Explaining global variation in life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from soybeans and soybean meal: a systematic review

IF 6.2 1区农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Agricultural Systems Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-02 DOI:10.1016/j.agsy.2025.104559

Nathaniel P. Springer , Pedro E. Urriola , Rylie E.O. Pelton , Aurup Ratan Dhar , Jennifer Schmitt , Gerald C. Shurson

{"title":"Explaining global variation in life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from soybeans and soybean meal: a systematic review","authors":"Nathaniel P. Springer , Pedro E. Urriola , Rylie E.O. Pelton , Aurup Ratan Dhar , Jennifer Schmitt , Gerald C. Shurson","doi":"10.1016/j.agsy.2025.104559","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>CONTEXT</h3><div>Accurate Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) estimates of feed ingredients are essential for formulating low environmental impact diets for sustainable food animal production. Numerous studies have been conducted to estimate life cycle environmental impacts of soybeans and soybean meal, but these estimates are highly variable within specific LCA impact categories.</div></div><div><h3>OBJECTIVE</h3><div>The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive review, summarize greenhouse gas (GHG) estimates, and identify factors causing variability in those LCA estimates for soybeans and soybean meal.</div></div><div><h3>METHODS</h3><div>A systematic literature search for relevant publications and databases was conducted. LCA data from 27 studies and databases for soybeans and 22 LCA studies and databases for soybean meal produced in 30 countries were evaluated and summarized. Methodologies used to calculate these estimates were compared and critically reviewed.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS</h3><div>A wide range in GHG emissions estimates were observed for soybeans (−11.4 to 22.0 kg CO<sub>2</sub>e kg<sup>−1</sup>) and soybean meal (0.25 to 6.50 kg CO<sub>2</sub>e kg<sup>−1</sup>). Differences in GHG emissions estimates were due to differences in geographical scale and heterogeneity, land use change, farming practices, allocation factors, exclusion of biogenic carbon, impact characterization methods, and attributional versus consequential LCA modeling approaches.</div></div><div><h3>SIGNIFICANCE</h3><div>LCA methods with higher resolution in geography and farming practices provide more precise estimates of LCA impact hotspots across impact categories. Continued methodological development and alignment of downscaling and uncertainty approaches will make such estimates more useful for industry stakeholders.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7730,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Systems","volume":"233 ","pages":"Article 104559"},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Systems","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X25002999","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

CONTEXT

Accurate Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) estimates of feed ingredients are essential for formulating low environmental impact diets for sustainable food animal production. Numerous studies have been conducted to estimate life cycle environmental impacts of soybeans and soybean meal, but these estimates are highly variable within specific LCA impact categories.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive review, summarize greenhouse gas (GHG) estimates, and identify factors causing variability in those LCA estimates for soybeans and soybean meal.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for relevant publications and databases was conducted. LCA data from 27 studies and databases for soybeans and 22 LCA studies and databases for soybean meal produced in 30 countries were evaluated and summarized. Methodologies used to calculate these estimates were compared and critically reviewed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

A wide range in GHG emissions estimates were observed for soybeans (−11.4 to 22.0 kg CO₂e kg⁻¹) and soybean meal (0.25 to 6.50 kg CO₂e kg⁻¹). Differences in GHG emissions estimates were due to differences in geographical scale and heterogeneity, land use change, farming practices, allocation factors, exclusion of biogenic carbon, impact characterization methods, and attributional versus consequential LCA modeling approaches.

SIGNIFICANCE

LCA methods with higher resolution in geography and farming practices provide more precise estimates of LCA impact hotspots across impact categories. Continued methodological development and alignment of downscaling and uncertainty approaches will make such estimates more useful for industry stakeholders.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

解释大豆和豆粕生命周期温室气体（GHG）排放的全球变化：系统综述

准确的饲料成分生命周期评估（LCA）估算对于制定低环境影响的饲料以实现可持续的食用动物生产至关重要。已经进行了大量的研究来估计大豆和豆粕的生命周期环境影响，但这些估计在特定的LCA影响类别中变化很大。本研究的目的是进行全面回顾，总结温室气体（GHG）估算，并确定导致大豆和豆粕LCA估算差异的因素。方法系统查阅相关文献和数据库。对来自27项大豆研究和数据库的LCA数据以及来自30个国家生产的豆粕的22项LCA研究和数据库的LCA数据进行了评估和总结。对用于计算这些估计数的方法进行了比较和严格审查。结果与结论大豆（- 11.4 ~ 22.0 kg CO2e kg - 1）和豆粕（0.25 ~ 6.50 kg CO2e kg - 1）的温室气体排放估算范围较大。温室气体排放估算的差异是由于地理规模和异质性、土地利用变化、耕作方式、分配因素、排除生物源碳、影响表征方法以及归因与结果性LCA建模方法的差异造成的。在地理和农业实践方面具有更高分辨率的elca方法可以更精确地估计跨影响类别的LCA影响热点。方法的持续发展和缩小规模和不确定性方法的一致性将使这种估计对行业利益相关者更有用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Agricultural Systems 农林科学-农业综合

CiteScore

13.30

自引率

7.60%

发文量

174

审稿时长

30 days

期刊介绍： Agricultural Systems is an international journal that deals with interactions - among the components of agricultural systems, among hierarchical levels of agricultural systems, between agricultural and other land use systems, and between agricultural systems and their natural, social and economic environments. The scope includes the development and application of systems analysis methodologies in the following areas: Systems approaches in the sustainable intensification of agriculture; pathways for sustainable intensification; crop-livestock integration; farm-level resource allocation; quantification of benefits and trade-offs at farm to landscape levels; integrative, participatory and dynamic modelling approaches for qualitative and quantitative assessments of agricultural systems and decision making; The interactions between agricultural and non-agricultural landscapes; the multiple services of agricultural systems; food security and the environment; Global change and adaptation science; transformational adaptations as driven by changes in climate, policy, values and attitudes influencing the design of farming systems; Development and application of farming systems design tools and methods for impact, scenario and case study analysis; managing the complexities of dynamic agricultural systems; innovation systems and multi stakeholder arrangements that support or promote change and (or) inform policy decisions.