

Germany is the most populated country in Europe, with a population of 81.7 million in 2015. (30) Germany was ranked 23rd in meat consumption per capita (87.5 kg) in the world in 2013, more than double of the world’s average (41.9 kg/cap). (31) This number has stagnated in the past decade (2005–2016), but the consumption structure has changed: per capita consumption of beef and poultry have increased by 14.6% and 18.1%, respectively, while that of pork has decreased by 8.6%. To meet the huge demand of meat and meat products, 55% of the agricultural land in Germany is used for cereal cultivation, and in the total cereals production about 57.4% is used for feeding cows, pigs, and chickens. (32) Germany has become the biggest producer of meat (18.3% of total production) in the EU in 2016. (33) Meanwhile, Germany is also experiencing a high level of food loss and food waste along the entire food supply chain (about 18 Mt), accounting for almost one-third of the current food consumption. (34) Households make up the largest share of food waste with 61%. (35) While the major types of food waste in household are vegetables, fruits, and cereals, meat does present 11.8% of the total food waste. (36)
Policies and regulations have been implemented at both the EU and Member States level for the management and treatment for food waste. For example, Regulation (EC) 1069/2009 and Commission Regulation (EU) 142/2011 of the European Parliament address specifically animal waste or animal byproducts treatment, (37) and the EU Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) (38) has laid down a five-step waste hierarchy on biowaste management. Recently, in line with the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Target 12.3 set by the United Nations, (39) the revised EU Waste Framework Directive (2018/851/EC) calls on Member States to reduce food waste along the food supply chain. (40) In Germany, the national Waste Management Act (KrWG) was enacted in 2012, which requires that biowaste should be collected separately from January 1, 2015 for circular economy promotion. (41) The Biowaste Ordinance (2017) (42) also regulates the collection and treatment of biowaste in more detail.
In this work, using Germany as an example, we aim to map the efficiency of a national whole meat supply chain and inform its decarbonization strategies. Such a mapping could add value to the literature because most existing studies (43) on food loss and waste quantification (including for Germany) concentrate on individual stages only (mainly households (44,45)) and only a few studies have covered the whole agrifood supply chain or provide a higher resolution of insights on a specific product. This would also enable an integrated analysis of the environmental impacts of different types of mitigation strategies, such as process and technology efficiency, waste reduction and valorization, trade pattern change, and dietary shift, and thus inform future policy making in climate change mitigation of the animal production and meat processing sector.

2. Materials and Methods

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

2.1. System Definition

2.1.1. Meat Categories and Meat Supply Chain

Three major categories of meat products were included: beef, pork, and poultry (including chicken, turkey, duck, and goose). We used a Material Flow Analysis (MFA) approach to quantify the dry matter (DM) balance of meat and meat products, which includes animal production, slaughtering, processing, retailing, consumption, trade of animal and meat products, and byproducts rendering and waste management (Figure 1). Specifically, various byproducts and waste treatment routes were considered, such as composting, incineration, biogas production, biodiesel production, industry use (e.g., soap and pharmaceuticals production), animal feeding, and food use (e.g., edible animal fat like lard used as a frying agent).

Figure 1

Figure 1. System definition of the German meat supply chain and its associated energy use and emissions.

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide

2.1.2. Energy and Emission Accounting Framework

The energy layer was then additionally calculated based on the mass layer, containing both the gross energy of biomass itself and the process energy (PE) used to process the goods (e.g., fossil fuel and electricity). Further, the emissions layer encompasses the consequent GHG emissions along the meat supply chain, which includes all emissions from animal production (those related to feed production, enteric fermentation, manure management, N2O emission, fertilizer production, and cultivation of organic soils) and related to process energy use in other stages. The trade-embodied emissions for live animals and meat products were calculated by considering the production and processing emission intensity of the trading countries. Due to lack of data and large variation for animals as well as meat products, energy use for transportation and related emissions in all stages were not considered; nor were packaging-related emissions in the meat processing accounted.
There are two types of emission accounting approaches, depending on how the international trade of live animals and meat products was considered. A territory-based accounting includes emissions occurring within the German national boundary only, while a consumption-based accounting encompasses emissions from domestic final consumption of meat, and thus those caused by the production of its imports elsewhere. We have tested both accounting approaches in our analysis. The consumption-based emissions were presented in our results aiming to reveal the efficiency of the meat supply chain and explore mitigation options linked to consumption. The territory-based accounting results were detailed in the Supporting Information (SI) section 5.4.

2.1.3. Definition of Meat Byproducts and Waste

Byproducts in the meat supply chain include edible materials such as tongue, edible fats, and casings, as well as hides/skins and other nonfood materials. In recent years, especially because of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the value of byproducts has reduced substantially and much of the material previously used is now disposed of as waste, such as incineration. (46)
The animal byproducts industry handles all the raw materials that are not directly destined for human consumption. The Regulation (EC) 1069/2009 and Commission Regulation (EU) 142/2011 of the European Parliament govern the use and disposal routes permitted. (37) Animal byproducts are divided into three categories according to the level of their risk. Category 1 byproducts (Cat 1) refer to materials of high risk, while Category 2 byproducts (Cat 2) and Category 3 byproducts (Cat 3) are with medium and lease risk, respectively. (37,47) It is assumed that edible animal fat (EAF) is a part of Cat 3. The categorization determines the processing and possible utilization options for the material. The detailed definition of byproducts is in SI section 1.
According to these risk levels-based categories of meat byproducts, we assumed that animal byproducts occurred at the production, slaughtering, and processing stages. All dead cattle bodies (in rearing) are classified as Cat 1, and dead pig, chicken, turkey, duck, and goose are considered as Cat 2. The slaughtering stage covers all the three categories, and the meat processing stage generates only Cat 3 of animal byproducts (SI Figure S1).
In addition, meat waste refers to meat discarded or spoiled during the retailing and consumption stages due to expiration, negligence, and other stakeholder or consumer behaviors. It is assumed that such kinds of meat waste are collected by the municipal waste management associations and thus further treated by either incineration, composting, or anaerobic digestion.

2.2. Data Collection and Model Quantification

The dry matter (DM) balance and related energy and emissions of the whole system were calculated based on the MFA principles. Primary data were collected from German statistical databases (e.g., Statista), industry reports, and scientific articles. Several federal organizations associated with agriculture processes (e.g., Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture, BMEL), biodegradable waste, and food waste were targeted. The reference year for data collection is 2016.
The starting point of the mass flow analysis was animal production in live weight equivalent, which was calculated based on the carcass weight data obtained from BMEL (SI Table S4). Two markets (live animals and meat products) and corresponding import and export flows were quantified based on trade statistics. The three categories of animal byproducts processed into protein and fat for various further uses were calculated by transfer coefficients. The energy within the mass was calculated based on their corresponding energy coefficients (caloric value). The data sources and calculation processes are detailed in the SI Sections 2.1 (mass) and 2.2 (energy).
The GHG emissions from each stage were calculated based on emission factors of meat reported in the literature. The environmental impacts and benefits of rendering byproducts and meat waste treatment were also considered. For food (mainly EAF can be produced from byproducts Cat 3), feed, biodiesel production, and composting, the substitution of palm oil, soymeal, fossil fuel, and fertilizer, respectively, were modeled. We replaced palm oil based on the caloric content, while soymeal based on the protein content since for feeding energy more local feed can be used than soymeal, such as cereals, grass, potatoes, associated with lower emissions. The efficiency of food and feed production was assumed at 33%. (48) For incineration and biogas production, heat and electricity substitution were considered. More details on emission accounting can be found in the SI Section 2.3.

2.3. Scenarios Development

Different scenarios were developed to quantitatively investigate the emission reduction potentials of different mitigation strategies. These strategies were grouped into five categories as elaborated below:

2.3.1. Production Efficiency

The reduction of GHG emission intensity of production could be achieved, for example, by increasing the efficiency of animal feed production. Previous estimate shows that emissions could be reduced by 17% with improved manure management and energy saving equipment, (9) thus scenarios were set for a decreased production emission intensity of 5%, 10%, and 20%.

2.3.2. Process Optimization

Improving the process efficiency in meat slaughtering and processing would mean less meat cut off and byproduct generation. The technology efficiency improvement in, for example, cooling could reduce process energy. According to BMEL, (49) the process energy used in the meat processing sector has already decreased by 16.5% between 2006 and 2015. A reduction potential of 5%, 10%, and 20% of energy use was assumed.

2.3.3. Food Waste Reduction

The reduction of avoidable food waste (partly consumed and entirely uneaten food) is already targeted by national food waste prevention campaigns and EU regulations (e.g., the adoption of SDG Target 12.3). If meat can be prevented from being wasted at the consumer stage, then less meat needs to be produced. The reduction of meat waste was also considered to take place in the retailing stage. It was assumed that a maximum of 50% of edible meat waste in households, food services, and retailing can be reduced, because it is reported that approximately 50% of food waste at households is avoidable. (50)

2.3.4. Trade Pattern Change

Trade patterns matter for emissions of the German meat supply chain, especially with the consumption-based accounting approach, because of the varying emission intensity in different countries. The import and export change scenarios were developed individually (The import remains unchanged when reducing or halting export of live animals or meat products, and vice versa.): For import change scenarios we considered the import of live animals and meat products from the top 3 GHG emission partners and their corresponding GHG emission intensities; for export scenarios we considered the export of these products to non-EU 28 countries (decreased export would lead to less meat produced domestically), but the substitutes of the reduced imports (would lead to more meat produced in Germany) from these countries were not considered.

2.3.5. Diet Structure Change

Three types of dietary change were considered: (i) The first one was a diet with less meat consumption. As the study aims to address a consumption-based approach (the mass of meat consumption stays the same in all scenarios), the reduced meat consumption needs to be replaced by other protein sources. We selected soybeans and nuts as the substitute (while keeping the energy intake constant) and considered their whole life cycle GHG emissions. The consumption structure, energy equivalent of soybean and nuts, and emission intensity data were detailed in the SI Table S34. (ii) The second one was substituting beef by pork and poultry, while the total energy intake remained constant and the ratio of pork and poultry consumption was kept unchanged. A potential decrease of 10%, 25%, and 50% for total meat consumption and a reduction of 5%, 10%, and 25% for beef consumption were assumed, since the German Nutrition Society (DGE) has reported that Germans eat twice as much meat as is recommended from a nutritional standpoint. (51) (iii) The third scenario considered that less offal was thrown away and instead could be consumed as food. This would result in a reduction of meat consumption, and we assumed a reduction potential of 10%, 25%, and 50% when keeping energy intake constant.
The baseline scenario was the current emissions based on the German meat supply chain in 2016. We first developed individual scenarios as detailed in Table 1 using a one-factor-at-a-time approach. The consumption was assumed to be constant for all the scenarios except the three addressing diet structure change (S6, S7, and S8). We then calculated potentials of assumed low, medium, and high levels of reduction for each strategy. In the end we built a combined scenario to discuss the combined effects of some of these mitigation strategies that have more influence on emissions, based on the assumed high levels of changes in Table 1 in a rank order for assumed level of difficulty of implementation (roughly from technology options down to economic measures to human behaviors, SI Table S3). The consequences of these scenarios on larger socioeconomic systems, e.g., changes of emissions in other countries due to trade pattern change, are not considered.
Table 1. Description of the Individual Scenarios (PE = Process Energy)
      reduction (%)
strategies symbols detailed assumptions low medium high
production efficiency S1 production emission intensity 5 10 20
process optimization S2a slaughtering PE 5 10 20
S2b processing PE
S2c slaughtering and processing PE
S3a slaughtering byproducts 5 10 20
S3b processing byproducts
S3c slaughtering and processing byproducts
food waste reduction S4a retailing waste 10 25 50
S4b consumption waste
S4c retailing and consumption waste
trade pattern change S5a animals import from the top 3 GHG emission partner countries 25 50 100
S5b animals export to non-EU countries
S5c S5a + S5b
S5d meat products import from the top 3 GHG emission partners
S5e meat products export to non-EU countries
S5f S 5d + S5e
S5g S5c + S 5f
diet structure change S6 meat consumption 10 25 50
S7 beef consumption 5 10 25
S8 offal consumed as food less thrown away 10 25 50

3. Results and Discussion

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

3.1. Mass and Energy Balance of the German Meat Supply Chain

3.1.1. Characteristics of the Mass Balance

The mass flow (all numbers on a DM basis) of the German meat supply chain shows that 2516 kt of meat (CW, including bones) was produced domestically before slaughtering and 1634 kt ended up for human consumption from the retailing sector in 2016 (Figure 2a). Pork made up the biggest share in the production as well as consumption, both of which accounted for about 59% and 58%, respectively, followed by poultry (24% and 29%) and beef (17% and 13%). As to the animal trade, poultry and cattle were exported in large amounts, whereas the import of pig was higher than export. For the trade of meat products, however, a higher import than export can be seen for beef and poultry, and it is the opposite for pork. Altogether, the self-sufficiency for beef, pork, and poultry was about 159%, 170%, and 119% (all on a DM basis), respectively.

Figure 2

Figure 2. (a) Mass balance for the meat supply chain in Germany in 2016, on a dry matter basis; (b) byproducts and meat waste treatment; and (c) distribution of protein and fat from animal byproducts, EAF: edible animal fat.

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
Figure 2a also shows that the cumulative byproducts and meat waste along the cattle, pork, and poultry supply chain accounts for 74%, 59%, and 56% of the total mass flow in domestic animal production, respectively. The pork byproducts appeared the largest at the animal production, slaughtering, and processing stages, accounting for 59%, 50%, and 67%, respectively, of the total meat byproducts at each sector. All the byproducts made up 44% of the meat entering the slaughtering stage. The waste (including the inedible parts/unavoidable food waste) from retailing and consumption stages combined made up roughly 27% of the meat products for human consumption.

3.1.2. Waste Management

Figure 2b illustrates the share of different byproducts and waste along the supply chain of each meat category to different treatment sectors. At the animal production stage, dead cattle were mostly incinerated (66%) while dead pigs and poultry mainly went for industry use (63%). At the slaughtering and processing stages, most cat 3 were used for feed production, and most cat 2 went for industrial use and biodiesel production. Due to lack of data, most of the meat waste from retailing and consumption was assumed to be mostly incinerated, followed by composting and anaerobic digestion. In total, the majority of byproducts and waste for beef was processed in feed production (33%) and incineration (30%), while for pork and poultry were in feed production (37% and 36%, respectively) and industry use (27% and 23%, respectively).
In terms of protein or fat of each byproduct category, the beef supply chain did not generate category 2 byproducts, and the pork and poultry supply chains did not produce category 1 byproducts. (52)Figure 2c shows that the protein from category 1 went to incineration plants, protein from category 2 ended up for industry use, and most protein from category 3 was used as feed ingredients. Fat from category 1 and category 2 were mainly for biodiesel production, and most fat from category 3 went to industry use.

3.1.3. Characteristics of the Energy Balance

The largest energy flows of the whole system was related to the production, especially for feed energy flows with 5.6 × 105 TJ in total (SI Figure S2). The energy equivalent of manure accounted for 21% of all feed inputs. As for the individual animal category, the energy equivalent of meat after slaughtering was 10%, 15%, and 9% of the feed input for beef, pork, and poultry, respectively. When it comes to consumption, the energy equivalent of beef, pork, and poultry entering retailing for human consumption represented only 1.3%, 2.1%, and 1.7%, respectively, of the feed used for animal production, indicating an overall low energy conversion efficiency of the meat supply chain (out of which pork was comparatively the most efficient and beef was the least).
In terms of byproducts, the energy equivalent of slaughtering and processing byproducts together comprised of 84% of the energy of animals entering slaughtering. In addition, the energy equivalent of meat waste from retailing and consumption processes totaled to 2.9 × 103 TJ (majority in consumption), accounting for 27% of the energy equivalent of meat input to the retailing stage. In total, the energy equivalent of all the byproducts and meat waste represented 14% of the total feed inputs.
In terms of PE (e.g., for heating and lighting), the highest value was in the animal production sector (2.2 × 105 TJ) with a share of 94%, followed by meat processing (5.9 × 103 TJ, 2.5%) and slaughtering (4.2 × 103 TJ, 1.8%). The cumulative PE was 2.3 × 105TJ, which was about 41% of the feed used or roughly three times of the energy equivalent of total byproducts and meat waste.

3.1.4. Data Quality and Uncertainty

This analysis relied on data from multiple sources and various assumptions which unavoidably leads to uncertainties. A qualitative uncertainty evaluation of the data used and corresponding mass flow, energy flow, and GHG emissions were summarized in the SI Figures S8–S10 based on three levels (low, medium, and high) of uncertainty. Data taken directly from governmental statistics (e.g., the amount of CW produced and the trade values of live animals and meat products) was deemed to have low uncertainty. The statistical data can provide an overall picture of the whole country, although they are not always accurate due to data coverage and collection methods. The slightly varying coefficients data found in several references (e.g., meat waste rate in retailing and the energy equivalent of manure) were categorized as medium uncertainty. If only a single reference was identified and the representativeness is unclear (e.g., the ratio of meat consumption in household and out-of-home and the treatment of meat waste), then the data uncertainty was considered to be high.
Despite the limitations and data gaps mentioned above, the entire model was assessed to be sufficiently robust to reveal the whole chain efficiency of the German meat supply chain. The mass balance allowed for cross-checking between mass, energy, and nutrient (e.g., protein and fat). We compared the data of meat for human consumption between results in this study and the numbers reported by BMLE. For example, the calculated value (722 kt) for beef and pork (2829 kt) were within an acceptable range of 10% compared to the BMLE estimate (793 kt, 2974 kt).

3.2. GHG Emissions of the German Meat Supply Chain

Figure 3a shows that the majority of GHG emissions were found in the production sector either for the total meat production (64%) or for individual meat category (65%, 68%, and 45%, respectively, for beef, pork, and poultry) based on the consumption-based accounting. The second largest contributor was the emissions embodied in the import of live animals and meat products, making up 34%, 27%, and 46%, respectively, of the total emissions for the beef, pork, and poultry supply chains. This can be explained by the relatively large amount of net trade of live animals and meat products and the varying emission intensity between Germany and trading partners. Then it was followed by emissions from slaughtering (1.1%), processing (1.06%), consumption (1.05%), and retailing (0.5%) stages.

Figure 3

Figure 3. (a) Distribution of GHG emissions in the meat supply chain; (b) LW (total live weight, DM basis) production and GHG emissions in animal production. They are the reference scenario (data for 2016).

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
In terms of the GHG emissions of each meat category during production, the largest was from the production of beef (48%), followed by pork (46%), and poultry accounted for the least (6%). However, when it comes to the amount of meat produced of each type, about 60% of the LW (DM basis) produced came from pig, followed by poultry (24%), and cattle had the smallest share (Figure 3b). This indicates again the lower efficiency of beef production comparing to pork and poultry.

3.3. Scenarios for GHG Emissions Reduction

Figure 4a shows the percentage change of the total GHG emissions of the whole meat supply chain under different scenarios (as detailed in Table 1) with respect to the reference scenario in 2016. Most scenarios show a gradually increasing reduction potential under different levels of changes (from low to medium to high). The changes of the amount of GHG emissions under different levels, and the changes of total meat CW produced in different scenarios are detailed in the SI Figures S3–S5.

Figure 4

Figure 4. (a) Different scenarios of GHG emissions in a consumption-based accounting. Negative values mean the reduction percentage compared to the reference scenario, and positive values mean the increase percentage relative to the baseline; (b) the combined scenario result of GHG emissions reduction. S0 is the baseline scenario. The numbers along the vertical arrows represent the absolute amount of GHG emissions reductions and the shares in the total reduction, respectively. SA = S2c, SB = S2c + S4c, SC = S2c + S4c + S5f, SD = S2c + S4c + S5f + S8, SE = S2c + S4c + S5f + S7 + S8, SF = S1 + S2c + S4c + S5f + S7 + S8; (c) net environment benefits from rendering of meat byproducts and meat waste treatment. We assumed food production (mainly EAF) replaces palm oil, feed production replaces soymeal, and biodiesel production replaces fossil fuel.

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
The greatest difference to the base scenario was the reduction of meat consumption by 50% (S6), which resulted in a 32% reduction of the GHG emissions (consumption-based). A diet to a higher amount of offal with less needs to be thrown away (S8) showed the second largest reduction potential or 14% reduction of the original GHG emissions, followed by reducing GHG emissions intensity in production (S1) with a reduction of 13%. In the case of reducing retailing and consumption waste (S4c) by 50%, a reduction of 2747 kt GHG emissions can be achieved. Halting the import of meat products from the top 3 GHG emission partners and the export to non-EU 28 countries (S5f) would also reduce the total emissions by 6%.When beef consumption was reduced by 25% (S7), although the emissions from pork and poultry supply chains would increase by 2–3% due to increased consumption of pork and poultry, the total GHG emissions would still decrease by 7% relative to the base scenario. Similarly, halting the import of live animals (S5a) from high intensity emission countries (with the increase of live animal production domestically) would reduce the total emissions by 1% slightly. The energy use reduction by 20% at the slaughtering as well as processing stages (S2c) would also result in a reduction of GHG emissions (117 kt; or 0.4% of the total). However, when halting the import of meat products (S5d) from high intensity emission countries (with the increase of meat production domestically) would increase the total emissions by 2% slightly.
Figure 4b shows the combined effects of the important emissions mitigation strategies under the combined scenario described in the SI Table S3. The biggest change (proportionally as 26%) of emissions occurred when offal thrown away in slaughtering stage was reduced by 50% and consumed as food (less animals need to be produced to get the same amount of animal energy consumed) (SD). The second largest reduction of emissions could be seen in the case of reducing meat waste in retailing and consumption stages by 50% (SB), with a share of 23% in the total reduction of emissions, followed by reducing the emission intensity at the production stage by 20% with a share of 22%. Halting the import of meat products from the top 3 GHG emission countries and the export to non-EU countries would also contribute to the reduction of emissions (18%). In total, a combination of process optimization, radical meat waste reduction, trade pattern change of meat products, radical diet structure change with less beef and substituting meat by edible offal, and reducing the emission intensity of meat would largely reduce the climate impacts by 43% relative to the base scenario.
Figure 4c shows the net environment benefits of the rendering of meat byproducts and waste treatment by considering credits from the substitution of resources and energy (e.g., soymeal, electricity, and heat). The total GHG emission saving was 1425 kt. The largest came from the feed production with a reduction of 806 kt CO2-eq, accounting for 57% of the total saving, followed by biodiesel production (561 kt, 39%). Although these emissions savings were low (5.2%) compared to the whole supply chain climate impacts, they almost have the same net environmental benefits as reducing meat waste from retailing and consumption stages by 25%.

3.4. Policy Implications

Our mapping of the mass and energy flows of the German meat supply chain provides a detailed understanding of the whole system efficiency of meat products and the generation and destination (e.g., valorization and recycling) of different meat byproducts and waste. The study also presents the comparison of the effects of different GHG emission mitigation strategies based on combined scenario analysis covering production efficiency, process optimization, food waste reduction, trade pattern change, and diet structure change. Such a model framework can be used as a proxy for other countries and agrifood products as well. Although we considered only the climate change impact in this study, other environmental (e.g., water), economic, and social (e.g., animal welfare) implications could also be analyzed and discussed based on the physical mapping.
The results reaffirmed the low energy conversion efficiency of the meat supply chain, (53,54) and the high GHG emissions at meat production (55) (among which the beef production is the least efficient (21,56)). This implies that cattle rearing shall be preferably addressed with mitigation strategies (accounting for almost half of total emissions of meat production) and especially enteric fermentation of the digestive system. Improving feed digestibility could be a part of the solution, which not only could contribute to the growth of feed intake efficiency, but also could lower the amount of manure excreted. However, technology efficiency improvement and process optimization are also important strategies for GHG emissions reduction.
Reducing meat consumption, in parallel to making meat production more sustainable, would have profound effect on the GHG emissions. Per capita meat consumption in Germany has decreased from 100.4 kg in 1990 to 87.8 kg in 2016 by 12.5% over a period of 26 years, (49) due to an increasing number of vegetarians and a general interest among many to shift to a healthier diet. However, the current level is still twice as high as the world’s average and the recommended meat consumption by the German Nutrition Society (DGE). (51) A further reduction is necessary but also challenging. An alternative is to substitute beef with pork and poultry; in fact, poultry has become more popular in Germany in recent years. Furthermore, some edible parts of the animal byproducts (e.g., offal, tongue, and casings) are rarely consumed at present due to low demand as food. However, changing marketing strategies, converting them to more appealing food, and raising awareness about the value of such products would provide a great potential to substitute meat consumption and further lower the total GHG emissions of the meat chain.
Eliminating the meat waste at the retailing and consumption stages could also achieve a high reduction of emissions. For example, a 25% reduction of retailing and consumption meat waste would almost have the same emissions reduction potential as reducing the total meat consumption by 10%. The majority of meat waste was found at the consumer stage (392 kt in 2016, on a DM basis), especially in the households (259 kt in 2016, on a DM basis). Households can be the focus and many prevention measures are possible (e.g., freezing food leftovers, cooking new meals from meat leftovers, cooking soups with bones and cut-offs, and creating shopping lists to avoid buying food which is not needed). Furthermore, meat waste from out-of-home consumption (e.g., restaurants or hotels) and the retailing sector should not be overlooked, which would be suitable for food donation and redistribution to social organizations. For example, the “Gadda law” of Italy designed to fight against food waste has come into force in 2016, which makes it easier for businesses to donate unwanted food to people in poverty, and helps raise awareness of consumer to waste less food. (57)
Our results also show that halting the import of meat products from the top 3 GHG emission countries and the export of meat products to non-EU countries would contribute to reducing the GHG emissions in a consumption-based accounting (while emissions increased in a territory-based accounting; SI Figures S6 and S7). But this would also mean that either the production in other countries needs to increase or the consumption in other countries needs to decrease to hold the overall consumption, and what needs to be considered is whether it would be replaced by a system with more emissions. Furthermore, since Germany plays a key role in the European market of animal and meat products, it is questionable whether a decreasing export would affect the German economy.
The meat byproducts rendered can be further used in different sectors. Our results show that most byproducts go to feed production (47%), where protein and fat from Cat 3 are used as feed ingredients due to their nutritional and preservative properties. This is followed by industry use (31%), where fat is used as an ingredient to produce cosmetics, lubricants, and cleaning products. It is stated that 1 t of animal protein equates to 1.7 t of soybeans which stands for 0.66 ha of rainforest in Brazil. (58) Using the protein for feed production would not only prevent wasting the high value protein, but also reduce the carbon and land footprint of meat. In addition, the EAF from Cat 3 that is fit for human consumption can reduce the demand of vegetable oil and thus land use for oil crop cultivation. What’s more, about 17% of all the meat byproducts that are unfit for human consumption go to biodiesel production which is less emission intensive than fossil fuels. Therefore, improving the efficiency of meat byproducts rendering and waste treatment is a straightforward yet important strategy to mitigate the climate change impacts of the entire meat supply chain.

Supporting Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06079.

  • Detailed description of the system definition, analytical solutions to the system, and data sources (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To
  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Li Xue - Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100101 Beijing, P. R. China;  SDU Life Cycle Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Environmental Technology, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense, Denmark;  University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100049 Beijing, P. R. China;  Orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-6802-6034
    • Neele Prass - SDU Life Cycle Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Environmental Technology, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense, Denmark
    • Sebastian Gollnow - University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Department of Water-Atmosphere-Environment, Institute of Waste Management, 1190 Vienna, Austria
    • Jennifer Davis - RISE Agrifood and Bioscience, SE 402 29 Gothenburg, Sweden
    • Silvia Scherhaufer - University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Department of Water-Atmosphere-Environment, Institute of Waste Management, 1190 Vienna, Austria
    • Karin Östergren - RISE Agrifood and Bioscience, SE 402 29 Gothenburg, Sweden
    • Shengkui Cheng - Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100101 Beijing, P. R. China
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This work is funded by REFRESH (Resource Efficient Food and dRink for the Entire Supply cHain), under the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union (Grant Agreement no. 641933). The views and opinions expressed in this manuscript are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the funding agency.

References

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article references 58 other publications.

  1. 1
    OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2018–2027 Home Page. https://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?QueryId=84949&vh=0000&vf=0&l&il=&lang=en/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  2. 2
    Statista Per capita meat consumption forecast in the big five European countries from 2010 to 2020 Home Page. https://www.statista.com/statistics/679528/per-capita-meat-consumption-european-union-eu/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  3. 3
    Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, T.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M.; De Haan, C. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  4. 4
    Djekic, I.; Tomasevic, I. Environmental Impacts of the Meat Chain - Current Status and Future Perspectives. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 54, 94– 102,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2016.06.001
    Google Scholar
    4
    Environmental impacts of the meat chain - Current status and future perspectives
    Djekic, Ilija; Tomasevic, Igor
    Trends in Food Science & Technology (2016), 54 (), 94-102CODEN: TFTEEH; ISSN:0924-2244. (Elsevier Ltd.)
    The meat chain sector is recognized as one of the leading polluters in the food industry. Research on environmental performance in the meat industry has been analyzed in terms of the meat product(s), the manufg. processes and environmental practices in which the meat companies operate.A literature review was performed by analyzing published scientific papers in the domains of environmental impacts in the meat chain. The selection criteria were focused on different environmental approaches applied in the meat chain and on the perspectives of future research.This review revealed that the focus of product based approach performed through life-cycle assessments were mainly farms. Scientific papers covered calcns. of global warming, acidification and eutrophication potentials. On the contrary, process based approaches investigated on-site environmental impacts of meat prodn. They were focused on discharge of waste water and solid waste and consumption of water and energy. Finally, environmental systems in the meat chain were the least investigated stream and they analyzed level of practices in respect to the size of the meat companies, their role in the meat chain and certification status. Future research should focus on the development of new dimensions of environmental improvements in the meat chain to enable benchmarking and comparing various meat technologies. Also, anal. of environmental practices throughout the meat chain could be of added value in the exploration of environmental improvement techniques on-site.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC28Xptl2ktbs%253D&md5=21a3a3f538b5315426c2afc1918688a9
  5. 5
    Priefer, C.; Jörissen, J.; Bräutigam, K. R. Food Waste Prevention in Europe - A Cause-Driven Approach to Identify the Most Relevant Leverage Points for Action. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 109, 155– 165,  DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.03.004
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  6. 6
    Leip, A.; Billen, G.; Garnier, J.; Grizzetti, B.; Lassaletta, L.; Reis, S.; Simpson, D.; Sutton, M. A.; De Vries, W.; Weiss, F.; Westhoek, H. Impacts of European Livestock Production: Nitrogen, Sulphur, Phosphorus and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land-Use, Water Eutrophication and Biodiversity. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10 (11), 115004,  DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/115004
    Google Scholar
    6
    Impacts of European livestock production: nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus and greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, water eutrophication and biodiversity
    Leip, Adrian; Billen, Gilles; Garnier, Josette; Grizzetti, Bruna; Lassaletta, Luis; Reis, Stefan; Simpson, David; Sutton, Mark A.; de Vries, Wim; Weiss, Franz; Westhoek, Henk
    Environmental Research Letters (2015), 10 (11), 115004/1-115004/13CODEN: ERLNAL; ISSN:1748-9326. (IOP Publishing Ltd.)
    Livestock prodn. systems currently occupy around 28% of the land surface of the European Union (equiv. to 65% of the agricultural land). In conjunction with other human activities, livestock prodn. systems affect water, air and soil quality, global climate and biodiversity, altering the biogeochem. cycles of nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon. Here, we quantify the contribution of European livestock prodn. to these major impacts. For each environmental effect, the contribution of livestock is expressed as shares of the emitted compds. 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 technol. measures reducing livestock emissions, improved food choices and reduced food waste of European citizens.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2sXkvFersb4%253D&md5=e5d82f9c4ed5de63a2875dd2fa2bea22
  7. 7
    Bellarby, J.; Tirado, R.; Leip, A.; Weiss, F.; Lesschen, J. P.; Smith, P. Livestock Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Mitigation Potential in Europe. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19 (1), 3– 18,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02786.x
    Google Scholar
    7
    Livestock greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential in Europe
    Bellarby Jessica; Tirado Reyes; Leip Adrian; Weiss Franz; Lesschen Jan Peter; Smith Pete
    Global change biology (2013), 19 (1), 3-18 ISSN:1354-1013.
    The livestock sector contributes considerably to global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Here, for the year 2007 we examined GHG emissions in the EU27 livestock sector and estimated GHG emissions from production and consumption of livestock products; including imports, exports and wastage. We also reviewed available mitigation options and estimated their potential. The focus of this review is on the beef and dairy sector since these contribute 60% of all livestock production emissions. Particular attention is paid to the role of land use and land use change (LULUC) and carbon sequestration in grasslands. GHG emissions of all livestock products amount to between 630 and 863 Mt CO2 e, or 12-17% of total EU27 GHG emissions in 2007. The highest emissions aside from production, originate from LULUC, followed by emissions from wasted food. The total GHG mitigation potential from the livestock sector in Europe is between 101 and 377 Mt CO2 e equivalent to between 12 and 61% of total EU27 livestock sector emissions in 2007. A reduction in food waste and consumption of livestock products linked with reduced production, are the most effective mitigation options, and if encouraged, would also deliver environmental and human health benefits. Production of beef and dairy on grassland, as opposed to intensive grain fed production, can be associated with a reduction in GHG emissions depending on actual LULUC emissions. This could be promoted on rough grazing land where appropriate.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC3svnt12qtg%253D%253D&md5=ea3b01f076dd136502dd78c8f28fb66a
  8. 8
    Weiss, F.; Leip, A. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the EU Livestock Sector: A Life Cycle Assessment Carried out with the CAPRI Model. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 149, 124– 134,  DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.015
    Google Scholar
    8
    Greenhouse gas emissions from the EU livestock sector: A life cycle assessment carried out with the CAPRI model
    Weiss, Franz; Leip, Adrian
    Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment (2012), 149 (), 124-134CODEN: AEENDO; ISSN:0167-8809. (Elsevier B.V.)
    This study presents detailed product-based net emissions of main livestock products (meat, milk and eggs) at national level for the whole EU-27 according to a cradle-to-gate life-cycle assessment, including emissions from land use and land use change (LULUC). Calcns. were done with the CAPRI model and the covered gases are CH4, N2O and CO2. Total GHG fluxes of European livestock prodn. amt. to 623-852 Mt CO2-equiv., 182-238 Mt CO2-equiv. (28-29%) are from beef prodn., 184-240 Mt CO2-equiv. (28-30%) from cow milk prodn. and 153-226 Mt CO2-equiv. (25-27%) from pork prodn. According to IPCC classifications, 38-52% of total net emissions are created in the agricultural sector, 17-24% in the energy and industrial sectors. 12-16% Mt CO2-equiv. are related to land use (CO2 fluxes from cultivation of org. soils and reduced carbon sequestration compared to natural grassland) and 9-33% to land use change, mainly due to feed imports. The results suggest that for effective redn. of GHG emissions from livestock prodn., fluxes occurring outside the agricultural sector need to be taken into account. Redn. targets should address both the prodn. side as defined by IPCC sectors and the consumption side. An LCA assessment as presented here could be a basis for such efforts.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC38XitlGiu7w%253D&md5=d29499da3fd6354f2c500372d36dc4fc
  9. 9
    Gerber, P. J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  10. 10
    Bennetzen, E. H.; Smith, P.; Porter, J. R. Decoupling of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Agricultural Production: 1970–2050. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22 (2), 763– 781,  DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13120
    Google Scholar
    10
    Decoupling of greenhouse gas emissions from global agricultural production: 1970-2050
    Bennetzen Eskild H; Porter John R; Smith Pete; Porter John R
    Global change biology (2016), 22 (2), 763-81 ISSN:.
    Since 1970 global agricultural production has more than doubled; contributing ~1/4 of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) burden in 2010. Food production must increase to feed our growing demands, but to address climate change, GHG emissions must decrease. Using an identity approach, we estimate and analyse past trends in GHG emission intensities from global agricultural production and land-use change and project potential future emissions. The novel Kaya-Porter identity framework deconstructs the entity of emissions from a mix of multiple sources of GHGs into attributable elements allowing not only a combined analysis of the total level of all emissions jointly with emissions per unit area and emissions per unit product. It also allows us to examine how a change in emissions from a given source contributes to the change in total emissions over time. We show that agricultural production and GHGs have been steadily decoupled over recent decades. Emissions peaked in 1991 at ~12 Pg CO2 -eq. yr(-1) and have not exceeded this since. Since 1970 GHG emissions per unit product have declined by 39% and 44% for crop- and livestock-production, respectively. Except for the energy-use component of farming, emissions from all sources have increased less than agricultural production. Our projected business-as-usual range suggests that emissions may be further decoupled by 20-55% giving absolute agricultural emissions of 8.2-14.5 Pg CO2 -eq. yr(-1) by 2050, significantly lower than many previous estimates that do not allow for decoupling. Beyond this, several additional costcompetitive mitigation measures could reduce emissions further. However, agricultural GHG emissions can only be reduced to a certain level and a simultaneous focus on other parts of the food-system is necessary to increase food security whilst reducing emissions. The identity approach presented here could be used as a methodological framework for more holistic food systems analysis.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC28zgtFyruw%253D%253D&md5=881053ab0f5bf358fac1331b0b7831bc
  11. 11
    Caro, D.; Kebreab, E.; Mitloehner, F. M. Mitigation of Enteric Methane Emissions from Global Livestock Systems through Nutrition Strategies. Clim. Change 2016, 137 (3–4), 467– 480,  DOI: 10.1007/s10584-016-1686-1
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  12. 12
    Herrero, M.; Henderson, B.; Havlík, P.; Thornton, P. K.; Conant, R. T.; Smith, P.; Wirsenius, S.; Hristov, A. N.; Gerber, P.; Gill, M.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.; Valin, H.; Garnett, T.; Stehfest, E. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potentials in the Livestock Sector. Nat. Clim. Change 2016, 6 (5), 452– 461,  DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2925
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  13. 13
    Vitali, A.; Grossi, G.; Martino, G.; Bernabucci, U.; Nardone, A.; Lacetera, N. Carbon Footprint of Organic Beef Meat from Farm to Fork: A Case Study of Short Supply Chain. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98 (14), 5518– 5524,  DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.9098
    Google Scholar
    13
    Carbon footprint of organic beef meat from farm to fork: a case study of short supply chain
    Vitali, Andrea; Grossi, Giampiero; Martino, Giuseppe; Bernabucci, Umberto; Nardone, Alessandro; Lacetera, Nicola
    Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture (2018), 98 (14), 5518-5524CODEN: JSFAAE; ISSN:0022-5142. (John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
    BACKGROUND : Sustainability of food systems is one of the big challenges facing humanity. Local food networks, esp. those using org. methods, are proliferating worldwide, and little is known about their carbon footprints. This study aims to assess greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions assocd. with a local org. beef supply chain using a cradle-to-grave approach. RESULTS : The study detd. an overall burden of 24.46 kg CO2 eq. kg-1 of cooked meat. The breeding and fattening phase was the principal source of CO2 in the prodn. chain, accounting for 86% of the total emissions. Enteric methane emission was the greatest source of GHG arising directly from farming activities (47%). The consumption of meat at home was the second high point in GHG prodn. in the chain (9%), with the cooking process being the main source within this stage (72%). Retail and slaughtering activities resp. accounted for 4.1% and 1.1% of GHG emissions for the whole supply chain. CONCLUSION : The identification of the major sources of GHG emissions assocd. with org. beef produced and consumed in a local food network may stimulate debate on environmental issues among those in the network and direct them toward processes, choices and habits that reduce carbon pollution. © 2018 Society of Chem. Industry.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC1cXht1yitLzF&md5=886b25f4d4dbbb2e178cd76d1bc137dc
  14. 14
    Herrero, M.; Havlik, P.; Valin, H.; Notenbaert, A.; Rufino, M. C.; Thornton, P. K.; Blummel, M.; Weiss, F.; Grace, D.; Obersteiner, M. Biomass Use, Production, Feed Efficiencies, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Livestock Systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013, 110 (52), 20888– 20893,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1308149110
    Google Scholar
    14
    Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems
    Herrero, Mario; Havlik, Petr; Valin, Hugo; Notenbaert, An; Rufino, Mariana C.; Thornton, Philip K.; Blummel, Michael; Weiss, Franz; Grace, Delia; Obersteiner, Michael
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2013), 110 (52), 20888-20893,S20888/1-S20888/120CODEN: PNASA6; ISSN:0027-8424. (National Academy of Sciences)
    A unique, biol. consistent, spatially disaggregated global livestock dataset contg. information on biomass use, prodn., feed efficiency, excretion, and greenhouse gas emissions for 28 regions, 8 livestock prodn. systems, 4 animal species (cattle, small ruminants, pigs, poultry), and 3 livestock products (milk, meat, eggs), is. This dataset contains >50 global maps contg. high resoln. information to understand the multiple roles (biophys., economic, social) that livestock can play in different parts of the world. The dataset highlights: feed efficiency as a key driver of productivity, resource use, and greenhouse gas emission intensities, with vast differences between prodn. systems and animal products; the importance of grasslands as a global resource, supplying almost 50% of biomass for animals while continuing to be at the epicenter of land conversion processes; and the importance of mixed crop-livestock systems, producing the greater portion of animal prodn. (>60%) in the developed and developing world. These data provide crit. information to develop targeted, sustainable solns. for the livestock sector and its widely ranging contribution to the global food system.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2cXnsFyrsA%253D%253D&md5=bba20c7be506ec442efa48a47368cfbe
  15. 15
    Wanapat, M.; Cherdthong, A.; Phesatcha, K.; Kang, S. Dietary Sources and Their Effects on Animal Production and Environmental Sustainability. Anim. Nutr. 2015, 1 (3), 96– 103,  DOI: 10.1016/j.aninu.2015.07.004
    Google Scholar
    15
    Dietary sources and their effects on animal production and environmental sustainability
    Wanapat Metha; Cherdthong Anusorn; Phesatcha Kampanat; Kang Sungchhang
    Animal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) (2015), 1 (3), 96-103 ISSN:.
    Animal agriculture has been an important component in the integrated farming systems in developing countries. It serves in a paramount diversified role in producing animal protein food, draft power, farm manure as well as ensuring social status-quo and enriching livelihood. Ruminants are importantly contributable to the well-being and the livelihood of the global population. Ruminant production systems can vary from subsistence to intensive type of farming depending on locality, resource availability, infrastructure accessibility, food demand and market potentials. The growing demand for sustainable animal production is compelling to researchers exploring the potential approaches to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions from livestock. Global warming has been an issue of concern and importance for all especially those engaged in animal agriculture. Methane (CH4) is one of the major GHG accounted for at least 14% of the total GHG with a global warming potential 25-fold of carbon dioxide and a 12-year atmospheric lifetime. Agricultural sector has a contribution of 50 to 60% methane emission and ruminants are the major source of methane contribution (15 to 33%). Methane emission by enteric fermentation of ruminants represents a loss of energy intake (5 to 15% of total) and is produced by methanogens (archae) as a result of fermentation end-products. Ruminants digestive fermentation results in fermentation end-products of volatile fatty acids (VFA), microbial protein and methane production in the rumen. Rumen microorganisms including bacteria, protozoa and fungal zoospores are closely associated with the rumen fermentation efficiency. Besides using feed formulation and feeding management, local feed resources have been used as alternative feed additives for manipulation of rumen ecology with promising results for replacement in ruminant feeding. Those potential feed additive practices are as follows: 1) the use of plant extracts or plants containing secondary compounds (e.g., condensed tannins and saponins) such as mangosteen peel powder, rain tree pod; 2) plants rich in minerals, e.g., banana flower powder; and 3) plant essential oils, e.g., garlic, eucalyptus leaf powder, etc. Implementation of the -feed-system using cash crop and leguminous shrubs or fodder trees are of promising results.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC1MfjvVeksw%253D%253D&md5=9940c7f98d780891173f2567917b0f99
  16. 16
    Caro, D.; Davis, S. J.; Bastianoni, S.; Caldeira, K. Global and Regional Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock. Clim. Change 2014, 126 (1–2), 203– 216,  DOI: 10.1007/s10584-014-1197-x
    Google Scholar
    16
    Global and regional trends in greenhouse gas emissions from livestock
    Caro, Dario; Davis, Steven J.; Bastianoni, Simone; Caldeira, Ken
    Climatic Change (2014), 126 (1-2), 203-216CODEN: CLCHDX; ISSN:0165-0009. (Springer)
    Following IPCC guidelines (IPCC 2006), we est. greenhouse gas emissions related to livestock in 237 countries and 11 livestock categories during the period 1961-2010. We find that in 2010 emissions of methane and nitrous oxide related to livestock worldwide represented approx. 9 % of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Global GHG emissions from livestock increased by 51 % during the analyzed period, mostly due to strong growth of emissions in developing (Non-Annex I) countries (+117 %). In contrast, developed country (Annex I) emissions decreased (-23 %). Beef and dairy cattle are the largest source of livestock emissions (74 % of global livestock emissions). Since developed countries tend to have lower CO2-equivalent GHG emissions per unit GDP and per quantity of product generated in the livestock sector, the amt. of wealth generated per unit GHG emitted from the livestock sector can be increased by improving both livestock farming practices in developing countries and the overall state of economic development. Our results reveal important details of how livestock prodn. and assocd. GHG emissions have occurred in time and space. Discrepancies with higher tiers, demonstrate the value of more detailed analyses, and discourage over interpretation of smaller-scale trends in the Tier 1 results, but do not undermine the value of global Tier 1 anal.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2cXhtFentLrP&md5=bd220598a0d9595f5bbec693df15dfa3
  17. 17
    Ahmed, M.; Stockle, C. O. Quantification of Climate Variability, Adaptation and Mitigation for Agricultural Sustainability; Ahmed, M., Stockle, C. O., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2017.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  18. 18
    EEA. Annual European Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2007 and Inventory Report 2009. 2009; https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2006_6.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  19. 19
    Lesschen, J. P.; van den Berg, M.; Westhoek, H. J.; Witzke, H. P.; Oenema, O. Greenhouse Gas Emission Profiles of European Livestock Sectors. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 16– 28,  DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.058
    Google Scholar
    19
    Greenhouse gas emission profiles of European livestock sectors
    Lesschen, J. P.; van den Berg, M.; Westhoek, H. J.; Witzke, H. P.; Oenema, O.
    Animal Feed Science and Technology (2011), 166-167 (), 16-28CODEN: AFSTDH; ISSN:0377-8401. (Elsevier B.V.)
    There are increasing concerns about the ecol. footprint of global animal prodn. Expanding livestock sectors worldwide contribute to expansion of agricultural land and assocd. deforestation, emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), eutrophication of surface waters and nutrient imbalances. Farm based studies indicate that there are large differences among farms in animal productivity and environmental performance. Here, we report on regional variations in dairy, beef, pork, poultry and egg prodn., and related GHG emissions in the 27 Member States of the European Union (EU-27), based on 2003-2005 data. Analyses were made with the MITERRA-Europe model which calcs. annual nutrient flows and GHG emissions from agriculture in the EU-27. Main input data were derived from CAPRI (i.e., crop areas, livestock distribution, feed inputs), GAINS (i.e., animal nos., excretion factors, NH3 emission factors), FAO statistics (i.e., crop yields, fertilizer consumption, animal prodn.) and IPCC (i.e., CH4, N2O, CO2 emission factors). Sources of GHG emissions included were enteric fermn., manure management, direct and indirect N2O soil emissions, cultivation of org. soils, liming, fossil fuel use and fertilizer prodn. The dairy sector had the highest GHG emission in the EU-27, with annual emission of 195 Tg CO2-eq, followed by the beef sector with 192 Tg CO2-eq. Enteric fermn. was the main source of GHG emissions in the European livestock sector (36%) followed by N2O soil emissions (28%). On a per kg product basis, beef had by far the highest GHG emission with 22.6 kg CO2-eq/kg, milk had an emission of 1.3 kg CO2-eq/kg, pork 3.5 kg CO2-eq/kg, poultry 1.6 kg CO2-eq/kg, and eggs 1.7 kg CO2-eq/kg. However large variations in GHG emissions per unit product exist among EU countries, which are due to differences in animal prodn. systems, feed types and nutrient use efficiencies. There are, however, substantial uncertainties in the base data and applied methodol. such as assumptions surrounding allocation of feeds to livestock species. Our results provide insight into differences in GHG sources and emissions among animal prodn. sectors for the various regions of Europe. This article is part of the special issue entitled: Greenhouse Gases in Animal Agriculture - Finding a Balance between Food and Emissions, Guest Edited by T.A. McAllister, Section Guest Editors; K.A. Beauchemin, X. Hao, S. McGinn and Editor for Animal Feed Science and Technol., P.H. Robinson.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3MXnsFWlsr4%253D&md5=7aac63f1bce54de286cfc460772c1583
  20. 20
    de Boer, I. J. M.; Cederberg, C.; Eady, S.; Gollnow, S.; Kristensen, T.; Macleod, M.; Meul, M.; Nemecek, T.; Phong, L. T.; Thoma, G.; van der Werf, H. M. G.; Williams, A. G.; Zonderland-Thomassen, M. A. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Animal Production: Towards an Integrated Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2011, 3 (5), 423– 431,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2011.08.007
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  21. 21
    Gerber, P. J.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C. I.; Falcucci, A.; Teillard, F. Environmental Impacts of Beef Production: Review of Challenges and Perspectives for Durability. Meat Sci. 2015, 109, 2– 12,  DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.05.013
    Google Scholar
    21
    Environmental impacts of beef production: Review of challenges and perspectives for durability
    Gerber Pierre J; Mottet Anne; Opio Carolyn I; Falcucci Alessandra; Teillard Felix
    Meat science (2015), 109 (), 2-12 ISSN:.
    Beef makes a substantial contribution to food security, providing protein, energy and also essential micro-nutrients to human populations. Rumination allows cattle - and other ruminant species - to digest fibrous feeds that cannot be directly consumed by humans and thus to make a net positive contribution to food balances. This contribution is of particular importance in marginal areas, where agro-ecological conditions and weak infrastructures do not offer much alternative. It is also valuable where cattle convert crop residues and by-products into edible products and where they contribute to soil fertility through their impact on nutrients and organic matter cycles. At the same time, environmental sustainability issues are acute. They chiefly relate to the low efficiency of beef cattle in converting natural resources into edible products. Water use, land use, biomass appropriation and greenhouse gas emissions are for example typically higher per unit of edible product in beef systems than in any other livestock systems, even when corrected for nutritional quality. This particularly causes environmental pressure when production systems are specialized towards the delivery of edible products, in large volumes. The paper discusses environmental challenges at global level, recognizing the large diversity of systems. Beef production is faced with a range of additional sustainability challenges, such as changing consumer perceptions, resilience to climate change, animal health and inequities in access to land and water resources. Entry-points for environmental sustainability improvement are discussed within this broader development context.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC2MbnslWrtw%253D%253D&md5=f8f493a28d196068e2d233643544cac2
  22. 22
    Groen, E. A.; Van Zanten, H. H. E.; Heijungs, R.; Bokkers, E. A. M.; De Boer, I. J. M. Sensitivity Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Pork Production Chain. J. Cleaner Prod. 2016, 129, 202– 211,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.081
    Google Scholar
    22
    Sensitivity analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from a pork production chain
    Groen, E. A.; van Zanten, H. H. E.; Heijungs, R.; Bokkers, E. A. M.; de Boer, I. J. M.
    Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), 129 (), 202-211CODEN: JCROE8; ISSN:0959-6526. (Elsevier Ltd.)
    This study aimed to identify the most essential input parameters in the assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions along the pork prodn. chain. We identified most essential input parameters by combining two sensitivity-anal. methods: the multiplier method and the method of elementary effects. The former shows how much an input parameter influences assessment of GHG emissions, whereas the latter shows the importance of input parameters on uncertainty in the output. For the method of elementary effects, uncertainty ranges were implemented only for input parameters that were identified as being most influential based on the multiplier method or that had large uncertainty ranges based on the literature. Results showed that the most essential input parameters are the feed-conversion ratio, the amt. of manure, CH4 emissions from manure management and crop yields, esp. of maize and barley. Combining the results of both methods allowed derivation of mitigation options, either based on innovations (e.g. novel feeding strategies) or on management strategies (e.g. reducing mortality rate), and formulation of options for improving reliability of the results. Mitigation options based on innovations were shown to be most effective when directed at improving the feed-conversion ratio; decreasing the amt. of manure produced by pigs; improving maize, barley and wheat yields; decreasing the no. of sows or piglets per growing pig needed and improving efficiency of N-fertilizer prodn. Mitigation options based on management strategies were shown to be most effective when farmers strive to reduce feed intake, reduce application of N fertilizer to maize and barley, and reduce the no. of sows per growing pig needed towards best practices. Finally, the method of elementary effects showed that reliability of assessing GHG emissions of pork prodn. could be improved when uncertainty ranges are reduced, for example, around direct and indirect N2O emissions of the main feed crops in the pig diet and the CH4 emissions of manure. Also the reliability could be improved by improving data quality of the most essential parameters. Combining two types of sensitivity-anal. methods identified the most essential input parameters in the pork prodn. chain. With this combined anal., mitigation options via innovations and management strategies were derived, and parameters were identified that improved reliability of the results.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC28XnsVehurk%253D&md5=1f219cd25a717cba9fc7cc841145e761
  23. 23
    Clark, M.; Tilman, D. Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Production Systems, Agricultural Input Efficiency, and Food Choice. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12 (6), 064016,  DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5
    Google Scholar
    23
    Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice
    Clark, Michael; Tilman, David
    Environmental Research Letters (2017), 12 (6), 064016/1-064016/11CODEN: ERLNAL; ISSN:1748-9326. (IOP Publishing Ltd.)
    Global agricultural feeds over 7 billion people, but is also a leading cause of environmental degrdn. Understanding how alternative agricultural prodn. systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice drive environmental degrdn. is necessary for reducing agriculture's environmental impacts. A meta-anal. of life cycle assessments that includes 742 agricultural systems and over 90 unique foods produced primarily in high-input systems shows that, per unit of food, org. systems require more land, cause more eutrophication, use less energy, but emit similar greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) as conventional systems; that grass-fed beef requires more land and emits similar GHG emissions as grain-feed beef; and that low-input aquaculture and non-trawling fisheries have much lower GHG emissions than trawling fisheries. In addn., our analyses show that increasing agricultural input efficiency (the amt. of food produced per input of fertilizer or feed) would have environmental benefits for both crop and livestock systems. Further, for all environmental indicators and nutritional units examd., plant-based foods have the lowest environmental impacts; eggs, dairy, pork, poultry, non-trawling fisheries, and non-recirculating aquaculture have intermediate impacts; and ruminant meat has impacts ~ 100 times those of plant-based foods. Our analyses show that dietary shifts towards low-impact foods and increases in agricultural input use efficiency would offer larger environmental benefits than would switches from conventional agricultural systems to alternatives such as org. agriculture or grass-fed beef.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC1cXmvVOru7c%253D&md5=14daff3f1e9cb3c5110ef1ff8a0737ea
  24. 24
    Berners-Lee, M.; Hoolohan, C.; Cammack, H.; Hewitt, C. N. The Relative Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Realistic Dietary Choices. Energy Policy 2012, 43, 184– 190,  DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.054
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  25. 25
    Hallström, E.; Carlsson-Kanyama, A.; Börjesson, P. Environmental Impact of Dietary Change: A Systematic Review. J. Cleaner Prod. 2015, 91, 1– 11,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.008
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  26. 26
    Dorward, L. J. Where Are the Best Opportunities for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Food System (Including the Food Chain)? A Comment. Food Policy 2012, 37 (4), 463– 466,  DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.04.006
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  27. 27
    Parfitt, J.; Barthel, M.; Macnaughton, S. Food Waste within Food Supply Chains: Quantification and Potential for Change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 2010, 365 (1554), 3065– 3081,  DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0126
    Google Scholar
    27
    Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050
    Parfitt Julian; Barthel Mark; Macnaughton Sarah
    Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences (2010), 365 (1554), 3065-81 ISSN:.
    Food waste in the global food supply chain is reviewed in relation to the prospects for feeding a population of nine billion by 2050. Different definitions of food waste with respect to the complexities of food supply chains (FSCs)are discussed. An international literature review found a dearth of data on food waste and estimates varied widely; those for post-harvest losses of grain in developing countries might be overestimated. As much of the post-harvest loss data for developing countries was collected over 30 years ago, current global losses cannot be quantified. A significant gap exists in the understanding of the food waste implications of the rapid development of 'BRIC' economies. The limited data suggest that losses are much higher at the immediate post-harvest stages in developing countries and higher for perishable foods across industrialized and developing economies alike. For affluent economies, post-consumer food waste accounts for the greatest overall losses. To supplement the fragmentary picture and to gain a forward view, interviews were conducted with international FSC experts. The analyses highlighted the scale of the problem, the scope for improved system efficiencies and the challenges of affecting behavioural change to reduce post-consumer waste in affluent populations.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC3cjltF2ksw%253D%253D&md5=446d775cc6098fcebc1078418d945a72
  28. 28
    Hyland, J. J.; Henchion, M.; McCarthy, M.; McCarthy, S. N. The Role of Meat in Strategies to Achieve a Sustainable Diet Lower in Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Review. Meat Sci. 2017, 132 (April), 189– 195,  DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.04.014
    Google Scholar
    28
    The role of meat in strategies to achieve a sustainable diet lower in greenhouse gas emissions: A review
    Hyland John J; Henchion Maeve; McCarthy Mary; McCarthy Sinead N
    Meat science (2017), 132 (), 189-195 ISSN:.
    Food consumption is responsible for a considerable proportion of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE). Hence, individual food choices have the potential to substantially influence both public health and the environment. Meat and animal products are relatively high in GHGE and therefore targeted in efforts to reduce dietary emissions. This review first highlights the complexities regarding sustainability in terms of meat consumption and thereafter discusses possible strategies that could be implemented to mitigate its climatic impact. It outlines how sustainable diets are possible without the elimination of meat. For instance, overconsumption of food in general, beyond our nutritional requirements, was found to be a significant contributor of emissions. Non-voluntary and voluntary mitigation strategies offer potential to reduce dietary GHGE. All mitigation strategies require careful consideration but on-farm sustainable intensification perhaps offers the most promise. However, a balance between supply and demand approaches is encouraged. Health should remain the overarching principle for policies and strategies concerned with shifting consumer behaviour towards sustainable diets.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC1crivFCltA%253D%253D&md5=41813bc56315b3e3bfb3106ca85911c1
  29. 29
    Scherhaufer, S.; Moates, G.; Hartikainen, H.; Waldron, K.; Obersteiner, G. Environmental Impacts of Food Waste in Europe. Waste Manage. 2018, 77, 98– 113,  DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.038
    Google Scholar
    29
    Environmental impacts of food waste in Europe
    Scherhaufer Silvia; Moates Graham; Waldron Keith; Hartikainen Hanna; Obersteiner Gudrun
    Waste management (New York, N.Y.) (2018), 77 (), 98-113 ISSN:.
    Approximately 88 Million tonnes (Mt) of food is wasted in the European Union each year and the environmental impacts of these losses throughout the food supply chain are widely recognised. This study illustrates the impacts of food waste in relation to the total food utilised, including the impact from food waste management based on available data at the European level. The impacts are calculated for the Global Warming Potential, the Acidification Potential and the Eutrophication Potential using a bottom-up approach using more than 134 existing LCA studies on nine representative products (apple, tomato, potato, bread, milk, beef, pork, chicken, white fish). Results show that 186 Mt CO2-eq, 1.7 Mt SO2-eq. and 0.7 Mt PO4-eq can be attributed to food waste in Europe. This is 15 to 16% of the total impact of the entire food supply chain. In general, the study confirmed that most of the environmental impacts are derived from the primary production step of the chain. That is why animal-containing food shows most of the food waste related impacts when it is extrapolated to total food waste even if cereals are higher in mass. Nearly three quarters of all food waste-related impacts for Global Warming originate from greenhouse gas emissions during the production step. Emissions by food processing activities contribute 6%, retail and distribution 7%, food consumption, 8% and food disposal, 6% to food waste related impacts. Even though the results are subject to certain data and scenario uncertainties, the study serves as a baseline assessment, based on current food waste data, and can be expanded as more knowledge on the type and amount of food waste becomes available. Nevertheless, the importance of food waste prevention is underlined by the results of this study, as most of the impacts originate from the production step. Through food waste prevention, those impacts can be avoided as less food needs to be produced.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BB3c%252Fot1amsA%253D%253D&md5=a7be5d68630d80cb5b485a57e834bcdd
  30. 30
    Nations Online Project Home Page. http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/germany.htm/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  31. 31
    Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Home Page. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  32. 32
    Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft Ausgewählte Daten Und Fakten Der Agrarwirtschaft 2014 2015, 19
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.

    (in German).

  33. 33
    European Commission Eurostat Home Page. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/prodcom/data/database/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  34. 34
    Noleppa, S.; Cartsburg, M. Das Grosse Wegschmeissen. WWF Deutschl. 2015, 3– 68
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  35. 35
    Kranert, M.; Hafner, G.; Barabosz, J.; Schuller, H.; Leverenz, D.; Kölbig, A.; Schneider, F.; Lebersorger, S.; Scherhaufer, S. Ermittlung Der Weggeworfenen Lebensmittelmengen Und Vorschläge Zur Verminderung Der Wegwerfrate Bei Lebensmitteln in Deutschland. Inst. für Siedlungswasserbau; Wassergüte- und Abfallwirtschaft 2012, 300
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.

    (in German).

  36. 36
    Eberle, U.; Fels, J. Environmental Impacts of German Food Consumption and Food Losses. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21 (5), 759– 772,  DOI: 10.1007/s11367-015-0983-7
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  37. 37
    European Commission EU Rules Home Page. https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/animal-by-products/eu-rules_en/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  38. 38
    European Commission Waste Framework Directive Home Page. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/index.htm/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  39. 39
    United Nations. United Nations Sustainability Development Goals Home Page. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  40. 40
    European Parliament and Council Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 Amending Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste. Off. J. Eur. Union 2018, (1907), 109– 140
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  41. 41
    Law for the Promotion of the Circular Economy and Ensuring the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste (Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz—KrWG) Home Page. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/krwg/_11.html/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  42. 42
    Ordinance on the utilization of biowaste on agricultural, forestry and horticultural land (Biological Waste Ordinance—BioAbfV) Home Page. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bioabfv/BJNR295500998.html/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  43. 43
    Xue, L.; Liu, G.; Parfitt, J.; Liu, X.; Van Herpen, E.; Stenmarck, Å.; O’Connor, C.; Östergren, K.; Cheng, S. Missing Food, Missing Data? A Critical Review of Global Food Losses and Food Waste Data. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (12), 6618– 6633,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00401
    Google Scholar
    43
    Missing Food, Missing Data? A Critical Review of Global Food Losses and Food Waste Data
    Xue, Li; Liu, Gang; Parfitt, Julian; Liu, Xiaojie; Van Herpen, Erica; Stenmarck, Asa; O'Connor, Clementine; Ostergren, Karin; Cheng, Shengkui
    Environmental Science & Technology (2017), 51 (12), 6618-6633CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
    A review. Food losses and food waste (FLW) have become a global concern in recent years and emerge as a priority in the global and national political agenda (e.g., with Target 12.3 in the new United Nations Sustainable Development Goals). A good understanding of the availability and quality of global FLW data is a prerequisite for tracking progress on redn. targets, analyzing environmental impacts, and exploring mitigation strategies for FLW. There has been a growing body of literature on FLW quantification in the past years; however, significant challenges remain, such as data inconsistency and a narrow temporal, geog., and food supply chain coverage. In this paper, we examd. 202 publications which reported FLW data of 84 countries and 52 individual years from 1933 to 2014. We found that most existing publications are conducted for a few industrialized countries (e.g., UK and U.S.) and over half of them are based only on secondary data, which signals high uncertainties in the existing global FLW database. Despite these uncertainties, existing data indicate that per-capita food waste in the household increases with an increase of per-capita GDP. We believe more consistent, in-depth, and primary-data-based studies, esp. for emerging economies, are badly needed in order to better inform relevant policy on FLW redn. and environmental impacts mitigation.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2sXnsFeisr8%253D&md5=951d83009078a86293e4ef359c8d0539
  44. 44
    Jörissen, J.; Priefer, C.; Bräutigam, K.-R. Food Waste Generation at Household Level: Results of a Survey among Employees of Two European Research Centers in Italy and Germany. Sustainability 2015, 7 (3), 2695– 2715,  DOI: 10.3390/su7032695
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  45. 45
    Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte Europa Save Food Studie—Das Wegwerfen von Lebensmitteln—Einstellungen Und Verhaltensmuster 2011, 24
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.

    (in German).

  46. 46
    WS Atkins-EA. Model Approach for Producing BAT Guidance for Specific Sub-sectors within the Food and Drink Industry; Red Meat Abattoirs, 2000.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  47. 47
    Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) Animal by-products. https://www.bmel.de/DE/Tier/Tiergesundheit/TierischeNebenprodukte/nebenprodukte_node.html/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  48. 48
    European Fat Processors and Renderers Association (EFPRA) Home Page. http://efpra.eu/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  49. 49
    Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) Home Page. https://www.bmel-statistik.de/ernaehrung-fischerei/tabellen-kapitel-d-und-hiv-des-statistischen-jahrbuchs/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  50. 50
    Schneider, F., Part, F.; Lebersorger, S.; Scherhaufer, S.; Böhm, K.. “ Sekundärstudie Lebensmittelabfälle in Österreich.” In Im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft; Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, Institut für Abfallwirtschaft: Wien, 2012. (in German).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  51. 51
    Harald von, Witzke; Noleppa, S.; Zhirkova, I. Meat Eats Land; WWF Germany, 2011.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  52. 52
    Schmidt, B. Kennzeichnung von Schlachtnebenprodukten Zur Sicheren Klassifizierung Als Tierische Nebenprodukte Der Kategorie 3 Und Zur Verbesserung Ihrer Verfolgbarkeit Im Warenstrom. Qucosa.De 2011, (in German).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  53. 53
    Godfray, H. C. J.; Beddington, J. R.; Crute, I. R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J. F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S. M.; Toulmin, C. Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 2010, 327 (5967), 812– 818,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1185383
    Google Scholar
    52
    Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People
    Godfray, H. Charles J.; Beddington, John R.; Crute, Ian R.; Haddad, Lawrence; Lawrence, David; Muir, James F.; Pretty, Jules; Robinson, Sherman; Thomas, Sandy M.; Toulmin, Camilla
    Science (Washington, DC, United States) (2010), 327 (5967), 812-818CODEN: SCIEAS; ISSN:0036-8075. (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
    Continuing population and consumption growth will mean that the global demand for food will increase for at least another 40 years. Growing competition for land, water, and energy, in addn. to the overexploitation of fisheries, will affect our ability to produce food, as will the urgent requirement to reduce the impact of the food system on the environment. The effects of climate change are a further threat. But the world can produce more food and can ensure that it is used more efficiently and equitably. A multifaceted and linked global strategy is needed to ensure sustainable and equitable food security, different components of which are explored here.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3cXhslWisLo%253D&md5=013885865286c44be7c5a655a6d18f8e
  54. 54
    Brameld, J. M.; Parr, T. Improving Efficiency in Meat Production. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2016, 75 (3), 242– 246,  DOI: 10.1017/S0029665116000161
    Google Scholar
    53
    Improving efficiency in meat production
    Brameld, John M.; Parr, Tim
    Proceedings of the Nutrition Society (2016), 75 (3), 242-246CODEN: PNUSA4; ISSN:0029-6651. (Cambridge University Press)
    Selective breeding and improved nutritional management over the past 20-30 years has resulted in dramatic improvements in growth efficiency for pigs and poultry, particularly lean tissue growth. However, this has been achieved using high-quality feed ingredients, such as wheat and soya that are also used for human consumption and more recently biofuels prodn. Ruminants on the other hand are less efficient, but are normally fed poorer quality ingredients that cannot be digested by human subjects, such as grass or silage. The challenges therefore are to: (i) maintain the current efficiency of growth of pigs and poultry, but using more ingredients not needed to feed the increasing human population or for the prodn. of biofuels; (ii) improve the efficiency of growth in ruminants; (iii) at the same time produce animal products (meat, milk and eggs) of equal or improved quality. This review will describe the use of: (a) enzyme additives for animal feeds, to improve feed digestibility; (b) known growth promoting agents, such as growth hormone, β-agonists and anabolic steroids, currently banned in the European Union but used in other parts of the world; (c) recent transcriptomic studies into mol. mechanisms for improved growth efficiency via low residual feed intake. In doing so, the use of genetic manipulation in animals will also be discussed.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC28Xht1GmtL7M&md5=59e4517c17ca794b777669a824b8be15
  55. 55
    Peters, G. M.; Rowley, H. V.; Wiedemann, S.; Tucker, R.; Short, M. D.; Schulz, M. Red Meat Production in Australia: Life Cycle Assessment and Comparison with Overseas Studies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44 (4), 1327– 1332,  DOI: 10.1021/es901131e
    Google Scholar
    54
    Red Meat Production in Australia: Life Cycle Assessment and Comparison with Overseas Studies
    Peters, Gregory M.; Rowley, Hazel V.; Wiedemann, Stephen; Tucker, Robyn; Short, Michael D.; Schulz, Matthias
    Environmental Science & Technology (2010), 44 (4), 1327-1332CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
    Greenhouse gas emissions from beef prodn. are a significant part of Australia's total contribution to climate change. For the first time an environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) hybridizing detailed on-site process modeling and input-output anal. is used to describe Australian red meat prodn. In this paper we report the carbon footprint and total energy consumption of three supply chains in three different regions in Australia over two years. The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy use data are compared to those from international studies on red meat prodn., and the Australian results are either av. or below av. The increasing proportion of lot-fed beef in Australia is favorable, since this prodn. system generates lower total GHG emissions than grass-fed prodn.; the addnl. effort in producing and transporting feeds is effectively offset by the increased efficiency of meat prodn. in feedlots. In addn. to these two common LCA indicators, in this paper we also quantify solid waste generation and a soil erosion indicator on a common basis.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3cXkt1agug%253D%253D&md5=d102af86081eaa1d7cb4d9e8c78aef3f
  56. 56
    Carlsson-Kanyama, A.; Ekstrom, M. P.; Shanahan, H. Food and Life Cycle Energy Inputs: Consequences of Diets and Ways to Increase Efficiency. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 44, 293– 307,  DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00261-6
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  57. 57
    The Local Home Page. https://www.thelocal.it/20160803/what-you-need-to-know-about-italys-new-food-waste-laws/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  58. 58
    Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Wasser Abfall 2014, 16, 1– 22
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.

    (in German).

Cited By

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article is cited by 36 publications.

  1. Li Xue, Guobao Song, Gang Liu. Wasted Food, Wasted Resources? A Critical Review of Environmental Impact Analysis of Food Loss and Waste Generation and Treatment. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (17) , 7240-7255. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c08426
  2. Huwei Cui, Zhen Wang, Hua Yan, Cai Li, Xuan Jiang, Ling Wang, Gang Liu, Yuanchao Hu, Shuxia Yu, Zhihua Shi. Production-Based and Consumption-Based Accounting of Global Cropland Soil Erosion. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (14) , 10465-10473. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c01855
  3. Andrea Caccialanza, Riccardo Torelli. The role of trade associations in promoting corporate sustainability transition and reporting: A case study in the food supply chain. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 2024, 8 https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2807
  4. Maheeka Weerawarna N.R.P, Caroline Giezenaar, Petra Coetzee, A. Jonathan R. Godfrey, Meika Foster, Joanne Hort. Motivators and barriers to plant-based product consumption across Aotearoa New Zealand flexitarians. Food Quality and Preference 2024, 22 , 105153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105153
  5. Beike Sumfleth, Stefan Majer, Daniela Thrän. A Review of Trade-Offs in Low ILUC-Risk Certification for Biofuels—Towards an Integrated Assessment Framework. Sustainability 2023, 15 (23) , 16303. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316303
  6. Mingyue Pang, Qingshuang Zhang, Jiangling Zhou, Qinglong Yin, Qiujun Tan, Xiaoyao Zhong, Yulu Zhang, Liang Zhao, Yongchuan Yang, Yan Hao, Changbo Wang, Pengpeng Zhang, Lixiao Zhang, Yi Yang. Dietary patterns and environmental impacts of Chongqing hotpot in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2023, 198 , 107118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107118
  7. Ingrid Strid, Maria Jacobsen, Karin Alvåsen, Jesper Rydén. Loss of beef during primary production at Swedish farms 2002–2021. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 2023, 7 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1171865
  8. Davide Galli, Riccardo Torelli, Andrea Caccialanza. Sustainability performance and sustainability reporting in SMEs: a love affair or a fight?. Journal of Management & Organization 2023, 75 , 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40
  9. Yuanyuan Zhu, Yan Zhang, Xiaohua Zhu. The evolution process, characteristics and adjustment of Chinese dietary guidelines: A global perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2023, 193 , 106964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.106964
  10. Maria Sabbagh, Luciano Gutierrez, Roberto Lai, Giuseppe Nocella. Consumer Intention towards Buying Edible Beef Offal and the Relevance of Food Neophobia. Foods 2023, 12 (12) , 2340. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12122340
  11. Xiaojie Liu, Jinhua Guo, Li Xue, Da Zhao, Gang Liu. Where has all the rice gone in China? A farm-to-fork material flow analysis of rice supply chain with uncertainty analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2023, 190 , 106853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106853
  12. Barbara Flores Pimentel, Fotios Misopoulos, Jennifer Davies. A review of factors reducing waste in the food supply chain: The retailer perspective. Cleaner Waste Systems 2022, 3 , 100028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clwas.2022.100028
  13. Olda Lami, Francisco J. Mesías, Celia Balas, Carlos Díaz-Caro, Miguel Escribano, Andrés Horrillo. Does Carbon Footprint Play a Relevant Role in Food Consumer Behaviour? A Focus on Spanish Beef. Foods 2022, 11 (23) , 3899. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11233899
  14. Junzhang Wu, Guanghai Liu, Alessandro Marson, Andrea Fedele, Antonio Scipioni, Alessandro Manzardo. Mitigating environmental burden of the refrigerated transportation sector: Carbon footprint comparisons of commonly used refrigeration systems and alternative cold storage systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 2022, 372 , 133514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133514
  15. Yuan Qi, Hubin Guo, Sijing He, Maowen Yang, . Revenue Distribution Decision in Low-Carbon Supply Chain with Revenue Sharing Contract: An Analysis of the Third-Party Participation and GAHP. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2022, 2022 , 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5483515
  16. Zhongxiao Sun, Laura Scherer, Arnold Tukker, Seth A. Spawn-Lee, Martin Bruckner, Holly K. Gibbs, Paul Behrens. Dietary change in high-income nations alone can lead to substantial double climate dividend. Nature Food 2022, 3 (1) , 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00431-5
  17. Bianca Blum. Less but better – Debating the role of taxation in reducing and transforming the consumption of meat and dairy products. SSRN Electronic Journal 2022, 134 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4016371
  18. Adriano Profeta, Marie-Christin Baune, Sergiy Smetana, Keshia Broucke, Geert Van Royen, Jochen Weiss, Sophie Hieke, Volker Heinz, Nino Terjung. Consumer preferences for meat blended with plant proteins – Empirical findings from Belgium. Future Foods 2021, 4 , 100088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100088
  19. Giulia Ferronato, Sara Corrado, Valeria De Laurentiis, Serenella Sala. The Italian meat production and consumption system assessed combining material flow analysis and life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021, 321 , 128705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128705
  20. Anna Zielińska-Chmielewska, Dobrosława Mruk-Tomczak, Anna Wielicka-Regulska. Qualitative Research on Solving Difficulties in Maintaining Continuity of Food Supply Chain on the Meat Market during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Energies 2021, 14 (18) , 5634. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14185634
  21. Bianca Blum, Bernhard K. J. Neumärker. Lessons from Globalization and the COVID-19 Pandemic for Economic, Environmental and Social Policy. World 2021, 2 (2) , 308-333. https://doi.org/10.3390/world2020020
  22. Annika Johanna Thies, Felicitas Schneider, Josef Efken. The Meat We Do Not Eat. A Survey of Meat Waste in German Hospitality and Food Service Businesses. Sustainability 2021, 13 (9) , 5059. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095059
  23. Angela Bearth, Kewalin Khunnutchanart, Oriana Gasser, Nicole Hasler. The whole beast: Consumers’ perceptions of and willingness-to-eat animal by-products. Food Quality and Preference 2021, 89 , 104144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104144
  24. Jing Li. Insights into cooking sources in the context of sustainable development goals. Sustainable Production and Consumption 2021, 26 , 517-531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.12.017
  25. Li Xue, Zhi Cao, Silvia Scherhaufer, Karin Östergren, Shengkui Cheng, Gang Liu. Mapping the EU tomato supply chain from farm to fork for greenhouse gas emission mitigation strategies. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2021, 25 (2) , 377-389. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13080
  26. Mark R Welford, Robert A Yarbrough. Agriculture. 2021, 171-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56032-4_7
  27. Gudrun Obersteiner, Silvia Scherhaufer. Environmental impact of food waste. 2021, 261-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821363-6.00011-4
  28. Wencong Yue, Meirong Su, Yanpeng Cai, Qiangqiang Rong, Zhenkun Tan. Reactive nitrogen loss from livestock-based food and biofuel production systems considering climate change and dietary transition. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2021, 135 , 110182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110182
  29. Adriano Profeta, Marie-Christin Baune, Sergiy Smetana, Sabine Bornkessel, Keshia Broucke, Geert Van Royen, Ulrich Enneking, Jochen Weiss, Volker Heinz, Sopie Hieke, Nino Terjung. Preferences of German Consumers for Meat Products Blended with Plant-Based Proteins. Sustainability 2021, 13 (2) , 650. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020650
  30. Cecilia Anzani, Fatma Boukid, Liana Drummond, Anne Maria Mullen, Carlos Álvarez. Optimising the use of proteins from rich meat co-products and non-meat alternatives: Nutritional, technological and allergenicity challenges. Food Research International 2020, 137 , 109575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109575
  31. Stephan van Vliet, Scott L. Kronberg, Frederick D. Provenza. Plant-Based Meats, Human Health, and Climate Change. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 2020, 4 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00128
  32. Yuanchao Hu, Meirong Su, Yafei Wang, Shenghui Cui, Fanxin Meng, Wencong Yue, Yufei Liu, Chao Xu, Zhifeng Yang. Food production in China requires intensified measures to be consistent with national and provincial environmental boundaries. Nature Food 2020, 1 (9) , 572-582. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00143-2
  33. Yasanur Kayikci, Melisa Ozbiltekin, Yigit Kazancoglu. Minimizing losses at red meat supply chain with circular and central slaughterhouse model. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 2020, 33 (4) , 791-816. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2019-0025
  34. Rita Oliveira e Silva, Margarida I. F. do Carmo Rouxinol, Luís A. da Silva Coutinho Patarata. The use of photography to perform an online consumer test on the freshness of chicken breast and the extension of shelf life. Journal of Sensory Studies 2020, 35 (3) https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12565
  35. Sina Nitzko, Achim Spiller. Comparing “Leaf-to-Root”, “Nose-to-Tail” and Other Efficient Food Utilization Options from a Consumer Perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11 (17) , 4779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174779
  36. Silvia Scherhaufer. Handlungsempfehlungen zur Reduktion von Lebensmittelabfällen und ihre Klimarelevanz anhand von theoretischen Umsetzungsbeispielen im europäischen Raum. Österreichische Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft 2019, 71 (5-6) , 273-281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00506-019-0575-z
Download PDF

  • Abstract

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. System definition of the German meat supply chain and its associated energy use and emissions.

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. (a) Mass balance for the meat supply chain in Germany in 2016, on a dry matter basis; (b) byproducts and meat waste treatment; and (c) distribution of protein and fat from animal byproducts, EAF: edible animal fat.

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. (a) Distribution of GHG emissions in the meat supply chain; (b) LW (total live weight, DM basis) production and GHG emissions in animal production. They are the reference scenario (data for 2016).

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. (a) Different scenarios of GHG emissions in a consumption-based accounting. Negative values mean the reduction percentage compared to the reference scenario, and positive values mean the increase percentage relative to the baseline; (b) the combined scenario result of GHG emissions reduction. S0 is the baseline scenario. The numbers along the vertical arrows represent the absolute amount of GHG emissions reductions and the shares in the total reduction, respectively. SA = S2c, SB = S2c + S4c, SC = S2c + S4c + S5f, SD = S2c + S4c + S5f + S8, SE = S2c + S4c + S5f + S7 + S8, SF = S1 + S2c + S4c + S5f + S7 + S8; (c) net environment benefits from rendering of meat byproducts and meat waste treatment. We assumed food production (mainly EAF) replaces palm oil, feed production replaces soymeal, and biodiesel production replaces fossil fuel.

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

  • References

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    This article references 58 other publications.

    1. 1
      OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2018–2027 Home Page. https://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?QueryId=84949&vh=0000&vf=0&l&il=&lang=en/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    2. 2
      Statista Per capita meat consumption forecast in the big five European countries from 2010 to 2020 Home Page. https://www.statista.com/statistics/679528/per-capita-meat-consumption-european-union-eu/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    3. 3
      Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, T.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M.; De Haan, C. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    4. 4
      Djekic, I.; Tomasevic, I. Environmental Impacts of the Meat Chain - Current Status and Future Perspectives. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 54, 94– 102,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2016.06.001
      4
      Environmental impacts of the meat chain - Current status and future perspectives
      Djekic, Ilija; Tomasevic, Igor
      Trends in Food Science & Technology (2016), 54 (), 94-102CODEN: TFTEEH; ISSN:0924-2244. (Elsevier Ltd.)
      The meat chain sector is recognized as one of the leading polluters in the food industry. Research on environmental performance in the meat industry has been analyzed in terms of the meat product(s), the manufg. processes and environmental practices in which the meat companies operate.A literature review was performed by analyzing published scientific papers in the domains of environmental impacts in the meat chain. The selection criteria were focused on different environmental approaches applied in the meat chain and on the perspectives of future research.This review revealed that the focus of product based approach performed through life-cycle assessments were mainly farms. Scientific papers covered calcns. of global warming, acidification and eutrophication potentials. On the contrary, process based approaches investigated on-site environmental impacts of meat prodn. They were focused on discharge of waste water and solid waste and consumption of water and energy. Finally, environmental systems in the meat chain were the least investigated stream and they analyzed level of practices in respect to the size of the meat companies, their role in the meat chain and certification status. Future research should focus on the development of new dimensions of environmental improvements in the meat chain to enable benchmarking and comparing various meat technologies. Also, anal. of environmental practices throughout the meat chain could be of added value in the exploration of environmental improvement techniques on-site.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC28Xptl2ktbs%253D&md5=21a3a3f538b5315426c2afc1918688a9
    5. 5
      Priefer, C.; Jörissen, J.; Bräutigam, K. R. Food Waste Prevention in Europe - A Cause-Driven Approach to Identify the Most Relevant Leverage Points for Action. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 109, 155– 165,  DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.03.004
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    6. 6
      Leip, A.; Billen, G.; Garnier, J.; Grizzetti, B.; Lassaletta, L.; Reis, S.; Simpson, D.; Sutton, M. A.; De Vries, W.; Weiss, F.; Westhoek, H. Impacts of European Livestock Production: Nitrogen, Sulphur, Phosphorus and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land-Use, Water Eutrophication and Biodiversity. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10 (11), 115004,  DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/115004
      6
      Impacts of European livestock production: nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus and greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, water eutrophication and biodiversity
      Leip, Adrian; Billen, Gilles; Garnier, Josette; Grizzetti, Bruna; Lassaletta, Luis; Reis, Stefan; Simpson, David; Sutton, Mark A.; de Vries, Wim; Weiss, Franz; Westhoek, Henk
      Environmental Research Letters (2015), 10 (11), 115004/1-115004/13CODEN: ERLNAL; ISSN:1748-9326. (IOP Publishing Ltd.)
      Livestock prodn. systems currently occupy around 28% of the land surface of the European Union (equiv. to 65% of the agricultural land). In conjunction with other human activities, livestock prodn. systems affect water, air and soil quality, global climate and biodiversity, altering the biogeochem. cycles of nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon. Here, we quantify the contribution of European livestock prodn. to these major impacts. For each environmental effect, the contribution of livestock is expressed as shares of the emitted compds. 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 technol. measures reducing livestock emissions, improved food choices and reduced food waste of European citizens.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2sXkvFersb4%253D&md5=e5d82f9c4ed5de63a2875dd2fa2bea22
    7. 7
      Bellarby, J.; Tirado, R.; Leip, A.; Weiss, F.; Lesschen, J. P.; Smith, P. Livestock Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Mitigation Potential in Europe. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19 (1), 3– 18,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02786.x
      7
      Livestock greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential in Europe
      Bellarby Jessica; Tirado Reyes; Leip Adrian; Weiss Franz; Lesschen Jan Peter; Smith Pete
      Global change biology (2013), 19 (1), 3-18 ISSN:1354-1013.
      The livestock sector contributes considerably to global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Here, for the year 2007 we examined GHG emissions in the EU27 livestock sector and estimated GHG emissions from production and consumption of livestock products; including imports, exports and wastage. We also reviewed available mitigation options and estimated their potential. The focus of this review is on the beef and dairy sector since these contribute 60% of all livestock production emissions. Particular attention is paid to the role of land use and land use change (LULUC) and carbon sequestration in grasslands. GHG emissions of all livestock products amount to between 630 and 863 Mt CO2 e, or 12-17% of total EU27 GHG emissions in 2007. The highest emissions aside from production, originate from LULUC, followed by emissions from wasted food. The total GHG mitigation potential from the livestock sector in Europe is between 101 and 377 Mt CO2 e equivalent to between 12 and 61% of total EU27 livestock sector emissions in 2007. A reduction in food waste and consumption of livestock products linked with reduced production, are the most effective mitigation options, and if encouraged, would also deliver environmental and human health benefits. Production of beef and dairy on grassland, as opposed to intensive grain fed production, can be associated with a reduction in GHG emissions depending on actual LULUC emissions. This could be promoted on rough grazing land where appropriate.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC3svnt12qtg%253D%253D&md5=ea3b01f076dd136502dd78c8f28fb66a
    8. 8
      Weiss, F.; Leip, A. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the EU Livestock Sector: A Life Cycle Assessment Carried out with the CAPRI Model. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 149, 124– 134,  DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.015
      8
      Greenhouse gas emissions from the EU livestock sector: A life cycle assessment carried out with the CAPRI model
      Weiss, Franz; Leip, Adrian
      Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment (2012), 149 (), 124-134CODEN: AEENDO; ISSN:0167-8809. (Elsevier B.V.)
      This study presents detailed product-based net emissions of main livestock products (meat, milk and eggs) at national level for the whole EU-27 according to a cradle-to-gate life-cycle assessment, including emissions from land use and land use change (LULUC). Calcns. were done with the CAPRI model and the covered gases are CH4, N2O and CO2. Total GHG fluxes of European livestock prodn. amt. to 623-852 Mt CO2-equiv., 182-238 Mt CO2-equiv. (28-29%) are from beef prodn., 184-240 Mt CO2-equiv. (28-30%) from cow milk prodn. and 153-226 Mt CO2-equiv. (25-27%) from pork prodn. According to IPCC classifications, 38-52% of total net emissions are created in the agricultural sector, 17-24% in the energy and industrial sectors. 12-16% Mt CO2-equiv. are related to land use (CO2 fluxes from cultivation of org. soils and reduced carbon sequestration compared to natural grassland) and 9-33% to land use change, mainly due to feed imports. The results suggest that for effective redn. of GHG emissions from livestock prodn., fluxes occurring outside the agricultural sector need to be taken into account. Redn. targets should address both the prodn. side as defined by IPCC sectors and the consumption side. An LCA assessment as presented here could be a basis for such efforts.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC38XitlGiu7w%253D&md5=d29499da3fd6354f2c500372d36dc4fc
    9. 9
      Gerber, P. J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    10. 10
      Bennetzen, E. H.; Smith, P.; Porter, J. R. Decoupling of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Agricultural Production: 1970–2050. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22 (2), 763– 781,  DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13120
      10
      Decoupling of greenhouse gas emissions from global agricultural production: 1970-2050
      Bennetzen Eskild H; Porter John R; Smith Pete; Porter John R
      Global change biology (2016), 22 (2), 763-81 ISSN:.
      Since 1970 global agricultural production has more than doubled; contributing ~1/4 of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) burden in 2010. Food production must increase to feed our growing demands, but to address climate change, GHG emissions must decrease. Using an identity approach, we estimate and analyse past trends in GHG emission intensities from global agricultural production and land-use change and project potential future emissions. The novel Kaya-Porter identity framework deconstructs the entity of emissions from a mix of multiple sources of GHGs into attributable elements allowing not only a combined analysis of the total level of all emissions jointly with emissions per unit area and emissions per unit product. It also allows us to examine how a change in emissions from a given source contributes to the change in total emissions over time. We show that agricultural production and GHGs have been steadily decoupled over recent decades. Emissions peaked in 1991 at ~12 Pg CO2 -eq. yr(-1) and have not exceeded this since. Since 1970 GHG emissions per unit product have declined by 39% and 44% for crop- and livestock-production, respectively. Except for the energy-use component of farming, emissions from all sources have increased less than agricultural production. Our projected business-as-usual range suggests that emissions may be further decoupled by 20-55% giving absolute agricultural emissions of 8.2-14.5 Pg CO2 -eq. yr(-1) by 2050, significantly lower than many previous estimates that do not allow for decoupling. Beyond this, several additional costcompetitive mitigation measures could reduce emissions further. However, agricultural GHG emissions can only be reduced to a certain level and a simultaneous focus on other parts of the food-system is necessary to increase food security whilst reducing emissions. The identity approach presented here could be used as a methodological framework for more holistic food systems analysis.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC28zgtFyruw%253D%253D&md5=881053ab0f5bf358fac1331b0b7831bc
    11. 11
      Caro, D.; Kebreab, E.; Mitloehner, F. M. Mitigation of Enteric Methane Emissions from Global Livestock Systems through Nutrition Strategies. Clim. Change 2016, 137 (3–4), 467– 480,  DOI: 10.1007/s10584-016-1686-1
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    12. 12
      Herrero, M.; Henderson, B.; Havlík, P.; Thornton, P. K.; Conant, R. T.; Smith, P.; Wirsenius, S.; Hristov, A. N.; Gerber, P.; Gill, M.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.; Valin, H.; Garnett, T.; Stehfest, E. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potentials in the Livestock Sector. Nat. Clim. Change 2016, 6 (5), 452– 461,  DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2925
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    13. 13
      Vitali, A.; Grossi, G.; Martino, G.; Bernabucci, U.; Nardone, A.; Lacetera, N. Carbon Footprint of Organic Beef Meat from Farm to Fork: A Case Study of Short Supply Chain. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98 (14), 5518– 5524,  DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.9098
      13
      Carbon footprint of organic beef meat from farm to fork: a case study of short supply chain
      Vitali, Andrea; Grossi, Giampiero; Martino, Giuseppe; Bernabucci, Umberto; Nardone, Alessandro; Lacetera, Nicola
      Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture (2018), 98 (14), 5518-5524CODEN: JSFAAE; ISSN:0022-5142. (John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
      BACKGROUND : Sustainability of food systems is one of the big challenges facing humanity. Local food networks, esp. those using org. methods, are proliferating worldwide, and little is known about their carbon footprints. This study aims to assess greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions assocd. with a local org. beef supply chain using a cradle-to-grave approach. RESULTS : The study detd. an overall burden of 24.46 kg CO2 eq. kg-1 of cooked meat. The breeding and fattening phase was the principal source of CO2 in the prodn. chain, accounting for 86% of the total emissions. Enteric methane emission was the greatest source of GHG arising directly from farming activities (47%). The consumption of meat at home was the second high point in GHG prodn. in the chain (9%), with the cooking process being the main source within this stage (72%). Retail and slaughtering activities resp. accounted for 4.1% and 1.1% of GHG emissions for the whole supply chain. CONCLUSION : The identification of the major sources of GHG emissions assocd. with org. beef produced and consumed in a local food network may stimulate debate on environmental issues among those in the network and direct them toward processes, choices and habits that reduce carbon pollution. © 2018 Society of Chem. Industry.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC1cXht1yitLzF&md5=886b25f4d4dbbb2e178cd76d1bc137dc
    14. 14
      Herrero, M.; Havlik, P.; Valin, H.; Notenbaert, A.; Rufino, M. C.; Thornton, P. K.; Blummel, M.; Weiss, F.; Grace, D.; Obersteiner, M. Biomass Use, Production, Feed Efficiencies, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Livestock Systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013, 110 (52), 20888– 20893,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1308149110
      14
      Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems
      Herrero, Mario; Havlik, Petr; Valin, Hugo; Notenbaert, An; Rufino, Mariana C.; Thornton, Philip K.; Blummel, Michael; Weiss, Franz; Grace, Delia; Obersteiner, Michael
      Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2013), 110 (52), 20888-20893,S20888/1-S20888/120CODEN: PNASA6; ISSN:0027-8424. (National Academy of Sciences)
      A unique, biol. consistent, spatially disaggregated global livestock dataset contg. information on biomass use, prodn., feed efficiency, excretion, and greenhouse gas emissions for 28 regions, 8 livestock prodn. systems, 4 animal species (cattle, small ruminants, pigs, poultry), and 3 livestock products (milk, meat, eggs), is. This dataset contains >50 global maps contg. high resoln. information to understand the multiple roles (biophys., economic, social) that livestock can play in different parts of the world. The dataset highlights: feed efficiency as a key driver of productivity, resource use, and greenhouse gas emission intensities, with vast differences between prodn. systems and animal products; the importance of grasslands as a global resource, supplying almost 50% of biomass for animals while continuing to be at the epicenter of land conversion processes; and the importance of mixed crop-livestock systems, producing the greater portion of animal prodn. (>60%) in the developed and developing world. These data provide crit. information to develop targeted, sustainable solns. for the livestock sector and its widely ranging contribution to the global food system.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2cXnsFyrsA%253D%253D&md5=bba20c7be506ec442efa48a47368cfbe
    15. 15
      Wanapat, M.; Cherdthong, A.; Phesatcha, K.; Kang, S. Dietary Sources and Their Effects on Animal Production and Environmental Sustainability. Anim. Nutr. 2015, 1 (3), 96– 103,  DOI: 10.1016/j.aninu.2015.07.004
      15
      Dietary sources and their effects on animal production and environmental sustainability
      Wanapat Metha; Cherdthong Anusorn; Phesatcha Kampanat; Kang Sungchhang
      Animal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) (2015), 1 (3), 96-103 ISSN:.
      Animal agriculture has been an important component in the integrated farming systems in developing countries. It serves in a paramount diversified role in producing animal protein food, draft power, farm manure as well as ensuring social status-quo and enriching livelihood. Ruminants are importantly contributable to the well-being and the livelihood of the global population. Ruminant production systems can vary from subsistence to intensive type of farming depending on locality, resource availability, infrastructure accessibility, food demand and market potentials. The growing demand for sustainable animal production is compelling to researchers exploring the potential approaches to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions from livestock. Global warming has been an issue of concern and importance for all especially those engaged in animal agriculture. Methane (CH4) is one of the major GHG accounted for at least 14% of the total GHG with a global warming potential 25-fold of carbon dioxide and a 12-year atmospheric lifetime. Agricultural sector has a contribution of 50 to 60% methane emission and ruminants are the major source of methane contribution (15 to 33%). Methane emission by enteric fermentation of ruminants represents a loss of energy intake (5 to 15% of total) and is produced by methanogens (archae) as a result of fermentation end-products. Ruminants digestive fermentation results in fermentation end-products of volatile fatty acids (VFA), microbial protein and methane production in the rumen. Rumen microorganisms including bacteria, protozoa and fungal zoospores are closely associated with the rumen fermentation efficiency. Besides using feed formulation and feeding management, local feed resources have been used as alternative feed additives for manipulation of rumen ecology with promising results for replacement in ruminant feeding. Those potential feed additive practices are as follows: 1) the use of plant extracts or plants containing secondary compounds (e.g., condensed tannins and saponins) such as mangosteen peel powder, rain tree pod; 2) plants rich in minerals, e.g., banana flower powder; and 3) plant essential oils, e.g., garlic, eucalyptus leaf powder, etc. Implementation of the -feed-system using cash crop and leguminous shrubs or fodder trees are of promising results.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC1MfjvVeksw%253D%253D&md5=9940c7f98d780891173f2567917b0f99
    16. 16
      Caro, D.; Davis, S. J.; Bastianoni, S.; Caldeira, K. Global and Regional Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock. Clim. Change 2014, 126 (1–2), 203– 216,  DOI: 10.1007/s10584-014-1197-x
      16
      Global and regional trends in greenhouse gas emissions from livestock
      Caro, Dario; Davis, Steven J.; Bastianoni, Simone; Caldeira, Ken
      Climatic Change (2014), 126 (1-2), 203-216CODEN: CLCHDX; ISSN:0165-0009. (Springer)
      Following IPCC guidelines (IPCC 2006), we est. greenhouse gas emissions related to livestock in 237 countries and 11 livestock categories during the period 1961-2010. We find that in 2010 emissions of methane and nitrous oxide related to livestock worldwide represented approx. 9 % of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Global GHG emissions from livestock increased by 51 % during the analyzed period, mostly due to strong growth of emissions in developing (Non-Annex I) countries (+117 %). In contrast, developed country (Annex I) emissions decreased (-23 %). Beef and dairy cattle are the largest source of livestock emissions (74 % of global livestock emissions). Since developed countries tend to have lower CO2-equivalent GHG emissions per unit GDP and per quantity of product generated in the livestock sector, the amt. of wealth generated per unit GHG emitted from the livestock sector can be increased by improving both livestock farming practices in developing countries and the overall state of economic development. Our results reveal important details of how livestock prodn. and assocd. GHG emissions have occurred in time and space. Discrepancies with higher tiers, demonstrate the value of more detailed analyses, and discourage over interpretation of smaller-scale trends in the Tier 1 results, but do not undermine the value of global Tier 1 anal.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2cXhtFentLrP&md5=bd220598a0d9595f5bbec693df15dfa3
    17. 17
      Ahmed, M.; Stockle, C. O. Quantification of Climate Variability, Adaptation and Mitigation for Agricultural Sustainability; Ahmed, M., Stockle, C. O., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2017.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    18. 18
      EEA. Annual European Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2007 and Inventory Report 2009. 2009; https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2006_6.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    19. 19
      Lesschen, J. P.; van den Berg, M.; Westhoek, H. J.; Witzke, H. P.; Oenema, O. Greenhouse Gas Emission Profiles of European Livestock Sectors. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 16– 28,  DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.058
      19
      Greenhouse gas emission profiles of European livestock sectors
      Lesschen, J. P.; van den Berg, M.; Westhoek, H. J.; Witzke, H. P.; Oenema, O.
      Animal Feed Science and Technology (2011), 166-167 (), 16-28CODEN: AFSTDH; ISSN:0377-8401. (Elsevier B.V.)
      There are increasing concerns about the ecol. footprint of global animal prodn. Expanding livestock sectors worldwide contribute to expansion of agricultural land and assocd. deforestation, emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), eutrophication of surface waters and nutrient imbalances. Farm based studies indicate that there are large differences among farms in animal productivity and environmental performance. Here, we report on regional variations in dairy, beef, pork, poultry and egg prodn., and related GHG emissions in the 27 Member States of the European Union (EU-27), based on 2003-2005 data. Analyses were made with the MITERRA-Europe model which calcs. annual nutrient flows and GHG emissions from agriculture in the EU-27. Main input data were derived from CAPRI (i.e., crop areas, livestock distribution, feed inputs), GAINS (i.e., animal nos., excretion factors, NH3 emission factors), FAO statistics (i.e., crop yields, fertilizer consumption, animal prodn.) and IPCC (i.e., CH4, N2O, CO2 emission factors). Sources of GHG emissions included were enteric fermn., manure management, direct and indirect N2O soil emissions, cultivation of org. soils, liming, fossil fuel use and fertilizer prodn. The dairy sector had the highest GHG emission in the EU-27, with annual emission of 195 Tg CO2-eq, followed by the beef sector with 192 Tg CO2-eq. Enteric fermn. was the main source of GHG emissions in the European livestock sector (36%) followed by N2O soil emissions (28%). On a per kg product basis, beef had by far the highest GHG emission with 22.6 kg CO2-eq/kg, milk had an emission of 1.3 kg CO2-eq/kg, pork 3.5 kg CO2-eq/kg, poultry 1.6 kg CO2-eq/kg, and eggs 1.7 kg CO2-eq/kg. However large variations in GHG emissions per unit product exist among EU countries, which are due to differences in animal prodn. systems, feed types and nutrient use efficiencies. There are, however, substantial uncertainties in the base data and applied methodol. such as assumptions surrounding allocation of feeds to livestock species. Our results provide insight into differences in GHG sources and emissions among animal prodn. sectors for the various regions of Europe. This article is part of the special issue entitled: Greenhouse Gases in Animal Agriculture - Finding a Balance between Food and Emissions, Guest Edited by T.A. McAllister, Section Guest Editors; K.A. Beauchemin, X. Hao, S. McGinn and Editor for Animal Feed Science and Technol., P.H. Robinson.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3MXnsFWlsr4%253D&md5=7aac63f1bce54de286cfc460772c1583
    20. 20
      de Boer, I. J. M.; Cederberg, C.; Eady, S.; Gollnow, S.; Kristensen, T.; Macleod, M.; Meul, M.; Nemecek, T.; Phong, L. T.; Thoma, G.; van der Werf, H. M. G.; Williams, A. G.; Zonderland-Thomassen, M. A. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Animal Production: Towards an Integrated Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2011, 3 (5), 423– 431,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2011.08.007
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    21. 21
      Gerber, P. J.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C. I.; Falcucci, A.; Teillard, F. Environmental Impacts of Beef Production: Review of Challenges and Perspectives for Durability. Meat Sci. 2015, 109, 2– 12,  DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.05.013
      21
      Environmental impacts of beef production: Review of challenges and perspectives for durability
      Gerber Pierre J; Mottet Anne; Opio Carolyn I; Falcucci Alessandra; Teillard Felix
      Meat science (2015), 109 (), 2-12 ISSN:.
      Beef makes a substantial contribution to food security, providing protein, energy and also essential micro-nutrients to human populations. Rumination allows cattle - and other ruminant species - to digest fibrous feeds that cannot be directly consumed by humans and thus to make a net positive contribution to food balances. This contribution is of particular importance in marginal areas, where agro-ecological conditions and weak infrastructures do not offer much alternative. It is also valuable where cattle convert crop residues and by-products into edible products and where they contribute to soil fertility through their impact on nutrients and organic matter cycles. At the same time, environmental sustainability issues are acute. They chiefly relate to the low efficiency of beef cattle in converting natural resources into edible products. Water use, land use, biomass appropriation and greenhouse gas emissions are for example typically higher per unit of edible product in beef systems than in any other livestock systems, even when corrected for nutritional quality. This particularly causes environmental pressure when production systems are specialized towards the delivery of edible products, in large volumes. The paper discusses environmental challenges at global level, recognizing the large diversity of systems. Beef production is faced with a range of additional sustainability challenges, such as changing consumer perceptions, resilience to climate change, animal health and inequities in access to land and water resources. Entry-points for environmental sustainability improvement are discussed within this broader development context.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC2MbnslWrtw%253D%253D&md5=f8f493a28d196068e2d233643544cac2
    22. 22
      Groen, E. A.; Van Zanten, H. H. E.; Heijungs, R.; Bokkers, E. A. M.; De Boer, I. J. M. Sensitivity Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Pork Production Chain. J. Cleaner Prod. 2016, 129, 202– 211,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.081
      22
      Sensitivity analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from a pork production chain
      Groen, E. A.; van Zanten, H. H. E.; Heijungs, R.; Bokkers, E. A. M.; de Boer, I. J. M.
      Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), 129 (), 202-211CODEN: JCROE8; ISSN:0959-6526. (Elsevier Ltd.)
      This study aimed to identify the most essential input parameters in the assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions along the pork prodn. chain. We identified most essential input parameters by combining two sensitivity-anal. methods: the multiplier method and the method of elementary effects. The former shows how much an input parameter influences assessment of GHG emissions, whereas the latter shows the importance of input parameters on uncertainty in the output. For the method of elementary effects, uncertainty ranges were implemented only for input parameters that were identified as being most influential based on the multiplier method or that had large uncertainty ranges based on the literature. Results showed that the most essential input parameters are the feed-conversion ratio, the amt. of manure, CH4 emissions from manure management and crop yields, esp. of maize and barley. Combining the results of both methods allowed derivation of mitigation options, either based on innovations (e.g. novel feeding strategies) or on management strategies (e.g. reducing mortality rate), and formulation of options for improving reliability of the results. Mitigation options based on innovations were shown to be most effective when directed at improving the feed-conversion ratio; decreasing the amt. of manure produced by pigs; improving maize, barley and wheat yields; decreasing the no. of sows or piglets per growing pig needed and improving efficiency of N-fertilizer prodn. Mitigation options based on management strategies were shown to be most effective when farmers strive to reduce feed intake, reduce application of N fertilizer to maize and barley, and reduce the no. of sows per growing pig needed towards best practices. Finally, the method of elementary effects showed that reliability of assessing GHG emissions of pork prodn. could be improved when uncertainty ranges are reduced, for example, around direct and indirect N2O emissions of the main feed crops in the pig diet and the CH4 emissions of manure. Also the reliability could be improved by improving data quality of the most essential parameters. Combining two types of sensitivity-anal. methods identified the most essential input parameters in the pork prodn. chain. With this combined anal., mitigation options via innovations and management strategies were derived, and parameters were identified that improved reliability of the results.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC28XnsVehurk%253D&md5=1f219cd25a717cba9fc7cc841145e761
    23. 23
      Clark, M.; Tilman, D. Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Production Systems, Agricultural Input Efficiency, and Food Choice. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12 (6), 064016,  DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5
      23
      Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice
      Clark, Michael; Tilman, David
      Environmental Research Letters (2017), 12 (6), 064016/1-064016/11CODEN: ERLNAL; ISSN:1748-9326. (IOP Publishing Ltd.)
      Global agricultural feeds over 7 billion people, but is also a leading cause of environmental degrdn. Understanding how alternative agricultural prodn. systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice drive environmental degrdn. is necessary for reducing agriculture's environmental impacts. A meta-anal. of life cycle assessments that includes 742 agricultural systems and over 90 unique foods produced primarily in high-input systems shows that, per unit of food, org. systems require more land, cause more eutrophication, use less energy, but emit similar greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) as conventional systems; that grass-fed beef requires more land and emits similar GHG emissions as grain-feed beef; and that low-input aquaculture and non-trawling fisheries have much lower GHG emissions than trawling fisheries. In addn., our analyses show that increasing agricultural input efficiency (the amt. of food produced per input of fertilizer or feed) would have environmental benefits for both crop and livestock systems. Further, for all environmental indicators and nutritional units examd., plant-based foods have the lowest environmental impacts; eggs, dairy, pork, poultry, non-trawling fisheries, and non-recirculating aquaculture have intermediate impacts; and ruminant meat has impacts ~ 100 times those of plant-based foods. Our analyses show that dietary shifts towards low-impact foods and increases in agricultural input use efficiency would offer larger environmental benefits than would switches from conventional agricultural systems to alternatives such as org. agriculture or grass-fed beef.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC1cXmvVOru7c%253D&md5=14daff3f1e9cb3c5110ef1ff8a0737ea
    24. 24
      Berners-Lee, M.; Hoolohan, C.; Cammack, H.; Hewitt, C. N. The Relative Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Realistic Dietary Choices. Energy Policy 2012, 43, 184– 190,  DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.054
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    25. 25
      Hallström, E.; Carlsson-Kanyama, A.; Börjesson, P. Environmental Impact of Dietary Change: A Systematic Review. J. Cleaner Prod. 2015, 91, 1– 11,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.008
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    26. 26
      Dorward, L. J. Where Are the Best Opportunities for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Food System (Including the Food Chain)? A Comment. Food Policy 2012, 37 (4), 463– 466,  DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.04.006
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    27. 27
      Parfitt, J.; Barthel, M.; Macnaughton, S. Food Waste within Food Supply Chains: Quantification and Potential for Change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 2010, 365 (1554), 3065– 3081,  DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0126
      27
      Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050
      Parfitt Julian; Barthel Mark; Macnaughton Sarah
      Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences (2010), 365 (1554), 3065-81 ISSN:.
      Food waste in the global food supply chain is reviewed in relation to the prospects for feeding a population of nine billion by 2050. Different definitions of food waste with respect to the complexities of food supply chains (FSCs)are discussed. An international literature review found a dearth of data on food waste and estimates varied widely; those for post-harvest losses of grain in developing countries might be overestimated. As much of the post-harvest loss data for developing countries was collected over 30 years ago, current global losses cannot be quantified. A significant gap exists in the understanding of the food waste implications of the rapid development of 'BRIC' economies. The limited data suggest that losses are much higher at the immediate post-harvest stages in developing countries and higher for perishable foods across industrialized and developing economies alike. For affluent economies, post-consumer food waste accounts for the greatest overall losses. To supplement the fragmentary picture and to gain a forward view, interviews were conducted with international FSC experts. The analyses highlighted the scale of the problem, the scope for improved system efficiencies and the challenges of affecting behavioural change to reduce post-consumer waste in affluent populations.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC3cjltF2ksw%253D%253D&md5=446d775cc6098fcebc1078418d945a72
    28. 28
      Hyland, J. J.; Henchion, M.; McCarthy, M.; McCarthy, S. N. The Role of Meat in Strategies to Achieve a Sustainable Diet Lower in Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Review. Meat Sci. 2017, 132 (April), 189– 195,  DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.04.014
      28
      The role of meat in strategies to achieve a sustainable diet lower in greenhouse gas emissions: A review
      Hyland John J; Henchion Maeve; McCarthy Mary; McCarthy Sinead N
      Meat science (2017), 132 (), 189-195 ISSN:.
      Food consumption is responsible for a considerable proportion of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE). Hence, individual food choices have the potential to substantially influence both public health and the environment. Meat and animal products are relatively high in GHGE and therefore targeted in efforts to reduce dietary emissions. This review first highlights the complexities regarding sustainability in terms of meat consumption and thereafter discusses possible strategies that could be implemented to mitigate its climatic impact. It outlines how sustainable diets are possible without the elimination of meat. For instance, overconsumption of food in general, beyond our nutritional requirements, was found to be a significant contributor of emissions. Non-voluntary and voluntary mitigation strategies offer potential to reduce dietary GHGE. All mitigation strategies require careful consideration but on-farm sustainable intensification perhaps offers the most promise. However, a balance between supply and demand approaches is encouraged. Health should remain the overarching principle for policies and strategies concerned with shifting consumer behaviour towards sustainable diets.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC1crivFCltA%253D%253D&md5=41813bc56315b3e3bfb3106ca85911c1
    29. 29
      Scherhaufer, S.; Moates, G.; Hartikainen, H.; Waldron, K.; Obersteiner, G. Environmental Impacts of Food Waste in Europe. Waste Manage. 2018, 77, 98– 113,  DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.038
      29
      Environmental impacts of food waste in Europe
      Scherhaufer Silvia; Moates Graham; Waldron Keith; Hartikainen Hanna; Obersteiner Gudrun
      Waste management (New York, N.Y.) (2018), 77 (), 98-113 ISSN:.
      Approximately 88 Million tonnes (Mt) of food is wasted in the European Union each year and the environmental impacts of these losses throughout the food supply chain are widely recognised. This study illustrates the impacts of food waste in relation to the total food utilised, including the impact from food waste management based on available data at the European level. The impacts are calculated for the Global Warming Potential, the Acidification Potential and the Eutrophication Potential using a bottom-up approach using more than 134 existing LCA studies on nine representative products (apple, tomato, potato, bread, milk, beef, pork, chicken, white fish). Results show that 186 Mt CO2-eq, 1.7 Mt SO2-eq. and 0.7 Mt PO4-eq can be attributed to food waste in Europe. This is 15 to 16% of the total impact of the entire food supply chain. In general, the study confirmed that most of the environmental impacts are derived from the primary production step of the chain. That is why animal-containing food shows most of the food waste related impacts when it is extrapolated to total food waste even if cereals are higher in mass. Nearly three quarters of all food waste-related impacts for Global Warming originate from greenhouse gas emissions during the production step. Emissions by food processing activities contribute 6%, retail and distribution 7%, food consumption, 8% and food disposal, 6% to food waste related impacts. Even though the results are subject to certain data and scenario uncertainties, the study serves as a baseline assessment, based on current food waste data, and can be expanded as more knowledge on the type and amount of food waste becomes available. Nevertheless, the importance of food waste prevention is underlined by the results of this study, as most of the impacts originate from the production step. Through food waste prevention, those impacts can be avoided as less food needs to be produced.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BB3c%252Fot1amsA%253D%253D&md5=a7be5d68630d80cb5b485a57e834bcdd
    30. 30
      Nations Online Project Home Page. http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/germany.htm/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    31. 31
      Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Home Page. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    32. 32
      Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft Ausgewählte Daten Und Fakten Der Agrarwirtschaft 2014 2015, 19
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.

      (in German).

    33. 33
      European Commission Eurostat Home Page. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/prodcom/data/database/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    34. 34
      Noleppa, S.; Cartsburg, M. Das Grosse Wegschmeissen. WWF Deutschl. 2015, 3– 68
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    35. 35
      Kranert, M.; Hafner, G.; Barabosz, J.; Schuller, H.; Leverenz, D.; Kölbig, A.; Schneider, F.; Lebersorger, S.; Scherhaufer, S. Ermittlung Der Weggeworfenen Lebensmittelmengen Und Vorschläge Zur Verminderung Der Wegwerfrate Bei Lebensmitteln in Deutschland. Inst. für Siedlungswasserbau; Wassergüte- und Abfallwirtschaft 2012, 300
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.

      (in German).

    36. 36
      Eberle, U.; Fels, J. Environmental Impacts of German Food Consumption and Food Losses. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21 (5), 759– 772,  DOI: 10.1007/s11367-015-0983-7
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    37. 37
      European Commission EU Rules Home Page. https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/animal-by-products/eu-rules_en/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    38. 38
      European Commission Waste Framework Directive Home Page. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/index.htm/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    39. 39
      United Nations. United Nations Sustainability Development Goals Home Page. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    40. 40
      European Parliament and Council Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 Amending Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste. Off. J. Eur. Union 2018, (1907), 109– 140
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    41. 41
      Law for the Promotion of the Circular Economy and Ensuring the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste (Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz—KrWG) Home Page. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/krwg/_11.html/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    42. 42
      Ordinance on the utilization of biowaste on agricultural, forestry and horticultural land (Biological Waste Ordinance—BioAbfV) Home Page. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bioabfv/BJNR295500998.html/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    43. 43
      Xue, L.; Liu, G.; Parfitt, J.; Liu, X.; Van Herpen, E.; Stenmarck, Å.; O’Connor, C.; Östergren, K.; Cheng, S. Missing Food, Missing Data? A Critical Review of Global Food Losses and Food Waste Data. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (12), 6618– 6633,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00401
      43
      Missing Food, Missing Data? A Critical Review of Global Food Losses and Food Waste Data
      Xue, Li; Liu, Gang; Parfitt, Julian; Liu, Xiaojie; Van Herpen, Erica; Stenmarck, Asa; O'Connor, Clementine; Ostergren, Karin; Cheng, Shengkui
      Environmental Science & Technology (2017), 51 (12), 6618-6633CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
      A review. Food losses and food waste (FLW) have become a global concern in recent years and emerge as a priority in the global and national political agenda (e.g., with Target 12.3 in the new United Nations Sustainable Development Goals). A good understanding of the availability and quality of global FLW data is a prerequisite for tracking progress on redn. targets, analyzing environmental impacts, and exploring mitigation strategies for FLW. There has been a growing body of literature on FLW quantification in the past years; however, significant challenges remain, such as data inconsistency and a narrow temporal, geog., and food supply chain coverage. In this paper, we examd. 202 publications which reported FLW data of 84 countries and 52 individual years from 1933 to 2014. We found that most existing publications are conducted for a few industrialized countries (e.g., UK and U.S.) and over half of them are based only on secondary data, which signals high uncertainties in the existing global FLW database. Despite these uncertainties, existing data indicate that per-capita food waste in the household increases with an increase of per-capita GDP. We believe more consistent, in-depth, and primary-data-based studies, esp. for emerging economies, are badly needed in order to better inform relevant policy on FLW redn. and environmental impacts mitigation.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2sXnsFeisr8%253D&md5=951d83009078a86293e4ef359c8d0539
    44. 44
      Jörissen, J.; Priefer, C.; Bräutigam, K.-R. Food Waste Generation at Household Level: Results of a Survey among Employees of Two European Research Centers in Italy and Germany. Sustainability 2015, 7 (3), 2695– 2715,  DOI: 10.3390/su7032695
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    45. 45
      Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte Europa Save Food Studie—Das Wegwerfen von Lebensmitteln—Einstellungen Und Verhaltensmuster 2011, 24
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.

      (in German).

    46. 46
      WS Atkins-EA. Model Approach for Producing BAT Guidance for Specific Sub-sectors within the Food and Drink Industry; Red Meat Abattoirs, 2000.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    47. 47
      Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) Animal by-products. https://www.bmel.de/DE/Tier/Tiergesundheit/TierischeNebenprodukte/nebenprodukte_node.html/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    48. 48
      European Fat Processors and Renderers Association (EFPRA) Home Page. http://efpra.eu/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    49. 49
      Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) Home Page. https://www.bmel-statistik.de/ernaehrung-fischerei/tabellen-kapitel-d-und-hiv-des-statistischen-jahrbuchs/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    50. 50
      Schneider, F., Part, F.; Lebersorger, S.; Scherhaufer, S.; Böhm, K.. “ Sekundärstudie Lebensmittelabfälle in Österreich.” In Im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft; Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, Institut für Abfallwirtschaft: Wien, 2012. (in German).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    51. 51
      Harald von, Witzke; Noleppa, S.; Zhirkova, I. Meat Eats Land; WWF Germany, 2011.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    52. 52
      Schmidt, B. Kennzeichnung von Schlachtnebenprodukten Zur Sicheren Klassifizierung Als Tierische Nebenprodukte Der Kategorie 3 Und Zur Verbesserung Ihrer Verfolgbarkeit Im Warenstrom. Qucosa.De 2011, (in German).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    53. 53
      Godfray, H. C. J.; Beddington, J. R.; Crute, I. R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J. F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S. M.; Toulmin, C. Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 2010, 327 (5967), 812– 818,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1185383
      52
      Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People
      Godfray, H. Charles J.; Beddington, John R.; Crute, Ian R.; Haddad, Lawrence; Lawrence, David; Muir, James F.; Pretty, Jules; Robinson, Sherman; Thomas, Sandy M.; Toulmin, Camilla
      Science (Washington, DC, United States) (2010), 327 (5967), 812-818CODEN: SCIEAS; ISSN:0036-8075. (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
      Continuing population and consumption growth will mean that the global demand for food will increase for at least another 40 years. Growing competition for land, water, and energy, in addn. to the overexploitation of fisheries, will affect our ability to produce food, as will the urgent requirement to reduce the impact of the food system on the environment. The effects of climate change are a further threat. But the world can produce more food and can ensure that it is used more efficiently and equitably. A multifaceted and linked global strategy is needed to ensure sustainable and equitable food security, different components of which are explored here.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3cXhslWisLo%253D&md5=013885865286c44be7c5a655a6d18f8e
    54. 54
      Brameld, J. M.; Parr, T. Improving Efficiency in Meat Production. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2016, 75 (3), 242– 246,  DOI: 10.1017/S0029665116000161
      53
      Improving efficiency in meat production
      Brameld, John M.; Parr, Tim
      Proceedings of the Nutrition Society (2016), 75 (3), 242-246CODEN: PNUSA4; ISSN:0029-6651. (Cambridge University Press)
      Selective breeding and improved nutritional management over the past 20-30 years has resulted in dramatic improvements in growth efficiency for pigs and poultry, particularly lean tissue growth. However, this has been achieved using high-quality feed ingredients, such as wheat and soya that are also used for human consumption and more recently biofuels prodn. Ruminants on the other hand are less efficient, but are normally fed poorer quality ingredients that cannot be digested by human subjects, such as grass or silage. The challenges therefore are to: (i) maintain the current efficiency of growth of pigs and poultry, but using more ingredients not needed to feed the increasing human population or for the prodn. of biofuels; (ii) improve the efficiency of growth in ruminants; (iii) at the same time produce animal products (meat, milk and eggs) of equal or improved quality. This review will describe the use of: (a) enzyme additives for animal feeds, to improve feed digestibility; (b) known growth promoting agents, such as growth hormone, β-agonists and anabolic steroids, currently banned in the European Union but used in other parts of the world; (c) recent transcriptomic studies into mol. mechanisms for improved growth efficiency via low residual feed intake. In doing so, the use of genetic manipulation in animals will also be discussed.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC28Xht1GmtL7M&md5=59e4517c17ca794b777669a824b8be15
    55. 55
      Peters, G. M.; Rowley, H. V.; Wiedemann, S.; Tucker, R.; Short, M. D.; Schulz, M. Red Meat Production in Australia: Life Cycle Assessment and Comparison with Overseas Studies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44 (4), 1327– 1332,  DOI: 10.1021/es901131e
      54
      Red Meat Production in Australia: Life Cycle Assessment and Comparison with Overseas Studies
      Peters, Gregory M.; Rowley, Hazel V.; Wiedemann, Stephen; Tucker, Robyn; Short, Michael D.; Schulz, Matthias
      Environmental Science & Technology (2010), 44 (4), 1327-1332CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
      Greenhouse gas emissions from beef prodn. are a significant part of Australia's total contribution to climate change. For the first time an environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) hybridizing detailed on-site process modeling and input-output anal. is used to describe Australian red meat prodn. In this paper we report the carbon footprint and total energy consumption of three supply chains in three different regions in Australia over two years. The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy use data are compared to those from international studies on red meat prodn., and the Australian results are either av. or below av. The increasing proportion of lot-fed beef in Australia is favorable, since this prodn. system generates lower total GHG emissions than grass-fed prodn.; the addnl. effort in producing and transporting feeds is effectively offset by the increased efficiency of meat prodn. in feedlots. In addn. to these two common LCA indicators, in this paper we also quantify solid waste generation and a soil erosion indicator on a common basis.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3cXkt1agug%253D%253D&md5=d102af86081eaa1d7cb4d9e8c78aef3f
    56. 56
      Carlsson-Kanyama, A.; Ekstrom, M. P.; Shanahan, H. Food and Life Cycle Energy Inputs: Consequences of Diets and Ways to Increase Efficiency. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 44, 293– 307,  DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00261-6
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    57. 57
      The Local Home Page. https://www.thelocal.it/20160803/what-you-need-to-know-about-italys-new-food-waste-laws/ (accessed July 25, 2018).
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    58. 58
      Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Wasser Abfall 2014, 16, 1– 22
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.

      (in German).

  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06079.

    • Detailed description of the system definition, analytical solutions to the system, and data sources (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

PDF [ 4MB]

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect