Life Cycle Assessment of Slaughtered Pork Production: A Case Study in Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Pork is a staple food in many cultures worldwide and plays a significant role in global food systems. However, the production of pork is associated with various environmental issues throughout its life cycle. This study employed a life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate the environmental impact of slaughtered pork production in Thailand. The system boundaries encompassed pig breeding, pig farming, and slaughtering. The primary focus was on identifying significant contributors to environmental burdens throughout the pork production chain. Three scenarios for pig feed compositions were assessed. The results indicated that pork production generated a total impact of 5.07 kgCO2-eq on global warming, 1.16E-03 kgP-eq on freshwater eutrophication, 4.69 m2a-eq on land use, and 4.97 m3 on water consumption. Pig feed production, particularly maize cultivation, emerged as a hotspot within the life cycle, contributing the highest impact across all categories. According to scenario analysis, the substitution of rice by-products and sorghum in pig feed tended to reduce the magnitude of the impact. Opportunities were suggested to improve the environmental performance of pork production, especially through feed strategies such as substituting high-impact ingredients with more sustainable alternatives and utilizing waste from pig farming and slaughtering.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Published articles are under the copyright of the Environment and Natural Resources Journal effective when the article is accepted for publication thus granting Environment and Natural Resources Journal all rights for the work so that both parties may be protected from the consequences of unauthorized use. Partially or totally publication of an article elsewhere is possible only after the consent from the editors.
References
Bava L, Zucali M, Sandrucci A, Tamburini A. Environmental impact of the typical heavy pig production in Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production 2017;140:685-91.
Bureau of Animal Nutrition Development. Pig feed ingredient [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2023 Dec 25]. Available from: https://nutrition.dld.go.th/nutrition/index.php/the-joomla-project/953-2017-09-01-05-06-54 (in Thai).
Dai XW, Zhanli SUN, Müller D. Driving factors of direct greenhouse gas emissions from China’s pig industry from 1976 to 2016. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2021; 20(1):319-29.
De La Mora-Orozco C, González-Acuña IJ, Saucedo-Terán RA, Flores-López HE, Rubio-Arias HO, Ochoa-Rivero JM. Removing organic matter and nutrients from pig farm wastewater with a constructed wetland system. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2018;15(5):Article No. 1031.
De Quelen F, Brossard L, Wilfart A, Dourmad JY, Garcia-Launay F. Eco-friendly feed formulation and on-farm feed production as ways to reduce the environmental impacts of pig production without consequences on animal performance. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2021;8:Article No. 689012.
Department of Agricultural Extension (DOAE). Production of sorghum as feed cultivation year 2018/19 [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2024 Apr 24]. Available from: http://www.agriinfo. doae.go.th/year62/plant/rortor/agronomy/7.pdf (in Thai).
Department of Livestock Development (DLD). Pig Farming Manual. Bangkok: Department of Livestock Development; 2005 (in Thai).
Djekic I, Radović Č, Lukić M, Stanišić N, Lilić S. Environmental life cycle assessment in production of pork products. Scientific and Professional Section 2015;17;469-76.
Dorca-Preda T, Mogensen L, Kristensen T, Knudsen MT. Environmental impact of Danish pork at slaughterhouse gate a life cycle assessment following biological and technological changes over a 10-year period. Livestock Science 2021; 251:Article No. 104622.
Duff J, Vincent A, Bice D, Hoeffner I. Background on grain Sorghum Usage. In: Zhao ZY, Dahlberg J, editors. Sorghum: Methods in Molecular Biology, Volume 1931. New York: Humana Press; 2019. p. 245-56.
Fuchs A, Berger V, Steinbauer K, Köstl T. The long-term effects of monoculture maize cultivation on plant diversity. Phytocoenologia 2021;50(4):397-408.
Heller MC, Willits-Smith A, Meyer R, Keoleian GA, Rose D. Greenhouse gas emissions and energy use associated with production of individual self-selected US diets. Environmental Research Letters 2018;13:Article No. 044004.
Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, Stam G, Verones F, Viera M, et al. ReCiPe2016: A harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2017;22:138-47.
INRAE-CIRAD-AFZ. INRAE-CIRAD-AFZ feed tables: Table data (as fed) [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2024 Apr 20]. Available from: https://www.feedtables.com/content/table-as-fed.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Guidelines for Sustainable Manure Management in Asian Livestock Production Systems. Vienna: IAEA; 2008.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Kanagawa: IGES; 2006.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 14040: Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework. Geneva: ISO; 2006a.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 14044: Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva: ISO; 2006b.
Liu X, Cai Z, Yuan Z. Environmental burdens of small-scale intensive pig production in China. Science of the Total Environment 2021;770:Article No. 144720.
Long WT, Wang HL, Hou Y, Chadwick D, Ma YF, Cui ZL, et al. Mitigation of multiple environmental footprints for China’s pig production using different land use strategies. Environmental Science and Technology 2021;55(8):4440-51.
McAuliffe GA, Chapman DV, Sage CL. A thematic review of life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to pig production. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2016;56:12-22.
Ministry of Commerce (of Thailand). Prices of agricultural products [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Feb 2]. Available from: https://data.moc.go.th/OpenData/GISProductPrice (in Thai).
Ndue K, Pál G. Life cycle assessment perspective for sectoral adaptation to climate change: Environmental impact assessment of pig production. Land 2022;11(6):Article No. 827.
Nguyen TL, Hermansen JE, Mogensen LI. Environmental Assessment of Danish Pork [dissertation]. Aarhus, Aarhus University; 2011.
Office of Agricultural Economics. Situation of important agricultural products and trends in 2024 [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Jan 5]. Available from: https://www.oae.go.th/ assets/portals/1/files/jounal/2566/trend2567.pdf (in Thai).
Öhlund E, Hammer M, Björklund J. Managing conflicting goals in pig farming: Farmers’ strategies and perspectives on sustainable pig farming in Sweden. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2017;15(6):693-707.
Ogino A, Osada T, Takada R, Takagi T, Tsujimoto S, Tonoue T, et al. Life cycle assessment of Japanese pig farming using low-protein diet supplemented with amino acids. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 2013;59:107-18.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Meat consumption (indicator) [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Feb 10]. Available from: https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meat-consumption.htm.
Ottosen M, Mackenzie SG, Filipe JA, Misiura MM, Kyriazakis I. Changes in the environmental impacts of pig production systems in Great Britain over the last 18 years. Agricultural Systems 2021;189:Article No. 103063.
Oanh NTK, Permadi DA, Hopke PK, Smith KR, Dong NP, Dang AN. Annual emissions of air toxics emitted from crop residue open burning in Southeast Asia over the period of 2010-2015. Atmospheric Environment 2018;187:163-73.
Parrini S, Aquilani C, Pugliese C, Bozzi R, Sirtori F. Soybean replacement by alternative protein sources in pig nutrition and its effect on meat quality. Animals 2023;13(3):Article No. 494.
Pazmiño ML, Ramirez AD. Life cycle assessment as a methodological framework for the evaluation of the environmental sustainability of pig and pork production in Ecuador. Sustainability 2021;13(21):Article No. 11693.
Pollution Control Department. Handbook for Using Waste Treatment Technology and Wastewater from Pig Farms, Focusing on Biogas in the Form of a Combined System. Bangkok: Pollution Control Department (of Thailand); 2017 (in Thai).
Pomar C, Remus A. Precision pig feeding: A breakthrough toward sustainability. Animal Frontiers 2019;9(2):52-9.
Powers SE. Quantifying Cradle-to-Farm Gate Life-Cycle Impacts Associated with Fertilizer used for Corn, Soybean, and Stover Production. United States: US Department of Energy; 2005.
Rahaman MM, Shehab MK. Is the propensity of increasing the rice production a sustainable approach? Experiences from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Journal of Water Resource Engineering and Management 2018;5(2):2-18.
Rajão R, Soares-Filho B, Nunes F, Börner J, Machado L, Assis D, et al. The rotten apples of Brazil. Science 2020;369:246-8.
Reckmann K, Blank R, Traulsen I, Krieter J. Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of pork using different protein sources in pig feed. Archives Animal Breeding 2016;59(1):27-36.
Wanasitthachaiwat W, Rojanasathit S. Pig Food Recipes. Volume 16. Bangkok: Department of Livestock Development; 1999 (in Thai).
Wijitkosum S, Sriburi T. Impact of urban expansion on water demand: The case study of Nakhonrachasima City, Lam Ta Kong Watershed. Nakhara: Journal of Environmental Design and Planning 2008;4:69-88.
Williams E, Eikenaar S. Finding your way in multifunctional processes and recycling [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2024 Jan 24]. Available from: https://pre-sustainability.com/articles/ finding-your-way-in-allocation-methods-multifunctional-processes-recycling/.
Winkler T, Schopf K, Aschemann R, Winiwarter W. From farm to fork: A life cycle assessment of fresh Austrian pork. Cleaner Production 2016;116:80-9.
Zira S, Rydhmer L, Ivarsson E, Hoffmann R, Röös E. A life cycle sustainability assessment of organic and conventional pork supply chains in Sweden. Sustainable Production and Consumption 2021;28:21-38.