LCA Food 2012 in Saint Malo, France! - Manifestations et colloques ...

PLENARY SESSION 2: METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES FOR ANIMAL PRODUCTION SYSTEMS8 th Int. Conference on LCA in the
Agri-Food Sector, 1-4 Oct 2012
A variety of optimising scenarios were run to examine how the livestock sector could be configured to
meet Defra’s objectives for the livestock sector (Table 11). With employment viewed as a benefit (Table
11A) and the model constrained to producing the same quantity of provisioning benefits, optimisation of net
ecosystem value (105% of current BAU) was achieved by increasing dairy value and making greater use of
free-range egg production, despite its reduced value (94% of current BAU). Some livestock land was also
allocated to arable production. The main reason for the increase in net benefit flow was, however, associated
with the configuration of the different sectors to increase employment generation (107% of current BAU),
for example, through greater use of free-range poultry systems and more labour intensive feeding and waste
management systems.
When set to achieve a 25% reduction of GHG emissions from the livestock sector, the model suggested
that the optimal route to achieving this would be through reducing dairy and beef production, with arable
replacing some of the land released through this process and poultry, egg, pigs and sheep remaining relatively
unaffected. This was however associated with a 20% loss in net ecosystem value, partly because of
lost employment opportunities and reduced cultural value from the livestock sector.
Under the red-to-white meat scenario, in which red meat was assumed to be provided only from dairy as a
by-product of milk production, the model suggested that 92% of provisioning benefit could be maintained by
increasing pig, poultry, and milk production and introducing arable production on the land released. However,
there was a 70% loss of cultural value, associated primarily with the loss of sheep and suckler beef
systems, and the overall net flow of ecosystem benefits was reduced to 83% of current BAU.
Where employment was viewed as a cost (Table 11B), net ecosystem value in the optimised BAU scenario
was achieved largely through reducing labour requirements, for example, by greater use of housed
poultry systems and slurry manure management. Where production from the different sectors was allowed
to increase by up to 20% above current BAU production, observing the constraints of currently available
land, but defining no minimum production level for any of the sectors, optimisation of net ecosystem benefit
was achieved through greater reliance on dairy, egg, and poultry systems.
On the whole, there was a tendency for optimisation to be achieved at the expense of the pig sector which
disappeared altogether, replaced by arable production in the BAU+20% scenario, the 25% GHG emission
reduction scenario, and the red-to-white-meat scenario. This was in contrast to optimisations in which employment
was viewed as a benefit, where pig production was at least equivalent to that in the current BAU.
Table 11. Selected optimising scenarios under hypothetical future conditions relative to current business-asusual
(BAU) scenario
A. Employment as a benefit B. Employment as a cost
BAU + GHG† Red to
BAU + GHG† Red to
Current Optimised (up to reduced white Current Optimised (up to reduced white
BAU BAU 20% +) by 25% meat BAU BAU 20% +) by 25% meat
£M £M £M £M £M £M £M £M £M £M
Provisioning 9100 104% 106% 81% 92% 2793 117% 134% 95% 124%
Arable a
0 21 0 557 533 0 17 268 736 678
Labour 3764 107% 104% 81% 84% -2543 92% 81% 59% 57%
Dairy 2306 104% 118% 58% 107% 2306 107% 128% 66% 107%
Eggs 267 94% 0% 94% 86% 267 103% 124% 103% 103%
Poultry 779 99% 113% 99% 129% 779 104% 125% 104% 135%
Beef 883 102% 105% 28% 49% 883 105% 67% 25% 50%
Pigs 436 102% 123% 102% 133% 436 102% 0% 0% 0%
Sheep 664 101% 101% 101% 0% 664 101% 101% 90% 0%
Regulation -2700 100% 101% 81% 101% -2700 98% 97% 79% 97%
Cultural 748 99% 100% 76% 30% 748 100% 92% 73% 35%
Net value 7148 105% 107% 80% 83% 840 162% 214% 126% 131%
a
actual values given for arable, as the arable BAU is 0, and relative values cannot be calculated
† Greenhouse gases
4. Discussion
It is clear that livestock production in the UK makes a net positive contribution to ecosystem services,
particularly when employment generation is viewed as a benefit of the provisioning service. When it is
viewed as a cost, net ecosystem benefits are negative for pigs, suckler beef and also the hypothetical arable
uptake on livestock land. The cost of regulating services accounts for about 30% of the value of the provisioning
benefit, but about 90% if the provisioning benefit is viewed net of labour and input costs. The cost
associated with the loss of regulating services is more than three times the estimated benefits of cultural services.
Cultural services add a further 9% to the value of livestock production (27% if the product value is net
214