Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Trade-Offs in Science - Keeping the balance |
| Subtitle of host publication | Abstracts of the WIAS Science Day 2019 |
| Publisher | Wageningen University & Research |
| Pages | 42-43 |
| Publication status | Published - 18 Mar 2019 |
| Event | WIAS Science Day 2019: Trade-Offs in Science - Congrescentrum de Werelt, Lunteren, Netherlands Duration: 18 Mar 2019 → 18 Mar 2019 |
Conference
| Conference | WIAS Science Day 2019 |
|---|---|
| Abbreviated title | Keeping the Balance |
| Country | Netherlands |
| City | Lunteren |
| Period | 18/03/19 → 18/03/19 |
Fingerprint
Cite this
}
Avoiding feed-food competition in practice; Environmental impact assessment of a novel egg production system. / van Hal, O.; Weijenberg, Adinda; de Boer, I.J.M.; van Zanten, H.H.E.
Trade-Offs in Science - Keeping the balance: Abstracts of the WIAS Science Day 2019. Wageningen University & Research, 2019. p. 42-43.Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Abstract
TY - CHAP
T1 - Avoiding feed-food competition in practice; Environmental impact assessment of a novel egg production system
AU - van Hal, O.
AU - Weijenberg, Adinda
AU - de Boer, I.J.M.
AU - van Zanten, H.H.E.
PY - 2019/3/18
Y1 - 2019/3/18
N2 - Feed cultivation on arable land (40% globally) results in less efficient food production than food crop cultivation. This inefficiency can be avoided using livestock feeds that do not compete with food production, so called “low-opportunity-cost feedstuffs” (e.g. food by-products & waste and grazing resources). livestock, then, converts nutrients otherwise lost to the food system into valuable food. While this new role of livestock is theoretically well supported, its practical feasibility remains unstudied. We, therefore, assessed the environmental benefits of feeding only “low-opportunity-cost feed-stuffs” to industrially-housed laying hens on the commercial Kipster farm. Simultaneously we underline the shortcomings of conventional methods to account for such benefits. We quantified global warming potential, energy use and land use per kg egg, using life cycle assessment (LCA), Kipster eggs have a lower environmental impact (1.3 kg CO2-eq; 10 MJ; 2.9 m2), than free range and organic eggs (2.5-3.5 kg CO2-eq; 19-27 MJ; 4.1-6.8 m2), mainly due to the use of “low-opportunity-cost feedstuffs”. Additionally, we illustrate that economic allocation used in LCA does not fully account for the environmental benefits of feeding “low-opportunity-cost feedstuffs”, as it ignores interlinkages in the food system between, for example, sugar and beet pulp. Alternative circular allocation – allocating the full impact to the main product – reduces Kipsters environmental impact with 44% for GWP, 37% for EU and 90% for LU. Adequately capturing such complexities of the food system in LCA is of major importance to avoid promotion of mitigation measures that counteract resource use efficiency of the entire food system.
AB - Feed cultivation on arable land (40% globally) results in less efficient food production than food crop cultivation. This inefficiency can be avoided using livestock feeds that do not compete with food production, so called “low-opportunity-cost feedstuffs” (e.g. food by-products & waste and grazing resources). livestock, then, converts nutrients otherwise lost to the food system into valuable food. While this new role of livestock is theoretically well supported, its practical feasibility remains unstudied. We, therefore, assessed the environmental benefits of feeding only “low-opportunity-cost feed-stuffs” to industrially-housed laying hens on the commercial Kipster farm. Simultaneously we underline the shortcomings of conventional methods to account for such benefits. We quantified global warming potential, energy use and land use per kg egg, using life cycle assessment (LCA), Kipster eggs have a lower environmental impact (1.3 kg CO2-eq; 10 MJ; 2.9 m2), than free range and organic eggs (2.5-3.5 kg CO2-eq; 19-27 MJ; 4.1-6.8 m2), mainly due to the use of “low-opportunity-cost feedstuffs”. Additionally, we illustrate that economic allocation used in LCA does not fully account for the environmental benefits of feeding “low-opportunity-cost feedstuffs”, as it ignores interlinkages in the food system between, for example, sugar and beet pulp. Alternative circular allocation – allocating the full impact to the main product – reduces Kipsters environmental impact with 44% for GWP, 37% for EU and 90% for LU. Adequately capturing such complexities of the food system in LCA is of major importance to avoid promotion of mitigation measures that counteract resource use efficiency of the entire food system.
M3 - Abstract
SP - 42
EP - 43
BT - Trade-Offs in Science - Keeping the balance
PB - Wageningen University & Research
ER -