Abstract
Livestock production, particularly beef supply chain, is charged as the major correspondent to green-house gas (GHG) emissions, equally well as, in country degradation and deforestation. Environmental impacts per kg of edible beef, even so, vary largely due to differences in beef production systems. Thus, this written report aimed to compare the cradle-to-subcontract gate sustainability of four unlike Italian beef production systems, in terms of land occupation (LO, m 2/year), global warming (GWP, kg CO2 -eq), water depletion (WD, g three ), acidification (AP, g SO2 -eq) and eutrophication (EP, g NO3 -eq) potentials past using the LCA methodology (SimaPro 8.01 PhD, PRé Consultants). The primary data were obtained from 25 farms: vii farms conducting cow–calf operations, with specialized beefiness cattle maintained on pasture and finished in confinement, (Specialized extensive, SE); 6 farms conducting high grain fattening of specialized beef breed imported calves (Fattening systems, FS); 5 farms conducting cow-calf operations, with specialized beef animals constantly kept in confinement (Cow-calf intensive; CCI); 7 farms conducting cow–calf operations, with Podolian cattle (a native brood of Southern Italy) maintained on pasture and finished in confinement, (Podolian system; PoS). The functional unit was 1 kg of live weight of marketed beef cattle. Intensive systems (i.due east. CCI and FS) showed lower GWP values than systems partially based on pasture such as PoS, and even SE (17.62 ± ane.78 and 21.94 ± 1.95 kg COtwo –eq vs 26.30 ± ane.65 and 25.41 ± 1.65 kg CO2 –eq, P < 0.01, for FS, CCI, SE, and PoS, respectively). No meaning event of production system on WD was observed. Acidification potential was significantly (P < 0.001) affected by production system with the highest values observed in CCI (0.30 ± 0.02 kg SOtwo –eq) compared with the other three beef production systems. Equally for eutrophication potential, FS and PoS tended to show lower values compared with CCI and SE systems (961.71 ± 65.xxx and 779.17 ± 70.53 g NO3 -eq vs 1009.20 ± 77.27 and 1009.71 ± 65.thirty yard NO3 –eq, respectively; P < 0.10). Meaning differences (P < 0.001) were observed for LO betwixt the four systems (177.71 ± 20.87 and 194.43 ± twenty.87 10002/year vs forty.67 ± 22.54 and 32.60 ± 23.69 m2/twelvemonth, for PoS and SE vs FS and CCI, respectively). Still, as diets in intensive meat systems are mainly based on cereals products that humans could consume straight, the caste of competition with human being nutrition should be some other feature to exist considered. About this aspect, although human edible protein conversion efficiency (HEPCE) was not significantly influenced by product organisation, PoS showed a higher HEPCE index (0.44 ± 0.08), particularly if compared with CCI organisation (0.17 ± 0.09), but too in comparison with groups FS and SE (0.34 ± 0.08 and 0.39 ± 0.08, respectively). In addition, grass-based systems may provide other non-commodity outputs and non-marketable public goods services named "ecosystem services" (eastward.g. provision of clean drinking h2o, preservation and enhancement of biodiversity, conservation of cultural landscapes, contribution to the socio-economic viability of many rural areas particularly in marginal areas, enhancement of meat quality and animal welfare as perceived past consumers). The present results showed a lower impact of the intensive beef production systems in terms of GWP and LO, whereas some of them were more impactful at AP and EP levels. However, in social club to achieve a more accurate interpretation of the bear upon of the beef production chain, especially for traditional and extensive farming systems conducted in marginal areas, such as the Podolian organization, further LCA studies are needed, taking into account the allocation of their ecosystem services.
0 Response to "Environmental Impacts of Italian Beef Production: a Comparison Between Different Systems"
Enregistrer un commentaire