4.7 Article

Environmental assessment of a pork-production system in North-East of Spain focusing on life-cycle swine nutrition

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 137, 期 -, 页码 105-115

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.051

关键词

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA); Pig-meat production; Animal feed; Cumulative energy demand (CED); Global warming potential (GWP); ReCiPe (midpoint and endpoint approach)

资金

  1. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad of Spain [ENE2013-48325-R]
  2. Spanish Research Program [TRA2013-48180-C3-P]
  3. CYTED program [P515RT0123]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Given the importance of pig-meat production in Spain, the present work (based on cumulative energy demand, global warming potential, ReCiPe method and different functional units) presents a life cycle assessment of an intensive pork-production system (growing-finishing pigs from 25 to 105 kg body weight) in North-East of Spain. Emphasis is given on animal feeding (which is separated into 3 phases) while the impact of drinking-water consumption, straw usage and transportation (for feed and straw) are also taken into account for certain scenarios. The results demonstrate that there is a cumulative energy demand of 5.6 MJ(prim) per kg of animal feed and 14.5-35.6 MJ(prim) per kg of meat (live or carcass weight). Moreover, global warming potential (based on a time horizon of 100 years: 100a) is 3.2-5.5 kg CO2.eq per kg of meat (live or carcass weight) and 336-460 kg CO2.eq per market pig. On the other hand, ReCiPe impact per market pig ranges from 60 to 76 Pts, depending on the scenario. Based on all the studied cases, animal feed is responsible for the greatest part of the total impact feed/drinking-water/straw/transportation and transportation is responsible for the second highest impact A comparison with results from the literature is also provided and critical issues (about feed composition, cleaner-production solutions, etc.) are presented. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据