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
meat, but they have important other functions, such as to provide manure and draught power for crop production,
or to function as a capital asset. Bosman et al., (1997) quantified the various functions of livestock in
smallholder systems in the developing world in economic terms. If one allocates the total GHG emissions of
a smallholder farm to various functions of the animals, based on their relative economic value, GHG emissions
per kg of milk produced are not that different between a specialised, intensive production system and a
smallholder system.
Zehetmeier et al., (2011) compared the CO2-e per kg of milk for high-producing Holstein Friesians cows
with CO2-e per kg of milk for moderate-producing Fleckvieh cows. They demonstrated that this comparison
was highly affected by the method of co-product handling used. In case of economic allocation, the CO2-e
per kg milk was lower for high-producing Holstein Friesian cows than for moderate-producing Fleckvieh
cows, whereas in case of system expansion, the CO2-e per kg milk was higher for high-producing Holstein
Friesian cows than for moderate-producing Fleckvieh cows.
Both studies address the importance of handling multi-functionality while comparing various production
systems. Besides handling multi-functionality (or co-product handling), the method used to account for land
use change (LUC), such as deforestation for feed production, can have an important impact on comparison of
systems. Flysjö et al., (2012) demonstrated that depending on the method of allocation applied, organic milk
production in Sweden showed about 50% higher or 40% lower CO2-e per kg of milk.
The above described studies demonstrate the complexity of animal production systems (multifunctionality
of systems, impacts from land-use change due to feed cultivation), and the problem that methodological
choices have a major impact on the evaluation of innovations. From a scientific point of view,
therefore, complete transparency in methods and data are required to enable correct interpretation of results
of an LCA study.
2.4 Trade-offs with other issues of sustainability
Most studies found in literature that addressed mitigation options for GHG emissions did not account for
the complex interrelated effects on all GHGs, or their relation with other aspects of sustainability, such as
eutrophication, animal welfare, land use or food security (De Boer et al., 2011). Genetic selection for increased
annual milk production per cow, for example, might not only affect environmental impacts along the
chain, but might also negatively affect animal health or fertility (De Vries et al., 2011; Oltenacu and Broom,
2010) or the social acceptance of animal production. Current decisions on GHG mitigation options in animal
production are hindered by the complexity and uncertainty of the combined effect of these options on climate
change and their relation with other aspects of sustainability.
There is an urgent need to integrate socio-economic impacts along the chain with consequential life cycle
modeling to gain insight into the multidimensional and sometimes conflicting consequences of, for example,
GHG mitigation options. Assessment of socio-economic impacts along the chain, however, might not necessarily
need to follow the same methodology as environmental impact assessment along the chain. Let’s consider
the example of dairy cattle welfare and the production of 1 kg of milk ready for consumption. Unlike
emission of GHGs, animal welfare is a sustainability concern at the farm, during the transport of calves or
cows, and during slaughtering of calves or cows, but not, for example, during the cultivation of feed ingredients
or processing of milk. Moreover, assessment of dairy cattle welfare at dairy farms is already a multidimensional
concept in itself: it requires integration of several types of indicators (De Vries et al., 2011), and
defining thresholds of what is acceptable and what not seems to be an even greater challenge. Furthermore,
we can wonder if we should aim at summing up welfare along the chain – welfare at the farm, during transport
and slaughtering – or, that we need to focus on separate sets of indicators along the chain? More research
is required to allow a socio-economic impact assessment of food chains.
3. Science-based harmonised approach
To move towards a sustainable livestock sector, we need to inform stakeholders along the chain about potential
improvement options. This requires a science-based integral sustainability assessment along the chain
and high-quality data. Stakeholders can contribute to improvement of data quality. Moreover, an active involvement
of stakeholders in development in, for example, product specific environmental impact guidelines
(e.g. IDF Guidelines) will make them aware of the complexity of environmental impact assessment, and
strengthen the support for actual application of innovations. We, however, have to be aware of the fact that
stakeholders are eager to defend their own interests. Experiences with stakeholder participation revealed, for
example, that different stakeholders preferred different allocation methods because of differences in their
interests. For example, beer brewers preferred a physical allocation (resulting in low emissions per unit of
224