{"title":"利用生命周期评估确定 2020 年和 2022 年澳大利亚猪肉对环境的影响","authors":"M. Copley, E. McGahan, K. McCormack, S. Wiedemann","doi":"10.1071/an23352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context The Australian pork industry is highly efficient, with a history of ongoing productivity and environmental improvement. The introduction of economy-wide environmental targets require delivering and tracking performance improvement. Aims This study determined carbon footprint (greenhouse gas [GHG] and land use [LU] and direct land use change [dLUC] emissions, reported as kg CO2-e), fossil energy (MJ), freshwater consumption (L), water stress (L H2O-e), land occupation (m2) and eutrophication potential (nitrogen and phosphorus) for Australian pork for 2020 and 2022. Variability between housing, manure management systems, and regions were identified, and systems analysed to determine new options for low-impact pork. Methods In the largest Australian study of its kind, data for ~70% of pigs produced were collected using a stratified design. Using attributional life cycle assessment, impacts were reported per kilogram of liveweight (LW), post-processed, retail, and boneless, fat-corrected pork. Results are presented as industry averages ± 2 × s.d. Key results Key results were 3.0 ± 0.1 and 3.0 ± 0.1 kg CO2-e GHG, 0.4 ± 0.07 and 0.3 ± 0.03 kg CO2-e LU and dLUC, 12.9 ± 0.5 and 13.4 ± 0.5 MJ, 93.8 ± 9.6 and 52.5 ± 3.6 L, 68.4 ± 6.7 and 43.2 ± 3.3 L H2O-e, and 12.0 ± 0.9 and 12.7 ± 0.9 m2/kg LW in 2020 and 2022, respectively. Due to industry growth, total emissions were higher in 2022. Eutrophication potential for Australian pork (2.2 × 10−4 ± 3.0 × 10−5 kg phosphorus and 8.7 × 10−3 ± 3.5 × 10−4 kg nitrogen/kg LW), reported for the first time, was low compared with grazing systems and European piggeries. Conclusions Industry has demonstrated long-term performance improvement, though the rate slowed between 2020 and 2022. Ongoing interventions are required to return to trend. Covered pond, deep litter, and outdoor systems produce lower carbon footprint pork and can provide other environmental benefits from renewable energy, and reduced fossil energy demand. Implications There is potential to further reduce environmental impacts through practice change. If industry is to meet formal targets, investment and proactive policy settings are required to overcome barriers to adoption of existing technology and support the techno-economic case for novel strategies.","PeriodicalId":49242,"journal":{"name":"Animal Production Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Environmental impacts of Australian pork in 2020 and 2022 determined using lifecycle assessments\",\"authors\":\"M. Copley, E. McGahan, K. McCormack, S. Wiedemann\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/an23352\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Context The Australian pork industry is highly efficient, with a history of ongoing productivity and environmental improvement. The introduction of economy-wide environmental targets require delivering and tracking performance improvement. Aims This study determined carbon footprint (greenhouse gas [GHG] and land use [LU] and direct land use change [dLUC] emissions, reported as kg CO2-e), fossil energy (MJ), freshwater consumption (L), water stress (L H2O-e), land occupation (m2) and eutrophication potential (nitrogen and phosphorus) for Australian pork for 2020 and 2022. Variability between housing, manure management systems, and regions were identified, and systems analysed to determine new options for low-impact pork. Methods In the largest Australian study of its kind, data for ~70% of pigs produced were collected using a stratified design. Using attributional life cycle assessment, impacts were reported per kilogram of liveweight (LW), post-processed, retail, and boneless, fat-corrected pork. Results are presented as industry averages ± 2 × s.d. Key results Key results were 3.0 ± 0.1 and 3.0 ± 0.1 kg CO2-e GHG, 0.4 ± 0.07 and 0.3 ± 0.03 kg CO2-e LU and dLUC, 12.9 ± 0.5 and 13.4 ± 0.5 MJ, 93.8 ± 9.6 and 52.5 ± 3.6 L, 68.4 ± 6.7 and 43.2 ± 3.3 L H2O-e, and 12.0 ± 0.9 and 12.7 ± 0.9 m2/kg LW in 2020 and 2022, respectively. Due to industry growth, total emissions were higher in 2022. Eutrophication potential for Australian pork (2.2 × 10−4 ± 3.0 × 10−5 kg phosphorus and 8.7 × 10−3 ± 3.5 × 10−4 kg nitrogen/kg LW), reported for the first time, was low compared with grazing systems and European piggeries. Conclusions Industry has demonstrated long-term performance improvement, though the rate slowed between 2020 and 2022. Ongoing interventions are required to return to trend. Covered pond, deep litter, and outdoor systems produce lower carbon footprint pork and can provide other environmental benefits from renewable energy, and reduced fossil energy demand. Implications There is potential to further reduce environmental impacts through practice change. If industry is to meet formal targets, investment and proactive policy settings are required to overcome barriers to adoption of existing technology and support the techno-economic case for novel strategies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49242,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Animal Production Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Animal Production Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/an23352\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Production Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/an23352","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Environmental impacts of Australian pork in 2020 and 2022 determined using lifecycle assessments
Context The Australian pork industry is highly efficient, with a history of ongoing productivity and environmental improvement. The introduction of economy-wide environmental targets require delivering and tracking performance improvement. Aims This study determined carbon footprint (greenhouse gas [GHG] and land use [LU] and direct land use change [dLUC] emissions, reported as kg CO2-e), fossil energy (MJ), freshwater consumption (L), water stress (L H2O-e), land occupation (m2) and eutrophication potential (nitrogen and phosphorus) for Australian pork for 2020 and 2022. Variability between housing, manure management systems, and regions were identified, and systems analysed to determine new options for low-impact pork. Methods In the largest Australian study of its kind, data for ~70% of pigs produced were collected using a stratified design. Using attributional life cycle assessment, impacts were reported per kilogram of liveweight (LW), post-processed, retail, and boneless, fat-corrected pork. Results are presented as industry averages ± 2 × s.d. Key results Key results were 3.0 ± 0.1 and 3.0 ± 0.1 kg CO2-e GHG, 0.4 ± 0.07 and 0.3 ± 0.03 kg CO2-e LU and dLUC, 12.9 ± 0.5 and 13.4 ± 0.5 MJ, 93.8 ± 9.6 and 52.5 ± 3.6 L, 68.4 ± 6.7 and 43.2 ± 3.3 L H2O-e, and 12.0 ± 0.9 and 12.7 ± 0.9 m2/kg LW in 2020 and 2022, respectively. Due to industry growth, total emissions were higher in 2022. Eutrophication potential for Australian pork (2.2 × 10−4 ± 3.0 × 10−5 kg phosphorus and 8.7 × 10−3 ± 3.5 × 10−4 kg nitrogen/kg LW), reported for the first time, was low compared with grazing systems and European piggeries. Conclusions Industry has demonstrated long-term performance improvement, though the rate slowed between 2020 and 2022. Ongoing interventions are required to return to trend. Covered pond, deep litter, and outdoor systems produce lower carbon footprint pork and can provide other environmental benefits from renewable energy, and reduced fossil energy demand. Implications There is potential to further reduce environmental impacts through practice change. If industry is to meet formal targets, investment and proactive policy settings are required to overcome barriers to adoption of existing technology and support the techno-economic case for novel strategies.
期刊介绍:
Research papers in Animal Production Science focus on improving livestock and food production, and on the social and economic issues that influence primary producers. The journal (formerly known as Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture) is predominantly concerned with domesticated animals (beef cattle, dairy cows, sheep, pigs, goats and poultry); however, contributions on horses and wild animals may be published where relevant.
Animal Production Science is published with the endorsement of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Australian Academy of Science.