Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-5zjcf Total loading time: 0.497 Render date: 2022-08-09T23:44:58.585Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Carbon footprinting of lamb and beef production systems: insights from an empirical analysis of farms in Wales, UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2009

G. EDWARDS-JONES*
Affiliation:
School of the Environment and Natural Resources, Bangor University, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, UK
K. PLASSMANN
Affiliation:
School of the Environment and Natural Resources, Bangor University, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, UK
I. M. HARRIS
Affiliation:
School of the Environment and Natural Resources, Bangor University, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, UK
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: g.e.jones@bangor.ac.uk

Summary

Carbon footprinting is an increasingly important method of communicating the climate change impacts of food production to stakeholders. Few studies utilize empirical data collected from farms to calculate the carbon footprints of lamb and beef. Data from two farms in Wales, UK, were employed to undertake such an analysis for two system boundaries.

Within a system boundary that considers the embodied greenhouse gases (GHGs) in inputs and on-farm emissions, producing 1 kg of lamb releases 1·3–4·4 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight (case study farm 1) and 1·5–4·7 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight (case study farm 2). The production of beef releases 1·5–5·3 and 1·4–4·4 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight.

Within a wider system boundary that also includes GHG emissions from animals and farm soils, lamb released 8·1–31·7 and 20·3–143·5 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight on the two case study farms, and beef released 9·7–38·1 and 18·8–132·6 kg CO2 eq/kg live weight. The difference in emissions for this system boundary relates to nitrous oxides emitted from the organic soils on case study farm 2.

These values overlap with nearly all other studies of GHG emissions from lamb and beef production. No direct comparisons between studies are possible due to substantial differences in the methodological approaches adopted.

Type
Animals
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alcamo, J., Dronin, N., Endejan, M., Golubev, G. & Kirilenkoc, A. (2007). A new assessment of climate change impacts on food production shortfalls and water availability in Russia. Global Environmental Change – Human Policy Dimensions 17, 429444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baggott, S. L., Cardenas, L., Garnett, E., Jackson, J., Mobbs, D. C., Murrells, T., Passant, N., Thomson, A., Watterson, J. D., Adams, M., Dore, C., Downes, M. K., Goodwin, J., Hobson, M., Li, Y., Manning, A., Milne, R., Thistlethwaite, G., Wagner, A., Walker, C. (2007). UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990 to 2005: Annual Report for Submission under the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Didcot, Oxfordshire, UK: AEA Technology.Google Scholar
Brenton, P., Edwards-Jones, G. & Jensen, M. F. (2009). Carbon labelling and low-income country exports: a review of the development issues. Development Policy Review 27, 243267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BSI (2008). PAS 2050:2008. Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services. London, UK: British Standards. Available online at: http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/Industry-Sectors/Energy/PAS-2050/ (verified 20 May 2009).Google Scholar
Carbon Trust (2007). Carbon Footprint Measurement Methodology. Version 1.3. London: The Carbon Trust.Google Scholar
Casey, J. W. & Holden, N. M. (2005). Holistic Analysis of GHG Emissions from Irish Livestock Production Systems. Paper No. 054036. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey, J. W. & Holden, N. M. (2006 a). Quantification of GHG emissions from suckler-beef production in Ireland. Agricultural Systems 90, 7998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey, J. W. & Holden, N. M. (2006 b). Greenhouse gas emissions from conventional, agri-environmental scheme and organic Irish suckler-beef units. Journal of Environmental Quality 35, 231239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castaldi, S., Costantini, M., Cenciarelli, P., Ciccioli, P. & Valentini, R. (2007). The methane sink associated to soils of natural and agricultural ecosystems in Italy. Chemosphere 66, 723729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapuis-Lardy, L., Wrage, N., Metay, A., Chotte, J.-L. & Bernoux, M. (2007). Soils, a sink for N2O? A review. Global Change Biology 13, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton-Brown, J. C., Breuer, J. & Jones, M. B. (2007). Carbon mitigation by the energy crop, Miscanthus. Global Change Biology 13, 22962307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defra (2007). Guidelines to Defra's Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Conversion Factors for Company Reporting. London, UK: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.Google Scholar
De Silva, C. S., Weatherhead, E. K., Knox, J. W. & Rodriguez-Diaz, J. A. (2007). Predicting the impacts of climate change – a case study of paddy irrigation water requirements in Sri Lanka. Agricultural Water Management 93, 1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards-Jones, G., Milà i Canals, L., Hounsome, N., Truninger, M., Koerber, G., Hounsome, B., Cross, P., York, E. H., Hospido, A., Plassmann, K., Harris, I. M., Edwards, R. T., Day, G. A. S., Tomos, A. D., Cowell, S. J. & Jones, D. L. (2008). Testing the assertion that ‘local food is best’: the challenges of an evidence-based approach. Trends in Food Science and Technology 19, 265274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards-Jones, G., Plassmann, K., York, E. H., Hounsome, B., Jones, D. L. & Milà i Canals, L. (2009). Vulnerability of Exporting Nations to the Development of a Carbon Label in the United Kingdom. Environmental Science and Policy 12: 479490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flessa, H., Ruser, R., Dörsch, P., Kamp, T., Jimenez, M. A., Munch, J. C. & Beese, F. (2002). Integrated evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O) from two farming systems in southern Germany. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 91, 175189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, C., Green, K., Bleda, M., Dewick, P., Evans, B., Flynn, A. & Mylan, J. (2006). Environmental Impacts of Food Production and Consumption. A Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Manchester Business School. London, UK: Defra.Google Scholar
Frischknecht, R., Althaus, H.-J., Bauer, C., Doka, G., Heck, T., Jungbluth, N., Kellenberger, D. & Nemecek, T. (2007). The environmental relevance of capital goods in life cycle assessments of products and services. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.02.308 (verified 18 May 2009).Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, J., Weiß, J., Preidl, M. & Korbun, T. (2008). Klimawirkungen der Landwirtschaft in Deutschland. Schriftenreihe des Instituts für ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung (IÖW). Berlin, Germany: IOW.Google Scholar
Hospido, A., Milà i Canals, L., McLaren, S. J., Clift, R., Truninger, M. & Edwards-Jones, G. (2009). The role of seasonality in lettuce consumption: a case study of environmental and social aspects. International Review of Life Cycle Assessment 14, 381391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPCC (2001). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
IPCC (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (Eds Eggleston, H. S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe, K.). Kanagawa, Japan: IGES.Google Scholar
ISO (2006 a). ISO14040. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.Google ScholarPubMed
ISO (2006 b). ISO 14044. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
Kasimir-Klemedtsson, A., Klemedtsson, L., Berglund, K., Martikainen, P., Silvola, J. & Oenema, O. (1997). Greenhouse gas emissions from farmed organic soils: A review. Soil Use and Management 13, 245250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lal, R., Follett, F., Stewart, B. A. & Kimble, J. M. (2007). Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change and advance food security. Soil Science 172, 943956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milà i Canals, L., Cowell, S. J., Sim, S. & Basson, L. (2007). Comparing local versus imported apples: a focus on energy use. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 14, 276282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonhebel, S. (2006). Options and trade-offs: reducing greenhouse gas emissions from food production systems. In Agriculture and Climate Beyond 2015 (Eds Brouwer, F. & McCarl, B. A.), pp. 211230. The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogino, A., Kaku, K., Osada, T. & Shimada, K. (2004). Environmental impacts of the Japanese beef-fattening system with different feeding lengths as evaluated by a life-cycle assessment method. Journal of Animal Science 82, 21152122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodriguez-Puebla, C., Ayuso, S. M., Frias, M. D. & Garcia-Casado, L. A. (2007). Effects of climate variation on winter cereal production in Spain. Climate Research 34, 223232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, C., Barber, A. & Taylor, G. (2006). Food Miles – Comparative Energy/Emissions Performance of New Zealand's Agriculture Industry. AERU Research Report No. 285. Christchurch, New Zealand: Lincoln University Agribusiness and Economic Research Unit. Available online at: http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/story_images/2328_RR285_s13389.pdf (verified 20 May 2009).Google Scholar
Sim, S., Barry, M., Clift, R. & Cowell, S. (2007). The relative importance of transport in determining an appropriate sustainability strategy for food sourcing. A case study of fresh produce supply chains. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12, 422431.Google Scholar
Subak, S. (1999). Global environmental costs of beef production. Ecological Economics 30, 7991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tzilivakis, J., Warner, D. J., May, M., Lewis, K. A. & Jaggard, K. (2005). An assessment of the energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) production in the UK. Agricultural Systems 85, 101119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergé, X. P. C., Dyer, J. A., Desjardins, R. L. & Worth, D. (2008). Greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian beef industry. Agricultural Systems 98, 126134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuichard, N., Soussana, J. F., Ciais, P., Viovy, N., Ammann, C., Calanca, P., Clifton-Brown, J., Fuhrer, J., Jones, M. & Martin, C. (2007). Estimating the greenhouse gas fluxes of European grasslands with a process-based model: 1. Model evaluation from in situ measurements. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 21, GB1004, doi:10.1029/2005GB002611.Google Scholar
Warwick, HRI (2007). AC0401: Direct Energy Use in Agriculture: Opportunities for Reducing Fossil Fuel Inputs. Final Report to Defra. Warwick, UK: Warwick HRI. Available online at: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=AC0401_6343_FRP.pdf (verified 20 May 2009).Google Scholar
Williams, A. G., Audsley, E. & Sandars, D. L. (2006). Determining the Environmental Burdens and Resource Use in the Production of Agricultural and Horticultural Commodities. Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0205. Bedford, UK: Cranfield University and Defra. Available online at: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=IS0205_3958_EXE.doc (verified 20 May 2009).Google Scholar
Wood, S. & Cowie, A. (2004). A Review of Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Fertiliser Production. IEA Bioenergy Task 38. Research and Development Division, State forests of New South Wales, Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Accounting. Available online at: http://www.ieabioenergy-task38.org/publications/GHG_Emission_Fertiliser%20Production_July2004.pdf (verified 20 May 2009).Google Scholar
Wu, W. B., Shibasaki, R., Yang, P., Tan, G. X., Matsumura, K. I. & Sugimoto, K. (2007). Global-scale modelling of future changes in sown areas of major crops. Ecological Modelling 208, 378390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Carbon footprinting of lamb and beef production systems: insights from an empirical analysis of farms in Wales, UK
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Carbon footprinting of lamb and beef production systems: insights from an empirical analysis of farms in Wales, UK
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Carbon footprinting of lamb and beef production systems: insights from an empirical analysis of farms in Wales, UK
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *