Baumgartner 2008

European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?Life Cycle Assessment of Pork, Chicken Meat, Egg, and Milk Production Grain Legumes Integrated Project (GLIP) New Strategies to Improve Grain Legumes for Food and Feed Food Quality and Safety WP2.2: Environmental Analysis of the Feed Chain, Final Report, Deliverable 2.2.2a Daniel U. Baumgartner, Laura de Baan and Thomas Nemecek Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART February 2008 Summary Changes in environmental impacts due to replacing soya bean meal from North and South America with European grain legumes in animal feeding systems were studied within the framework of the Grain Legumes Integrated Project (GLIP, grant no. FOOD-CT-2004506223), which is part of the European Union’s 6th RDT framework programme. European grain legumes could be an interesting alternative for animal feeds, as they need no mineral fertiliser (symbiotic nitrogen fixation), act as a break crop in crop rotation, and need less transport than overseas soya bean meal. Furthermore, Brazilian and Argentinean soya bean cultivation leads to clear-cutting of rainforests and savannah being transformed into arable land with severe effects on biodiversity and very large emissions of carbon into the atmosphere. Five case studies were conducted in four European regions: pork production in North RhineWestphalia (Germany) and Catalonia (Spain), chicken meat and egg production in Brittany (France), and milk production in Devon and Cornwall (Great Britain). The main comparison was between a feeding system where the protein need is mainly covered by imported soya bean meal (SOY), which corresponds to current practice, and a feeding system where soya bean meal is replaced with European grain legumes (GLEU), i.e. peas and faba beans. In addition, a feed alternative where European grain legumes are supplemented with higher levels of synthetic amino acids (SAA) was assessed for chicken meat and German pork. For the latter, we also analysed a feed alternative consisting mainly of on-farm produced and self-mixed feed ingredients (FARM). Production data for arable crops were taken from the concerted action GL-Pro; for animal production they were collected through the GLIP partners and reports. Information on origin and transport of feed ingredients were supplied by extension services, the feed industry, and statistics. Missing data were taken from the ecoinvent and SALCA life cycle inventory databases. In this study the SALCA (Swiss Agricultural Life Cycle Assessment) life cycle assessment method was applied. The functional units of these product life cycle assessments are 1kg of pork, chicken meat, eggs and milk, respectively, delivered at the farm gate. The results from the five case studies showed that replacing soya bean meal in animal feed with European grain legumes did not lead to an overall improvement in environmental impacts. Generally, a reduction in environmental impacts was achieved for the impact categories ‘energy demand’ and ‘global warming potential’, both being influenced by resource use. In all the studies, the impact of the GLEU alternative on ozone formation can be considered as being rather similar to the impact of the standard feed SOY. This is also the GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 2/112 case for the two impact categories driven by nutrients, i.e. eutrophication and acidification, as well as for human toxicity. The results for ecotoxicity are less uniform across the different case studies. They range from similar to unfavourable for the comparison between the GLEU alternative and the standard feeding system SOY. The results also differ according to the ecotoxicity-calculation method used, due to the different impact factors each method assigns to the active ingredients of the pesticides applied. Common to both SAA alternatives is that they comprise higher contents of synthetic amino acids, but otherwise they differ considerably in the ingredients. Hence, the results of the SAA alternatives compared to the standard feed SOY are not the same in the pork and the broiler chicken studies. In the North Rhine-Westphalian pork production study, the SAA alternative had, compared to the standard SOY, similar impacts in most categories, e.g. energy demand and eutrophication, but had lower global warming potentials and higher ecotoxicity potentials. The SAA alternative for broiler chicken production proved to be an interesting feeding alternative having favourable or even very favourable impacts compared to the standard SOY in most categories, and similar impacts for eutrophication and acidification; only the energy demand was higher. The FARM alternative showed clear advantages for the impact categories ‘energy demand’ and ‘global warming potential’, both being influenced by resource use, as well as for the two impact categories driven by nutrients, i.e. eutrophication and acidification. In contrast to this, there were comparatively unfavourable impacts on the use of the resources P and K, as well as on ecotoxicity. In conclusion, the introduction of European grain legumes did not have the expected overall improvement on environmental impacts. Significant advantages could be found for the resource use-driven impacts as a consequence of less transportation, reduced incorporation of energy-rich feeds and absence of land transformation. However, for the nutrient-driven impacts there was little effect, as the positive effects of reduced soya bean meal and energyrich feed use were frequently counteracted by the negative effects of cultivating the replacement grain legumes and associated protein-rich feeds. In addition, it should be borne in mind that a grain legume (soya bean) was replaced by other grain legumes; thus the advantages due to symbiotic nitrogen fixation are present in both alternatives. Replacing soya bean meal with European grain legumes tended to have a negative effect with regard to ecotoxicity impacts. The reason for this was that cultivating the replacement feed ingredients meant using pesticides that were unfavourably assessed by the methods employed. Overall, the results show that it is difficult to draw general conclusions because replacing soya bean meal with European grain legumes has consequences for the entire composition of the feed formulas, which furthermore differ according to the feedstuff market in the different regions assessed. Consequently, the results are determined more by the GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 3/112 Bonn.e. Fance) and Dylan Chevalier (Pays de la Loire’s Chamber of Agriculture. Germany) for providing production data on the feed ingredients of a self-mixing farm as well as on the origins and transport means for the pork production case study in North Rhine-Westphalia. Sweden). We suggest integrating environmental criteria into feedstuff models. Bruce Cottrill (ADAS. Münster. and origin of feed ingredients for the chicken meat and the egg production case studies in Brittany. Germany) and Beate Dietz (Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung. feeding. Paris. France). GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 4/112 . Nouzilly. Zdenek Tousek (CZU. Marta Busquet. France). to target using ingredients with an optimised ratio between environmental impacts and yield. We would like to express our thanks to Frédéric Pressenda (CEREOPA. who gave their advice and provided valuable comments on the report. where there is considerable potential for reducing environmental impacts. Ana Hurtado (CESFAC. We also would like to thank Julia-Sophie von Richthofen (proPlant GmbH. Lukáš Chechura. Roger Fechler and Wolfgang Sommer (North Rhine-Westphalias’ Chamber of Agriculture. Ricardo Miguelañez. Wolverhampton. Hauke Jebsen (Agravis Raiffeisen AG. Katell Crépon (UNIP. Paris. France) for providing data on production. UK). Spain). France). manure management on the animal production farms. Isabelle Bouvarel (ITAVI. We gratefully acknowledge the collaboration with Ulf Sonesson and Jennifer Davis at SIK – The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (Gothenburg. Acknowledgements This research was supported by the European Commission (grant no. Paris. Madrid. Feedstuff production proved to contribute the most to environmental impacts. FOOD-CT-2004506223) and by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research SER. Prague. Other important factors are: the transport of feed ingredients. Münster. and the eco-efficiency of the feed ingredients. Berne. This underlines the need for an integral approach to evaluating the introduction of European grain legumes in animal feed. i. the focus for improvements should be on this part of the life cycle. Germany). Jan Hucko. Münster. Czech Republic) for providing data. Mónica Montes. Germany). advice and other information as well as contributing to interesting discussions at several meetings. Switzerland. in order to optimise them for economic and environmental aspects. where we could show that local production has an important advantage. Thus. Angers. efficiency in animal production.composition of the whole feed formulas than by the replacement of soya bean meal with grain legumes itself. Nathalie Gosselet (PROLEA. striving for an improved feed conversion rate. ................5 Abbreviations ..............................................14 2..................10 1..3............27 Resources: ....................1...........3 Mandate..3 Feed Alternatives.............................................1 Mode of result presentation ................................20 2.....................1 Production Inventories ..............................................................2 Allocation for animal production................................3....................4 Table of Contents ...................................................39 6.................................................................................................................34 6.........................................................................4 Estimation of carbon release due to land transformation ....................................................................1 Data Collection for LCA of Feed Chain .............................................................................37 Pollutant-driven Impacts .......43 GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 5/112 .........................................................2 Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories ...........................4 Target Groups for this Report ...........................................................................................................10 1.................................................5......................................................1 Comparability of systems ................4 Function and Functional Unit ..............2 Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories ...................................3..2 Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................2 Previous Studies...............1 Context ..17 2..........................................................14 2..............................................14 2.......................1 Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives .......................................................................................................................3 Pork Production in Catalonia (CAT).................................................................................................6 Data Quality Requirements .....................................................................1 Pork Production ..........................27 4..7 Review procedure...................................................................32 6...........................5 Allocation Procedures.34 6................................................1............................3 Chicken Production......................................................1 Choice of Feed Alternatives..............29 5 Life Cycle Interpretation ....................1........4 Description of the Production Systems of the Case Studies ....................................................................23 3.............................43 6......................................................................................32 6.3...............................................................................1 Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives ............12 1........30 5.25 3....................20 2.............................................................................5.........10 1...26 4 Life Cycle Impact Assessment .................3 Choice of Case Studies ......................................................21 2.....................2 Pork Production in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) ..............................................2..................................................................................................................................................3 Estimation of Direct Field and Farm Emissions ......41 6..................................................14 2...................19 2......................13 1...................................................................................................................2...............................................20 2.............22 3.....3 Impacts not considered .......10 1.............22 3................27 4................................................................................2..8 1 Introduction.............34 Resource Use-driven Impacts ......................................1........24 3.....................2 Calculation Procedures / Tool........................... and Case Studies..............3..............................................................31 6 Results .............43 6.........................................................................................................................................................3 Summary of the Results ..............................34 Nutrient-driven Impacts .................................................................2 Milk Production ..........16 2.......................................................................2..............................................................................27 4...........................................2.................................2 Life Cycle Inventories .................................1 Goal of the Study...........................................................27 Environmental impacts: ......................................2 System Definition and Boundary ........................15 2.....................................................2 Resources and Environmental impacts assessed at life cycle assessment stage ....................................................Table of Contents Summary .....................12 1....................................................................14 2............2.....................................1 Resources assessed at life cycle inventory stage ..............................................3.......................2 Choice of Animal Products and of Regions .....................................21 3 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis ..........................................................................................22 3.................1 Allocation for plant production ..................................................................13 2 Definition of Goal and Scope................................... Study Region....... ....................................................................................................5 Appendix 5: Correction factors for feedstuff ingredients where no production or life cycle inventories were available...2 Appendix 2: Flow diagram of the LCA of chicken meat production ........49 6.............................4 Appendix 4: Flow diagram of the LCA of milk production ........................... Recommendations.....................62 6..............................5 Manure management – there is potential for optimisation..................................76 6....................58 Resource Use-driven Impacts .......... and Outlook ............8....................................2 Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories ............56 6...........89 7...............1 Introduction..................................................................................61 6..........................43 Nutrient-driven Impacts ............................................................3 Summary of the Results ....2 Slurry Quantities (DAC) .46 6..........................80 7.........................................................................1 Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives ..........69 6........................................88 7.....................................................................................................................................60 Pollutant-driven Impacts .....................................................................................................................................................6...........................................103 10...................................................................................................................54 6...........8.....4 Allocation Factors for the Oil Extracting Process.............................................3.....................................................................................4.......................................................................5....................................................................78 6...........................................75 6............................80 7..................................................................75 6....................................................................................................................................58 Nutrient-driven Impacts .......................64 6................................78 7 Discussion ..8...........7 Overview of the Results for all Case Studies...............65 Nutrient-driven Impacts ..............1 Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives ...........106 GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 6/112 .5 Egg Production in Brittany (BRI)...4 Land transformation – a decisive factor on global warming potential .............................................................90 8 Conclusions.............................................................................................58 6.........Resource Use-driven Impacts ..............102 10.................49 Resource Use-driven Impacts .............................5.........................49 Nutrient-driven Impacts ...............................................................8...........................71 6.....................105 10...............................................................................................................................................................................................104 10............................................................8 Sensitivity Analysis ....92 Outlook ...............................1 Land Transformation (CAT) .................................................................6 Milk Production in Devon and Cornwall (DAC) ....65 Resource Use-driven Impacts ............7 Unconsidered Impacts .............58 6.....5 Technical Measures to Reduce Ammonia Losses (CAT) ....................84 7........52 Pollutant-driven Impacts ...............................................................................................102 10....................................................6 Productivity of Agricultural Goods....................................................................................................................................................................3 Appendix 3: Flow diagram of the LCA of egg production ........................................................................................................................................................................74 6...........................................................................55 GLEU compared to SOY ..................................1 Appendix 1: Flow diagram of the LCA of pork production ...3 Summary of the Results .......................4 Chicken Meat Production in Brittany (BRI) ....92 Recommendations.............................................2 Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories ............................95 10 Appendices..........................................................................45 Pollutant-driven Impacts ............93 9 References ....................................................80 7......73 6...3 Transport ............................................................................3 Summary of the Results .....................................55 Short-SOY compared to SOY.......................................................4...........................................92 Conclusions ........................................2 Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories ..................87 7....................4..6...................................56 SAA compared to SOY...................................................................................64 6................67 Pollutant-driven Impacts .......................47 6.....................................8.........6.............................................................................................1 Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives ...............3 Summary of the Results .............................49 6...................................2 Feedstuff production and processing..........................3 Feed Formulas without Beet and Citrus Pulp (DAC) ..............5.................................................. 8 Appendix 8: Origin of Feed Ingredients and Transport Distances for the Pig Feed Study NRW....................10........................................................9 Appendix 9: Origin of Feed Ingredients and Transport Distances for the Pig Feed Study CAT .....111 10..................................................11 Appendix 11: Origin of Feed Ingredients and Transport Distances for the Milk Study DAC.................................................10 Appendix 10: Origin of Feed Ingredients and Transport Distances for the Egg and Chicken Study BRI .............................110 10.........................................7 Appendix 7: GWP and energy-demand of different means of transport .............................................................6 Appendix 6: Used life cycle inventories for feedstuff ingredients.............107 10.......................................108 10.........................................................109 10......112 GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 7/112 ................................................................................ . Dichlorobenzene-equivalents DM Dry matter ECM Energy corrected milk EDIP Life cycle assessment method by the Technical University of Denmark. 5th RDT Framework Programme (QLK5-CT-2002-02418) GWP Global warming potential IPCC International panel on climate change LCA Life cycle assessment LCI Life cycle inventory GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 8/112 . 1997.Abbreviations ARG Argentina ART Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART BRA Brazil BRI Brittany (France) CAT Catalonia (Spain) CML Life cycle assessment method by Leiden University. Equivalents FARM Feeding formulas with on-farm feed production GLEU Feeding formulas with European grain legumes GLIP Grain legumes integrated project.. 6th RDT Framework Programme (FOOD-CT-2004-506223) GL-Pro European extension network for the development of grain legume production in the EU. Institute for Product Development (Hauschild & Wenzel. 1998) eq. 2002) DAC Devon and Cornwall (Great Britain) DCB-eq. Margni et al. Institute of Environmental Sciences (Guinée et al. Institute of Soil and Water Management (Jolliet & Crettaz. 2001) CST Life cycle assessment method by EPFL Lausanne. LW Live weight MJ Mega Joule MYA Malaysia NRW North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) PHOSBI Di-calcium phosphate RDT Research and technological development SAA Feeding formulas with synthetic amino acids SALCA Swiss Agricultural Life Cycle Assessment Short-SOY Feeding formulas with short fattening period SIK Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology SOY Feeding formulas with soya bean meal from overseas TEP Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Points UK United Kingdom WP Work Package GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 9/112 . 2008). Despite these advantages. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 10/112 . grain legumes have an indirect effect on crop rotation because they act as break crops slowing down the build-up of cereal pests. and milk production were conducted in four European regions for this purpose.g. mostly as soya bean meal from North or South America (GLIP. cultivating genetically modified crops leads to problems with consumer acceptance. and chicken and related production systems. and this has beneficial environmental effects as a result of reduced nitrogen losses from fertiliser manufacturing and application as well as a substantial reduction in energy demand (Charles & Nemecek. 2004). These crops need no nitrogen fertiliser. 2005.1 Context In Europe. Furthermore. The cultivation of grain legumes 1 . 2008). egg. only 2% of Europe’s arable land is currently cultivated with grain legumes. there is a need for high-quality protein for animal feed and human consumption. Furthermore. This has adverse environmental impacts.. they can fix atmospheric nitrogen providing them with this important nutrient and saving it for subsequent crops. chicken. e.1 Introduction 1. 1.2. 1.2 Previous Studies Numerous life cycle assessment (LCA) studies on agricultural products and systems have been carried out to date. beans and lupines that are rich in protein. such as peas. would be a suitable alternative to meeting this need. Five case studies on pork. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or mad cow disease) led to the ban on using animal-derived protein in livestock feed which in turn raised the demand for vegetable protein sources. The following overview will focus mainly on product LCAs for milk. using a life cycle approach. Basset-Mens & van der Werf (2005) have studied the environmental impacts of three contrasting pig production 1 Grain legumes belong to the botanical family of Fabaceae. diseases and weeds and resulting in a reduced need for pesticides (Nemecek et al. starch. They are cultivated for their seeds and are also called pulses. This study assesses the environmental potential of introducing European grain legumes into animal feed. The seeds are used for human and animal consumption or for producing oils for industrial uses. pork. Nemecek et al. In symbiosis with bacteria.1 Pork Production The production of pork has been the subject of several LCA studies. As a result. Additionally. the production of concentrated feed. 75% of Europe’s plant-derived protein demand is met by imports. grain legumes possess important agricultural features. fibre and essential nutrients. including long transportation distances and clear-cutting of rainforests in Brazil due to increasing demand for arable land. egg.. or co-product-based feeds per ton of compound feed produced the wheat-based formulation was the most favourable for the impact categories ‘land use’. ‘climate change’. The results based on one ton of pig feed show that for the impact categories ‘energy use’. ii) a French quality-label scenario called Red Label. pig slurry was assumed to be the main source of fertiliser. A similar study has been performed by van der Werf et al. national. or overseas sources. Comparing wheat-. a feed containing mainly co-products had higher environmental impacts in the category ‘energy use’ and lower impacts in the category ‘terrestrial ecotoxicity’.distance transportation. ‘climate change’. good agricultural practice had the lowest environmental impacts for the impact categories ‘energy use’. For the different impact categories the results of the three scenarios for one kg of pig growth were as follows: the scenario with soya bean meal had the lowest environmental impacts on land use. iii) and a French organic scenario. (2005) regarding the environmental impacts of producing concentrate feed for pigs in Brittany. and ‘acidification’ the contribution from transport processes was substantial. ‘energy use’. ‘land use’. maize. The scenarios they compared were i) good agricultural practice according to French production rules. Most diets were cereal-based in combination with soya. b) use of domestic feed (no soya bean meal) with low crude protein level and added synthetic amino acids. In a Swedish study by Eriksson et al. the scenario using domestic feed enriched with synthetic amino acids was the most favourable in terms of environmental impacts. They found that. In comparison. and ‘terrestrial toxicity’. The co-product-based feed had the lowest impacts for acidification and terrestrial ecotoxicity.systems in France using LCA methodology. Regarding acidification and eutrophication. Generally. and c) use of organic feed ingredients. The authors defined six diets for pigs adapted to their development stage. Compared with a feed consisting mainly of non-processed crop-based ingredients. rapeseed. The feed components were either from local. over 50% of the energy use and 75% of the acidification were due to long. (2005) the impact of feed choice for pig production was examined. or sunflower meal or peas as protein sources. the Red Label production system had the lowest impacts on eutrophication and acidification. For the local crops. Per kg of soya bean meal. the French organic scenario only had the lowest environmental impacts in the category ‘pesticide use’. and ‘climate change’. The results show that for all impact categories the production of 1 kg of soya bean meal had the highest impact among the assessed feed ingredients. when expressed per kg of pig produced. the wheat- GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 11/112 . However. The chosen scenarios related to feed formulations for pigs where a) is extrapolation of the present trend of soya bean meal use. per kg of pig produced. whereas for energy use and global warming potential the scenario with organic pig feed had the lowest impacts. feed production and broiler housing were important contributors to global warming. The contribution of retail to the global warming potential was relatively small. The study focussed on the environmental impacts of two diets in which the methionine content was increased compared to a standard wheat-soya-feed. feed production was the dominant process step (Katajajuuri.. De Boer. 2003) and b) milk production studies. Two types of allocation procedures for calves. He assessed the entire broiler chicken chain in Finland.e. whereas in diet B this was GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 12/112 . especially the crop cultivation phase. and Brazil. chicken was used for bench-marking. with feed ingredients originating from Norway. However. the consumer phase. but also N2O-emissions from fertiliser production and use. Hospido et al.3 Chicken Production There are a few LCA studies on chicken production.2. not only through CO2-emissions. and waste management (Eide.2 Milk Production A number of LCA studies on milk production have been undertaken. the exception being for the impact category ‘eutrophication’. Ellingsen and Aanondsen (2006) compared the environmental impacts of wild-caught cod and farmed salmon with chicken. and through the production of CH4. i. An interesting aspect of LCA studies on milk production is discussed in Cederberg & Stadig (2001). 1998. including dairy processing. The LCA study by Ostermayer et al. Katajajuuri (2007) performed a case study on Finnish broiler production. As a functional unit they chose 0. up to a marinated and sliced broiler fillet bought by consumers from retail shops. While fish production was the focus of this study. economic allocation or system expansion are compared. In diet A the higher methionine content was obtained by adding synthetic methionine. The chicken production was situated in the southern part of Norway.2kg of fillets of the three products. feed production. (2002) investigated DL-methionine in poultry fattening. 1. was the most important process step followed by refrigeration in retail stores and broiler chicken housing. 2003). France.2. Chicken was most energy effective using 11MJ per functional unit. Two areas of interest have been analysed: a) comparative studies examining the differences between conventional and organic milk production (Cederberg.based feed was more favourable than the maize-based one. as well as from broiler manure. The use of grain legumes as feed in milk production was not a major consideration in these studies. Regarding energy demand. 2007). Salmon and cod were at about the same level with 13MJ per functional unit. 2002. packaging. Their results showed that the farming phase dominated all the impact categories investigated. For the impact categories acidification and eutrophication. 1. either as feed for the pigs or consumed directly as a replacement for pork. 1. has analysed the environmental impact of an entire meal (Davis & Sonesson. a partner institute in GLIP. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 13/112 . were considered (Ostermayer et al. and policy-makers. This study. Per kg..4 Target Groups for this Report The target groups of this report are the scientific community. performed by Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research station ART. the increased DL-methionine diet (A) had less environmental impacts than diet B for the categories ‘energy demand’. By performing product LCAs for pork. 2002). SIK – The Swedish Institute for Food and biotechnology.achieved by increasing the soya bean meal content. ‘terrestrial eurtrophication’ and ‘aquatic eutrophication’.3 Mandate This report was commissioned by the European Union through the 6th RDT Framework Programme (FOOD-CT-2004-506223). authorities. retailers. Production systems. unless the avoided impacts of nitrogen fertiliser. European grain legumes are included in various proportions. extension services. ‘acidification’. 2008). Data from this present study is used for the study on meals. consumer organisations. Farmers are not primarily part of the target group for this report.. In these meals. 1. transport distances and feed composition are some of the important differences of the chosen scenarios. for climate change the synthetic methionine diet had lower environmental impacts than the diet with increased soya bean meal. the food industry. chicken. due to replacing wheat with soya bean meal. and milk. They will be addressed mainly through extension services. 2002). where two case study regions are analysed giving indications on differences within Europe. eggs. Equally. This study also provides interesting data on soya cultivation overseas and the production of soya bean meal as well as on the production of synthetic DL-methionine (Ostermayer et al. investigates the environmental impact of the feed chain. this study focuses on the differences in the environmental impacts of using European grain legumes instead of imported soya bean meal from overseas as a protein source in livestock diets. slaughtering. Appendix 3. eggs) which are produced on-farm.g. crop production (including land transformation).e.). 2008). chickens. seeds. transport. fertilisers. The system boundary is set at the farm gate. machinery. processing. The system encompasses inputs into agricultural production (i. and the GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 14/112 . The evaluation is carried out through case studies of different animal products and in different European regions. and Case Studies 2. i.3. In the life cycle approach all stages of the agricultural production are included: the preliminary stage (i. fuels. feed. where these processes have been assessed for pork (Davis & Sonesson. The purpose of the LCA of the feed chain is to evaluate the environmental impacts of animal production systems. etc.) are part of the LCA of the food chain.3 Feed Alternatives. meat. 2.e. Appendix 2. or USA (SOY) as the main protein source. and ends with the animal products (meat. pesticides. Appendix 4). the agricultural production of raw materials. The focus is on animal products (milk. and storage. etc. equipment). Argentina. 2. including feed production. All activities beyond the farm gate (e. and animal production. where pigs. Brazil. and dairy cows are fed with soya bean meal from North or South America. infrastructures (buildings. the production of inputs and infrastructure). Within the Grain Legumes Integrated Project there is a study by Davis & Sonesson (2008) with a similar goal focussing on human nutrition and the LCA of the food chain.2 System Definition and Boundary A cradle-to-gate approach has been chosen. with different feeding strategies and different origins of feed. eggs. Study Region. milk).2 Definition of Goal and Scope 2.1 Goal of the Study The main goals of this study are to assess the environmental impacts of grain legume use in animal feed. transport to slaughterhouse.e. For further details see the flow diagrams in appendices 1 to 4 of the four products studied ( Appendix 1.1 Choice of Feed Alternatives Two main feed alternatives are considered in this study: the standard feeding (current practice). to identify environmental constraints to increasing grain legume use in Europe and to suggest new strategies to overcome them using Life Cycle Assessment methodology (LCA). In order to provide a good range of products we decided to assess products from different animal species. 2006). The assessed animal production system should allow soya bean meal to be replaced with European grain legumes. is assessed in one of the regions (Germany). chicken meat.. 2006) and reflect the common local farming situation. The ingredients for the FARM alternative were determined by a pig feeding expert from the North Rhine-Westphalian Chamber of Agriculture (W. For the alternatives. including the mixing of feed components (FARM). All four feed formulas for animal production in France were calculated with the economic feedstuff optimisation model ARIANE version 2005v2 (CEREOPA. 2008).2 (Pressenda et al. restrictions on soya bean meal use or digestibility of amino acids were introduced in the optimisation models in order to be able to substitute soya bean meal with European grain legumes or with higher levels of synthetic amino acids. Apr. besides the nutritional restrictions. market availability and price (which of course also reflects availability) were the main criteria for the composition of the formulas. eggs and milk. a feed alternative. where all the feed is produced on the farm itself. All compound feeds used in the presented case studies contain large amounts of cereals and maize (rich in energy). we examine pork. a feed alternative. where this soya bean meal is replaced by European grain legumes (GLEU) in the feed formulas.3. Sommer. Hence.feeding alternative. communication.2 Choice of Animal Products and of Regions One study objective is to assess different animal products which are at the starting point of further processing in the food chain (see also Davis & Sonesson. pers. The feed formulas are optimised for a maximum N digestibility. Thus. where European grain legumes are combined with higher levels of synthetic amino acids (SAA) is used in two regions. The current practice should include the use of soya bean meal. the reasons being explained below. 2. Several criteria had to be considered: The assessed products should be of economic importance and occur throughout Europe. and are completed with different mineral feeds. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 15/112 . The calculation for feed formulas from countries other than France was done through economic optimisation using the feedstuff model developed in WP 2. significant amounts of feeds rich in proteins. The feed formulas obtained reflect common practice. Additionally. 2005). Finally. accounts for more than 50% of the national pig production (Statistisches Bundesamt. Western France is also the main egg producing area. Germany is the biggest producer of pork in Europe and in recent years has seen a new growth in pig production.. In high-performing dairy cows. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 16/112 . of which 34% stems from milk production (Crépon et al. namely Brittany and Pays de la Loire. concentrate feeds are used to balance either the energy or protein need of the animal. 2.3. Therefore chicken meat production was chosen in preference to beef production.. Hence. with over 40% of the national production (Crépon et al. These species are usually fed with compound feeds. mainly in the Eastern part of the country (Crépon et al. 2005). feed mainly on roughage and can obtain a large part of their protein need through the intake of roughage. dairy cows. providing all their nutritional needs. Pork production in Catalonia (CAT). North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony. 2005). 2007). Spain. i. with the two main feed alternatives. Unlike monogastric animals. Another European country where pig production is very important is Spain. 2005). Its animal production sector has undergone a dynamic and steady growth. 2005). France is the leading country in Europe for poultry meat production.3 Choice of Case Studies Based on the presented reasoning we have selected the following case studies (Tab. Over a third of the English dairy herds are located in the South-West of the country (Defra. no transport). pulses are not important in their feed.. e. 2005a). 2005). In the meat sector. Germany. such as pigs and poultry. The animal production sector in the United Kingdom is dominated by cattle products which account for over 50% of the value generated by animal production. In current practice soya bean meal is the main protein source for monogastric animals. the North-West. 2005). 2005). with the two main feed alternatives and additionally a feed alternative where the feed formula with European grain legumes is optimised by using higher levels of synthetic amino acids (SAA) as well as a feed alternative where all the feed is produced on-farm (FARM. with Brittany accounting for 48% of the national market (Agreste Bretagne. 1): Pork production in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW). However.Milk is economically the most important agricultural commodity in the EU (European Union. In recent years. the consumption of poultry meat has been higher than beef consumption (European Union.e. though the most important producing regions are Catalonia and Aragon. pork and poultry meat are quantitatively the two most important meat types both in production and consumption (European Union.g. and this is concentrated in the Western part of the country. ruminants. The industrial pig production is spread all over Spain. SAA (synthetic amino acids). a growing. The piglets suckle. the results were compared with the standard short fattening period of 41 days (short-SOY). where they were fattened until they reach their slaughter weight. GLEU (European grain legumes).. In addition. with the two main feed alternatives. As the production system studied has a fattening period of 60 days and this system only accounts for about 8% of the French national chicken production. Tab. In both pork production case studies. Milk production Devon and Cornwall (DAC). consisting of a weaner. For the FARM alternative in North Rhine-Westphalia we assumed that the piglets did not come from GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 17/112 . NRW: North Rhine-Westphalia. France. and FARM (on-farm feed production) Product / Scenario SOY GLEU SAA FARM Pork (NRW) X X X X Pork (CAT) X X Egg (BRI) X X Chicken (BRI) (short fattening length) Chicken (BRI) (medium fattening length Milk (DAC) X X X X X X 2.3. and a finishing pig feed. We assumed in both regions that piglets were produced on a piglet production farm and then transported to a fattening farm. but feed is needed for the sows. and Egg production in Brittany (BRI). These regions can be considered as being reasonably homogenous for the purposes of this study (Crépon et al. a three-phase feeding system was applied. 2005). with the two main feed alternatives. The four feeding strategies: SOY (soya bean meal from overseas). France. 1: Overview of the different regions and case studies.4 Description of the Production Systems of the Case Studies Pork production in North Rhine-Westphalia and in Catalonia is highly specialised. Therefore feed is included for gestating and lactating sows. BRI: Brittany. with the two main feed alternatives. a feed alternative was examined where the feed formula with European grain legumes is optimised by using higher levels of synthetic amino acids (SAA). where inclusion of peas instead of soya bean meal is not possible for nutritional reasons. UK. CAT: Catalonia. DAC: Devon and Cornwall.Chicken meat production (broiler chicken) in Brittany (BRI). growing and finishing feed. In terms of life cycle assessment. which normally do not feed on soya bean meal nor on peas or beans.a self-mixing farm and hence the feed for the gestating and lactating sows is the same as in GLEU. we assumed that the calves were kept at the same farm as the dairy cows. For the replacement animals. For laying hens. starter. We assumed that the animals grazed on fresh grass for half the year. Thus.e. namely regarding its energy demand. i. This does not influence the conclusions of our study. the hatchery (where the eggs are hatched for three weeks). In the short fattening alternative (short-SOY). For milk production in Devon and Cornwall we used one average feed formula for dairy cows (with a high energy content) for all lactation phases. For egg production two feeds were used: a young hen feed and a laying hen feed. Broiler (chicken) production in Brittany is also highly specialised and normally consists of three geographically-separated production units: a farm keeping the parent animals for producing eggs. the hatchery. i. the dairy cows were fed rations containing 70% roughage feed (35% grass silage and 35% fresh grass). We did not include the hatchery due to lack of data. Due to formulation constraints. and the egg production farm (where the laying hens produce eggs over approximately one year). For the replacement animals (growing cattle). the parent animals can be disregarded. Cottrill (pers. More details are given in Tab. Only the absolute values would have changed. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 18/112 . For egg production there are normally up to four units: the farm with the parent laying hens producing eggs. Aug. There is a three-phase feeding. as the hatchery would have been the same for the different feeding strategies. there is a two-phase feeding consisting of a starter and a finishing feed for the broilers. In addition to the concentrate feed. for the broiler production of medium fattening period. the young hen farm (where the freshly hatched chicks are kept for 18 weeks). for chicken meat production we considered all resource use and emissions from the chicken meat farm. no economic feed optimisation model was calculated and the composition of the feed (the same for both feed alternatives) was provided by B. 2. 2007). it was not possible to calculate a starter feed meeting the nutritional needs of young chicks for the SAA alternative. as their share in relation to the final product is very small. we assessed the young hen and the egg production unit. no soya and high levels of synthetic amino acids. communication. therefore the GLEU starter feed was used in this alternative.e. and the chicken meat production farm (where the freshly-hatched chicks are fattened until they reach their slaughter-weight). 0 237.e.7 68. 2: Production data for the main animal production systems assessed in the different case studies.0 253.6 4. i. (2002).4 2. 2. i.54 0.4 96. Four agricultural products are assessed.5 3. The function of land cultivation.7 - 18.5 1 - - - - - 100% 28% Undiluted slurry per place and year [m3] 2.0 8.4 47. (2004b) three functions can be distinguished for LCAs of agricultural systems: 1.008 0. According to Nemecek et al.0 2.2 - - Eggs [kg with egg shell/year] - - - - 18. Case study Region NRW North-Rhine Westfalia CAT Catalonia pig pig Breed different breeds Landrace x Large White Housing system fully slatted floor fully slatted floor floor management Animal species Concentrate feed intake [kg/feeding stage and animal] starting growing finishing Total: Roughage feed BRI Brittany BRI Brittany BRI Brittany DAC Devon and Cornwall laying hen dairy cow JA 957. Hubbard-Isa Isabrown Holstein floor management laying battery loose housing.00 1.e.9 3. 3): Tab.1 - 2.0 yes no no no no no Cycles per year Replacement rate [%/year] Slurry (diluted) spreading per ha and year [m3] Covering slurry pit 0.4 14.4 8.0 - Total fattening/feeding length [d/animal] 175 165 41 60 365 365 Weight at slaughtering [kg live weight] 115 105 2. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 19/112 . agricultural use of the soil. All products are calculated as delivered at the farm gate.e. the production of food and feedstuff. The economic function.3 125.5 70.0 4.3 150. the income of the farmer. with 180 full and 46 half grazing days 0.4 Function and Functional Unit Agriculture has different functions for society and environment.6 6.008 0. i.5 4. The following functional units (FU) were chosen (Tab.3 0. Our study focuses on the productive function of agriculture. 1) Case study Functional unit (FU) Pig production kg pork (live weight) Chicken production kg chicken (live weight) Egg production kg eggs (with eggshell) Milk production kg ECM (energy and protein corrected milk) 1) The formula to calculate ECM is taken from Reist et al.7 - 40 - 2118 4700 broiler short broiler medium fattening length fattening length Ross 32. 3: Overview of the functional units according to the different case studies.04 19 Slurry dilution before spreading 1:3 1:3 - - - 1:3 112.7 - Milk [kg/year] - - - - - 6850 2.Tab. 3. The productive function. Therefore it is an integral part of the oil-extracting process and all the hexane is allocated to the oil. soya bean meal.5% of the environmental burden is allocated to milk and to 14.5. Neither is meat from old layers. Soya beans are very suitable for human nutrition. As the system boundary is set at the farm gate. sunflowers) was chosen. For the milk case study. leather and bristles are examples of co-products from pig production. The economic value is determined by calculating the product from the mass allocation and the market price. Mass allocation for the cultivation of oilseeds (e. 85. the ISO-norm gives higher priority to physical than economic allocation (ISO.5. sunflower meal.2 Allocation for animal production In animal production. a solvent which is uniquely used to maximise the oil yield. thus. 2006). meat from calves and old cows are included. because they do not necessarily need to be processed into oil and meal. co-products with an economic value of less than 5% of the sum of the products (of a particular production) are disregarded. However. • Processing of oilseeds in the oil mill: economic allocation. An exception is hexane. as this co-product from egg production accounts for 1. whereas in the process of pressing seeds the inputs used and the resulting outputs are linked to the economic interest of extracting oil (and obtaining their coproducts). incineration) are co-products of milk production. below 5% of the total product value. For example.1 Allocation for plant production Several feed ingredients are co-products (e.g.3%. As for feed ingredients. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 20/112 . and meat from old layers for stock cubes or pet food may be co-products of egg production. etc) of processes producing more than one product: • Cultivation and transport of oilseeds: mass allocation. All co-products with a value of less than 5% of the total product value are regarded as waste and their resource use and emissions are completely allocated to the main product(s).5% meat. co-products of pork production such as leather and bristles are not included in the LCA study of the feed chain.5 Allocation Procedures 2. Thus. allocation procedures are also needed. rapeseed meal. Furthermore. calves (meat) and old cows (meat. Rapeseeds can be fed to animals.g.2. soya beans. an economic allocation is applied. oilseed rape. We argue that transport (and therefore the associated emissions) is closely related to the mass of the goods transported. 2. .2 (corrected version of ecoinvent data v1. e. for example of an average pork production farm in Catalonia. mainly from the years 2004 and 2005.6 Data Quality Requirements To assess data quality requirements we distinguished between production inventories and life cycle inventories. (2004) 2. international). If they were not available at this level. This means that some data. data from the next higher level were used. the aim was to use data that were as close as possible to the system studied. Details on the properties of the life cycle inventories are given by Frischknecht et al. Life cycle inventories: The Life cycle inventories are taken from the ecoinvent database version 1. Nemecek et al. than data from the closest corresponding system or type were used. data were collected at the level where they were applicable (i. agricultural descriptions of the production systems. which means that the report on the LCA of the food chain (Davis & Sonesson. national import statistics) depending on their traceability.1. 2003a).g. They include specifications about the type and quantity of the inputs used.g. national. 2004) as well as from the SALCA database version 071 (updated version of SALCA database 031a. ecoinvent Centre.e. Data quality requirements are defined for time-related. Production inventories are technical. • Geographical coverage: As a general rule. Examples are housing system or building type. and technology coverage: • Time-related coverage: Data should not be older than five years and production data should cover an entire year of production. were taken on a regional or national level (e. • Technology coverage: Generally. type and date of the measurements taken. feed mill in North RhineWestphalia. were collected at a regional level whereas data on the origin of feed used for feed formula in the feed mill. and the outputs of the different systems. respectively. regional.7 Review procedure We have opted for an internal review process. If no data was available for the actual system or type.2. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 21/112 . Newest available data were used. 2008) and this report have been cross-read by Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon (ART) and the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK). local. geographical. 2004) and the SALCA database version 071 (updated and extended version of SALCA database 031a. the agronomical-technical description of the animal production systems. i. Jun. milk yield per annum. as these data fulfilled the quality requirements on time-related.-S. • Building and housing system: details on surfaces of barn (sty. communication. 2003a) were used. and in the case of NRW through proPlant GmbH (J. As far as possible data were taken from extension services through the WP2. • Animal production system: details on numbers of animal per annum. Main sources were extension services and chambers of agriculture in the regions studied. Nemecek et al. In addition. 2007. 2005) and the North Rhine-Westphalia Chamber of Agriculture (R. • Manure storage and spreading systems: manure storage systems (liquid and solid) and spreading techniques.2 (ecoinvent Centre. amounts of feed and fodder used.6).2 members in the respective countries. were taken from data collected through contacts of WP2. 2006. 2005). communication. pers. length of growing/fattening period. Cottrill. regional and national statistics on agricultural production and imports. communication. B.2 project team members. Aug. use of litter. pers. communication. pers. replacement rate. pers.2 partners. Crépon. The systems were designed with the assistance of animal feeding experts (K. heating system.1. numbers of offspring per annum.e. as well as reports and journal articles. cowshed). Richthofen. feed consumed per animal (growing and productive animal). gas and oil use. • Feeding system: details on feed composition and fodder. communication.1 Data Collection for LCA of Feed Chain As far as possible data for feed production were taken from the concerted action GL-Pro (European extension network for the development of grain legumes production in the EU) from the 5th Framework Programme of the European Union. weight at beginning and end of growing/fattening period. W.1 Production Inventories The production inventories. hen-house. 2006). geographical and technology coverage extremely well (see chapter 2.. Data which could not be covered by GL-Pro were collected by Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART with the help of the GLIP WP 2. pers. Fechler. the ecoinvent database version 1.3 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis 3. Sommer. energy and protein content of milk. v. Data were taken from extension services. liquid and solid manure GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 22/112 . ventilation system. housing system. experts or literature. An overview of the derivation of the production inventories is given below. 3. Dec. Dec. Apr. electricity. water. fodder silo. harvest machine. For all other protein-rich feed ingredients life cycle inventories from the ecoinvent database v1. sprayer.g. Appendix 11). 3. inputs (e.2 project team members. manure distributor. sowing density. seeder. tractor. 2006) wherever possible. LBL. 2003). harvest date.2 (Pressenda et al.. pesticide use.2 (ecoinvent Centre. 2006) and the ecoinvent database v1. 2004). GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 23/112 . tractor. • Production of non-protein feed ingredients in Europe: details on tilling. tractor. manure distributor. For all other protein-rich feed ingredients life cycle inventories from the ecoinvent database (ecoinvent Centre. Data were taken from the concerted action GL-Pro (von Richthofen et al. sowing density. 2004) were used. harvest date.g. fertiliser use. • Production of grain legumes (peas and faba beans) and other protein-rich feeds in Europe: details on tilling. manure distributor. The life cycle inventories for agriculture are described by Nemecek et al. 2004) were used. sprayer. Data were collected through the GLIP WP 2. harvest date.g. experts or literature (e. • Production of concentrated feed: details on feed formulas and origin of feed ingredients.output per animal and annum. fertiliser use.2 Life Cycle Inventories The life cycle inventories of infrastructures (e.2 (ecoinvent Centre. & FIBL. oil and feed mill) were taken from the ecoinvent database version 1. 2003a). 2004) and the SALCA database version 071 (updated version of the SALCA database 031a.. • Production of soya beans in Brazil and USA: details on tilling. sowing density. fertiliser use. transport. (2003b) and Nemecek & Erzinger (2005) and were completed using GL-Pro data. respectively. Appendix 9. pesticide use. seeder. seeder. Data were taken from the concerted action GL-Pro (von Richthofen et al. ecoinvent Centre.g. Soya bean production in Argentina was approximated with the data from Brazil. SRVA. and processes (e. 2006) as well as from national and regional statistics (see Appendix 8. manure pits). seeds. sprayer. Data were taken from the concerted action GL-Pro (Nemecek & Baumgartner. extension services.. fertilisers. Appendix 10. pesticide use. buildings. An overview of the life cycle inventories used for feedstuff ingredients can be seen in Appendix 6. Data were taken from the feedstuff models developed within WP 2. pesticides).1. harvest machine.1. Nemecek et al. harvest machine.. These ingredients were approximated with life cycle inventories of similar feed ingredients by using correction factors (see Appendix 5). For some feed ingredients there was no life cycle inventory. 2006) wherever possible.2 (corrected version of ecoinvent data v1. communication. On the other hand. Aug... 4). and phosphorus (PO4) occurring at barn. 2007). 2006) and pesticide emissions.. Richner et al. Schmid et al. grazing period. 2006). GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 24/112 . and CH4 were calculated as follows: Ammonia (NH3): NH3 losses from animal excretion at barn and on pasture. 4). and typical manure management in the given study regions. 2005b). and during storage and spreading of manure were estimated for every animal category. Different direct field emissions were estimated by models according to the SALCA method (Nemecek et al. Cottrill (pers. Nitrogen and phosphorus contents of slurry were calculated based on the N and P content of the different feed formulas. heavy metal emissions (Freiermuth. Prasuhn. Only leaching to ground and surface water were considered. 2002). Phosphorus leaching (expressed as PO4): P losses were calculated according to Prasuhn (2006). and Pintake minus Pretention equals Pexcretion. Direct N2O emissions and induced emissions (NH3 and NO3 reacting to N2O) were considered. The estimations are based on slurry quantity. The emissions of NH3. NO3. P losses from erosion were not included. nitrous oxide (N2O. Nitrate (NO3) leaching: In addition to nitrate leaching from the cultivation of the feed ingredients. 2006). as well as emissions during storage and spreading of farmyard manure (Tab. (2000). nitrous oxide (N2O).3. N2O. nitrogen and phosphorus content of slurry. Nitrous oxide (N2O): Emission factors were obtained from Schmid et al. Thus. as we assumed that slurry applications were done in correct quantities and at the appropriate time. on pasture. NH3 losses from slurry spreading were calculated according to Katz (1996). there is no additional emission from the process step ‘manure spreading’. For a brief overview of these emissions see Nemecek & Baumgartner (2006). with Nintake minus Nretention equals Nexcretion. ammonia (NH3). 2000). 2006). and during slurry storage were estimated according to Menzi et al. 1997). PO4. nitrate (NO3.1.. this process is exactly the same for all assessed feed alternatives. resulting in optimal uptake by the plants (Tab.. N and P content of the diet (Nintake. emissions from animal husbandry (including pasture). 1997). N and P retention in the animal body were provided by B. the values for Nexcretion and Pexcretion resulted. phosphorus (expressed as PO4. where nitrate leaching is increased due to high local nitrogen concentration. (1997). Menzi et al. Furthermore. (from Menzi et al. as erosion is happening independently of the fertilisation. it was calculated for pasture (according to Huguenin. The emissions considered are: ammonia (NH3.3 Estimation of Direct Field and Farm Emissions The direct field and farm emissions are included for the following processes: cultivation of feed ingredients. Direct emissions of methane (CH4). Pintake) were obtained from the feed optimisation models (Pressenda et al. . As there is less biomass in savannahs than in rainforests.140 kg CO2 / kg soya GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 25/112 . (1993). Tab. 4).2% * 1. o = not considered Process step / Direct field or farm emission CH4 Heavy metals Pesticides x - x x - x - - - - x - - x x o - o - x -1) x x2) o x NH3 N2O PO4 NO3 Arable crop production x x x Animal husbandry / housing x x - Manure storage x x Manure spreading x Pasture x 1) 2) was not calculated in the applied method is included in Animal husbandry / housing 3. as they were used for the Swiss inventory of agricultural methane emissions (Minonzio et al.6% = 0. Carbon released from biomass burning as well as from soil during cultivation is considered. x = considered. For dairy cows. We argue that there is a heavy metal cycle in which there is uptake of heavy metals from the soil by plants in fields and pastures.Methane (CH4): CH4 emissions from animal husbandry and slurry storage were calculated according to the IPCC-method 2 (Houghton et al.1. 1995). whereas in Argentina. 1. which better considers the impact of diet on methane emissions. The carbon released from soils in Brazil was converted according to the relative soya cultivation area transformed in Argentina: 0. and the heavy metals return to the soil via the farmyard manure.6% of the soya cultivation area is transformed from savannah (SAGPyA. these values were estimated based on the values from Brazil. 4: Overview of the direct field and farm emissions considered according to the different process steps.= not relevant.. Therefore. In Brazil.2% of the soya cultivation area is transformed from rainforests. each year 3. 2004). 1998). The values are presented in Tab.. Emissions not considered were heavy metals in the process steps ‘manure spreading’ and ‘pasture’ (Tab. only the carbon released from soils and not from biomass burning was considered for Argentinean soya.283 kg CO2/kg soya / 3. 2007 and Dros. where methane emissions are significant. CO2-release from land transformation was calculated according to Jungbluth et al. the calculations were made using the formula of Kirchgessner et al. the plants (or parts of them) being fed to the animals. No data for Argentinean soya cultivation was available. (2007).4 Estimation of carbon release due to land transformation For soya bean meal and oil from Brazil and for palm oil and palm kernel meal from Malaysia. 5. 747 (1) 0. Origin Share of land Commodity transformed from rain forest/ savannah Brazil 3.0) by PricewaterhouseCooper-Ecobilan (Ecobilan. (2) SAGPyA. 2007. Argentina.140 (3) 0.140 (1) 0.101 3. 2007. (3) own estimate).747 (3) 0 (3) 0 (1) 0.2% (1) Argentina 1. SALCA-feed..Tab. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 26/112 .2 Calculation Procedures / Tool We created different tools. 5: CO2-release from biomass and soil from land transformation in Brazil.281 (1) 0. 2004).028 (3) 0.140 (1) 1.932 (1) 0.6% (2) 100% (1) Malaysia Total CO2 released [kg CO2 / kg commodity] CO2 from biomass CO2 released [kg CO2 / from soils [kg CO2 / kg commodity] kg commodity] Soya bean meal Soya bean oil Soya bean meal Soya bean oil Palm oil Palm kernel meal (1) 0.028 (1) 1.e. SALCA-chicken and SALCA-cow for calculation purposes using the LCA software TEAM™ (Version 4.140 (3) 0.281 (3) 0. and Malaysia ((1) Jungbluth et al. SALCA-pork. i. 1. The selection is based on mid-point categories. It consists of N. Eutrophication potential [g N-equivalents]: According to the EDIP97 methodology (Hauschild & Wenzel.e. natural gas. 4. gross calorific value. The interpretation is at the LCI stage. extensive (poor) meadows. The following environmental impacts are considered: 4. For soya bean meal and oil from Brazil and Argentina and for palm oil and palm kernel meal from Malaysia. i. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 27/112 . hard coal and lignite. Photooxidant formation potential (as precursors of ozone) [g ethylene-equivalents]: Evaluation for high NOx areas using the EDIP97 method (Hauschild & Wenzel. bogs and water bodies and not on the nutrient enrichment of agricultural soil.2 Resources and Environmental impacts assessed at life cycle assessment stage The impact categories considered in this LCA study are: Resources: • Energy demand [MJ-equivalents]: This is the demand of non-renewable energy resources (crude oil. • Minerals: Phosphorus (P) [g P] and Potassium (K) [g K2O] are the most important mineral resources for agriculture. i.g.e. Environmental impacts: Global warming potential (GWP) for a time horizon of 100 years [CO2-equivalents]: Methodology according to IPCC (2001) without biogenic CO2. 1998). land occupation as a resource. CO2-release from land transformation was also considered (see chapter 3. and uranium) according the ecoinvent methodology (Frischknecht et al. 2001) methods. 2008) a selection of relevant impact categories and impact assessment methods has been made.4). mainly from the EDIP97 (Hauschild & Wenzel 1998) and CML01 (Guinée et al. The interpretation is done at the LCI stage. 2003). e. This category will be referred to as energy demand.and P-compounds which enter the ecosystems by air and water.4 Life Cycle Impact Assessment In accordance with the LCA study on the food chain (Davis & Sonesson. It is a summation without weighting and without distinction between different types of land occupation. 1998). The eutrophication potential refers to sensitive ecosystems.1 Resources assessed at life cycle inventory stage • Land use [m2*a]. to facilitate communication of the results. We distinguish between organic and inorganic substances and focus on chronic effects.. 2001).g. Compounds enter the ecosystems by air (e.Acidification potential [g SO2-equivalents]: As for eutrophication. 1998). 2001). Because assessment of the impacts on ecotoxicity is highly dependent on the choice of the impact assessment method. The third method. acidification relates to sensitive ecosystems. The methodology used is EDIP97 (Hauschild & Wenzel. Human toxicity: Impacts of toxic pollutants on human health are shown according to the CML01 method (Guinée et al. is used when the two main methods show diverging results. The following definitions apply to this study: EDIP97: 1 aquatic ecotoxicity point [AEP] = 1000 m3 water EDIP97: 1 terrestrial ecotoxicity point [TEP] = 1000 m3 soil CML01: 1 aquatic ecotoxicity point [AEP] = 1 kg 1. 2002). Toxicity [toxicity points]: Ecotoxicity potential: This impact category is important for the LCA of feed because of the input of organic and inorganic (e. heavy metals) substances due to the use of fertilisers and pesticides. CST95. CML01 (Guinée et al. CML01 and CST95). 1998).g... According to Nemecek et al.4 DCB-eq CML01: 1 terrestrial ecotoxicity point [TEP] = 1 kg 1. 1997. and CST95 (Jolliet & Crettaz. Note that the definition of ecotoxicity points differs between the three methods (EDIP97. we show the results of three methods: EDIP97 (Hauschild & Wenzel. acid rain). Margni et al. Therefore the results are not comparable in absolute terms. Missing characterisation factors for pesticides were replaced by median values.4 DCB-eq CML01: 1 human toxicity point [HTP] = 1 kg 1.4 DCB-eq CST95: 1 aquatic ecotoxicity point [AEP] = 1 g Zn-eq water CST95: 1 terrestrial ecotoxicity point [TEP] = 1 g Zn-eq soil GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 28/112 . (2005b) ecotoxicity points were used instead of the original units. As a standard we use EDIP97 and as the alternative CML01. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 29/112 . eutrophication for the second and terrestrial ecotoxicity for the third group. However. It would. because of CFCs (Chloro-Fluoro-Carbons) in the cold chain (Davis & Sonesson. nutrients and pollutants. this impact has been discarded. all crops from non-temperate areas could not have been assessed for soil quality. four impact categories were chosen: • Energy demand. • Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (according to EDIP97). (2006) for temperate. However. But in the present study it is negligible for agriculture and has therefore been discarded. The choice is based on the correlation between the different impact categories. as we do not expect any difference. The three groups are: impacts driven by resource use. Soil quality: There is a fairly new life cycle assessment method for soil quality by Oberholzer et al. 4. Nemecek et al. a method is lacking for assessing this impact. 2008). which would have resulted in a bias of the results. Odour: Although it occurs in animal husbandry. • Global warming potential. (2005b) have shown that – based on statistic correlations – three groups of impact categories could be distinguished (five including biodiversity and soil quality).For the detailed representation of the results. • Eutrophication potential. Central European soils. the impacts on soil quality have not yet been calculated for the life cycle inventories used for different arable crops taken from the ecoinvent and SALCA databases. have been of interest because land transformation is occurring due to the expanding cultivation of soya beans in Argentina and Brazil and oil palms in Malaysia. Biodiversity: To our knowledge there is no life cycle assessment method dealing with the loss of biodiversity in tropical areas. In addition. respectively. Energy demand and global warming were chosen as representative of the first group. Hence. odour is not relevant for comparing different feeding strategies. Therefore this impact could not be included.3 Impacts not considered Water use: The inventory of the quantity of water used from water bodies (not rain) is performed at the LCI stage. Stratospheric ozone depletion: This is important for the LCA of food. however. Furthermore. as there is no difference in water use at barn between the assessed alternatives and as the cultivation of most of the assessed feed ingredients is done without irrigation this impact was not considered in accordance to ISO 14044 (2006). 9% . 2005b).92. 5 Life Cycle Interpretation In order to decide whether differences in the production alternatives compared were significant and relevant.2% 92.0% .88.0% 112.9% similar 96. Landscape aesthetics: It has to be regarded more as a social function than an ecological function.5% > 125. The assessment classes are based on the statistical variance of environmental impact indicators from a cropping system experiment and expert knowledge as described in Nemecek et al. strictly speaking.0% < 72.112.112.108. Moreover. (2005b). 6).0% .5% > 112. Animal welfare: This is.2% .0% > 137.9% < 80.5% Class very favourable very unfavourable GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 30/112 .3% .104. because the uncertainty of many of the parameters is unknown.3% 72. Impacts driven by resource use Impacts driven by nutrients Impacts driven by pollutants < 88.96. This helps to detect relevant differences. we chose to perform the assessment by class. We used the assessment classes given by Nemecek & Baumgartner (2006) as this study is based on data from GL-Pro and replacing soya bean meal with grain legumes in a feed formula is similar to replacing a crop in crop rotation. no differences are expected.Noise: This is not considered because appropriate methods are lacking for agricultural systems (for transport they do exist).5% . 6: Assessment of differences between the different feed / production alternatives by class.7% .9% .0% 80. The LCA calculations are subject to various sources of uncertainties (see Nemecek et al.137.125. as only differences in feed composition are being investigated (except for the short-SOY alternative in broiler chicken production) and the nutritional requirements of the animal are covered in all systems. In addition it is more relevant for a study at farm or enterprise level. Consequently the differences between feed alternatives were assessed by classes (see Tab.7% favourable 88. A full analysis of statistical significance is not feasible.3% 88.3% .5% 108. Tab. whereas this study is a product LCA.5% unfavourable 104. not an environmental impact and is therefore not included. Comparisons between the same feeding alternatives in different regions (e. performing a more general. However. relative comparison of the same product in different European regions is considered acceptable. Within each case study. for pork GLEU in NRW and pork GLEU in CAT) are possible.1 Comparability of systems Analyses were performed between the feed alternatives for the same product in the same region.5. containing soya bean meal from overseas as the main protein source. The main variations here were the origin of the protein source and the amount of it used in the feed formulas. but their relevance is limited due to the fact that the production systems differed in several aspects. including the consequences on composition of the feed formulas. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 31/112 .g. was the reference system (100%). the standard feeding system (SOY). Other general comparisons were made between the standard feeding systems for the broilers fattened in the short fattening period and the medium fattening period. palm kernel meal. di-calcium phosphate (PHOSBI). the results of the different feeding alternatives are split up into the following process steps: soya bean meal. beet and citrus pulp). rapeseed meal or sunflower meal . For some feed ingredients representing a co-product (e.6 Results 6. Transport of feeds: all transport (distances and means) of unprocessed feed ingredients from the farm gate to the feed mill gate (including those processed first at the oil mill) and then to GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 32/112 . maize. but is shown separately. rapeseeds and soya beans (for soya oil).1 Mode of result presentation In the following section we present the results of the five case studies in detail for the impact categories ‘energy demand’. CaCO3). vitamins and trace elements at the factory gate. a synthesised product (e. barley. peas (and faba beans). For palm kernel and maize gluten meal. mineral feeds. Land transformation is not included. piglet/ young hen/ calf production. maize gluten meal.2). energy-rich feeds. different protein-rich feeds. Those products are assessed at the factory gate. citrus and beet pulp. The protein-rich feeds . barley.g. cassava.g. the processing is already included.e. e. soya bean meal. and ‘terrestrial ecotoxicity potential’ (EDIP. roughage feeds. feed processing. such as wheat. palm oil. GWP). the processing is already included. synthetic amino acids. see chapter 4. i. maize and peas are life cycle inventories at the farm gate and their processing in the feed mill is assessed under the process step ‘processing’.being a co-product of an oilseed.are life cycle inventories at the farm gate of the agricultural commodity and their processing is assessed in the process step ‘processing’. ‘eutrophication potential’. methionine). ‘global warming potential’ (100 years.g. Below we explain what is considered in the different process steps: Soya bean meal: includes crop production of the soya beans needed to produce the used soya bean meal. Other main ingredients in the feed formulas. Different protein-rich feeds: includes production of the crops of oilseed rape and sunflowers for the later processing in the oil mill (extraction of oil and co-product cake). For the other ingredients in this category. In the figures. Energy-rich feeds: includes crop production of wheat. housing and manure management. Mineral feeds: includes production of limestone (CaCO3). In this case processing is included. beet and cane molasses. or an extracted product (e. the processing is already included in the life cycle inventory. tallow.g. transport of feeds. Land transformation: The process step ‘land transformation’ is considered exclusively in the impact category ‘global warming potential’. oilseed rape and sunflower at the oil mill. For the processed feed ingredients all transport from the factory gate via the feed mill to the animal production farm is included.4). barley. palm oil in Malaysia or soya beans in Argentina (see chapter 3. It includes CO2-release from reclaiming land in the rainforest or savannah to produce soya beans in Brazil. cleaning) as well as direct emissions from animal excrements.1. Roughage feed: includes the production of roughage feeds (silage and grazing). GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 33/112 . manure management and transport for the production of the young animals. Piglet / Young hen/ Calf production: includes housing. light. peas and faba beans at the feed mill and processing of soya beans. Manure management: includes buildings and machinery for storing and spreading manure as well as direct emissions from these processes.the animal production farm are included. Housing: includes the building infrastructures. their maintenance and operation (heating. maize. Feed processing: includes processing of wheat. 8% 0.7% 0.0% 0.6% 8.8% 33.68 12.5% 26.0% 2.2 Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories Resource Use-driven Impacts Regarding consumption of non-renewable energy (hereinafter: energy demand) the most important processes were the production and transport of feedstuffs (62-69%) and animal housing (29-35%).0% 8.2.9% 0.32 5.2. vitamins. trace elements.11 12.1% 24.5% 2.68 12.0% 34.30 5.7% 8.45 15.9% 32. Transport of feedstuffs (from the production site of the raw materials. which consisted of feed formulas based on those of the GLEU alternative.1 Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives The composition of the four feed alternatives in pork production in North Rhine-Westphalia is presented in Tab.7% 8. The feed ingredients are grouped into ‘Feedstuff groups’.2% 2.2 Pork Production in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) 6.7% Beet molasses Germany.2% 0. Great Britain France. Germany Germany 4.0% 10.5% 2. synthetic amino acids Europe 2.6% France.3% 11. but contained higher levels of synthetic amino acids.0% GLEU 1.8% Composition of the diet Crude protein content (%) 15. This was also the case for the alternative SAA.6% 0.6% SAA 1. Germany Germany 0.5% 0. These groups are displayed in the results table below. maize.g.7% 12.8% Palm oil Malaysia 0.13 5. Great Britain Germany 34. to the pig-fattening farm) also contributed significantly to the energy demand of feedstuff production.4% FARM 1.4% 0.7% 0. Within the production of feedstuffs. via the feed mill. and sunflower meal) had a similar energy demand to the standard SOY. 7: Composition of the four feed alternatives in the pork production case study in NRW: Ingredients and their origins and nutritional values.0% 0.8% 2.7% 4.35 15. When comparing GLEU and SAA with SOY we have to focus on two process steps: transport of GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 34/112 .6.1% Beet pulp Germany 0.used most of the resources (Fig. cereals.2% 3. 7.4% 9. Tab. beet molasses.2% Mineral feeds CaCO3.4% 0. citrus pulp.26 5. The alternative GLEU (where soya bean meal from overseas was replaced with European peas. Feedstuff group Soya bean meal Ingredients Soya bean meal Different protein rich feeds Rapeseed meal Sunflower meal Peas Peas Energy rich feeds Wheat Origin Argentina.52 Wheat bran Barley Maize P content (in g/kg) Energy content (in MJ/kg) 6.6% 2. Brazil Germany SOY 9.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 13.7% 0.3% 24.6% Germany. PHOSBI. rapeseed.4% 0.28 15.8% 38. or palm oil) . 1).68 12.3% 9. production of the crops providing mainly carbohydrates – hereinafter referred to as ‘energy-rich feeds’ (e.1% Citrus pulp Brazil 0. soya bean meal from Argentina and Brazil (mainly in SOY) is transported over long distances. because the alternatives did not differ either in the type of the pig sties for pig and piglet production and their operation. The energy demand of transport was reduced by 86% compared with transport for the SOY alternative. It had an energy demand which was very favourable in comparison with SOY (a 19% reduction). In particular. although using European ingredients reduces the energy demand of lorry transport. Some ingredients. Unlike peas. the energy demand for lorry transport was significantly reduced.feedstuff ingredients and the production of protein-rich feeds. While soya bean meal has a crude protein level of about 46%. this benefit is counteracted by the clearly higher energy demand of the agricultural production of protein-rich feeds to replace the soya bean meal. Appendix 8). a farm typically operates with fewer ingredients than a feed mill. maize. which was compensated for with higher quantities of barley and wheat. the crude protein level of peas amounts to about 21%. this change of composition led to a higher energy demand for the energy-rich feeds. nor in manure management. there were no differences between the processes ’housing’ and ‘manure management’ in terms of energy demand. However. e. Maize requires a lot of energy as its grains are harvested at a humidity of 39% and have to be dried to 14% (Nemecek et al. The composition of this group of feed ingredients was altered according to the typical local farming situation. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 35/112 . Overall. there was a larger quantity of protein-rich feeds in the GLEU alternative than in SOY. For all assessed alternatives. There was 20 times less maize in the FARM-formulas. 7). and furthermore. transport energy demand was lower than the standard SOY. The main difference resulted from reduced transport of feeds. rapeseed and sunflower meal. where it is shipped to Europe. replacing soya bean meal with peas cannot be done on a one-to-one weight basis for this reason and also because the feed values of these two ingredients differ in other aspects. as is the case for self-mixing pig fattening farms.. Due to a lack of railway or waterway infrastructures. as the feed ingredients used were produced onfarm. In both alternatives (GLEU and SAA). which explains the higher energy demand of this feedstuff group in the GLEU alternative. travelling another 10000 km (Brazil. are not common in the study region of NRW. as they are grown on-farm (see Tab. Thus.g. e. energy value and amino acid composition.g. soya bean meal is hauled by lorries over long distances to reach the ports. 2005b). The FARM alternative consisted of simplified GLEU feed formulas with on-farm production of most ingredients. Accordingly. It has to be borne in mind that the protein content of soya bean meal and peas is different. The second reason for the reduced energy demand was due to the production of energy-rich feeds. and ‘piglet production’. housing. mainly from the processes ‘housing’. but the impact resulting from production of the protein-rich feeds to replace the soya bean meal (mainly rapeseed meal. ‘manure management’. The most important processes were the production of energy-rich feeds and protein-rich feeds. and FARM (on-farm feed production). SAA (synthetic amino acids). GLEU (European grain legumes). see Fig. 2).MJ-eq. The alternatives GLEU and SAA had a smaller impact on global warming potential compared to SOY. For global warming potential (GWP. CH4 accounted for 15% to 17% of the total GWP. feedstuff production was the most important factor. 1: Demand for non-renewable energy resources for producing one kg of pig (live weight) in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) with the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas). manure management and. The GWP of transporting feeds as well as for production of energy-rich feeds was reduced for GLEU and SAA. depending on the feeding system. Compared with the results for energy demand. and stemmed predominantly from the animal farm. and N2O (between 40 and 46%) from induced emissions of N fertilisers or mineralised N from the cultivation of feed ingredients as well as from animal keeping. and manure management. 2). piglet production were more important for global warming potential due to the emission of methane and nitrous oxide from these process steps. to a smaller extent. The ranking of environmental performance of the feed alternatives for the impact category global warming potential (GWP) was similar to the ranking for energy demand (Fig. The most important emissions were CO2 from combustion processes (ranging between 43% and 48% of the total GWP). accounting for about 2/3 of this impact category. protein rich feeds Peas Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Piglet production Housing Manure management 20 15 10 5 0 SOY GLEU SAA FARM Fig. / kg pig (live weight) 30 25 Soya bean meal Diff. but also sunflower meal) was higher GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 36/112 . phosphate (PO4). soya ARG Soya bean meal Diff. BRA: Brazil. Again. ARG: Argentina. soya BRA Land transform. / kg pig (live weight) bean meal. 3 Land transform. protein rich feeds Peas Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Piglet production Housing Manure management 2 1 0 SOY GLEU SAA FARM Fig. In addition. As with the results for energy demand. MYA: Malaysia. the process steps ‘transport of feeds’ and ‘energy-rich feeds’ were responsible for reducing the GWP. there was little CO2-release from land transformation in the FARM alternative. nitrous oxide (N2O). palm oil MYA Land transform. Nutrient-driven Impacts The impact category ‘eutrophication potential’ reflects loss of the nutrients N and P to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. nitrate (NO3). Overall these effects balanced out. The GWP of the FARM alternative was reduced by 16%. which is considered to be very favourable in comparison with SOY. SAA (synthetic amino acids). and FARM (onfarm feed production). and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Nitrate leaching was the dominant process in this impact category followed by volatile emissions of ammonia. However. CO2release from land transformation for soya bean production in Brazil and Argentina as well as oil palm production in Malaysia were considerably reduced in the GLEU and SAA alternatives compared with SOY. due to the heavily reduced use of soya kg CO2-eq.than for all the protein-rich feeds in SOY. 2: Global warming potential (100a) for producing one kg of pig (live weight) in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) with the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas). with much less maize and more wheat and barley in the FARM alternative. The reduced GWP of the energy-rich feeds was predominantly due to altering the composition of the energy-rich feeds. The compounds assessed are ammonia (NH3). GLEU (European grain legumes). the fact that most of the feed ingredients are produced on-farm reduces the GWP from transport considerably. The GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 37/112 . there was a slight decrease in the eutrophication potential (minus 7% for each). Compared to SOY its eutrophication potential was 19% lower. then manure management and housing.e. protein rich feeds Peas Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Piglet production Housing Manure management 30 15 0 SOY GLEU SAA FARM GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 38/112 . Comparing the alternatives GLEU and SAA with SOY.feedstuff production accounted for 62 to 69% of the total impact (Fig. The production of the protein-rich feeds in the SOY alternative had a slightly higher eutrophication potential than the GLEU and SAA alternatives. / kg pig (live weight) feeds because of the significant reduction of maize in the feed formulas. here crop production played an even bigger role than for energy demand and global warming potential. These results are considered to be similar to the standard SOY. Thus. which is considered to be a favourable effect. Less energy-rich feeds were needed in the feed formulas for GLEU and SAA. but the differences were small. This reduction is due to the lower eutrophication potential of protein-rich feeds i. Almost all of it stemmed from crop production of the feed ingredients. The main reason for the small decrease were the energy-rich feeds. The major processes here were the production of energy-rich feeds as well as protein-rich feeds. 3). The FARM alternative had the lowest eutrophication potential of all assessed alternatives. as peas provide not only proteins but also energy and thus replaced part of the energy-rich feeds. 45 Soya bean meal Diff. a smaller share of sunflower meal than in the other alternatives and of energy-rich g N-eq. Fig. Overall. When comparing the GLEU and SAA alternatives with SOY. where most of the active ingredients propiconazole and lambda-cyhalothrin was employed. The detailed analysis showed that two active ingredients are responsible for the largest part of terrestrial ecotoxicity according to EDIP97 i) the fungicide propiconazole. Fig. Cultivation of protein-rich feeds was responsible for less than 1% to 8%. the terrestrial ecotoxicity potential was reduced by 4% and 2% respectively. 4) was completely dominated by crop production. which was used for cereals and ii) the insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin. SAA (synthetic amino acids). This negative result was solely due to the fact that in those feed formulas most of the maize was replaced with higher quantities of wheat and barley. Energy-rich feeds accounted for 92% to over 99% of the potential impact. oilseed rape and cereal cultivation. In comparison with SOY the FARM alternative’s terrestrial ecotoxicity potential was 24% higher. GLEU and SAA are appraised as similar to SOY. which was used for peas. There was less wheat and barley in the GLEU alternative than in the SAA alternative and both contained less cereal than SOY. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 39/112 . 3: Eutrophication potential for producing one kg of pig (live weight) in North RhineWestphalia (NRW) with the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas). GLEU (European grain legumes). and FARM (on-farm feed production). Pollutant-driven Impacts The terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (according to EDIP97. Cereal production was a decisive factor in the reduction and hence the alternatives where the feed formulas contained a smaller quantity of cereals had a reduced impact on terrestrial ecotoxicity. where more cypermethrin was applied. 4: Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (EDIP) producing one kg of pig (live weight) in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) with the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas). where cypermethrin was used in very small quantities. 2001). the origin of the feeds and hence the crop production differed between the alternatives. The FARM alternative had a threefold higher terrestrial ecotoxicity potential than SOY.TEP / kg pig (live weight) 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Soya bean meal Diff. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 40/112 . see Appendix 6). When comparing the standard EDIP method with the alternative CML method (Guinée et al. TEP: Terrestrial ecotoxicity points. the GLEU and SAA alternatives also contained British wheat and barley (approximated with French production data. 8). Cypermethrin was mainly used in oilseed rape and to lesser extent in wheat and barley. As rapeseed meal was incorporated in GLEU and SAA. SAA (synthetic amino acids). but a smaller potential than GLEU and SAA. protein rich feeds Peas Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Piglet production Housing Manure management SOY GLEU SAA FARM Fig. FARM only used German wheat and barley (on-farm production). At first this seems surprising because there was a similar amount of rapeseed meal and higher amounts of wheat and barley incorporated in the FARM alternative compared with the GLEU and SAA alternatives. However. GLEU (European grain legumes). and FARM (onfarm feed production). The insecticide cypermethrin has a very high impact factor in the CML method and determined the results. On the other hand.. the alternative feeds were very unfavourable. the results were clearly different: the GLEU and SAA alternatives had an almost fourfold higher impact on terrestrial ecotoxicity than the SOY alternative (Tab. but not in SOY. The exceptions were GWP with favourable results for GLEU and SAA. because assessing toxicity is a difficult matter. Generally. as the feed formulas did not differ much. Tab. 8. where additionally there was considerably less maize (having a higher terrestrial ecotoxicity potential than barley which replaced it) and less transport. and maize as well as less impact from heavy metals from lorry transport. i. their impact is considered to be favourable. ecotoxicity potential is dominated by a few active ingredients. The choice of the products applied is decisive for the results. and for the FARM alternative the comparative result is even very favourable. 2002). GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 41/112 . as shown in Tab. Generally. In contrast. The GLEU and SAA alternatives had less soya bean meal and energy-rich feeds in their feed formulas and transport of feeds was reduced.3 Summary of the Results A summary of the results of the different environmental impacts is given in Tab.. CML and CST95 (see chapter 1) and hence one cannot compare the absolute results between the methods. only within them. However. When applying the assessment classes (see chapter 5. This was due to less impact from heavy metals from soya bean meal. peas and rapeseed meal. replacing soya bean meal. wheat. 6. differed again from those obtained using EDIP and CML. these results should be interpreted with care.e. The results of the terrestrial ecotoxicity potential. The FARM alternative was. resulting in comparatively very favourable impacts. respectively. When comparing GLEU and SAA to the standard alternative SOY. compared with the standard SOY. Both the standard EDIP method and the alternative CML method apply high impact factors to pesticides compared to heavy metals. Compared with the standard SOY. To a lesser extent important were chromium. This also applies to the FARM alternative. 2006). the results for GLEU and SAA regarding impacts driven by resource use and by nutrients were considered to be similar. zinc and nickel. The reason for the comparatively negative results for P and K is due to the higher application of these nutrients per kg raw material in the cultivation of the feedstuff components in GLEU and SAA. 8. the impacts of the GLEU and SAA alternatives were equal or slightly lower for most of the impacts driven by resource use and by nutrients. CST95 gives higher impact factors to non-pesticides than to pesticides. was applied (Margni et al. Replacing one product with another can result in a completely different impact. Note that terrestrial ecotoxicity points (TEP) do not have the same basis in EDIP. associated with a high degree of uncertainty (Nemecek & Baumgartner. the GLEU and SAA alternatives had similar impacts. The heavy metal contributing most to terrestrial ecotoxicity was cadmium.2. as well as resource use of P and K with unfavourable and very unfavourable results. barley. CST95. sunflower meal and cereals of the SOY alternative. 6).In order to position these results a third method. 22E+01 96% 1.97E-01 75% Resource P [g P/ kg pork] 9.54E-01 5.05E+00 1.96E-01 7.57E-02 83% 2. GLEU (European grain legumes).00E+01 111% 1.03E+01 114% Resource K [g K2O/ kg pork] 2.45E-01 5. and FARM (onfarm feed production).70E+01 180% 4.47E+00 103% 2.87E+01 80% 5.70E-02 87% 1.33E+01 93% 3.73E+01 98% 3.55E+00 109% 1.25E+01 81% 3.20E+01 81% 3. Values are expressed for the functional unit kg of pork (live weight) or as a percentage of SOY.10E-02 2.11E-02 7. Pollutant-driven impacts Nutrient-driven impacts Resource use-driven impacts Feed alternatives SOY GLEU GLEU in % SOY SAA SAA in % SOY FARM FARM in % SOY 2.26E+01 1. 6). combined potential N & P [g N-eq/ kg pork] Eutrophication.67E+01 99% 2.00E+01 3.71E+01 2.56E-01 100% 5. For the impacts driven by pollutants.72E+01 93% 3. the impacts of GLEU and SAA compared with SOY differed depending on the method chosen and ranged from similar to very unfavourable. total [m2a/ kg pork] 4. very favourable for the impacts driven by resource use.37E+00 97% 4.05E+00 98% 2.56E+00 101% 4.68E+01 99% 2.63E-01 103% 5.73E+01 98% 3.74E+01 93% 3.very favourable for the impacts driven by resource use with exception of the resource use of P and K with very unfavourable impacts.62E+01 4.89E-01 176% 2. SAA (synthetic amino acids).57E+01 124% 1. Colours according to the assessment classes (see Tab.92E+01 188% Land occupation.83E+01 3.00E+00 2. Total and relative impact of the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas). The FARM alternative was. with a range from very favourable to similar for the FARM alternative.53E+00 4.81E-01 98% 7.32E+01 92% 2.29E-01 97% 3.84E+00 95% 2. though compared with the standard SOY it had lower impacts than GLEU and SAA . and land occupation being similar.14E-01 131% 5.54E-01 100% 5.46E+00 70% Environmental impacts Energy demand [MJ-eq/ kg pork] Global warming potential 100a [kg CO2-eq/ kg pork] Ozone formation [g ethylene-eq/ kg pork] Eutrophication.42E+00 1.01E+01 111% 1.63E-01 103% 5.09E+00 2. separate P potential [g P-eq/ kg pork] Acidification [g SO2-eq/ kg pork] Terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP [points/ kg pork] Aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP [points/ kg pork] Terrestrial ecotoxicity CML [points/ kg pork] Aquatic ecotoxicity CML [points/ kg pork] Human toxicity CML [points/ kg pork] Terrestrial ecotoxicity CST [points/ kg pork] Aquatic ecotoxicity CST [points/ kg pork] GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 42/112 .with the exception of terrestrial ecotoxicity according to EDIP. compared with the standard SOY. 8: Overview of the environmental impacts of pig production in North Rhine-Westphalia.77E-01 98% 5.73E-02 56% 2.53E+00 84% 7.92E-01 178% 2.04E+00 98% 1. Tab.57E+00 111% 1. This was also the case for the FARM alternative.43E+01 90% 1.60E+01 3.02E-02 381% 6.64E-01 2.83E+00 94% 2.67E-02 317% 1. Again.23E-01 94% 3. The impacts driven by nutrients were mostly favourable.80E+01 183% 4.60E+00 102% 4. separate N potential [g N-eq/ kg pork] Eutrophication.91E-02 376% 8.24E+01 98% 1. the reason for the very unfavourable results for the use of P and K is due to the altered mix of feed components in FARM having a higher use of these two nutrients in the cultivation of the raw materials than the feed mix in the standard SOY. the GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 43/112 . USA 18. their origins and nutritional values. Feedstuff group Ingredients Origin SOY Soya bean meal Soya bean meal Brazil.7% Composition of the diet Crude protein content (%) 16.1% Maize France.9% 1. This was due to the altered amounts of energy-rich feeds (Tab. 5).2. This is considered to be a favourable effect. 2006). For instance.3.4% Mineral feeds CaCO3.2 Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories Resource Use-driven Impacts The demand for non-renewable energy resources of the GLEU alternative was reduced by 6% compared with the standard alternative SOY (Fig. Overall.1 Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives The presentation of the results in this and the following chapters will focus on the differences between the standard feed formulas (SOY) and the different alternatives.6.8 t/ha) (Nemecek & Baumgartner.0% Soya oil Brazil.5% 0. Spain 1.2 t/ha) compared to Germany (3.3% Peas Peas France.6% 4.20 13.8% 8.82 13.8% 24.2% Barley Great Britain. Spain. the reduction in transport and energy-rich feeds was partly counteracted by the energy demand of the higher proportion of peas in the GLEU alternative. trace elements. Tab.6% 1.20 6.9% Energy rich feeds Wheat France. but also for drying after harvesting or processing. 9: Composition of the two feed alternatives in the pork production case study in Catalonia (CAT): Ingredients. the energy demand in Catalonia was higher than in North Rhine-Westphalia. because they require energy not only for their cultivation.3 Pork Production in Catalonia (CAT) 6. cassava is shipped over long distances to Europe. vitamins. Finally. Spain 0.2% Tallow Europe 1. More details on the selected impact categories have been given in chapter 6. Furthermore.1% 17. USA 0. PHOSBI. The energy demand of GLEU for transport was reduced by 16% and even more important was the 20% decrease in energy use in the production of energy-rich feeds. The resource use per kg of feed ingredient was higher due to low yield levels in Spain.36 16.3. peas had a threefold lower yield in Spain (1.1% 0.8% Sunflower meal Spain 1.9% 1.2.72 4. synthetic amino acids Europe 1. Spain 30.7% GLEU 7.1% 33. 9): the GLEU alternative contained less maize and no cassava. Spain 14. However.22 P content (in g/kg) Energy content (in MJ/kg) 4. Hence there was more transportation. because the feed-compounding industries in Spain rely more on imports than in Germany. USA 19.1% Cassava Thailand 9.4% Different protein rich feeds Rapeseed meal Germany. Both ingredients have a high energy demand. The global warming potential (GWP) of the GLEU alternative was slightly lower (. so the impact on GWP per kg of ingredients is relatively high. protein rich feeds Peas Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Piglet production Housing Manure management 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 SOY GLEU Fig. It also has to be taken into account that with 18% of the feed formulas there was a high proportion of peas in the GLEU alternatives.2%). / kg pig (live weight) raw materials were needed.production system was less efficient.g. 6). but still considered similar to the standard alternative SOY (Fig.4) than GLEU.1. production of infrastructure and machinery) that were responsible for the relatively high GWP of peas. this was counteracted by the cultivation of peas. 40 35 Soya bean meal Diff. with its higher levels of soya bean meal in the feed formulas. 5: Demand for non-renewable energy resources for producing one kg of pig (live weight) in Catalonia (CAT) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes). GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 44/112 . no cassava) reduced the GWP. It was mainly N2O (induced emissions from NO3 losses through mineralisation) and to a lesser extent CO2 (e. from combustion processes of tractor use. Overall. involved more CO2-release from land transformation for soya bean cultivation (see chapter 3. The SOY feed alternative. as the food conversion rate in Catalonia was lower than in North Rhine-Westphalia. more feed MJ-eq. the yield level of peas in Spain is rather low. While reduced transport and the change in composition of the energy-rich feeds (less maize. this resulted in a slightly lower GWP for GLEU compared to SOY. as mentioned above. This means that for 1 kg of pig (live weight) produced. In addition. BRA: Brazil. nitrate leaching occurred prior to sowing the spring peas and following mineralisation of organic matter in the soil after their cultivation period. from harvesting the precedent crop to harvesting the assessed crop (here spring peas).kg CO2-eq. compared with the standard feeding (SOY). which was 17% higher (Fig. 7). / kg pig (live weight) 4 Land transformation soya BRA Soya bean meal Diff. 6: Global warming potential (100a) for producing one kg of pig (live weight) in Catalonia (CAT) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes). The eutrophication potential for energy-rich feeds was slightly lower. when nutrient uptake by the crop is low. Although the peas were not fertilised. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 45/112 . Again. negative effects on the eutrophication potential. Nutrient-driven Impacts Incorporating peas in the pig diet in Catalonia had. were attributed to pea cultivation. the results were accentuated by the high proportion of peas in the Catalonian feed formulas and by the relatively low yield levels of peas in Spain. This includes nutrient losses following harvest of the precedent crop as well as losses after sowing the peas. protein rich feeds Peas Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Piglet production Housing Manure management 3 2 1 0 SOY GLEU Fig. In terms of LCA this means that all nutrient losses. but the main difference between the two alternatives was the increased nitrate loss related to the cultivation of peas. The increased use of rapeseed meal. This is considered to be an unfavourable increase (Tab. According to the alternative terrestrial ecotoxicity method (CML). The GLEU feed GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 46/112 . a herbicide. and barley. MCPA. the use of trifluralin. The above-mentioned active ingredients have high impact factors in the CML method. Use of cypermethrin. mainly in peas. This method focuses on impacts from heavy metals. in oilseed rape. and lambda-cyhalothrin. / kg pig (live weight) 90 75 Soya bean meal Diff. an insecticide. and iii) there was more wheat and barley in the GLEU feed formulas leading to higher impacts from the use of propiconazol. and the use of further pesticides in wheat. the potential was increased by 24% in the GLEU alternative compared to the standard feed (SOY) (Fig. the impacts of GLEU are similar to SOY. 7: Eutrophication potential (EDIP) for producing one kg of pig (live weight) in Catalonia (CAT) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes).g N-eq. protein rich feeds Peas Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Piglet production Housing Manure management 60 45 30 15 0 SOY GLEU Fig. Pollutant-driven Impacts In terms of terrestrial ecotoxicity (according to EDIP97). barley. 8). wheat. 6). the results of the GLEU alternative were very unfavourable (+65%) compared to the standard SOY. and peas were the cause of this increase. and barley were the reason for this. The reasons for this increase were threefold: i) the significant increase in the amount of peas used in the GLEU formulas led to increases in the use of lambda-cyhalothrin and pirimicarb. According to the third terrestrial ecotoxicity method (CST) used. peas. ii) the increase of rapeseed meal in the GLEU formulas meant the impacts from lambda-cyhalothrin use were higher. wheat. formulas which consist of less soya bean meal, maize and cassava and therefore involve less lorry transport, had lower impacts from heavy metals than the standard SOY. TEP / kg pig (live weight) 1.4 1.2 Soya bean meal Diff. protein rich feeds Peas Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Piglet production Housing Manure management 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 SOY GLEU Fig. 8: Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (EDIP) for producing one kg of pig (live weight) in Catalonia (CAT) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes). TEP: Terrestrial ecotoxicity points. 6.3.3 Summary of the Results In summary, producing pork in Catalonia with the GLEU alternative had a similar to very unfavourable environmental impact compared to SOY, except for energy demand (Tab. 10), which was considered to be favourable. For impacts driven by resource use, GLEU had an unfavourable effect on ozone formation and a very unfavourable effect on the use of potassium (K) and land occupation. The comparatively higher proportions of rapeseed meal and peas in the GLEU alternative compared to the SOY alternative were the reason for the unfavourable effect on ozone formation. Regarding potassium, the very unfavourable effect of GLEU was due to the fact that peas had higher K2O inputs per kg of raw material than soya bean meal, and because peas and soya bean meal were incorporated in larger amounts in GLEU than they were in SOY. Peas were also the reason for the higher figures for land occupation in GLEU compared to SOY: the low yield level of peas combined with the higher proportion of peas used in the GLEU formulas led to more land occupation compared to SOY. The impacts driven by nutrients and by pollutants all showed a similar to very unfavourable effect for GLEU compared to SOY, as presented above (see chapter 6.3.2). GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 47/112 Pollutant-driven impacts Nutrient-driven impacts Resource use-driven impacts Tab. 10: Overview of the environmental impacts of pig production in Catalonia. Values are expressed for the functional unit kg of pork (live weight) or as a percentage of SOY. Total and relative impact of the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes). Colours relate to the assessment classes (see Tab. 6). Feed alternatives GLEU in SOY GLEU % SOY Environmental impacts Energy demand 3.36E+01 3.16E+01 94% [MJ-eq/ kg pork] Global warming potential 100a 3.85E+00 3.78E+00 98% [kg CO2-eq/ kg pork] Ozone formation 1.00E+00 1.06E+00 106% [g ethylene-eq/ kg pork] Resource P [g P/ kg pork] 1.63E+01 1.69E+01 104% Resource K [g K2O/ kg pork] 7.74E+01 1.30E+02 168% Land occupation, total [m2a/ kg pork] 8.02E+00 1.06E+01 132% 7.33E+01 8.56E+01 6.69E+01 7.90E+01 8.84E-01 9.17E-01 6.46E+01 6.33E+01 1.04E+00 1.32E+00 126% 1.97E+00 2.50E+00 127% 4.17E-02 6.87E-02 165% 2.59E-01 2.72E-01 105% 6.64E-01 7.15E-01 108% Eutrophication, combined potential N & P [g N-eq/ kg pork] Eutrophication, separate N potential [g N-eq/ kg pork] Eutrophication, separate P potential [g P-eq/ kg pork] Acidification [g SO2-eq/ kg pork] Terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP [points/ kg pork] Aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP [points/ kg pork] Terrestrial ecotoxicity CML [points/ kg pork] Aquatic ecotoxicity CML [points/ kg pork] Human toxicity CML [points/ kg pork] Terrestrial ecotoxicity CST [points/ kg pork] Aquatic ecotoxicity CST [points/ kg pork] 117% 118% 104% 98% 7.85E-02 7.42E-02 94% 2.78E+00 3.00E+00 108% GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 48/112 6.4 Chicken Meat Production in Brittany (BRI) 6.4.1 Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives The case study on broiler production consists of a comparison of four feeding alternatives: short-SOY, SOY, GLEU, and SAA (see chapter 2.3). The short-SOY alternative represents the standard technique for producing broilers in Brittany, consisting of feed formulas with high contents of soya bean meal and a short fattening period (41 days). However, for physiological reasons it is not possible to fatten broilers in the same period using formulas which have peas as the main protein source. Therefore, a medium fattening period of 60 days had to be chosen for the GLEU alternative. SOY, the reference production technique, is based on feed formulas containing soya bean meal as the main protein source and a medium fattening period. Finally, SAA is a feeding alternative with a medium fattening period and containing higher levels of synthetic amino acids and no soya bean meal. The composition of the feed formulas is presented in Tab. 11. Tab. 11: Composition of the four feed alternatives in the chicken meat production case study in BRI: Ingredients and their origins and nutritional values. Feedstuff group Ingredients Origin Soya bean meal Soya bean meal Brazil, Argentina Different protein rich feeds Rapeseed meal France Sunflower meal France short-SOY 27.3% SOY GLEU SAA 13.9% 0.3% 0.3% 1.1% 7.5% 10.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.5% 5.6% 5.9% Maize gluten meal Europe 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 8.9% Faba beans France 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% Peas France 0.0% 0.4% 21.1% 3.1% Wheat France 50.5% 59.1% 53.5% 46.2% Maize France 10.6% 13.2% 0.0% 25.2% Rape seeds France 2.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% Soya oil Brazil 1.7% 0.9% 1.1% 0.7% Palm oil Malaysia 2.9% 0.1% 2.3% 0.0% Mineral feeds CaCO3, PHOSBI, vitamins, trace elements, synthetic amino acids Europe 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 4.8% Composition of the diet Crude protein content (%) 20.20 17.57 17.74 17.57 6.81 6.58 6.60 6.50 13.36 12.47 12.47 13.06 Peas & faba beans Energy rich feeds P content (in g/kg) Energy content (in MJ/kg) 6.4.2 Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories Resource Use-driven Impacts The main process steps requiring non-renewable energy resources are housing, transport of feeds, and energy-rich feeds (see Fig. 9). Compared to SOY, the energy demand for short-SOY is reduced by 16%, a difference which is considered to be very favourable. The higher energy demand for producing soya bean meal and for transporting the feeds is more than offset by the lower energy demand of GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 49/112 the energy demand of mineral feeds. The production of maize gluten is also much more energy intensive than soya bean meal production. The protein-rich feeds have a higher energy demand than in the SOY alternative. There is less energy demand from the transport of feeds due to the absence of soya bean meal. which is considered to be a favourable reduction of resource use (Fig. the partial replacement of wheat by maize in the feedstuff group ‘energy-rich feeds’ and the introduction of maize gluten as a protein-rich feed. maize has a higher energy demand due to grain drying after harvesting. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 50/112 . 9). This is due to increased use of synthetic amino acids for the mineral feeds. and protein-rich feeds is clearly higher. The SAA alternative has an energy demand which is 9% higher compared to SOY and this is considered to be an unfavourable change for resource use (Fig. Compared to wheat. but this is offset by the reduction in feed transport (less soya bean meal from overseas) and the smaller quantities of energy-rich feeds (mainly maize and wheat). The energy demand of the GLEU alternative is 6% lower compared to SOY. However. which means that the demand of infrastructures per kg of meat is reduced. This is due to the fact that in the short-SOY alternative there is a higher meat output per year. energy-rich feeds.energy-rich feeds and housing. 9). and short-SOY (short fattening period). the proportions contributed by different process steps (except land transformation) differed between the alternatives: for short-SOY there was a lower GWP from housing and energy-rich feeds. GLEU had the lowest and short-SOY the highest GWP (Fig. mainly from soya bean cultivation in Brazil. whereas in the short-SOY alternative there is about double the amount of soya bean meal compared with the reference SOY. SAA (synthetic amino acids). The results for global warming potential (GWP) differ from those of energy demand. These reductions are considered to be favourable. There is very little soya bean meal and oil in the GLEU and SAA alternatives. However. the decisive difference was only in the CO2-release from land transformation. but a higher GWP from the process steps ‘transport of feeds’ and ‘soya bean meal’ due to the high proportion of soya bean meal. GLEU and SAA were similar – short-SOY being comparatively slightly more favourable. / kg chicken (LW) 40 Soya bean meal Diff. the GWP for SOY. Of the four alternatives compared. GLEU (European grain legumes). being 6% higher than SOY. protein rich feeds Peas & faba beans Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Housing Manure management 30 20 10 0 shortSOY SOY GLEU SAA Fig. 10 without taking the CO2-release from land transformation into account. The GWP of short-SOY is considered to be unfavourable. 10). The GLEU alternative had a lower GWP due to less transportation of feeds and the absence of maize in those formulas. For the overall result on GWP. compared to SOY. 9: Demand for non-renewable energy for producing one kg of chicken (live weight: LW) in Brittany (BRI) with the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas). due to the higher productivity of the system. The increase of rapeseed meal and sunflower meal in protein-rich feeds as well as peas led GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 51/112 .MJ-eq. When comparing the four columns in Fig. The GLEU and the SAA alternatives had a GWP reduced by 10% and 9% respectively. Most of the ammonia losses stemmed from housing and manure management at the broiler farm. soya ARG Soya bean meal Diff. short-SOY had a 1% higher impact. 11). The short-SOY feed formulas contained higher levels of N per kg of feed. MYA: Malaysia. as the emission rate of NH3 is respectively 2.5 Land transform. 10: Global warming potential (100a) for producing one kg of chicken (live weight: LW) in Brittany (BRI) with the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas). the SAA alternative had a lower GWP for transport of feeds. Nutrient-driven Impacts Regarding the eutrophication potential of the four production alternatives. / kg chicken (LW) The reasons for this are the same as detailed for energy demand (see above). GLEU had a 5% higher impact and SAA had 2% lower impact. and short-SOY (short fattening period). the difference between the results was minimal: compared to SOY. Therefore. but a higher GWP from mineral feeds and the protein-feeds replacing the soya bean meal.5 2 1.5 and 4 times higher in the chicken run GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 52/112 . resulting in higher N contents in the broiler excrements (see crude protein content in Tab. The main emissions contributing to the eutrophication potential were nitrate leached into groundwater and ammonia volatilised into air.5 0 shortSOY SOY GLEU SAA Fig.5 1 0. kg CO2-eq. palm oil MYA Land transform. GLEU (European grain legumes). The difference for housing was greater than for manure management. where direct emissions came from the excrements and their management. Nitrate emissions occurred mainly through cultivation of the feed ingredients. ARG: Argentina. soya BRA Land transform. These differences are minimal and therefore considered to be similar results. protein rich feeds Peas & faba beans Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Housing Manure management 3 2. BRA: Brazil. resulting in a similar impact for GLEU and SOY. 3. Finally. SAA (synthetic amino acids).to a higher GWP for these process steps. ammonia and induced nitrous oxide losses for housing and manure management were higher than for SOY. because the substitution of soya bean meal and peas was not done on a one-to-one basis (see Tab. on a per kg ingredient basis. the SAA alternative had a slightly lower eutrophication potential for energy-rich feeds due to lower nutrient losses per kg of maize (raw material) compared to wheat. This positive effect was counteracted by the twofold higher amount of soya bean meal in short-SOY compared to SOY. the peas in GLEU alternative contributed more to eutrophication than the soya bean meal in SOY. resulting in a twofold higher eutrophication potential. 11). both of which have. there was a lower eutrophication potential from energy-rich feeds in short-SOY compared to SOY. The difference between GLEU and SOY stemmed from the cultivation of the feed ingredients. a higher eutrophication potential than soya bean meal.e. French peas and Brazilian soya beans have a similar eutrophication potential per kg. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 53/112 . This was primarily due to the lower input of wheat and maize per kg of meat produced. . maize and wheat. Hence. However. In comparison with standard SOY.compared to manure spreading and storing. there were more peas in the GLEU alternative. The increase in peas and protein-rich feeds was mostly compensated for by the lower eutrophication potential of energy-rich feeds. There was also a larger amount of sunflower meal and rapeseed meal in the GLEU alternative. and a similar eutrophication potential to the protein feeds replacing the soya bean meal. i. However. g N-eq. The reduction in terrestrial ecotoxicity for the energy-rich feeds was due to a reduction of wheat in the GLEU formula resulting in less propiconazole and lambda-cyhalothrin being used. protein rich feeds Peas & faba beans Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Housing Manure management 40 30 20 10 0 shortSOY SOY GLEU SAA Fig. less propiconazole and lambda-cyhalothrin were applied. and SAA had a very favourable impact (-29%) compared to SOY (Fig. lambda-cyhalothrin and glyphosate. 12). / kg chicken (LW) 60 50 Soya bean meal Diff. Since less wheat was used per kg of chicken meat in the short-SOY alternative compared to SOY. 12). Pollutant-driven Impacts Analysis of the results from terrestrial ecotoxicity (according to EDIP97) revealed that shortSOY had a favourable impact (-22%). and short-SOY (short fattening period). predominantly due to use of propiconazole. The GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 54/112 . Regarding comparison of GLEU and SOY. which is connected with the cultivation of oilseed rape. The former two compounds have very high impact factors according to EDIP97. GLEU (European grain legumes). was the main reason for the increased terrestrial ecotoxicity potential of GLEU (Fig. 11: Eutrophication potential for producing one kg of chicken (live weight: LW) in Brittany (BRI) with the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas). GLEU had an unfavourable impact (+25%). The SAA formulas contained a considerably smaller amount of wheat than the standard SOY. this explains the positive results of SAA. Since wheat has the biggest impacts on terrestrial ecotoxicity. SAA (synthetic amino acids). the main difference was in the amount of rapeseed meal and the use of lambda-cyhalothrin. it can be noted that the use of active ingredients on peas and oilseed rape. For the protein-rich feeds. namely lambda-cyhalothrin. protein rich feeds Peas & faba beans Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Housing Manure management 2. 2001). the third method.5 0 shortSOY SOY GLEU SAA Fig. SAA (synthetic amino acids). The active ingredients contributing the most to this were lambda-cyhalothrin. Margni et al. On the other hand. according to which shortSOY had a very favourable impact compared to SOY. with short-SOY having an unfavourable impact compared to SOY and GLEU having a very favourable impact compared to SOY. TEP / kg chicken (LW) 3.. and short-SOY (short fattening period).5 2 1. 6.second significant difference in favour of SAA compared to SOY was the significant reduction of rapeseed meal in the SAA feed formulas.5 3 Soya bean meal Diff. there were unfavourable impacts for global warming potential. as well as similar impacts for ozone formation and land GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 55/112 . GLEU (European grain legumes). indicated similar impacts compared to SOY. TEP: Terrestrial ecotoxicity points. 12: Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (EDIP) for producing one kg of chicken (live weight: LW) in Brittany (BRI) with the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas). While the results of EDIP and CML for terrestrial ecotoxicity of the SAA alternative agreed (very favourable impact compared to SOY). while GLEU had a similar impact compared to SOY. 2002) were again different.3 Summary of the Results Short-SOY compared to SOY The results of impacts driven by resource use do not allow clear conclusions to be drawn: on the one hand. In SOY the cultivation of oilseed rape was the main contributor to terrestrial ecotoxicity potential out of the different protein-rich feeds. carbendazim and cypermethrin. However.. CST. The results of the third terrestrial ecotoxicity method (CST. short-SOY had very favourable and favourable impacts on energy demand and resource use of P and K respectively.5 1 0.4. the results for the short-SOY and GLEU alternatives were not confirmed by the alternative terrestrial ecotoxicity method CML (Guinée et al. 12). GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 56/112 . GLEU compared to SOY In the group of impacts driven by resource use. but leaned towards favourable (Tab. the results of pollutant-driven impacts were. the results ranged from favourable to very unfavourable (Tab. For the impacts driven by pollutants the results showed a tendency towards favourable impacts. ozone formation and land occupation had a similar effect. The same can be said for the impacts driven by nutrients: the results ranged from favourable to unfavourable impacts. SAA compared to SOY In the group of impacts driven by resource use.occupation (Tab. while the resource use of P and K had an unfavourable and very unfavourable impact. which gave contradictory results. respectively. with the exception of human toxicity. with the exception of terrestrial ecotoxicity according to EDIP97 and CST. very favourable. The results of nutrient-driven impacts were in the range of similar to favourable. 12). This was also the case for the impacts driven by pollutants. the results of the different impacts ranged from unfavourable to very favourable. The two impacts discussed above (energy demand and global warming potential) had a favourable effect. Finally. the results showed that the impacts were similar. 12). For the group of impacts driven by nutrients. 02E+00 98% 4.29E-01 8.10E+01 91% 6.83E+00 91% 7.85E+00 71% 2.14E+00 78% Resource K [g K2O/ kg chicken] 3. total [m2a/ kg chicken] 5. combined potential N & P [g N-eq/ kg chicken] Eutrophication.04E+00 100% 1.91E-02 63% 4.26E+01 98% 4.28E+01 109% 9. Values are expressed for the functional unit kg of chicken meat or as a percentage of SOY.74E+01 4.21E-01 44% 4.72E+01 99% 7.66E+01 105% 5.78E+01 109% 3.42E+01 59% Land occupation. GLEU (European grain legumes).31E+00 3.68E-01 7.94E+00 104% 5.45E+01 97% 2.45E+01 5. 6).46E-01 59% 8.23E+00 125% 1. separate P potential [g P-eq/ kg chicken] Acidification [g SO2-eq/ kg chicken] Terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP [points/ kg chicken] Aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP [points/ kg chicken] Terrestrial ecotoxicity CML [points/ kg chicken] Aquatic ecotoxicity CML [points/ kg chicken] Human toxicity CML [points/ kg chicken] Terrestrial ecotoxicity CST [points/ kg chicken] Aquatic ecotoxicity CST [points/ kg chicken] GLEU GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 SAA SAA in % SOY 57/112 .93E-01 97% 7.03E+00 100% 1.94E+01 3. and short-SOY (short fattening period).18E+01 92% 1.75E-01 62% 2.51E+01 98% 5.03E+00 2. Colours according to the assessment classes (see Tab. Pollutant-driven impacts Nutrient-driven impacts Resource use-driven impacts Feed alternatives GLEU in % SOY short-SOY SOY short-SOY in % SOY 2.18E+00 101% 1.26E+01 5.60E-02 115% 2.86E-01 104% 4.48E+01 84% 3.16E+00 107% 2.00E-02 4.12E+00 106% 2.68E-01 97% Resource P [g P/ kg chicken] 1. 12: Overview of the environmental impacts of chicken production in Brittany. Total and relative impact of the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas).04E+00 79% 1.09E+01 1.Tab.79E+01 103% 5.96E+00 91% Environmental impacts Energy demand [MJ-eq/ kg chicken] Global warming potential 100a [kg CO2-eq/ kg chicken] Ozone formation [g ethylene-eq/ kg chicken] Eutrophication.48E-01 91% 6.28E+01 94% 3.74E-01 98% 7.59E+00 78% 3.70E-01 2.38E+01 101% 5.19E-01 89% 8.93E-01 7.92E+01 4.30E+00 64% 1.81E+00 89% 1. SAA (synthetic amino acids).06E+01 106% 4.78E+01 166% 2.03E+00 2.18E-01 1.55E-01 65% 7.40E-02 96% 2.04E+00 102% 4.98E-01 108% 1.40E-01 103% 7.03E+00 2.79E+00 90% 2.12E+00 4. separate N potential [g N-eq/ kg chicken] Eutrophication.46E+00 90% 5.60E+01 112% 5. There were also less wheat middlings (i. synthetic amino acids Europe 8.5% Barley France 0.9% Soya oil Brazil 0. The main reasons for this were reduced transport (-30%) and the reduced energy demand of energyrich feeds (-23%). Introducing peas into the feed formulas of laying hens was accompanied by an increase in sunflower meal and maize gluten (from the protein-rich feeds group).0% Energy rich feeds Wheat France 46.5% 16.5.81 5.2% Palm oil Malaysia 0. a milling co-product). GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 58/112 .7% Composition of the diet Crude protein content (%) 16.1 Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives The feed formulas for the egg production case study in Brittany (BRI) can be seen in Tab.70 11.0% 7. Feedstuff production accounted for more than 55% of the total energy demand. compared with SOY.81 11.6.e.4% 0.95 17.1% Peas Peas France 0.5% 3. Feedstuff group Ingredients Origin Soya bean meal Soya bean meal Brazil.3% Maize gluten meal Europe 0.00 5.6% 8. The GLEU alternative had.7% 3. PHOSBI. As with the previous case studies. 13.2 Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories Resource Use-driven Impacts In terms of demand for non-renewable energy the main process steps were ‘housing’. Both of these required use of more energy than the soya bean meal they replaced.5 Egg Production in Brittany (BRI) 6.5% Wheat middlings France 1. a favourable impact on the demand for non-renewable energy.8% 47.5% Rape seeds France 1. Argentina SOY GLEU Different protein rich feeds Rapeseed meal France 3.70 P content (in g/kg) Energy content (in MJ/kg) 6.5% Maize France 20. ‘transport’ and ‘energy-rich feeds’ (Fig. vitamins.7% Sunflower meal France 0.4% 1.2% 0. Tab. 13: Composition of the two feed alternatives in the egg production case study in BRI: Ingredients and their origins and nutritional values.2% 12.0% 0. with a 4% reduction. trace elements.5. The reduced energy demand of energyrich feeds stemmed from the altered composition of this group of feeds: In the GLEU alternative there was considerably less maize than in the SOY alternative. 13). reduced transport was due to replacing soya bean meal from overseas with European peas.3% 2.7% Mineral feeds CaCO3.1% 3.7% 8. CO2release from land transformation of Brazilian rainforest was reduced to the same extent. protein rich feeds Peas Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Young hen rearing Housing Manure management 25 20 15 10 5 0 SOY GLEU Fig.35 MJ-eq. 14). / kg eggs 30 Soya bean meal Diff. the impacts of the GLEU alternative were reduced by -10% compared to SOY.4). but were counteracted by the proteinrich feeds. 13: Demand for non-renewable energy resources for producing one kg of eggs (with egg-shells) in Brittany (BRI) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes). For global warming potential (Fig.1. The main reductions occurred in the process steps ‘transport’ and ‘energy-rich feeds’. The reasons for this were the same as for energy demand (see above). GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 59/112 . which is considered to be favourable. However. As there was five times less Brazilian soya bean meal in the GLEU than in the SOY formulas. the main difference was CO2-release from land transformation (see chapter 3. However. 15). soya BRA Land transform. while ammonia emissions mainly stemmed from poultry keeping. BRA: Brazil. palm oil MYA Land transform. where nitrate loss during cultivation was the dominant emission. which is considered to be in the range of similar results (Fig. 14: Global warming potential (100a) for producing one kg of eggs (with egg-shells) in Brittany (BRI) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes).5 1 0.5 0 SOY GLEU Fig. Most of the nitrate loss occurred during cultivation of the feed ingredients. Nitrate and ammonia were the most significant emissions.5 Land transform. protein rich feeds Peas Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Young hen rearing Housing Manure management 3 2. Nutrient-driven Impacts The eutrophication potential per kg of eggs was 6% higher for the GLEU alternatives than for the standard feed formulas SOY. followed by phosphates and nitrous oxide. The contribution from energy-rich feeds was reduced in the GLEU alternatives because of the reduction of maize in these formulas. this was counteracted by the eutrophication potential of peas as well as sunflower meal and maize gluten.5 2 1. ARG: Argentina. / kg eggs 4 3. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 60/112 . soya ARG Soya bean meal Diff.kg CO2-eq. MYA: Malaysia. compared with the standard feed formulas SOY. / kg eggs 70 Soya bean meal Diff. According to EDIP97 the GLEU feeding alternative had. maize) were reduced whereas some with higher impacts (e. 16). in peas. 15: Eutrophication potential for producing one kg of eggs (with egg-shells) in Brittany (BRI) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes). being 19% higher than those of the standard formulas SOY. such as lambda-cyhalothrin. The main difference was the use of active ingredients. Its potential was 23% higher than for SOY. barley) were increased. The results for terrestrial ecotoxicity were confirmed by the alternative method CML (Tab. For the energy-rich feeds there was a slight increase due to the fact that ingredients with little impact on terrestrial ecotoxicity (e. where the GLEU formulas were also considered to have an unfavourable impact. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 61/112 .80 g N-eq. rapeseeds.g.g. Pollutant-driven Impacts Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential was dominated by feedstuff production. 14). protein rich feeds Peas Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Young hen rearing Housing Manure management 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 SOY GLEU Fig. an unfavourable impact on terrestrial ecotoxicity (Fig. 3. resource use of phosphorus and potassium were unfavourable and very unfavourable.5 0 SOY GLEU Fig. 14).3 Summary of the Results The results of the impacts driven by resource use were mixed: on the one hand. the impacts for GLEU on energy demand. TEP: Terrestrial ecotoxicity points. respectively. For the nutrient-driven impacts. On the other hand. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 62/112 . 6. 16: Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (EDIP) for producing one kg of eggs (with egg-shells) in Brittany (BRI) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes).5 2 1. global warming potential. protein rich feeds Peas Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Young hen rearing Housing Manure management 2. the GLEU alternative tended to have unfavourable effects with regard to impacts driven by pollutants (Tab. Finally. and ozone formation were favourable.5 TEP / kg eggs 3 Soya bean meal Diff. the GLEU alternative showed similar results to the standard formulas SOY.5 1 0. Land use was similar between the two alternatives.5. 89E+01 100% 2.49E-01 8.19E+00 100% 6. separate P potential [g P-eq/ kg eggs] Acidification [g SO2-eq/ kg eggs] Terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP [points/ kg eggs] Aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP [points/ kg eggs] Terrestrial ecotoxicity CML [points/ kg eggs] Aquatic ecotoxicity CML [points/ kg eggs] Human toxicity CML [points/ kg eggs] Terrestrial ecotoxicity CST [points/ kg eggs] Aquatic ecotoxicity CST [points/ kg eggs] GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 63/112 .11E+01 2.69E-01 7. separate N potential [g N-eq/ kg eggs] Eutrophication.14E+00 2.09E+00 98% Environmental impacts Energy demand [MJ-eq/ kg eggs] Global warming potential 100a [kg CO2-eq/ kg eggs] Ozone formation [g ethylene-eq/ kg eggs] Eutrophication.31E+01 106% 5. Total and relative impacts of the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes).26E-01 113% 8.92E+01 7.29E+00 101% 7.90E-02 3.22E-02 66% 2. combined potential N & P [g N-eq/ kg eggs] Eutrophication.87E+01 5.19E+00 2.53E+01 143% Land occupation.Tab. 6).38E+00 2.26E+01 107% Resource K [g K2O/ kg eggs] 3. Values are expressed for the functional unit kg of eggs or as a percentage of SOY.64E+00 5.17E+01 1.87E+01 7. 14: Overview of the environmental impacts of egg production in Brittany. Colours according to the assessment classes (see Tab.75E+00 124% 2.22E+00 5. Pollutant-driven impacts Nutrient-driven impacts Resource use-driven impacts Feed alternatives SOY GLEU GLEU in % SOY 3. total [m2a/ kg eggs] 5.94E+00 123% 4.41E-01 7.95E+01 6.38E+01 107% 1.18E-01 2.98E+01 96% 3.68E-01 102% 4.27E+00 1.88E+00 90% 7.32E-01 95% Resource P [g P/ kg eggs] 1.60E-01 119% 6. 1 Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives Dairy cows are ruminants and therefore have different dietary requirements to pigs and poultry. Cottrill. Tab.6% 9.48 11.5% 18.4% Barley Great Britain 9. which over a year consists of approximately equal proportions of fresh and conserved grass. 2008).48 GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 64/112 .2% - 13.6. soya is needed in the previous animal categories to provide the necessary essential amino acids (B. trace elements Europe 4. PHOSBI. pers.4% Palm kernel meal Malaysia 0.15 P content (in g/kg) Energy content (in MJ/kg) 5. In an economically-optimised feed formula.5% 4. Brazil Different protein rich feeds Rapeseed meal Great Britain Peas & faba beans Energy rich feeds SOY GLEU 9.2% Cane molasses Brazil 0. The feed composition and the origin of the feedstuffs are presented in Tab.8% 4.9% Soya oil Argentina. Feedstuff group Ingredients Origin Soya bean meal Soya bean meal Argentina.7% 1.15 18.7% 0.2% Palm oil Malaysia 1.0% Peas Great Britain - 5. 15 and Fig.6% Citrus pulp Brazil 12. the main protein source was rapeseed meal and maize gluten rather than soya bean meal.8% Composition of the diet Crude protein content (%) 18.2% 0.5% Wheat Great Britain 12. In addition to the formulated concentrate feed.6.7% Wheat middlings Great Britain 18. due to current levels of production.5% 1. communication Feb.5% 6.8% 1.6% Mineral feeds CaCO3. their feed typically consists of approximately 70% roughage feeds (in dry matter). 15: Composition of the two feed alternatives in the milk production case study in DAC: Ingredients. 17.4% Beet molasses Great Britain 0. Brazil 0.9% Maize gluten USA 7.9% Beet pulp Great Britain 8. While.80 11.0% 12.6 Milk Production in Devon and Cornwall (DAC) 6. their origins and nutritional values. this is not the case for cows: As ruminants they can produce essential amino acids in their rumen making a supply from feed less important (Kirchgessner.7% Faba beans Great Britain - 18. 2004).74 5.1% 0.9% 13. vitamins. 16: Overview of the environmental impacts of milk production in Devon and Cornwall. Crop production. protein rich feeds Peas & fava beans Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Roughage feed 0% Fig. accounting for one-fifth of the total energy demand. resulting in a twofold reduction. and processing accounted for more than two-thirds of the energy demand. 6. faba bean production consumes little energy. In comparison with wheat.in % of DM 100% 3% 7% 80% 20% 6% 7% 1% 15% 1% 70% 70% SOY GLEU 60% 40% 20% Soya bean meal Diff. Colours according to the assessment classes (see Tab.). Housing was second in importance for this impact category.6. GLEU was favourable compared to SOY (Tab.2 Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories Resource use-driven Impacts The demand for non-renewable energy resources to produce 1 kg of energy corrected milk (ECM) was dominated by concentrate feeds (Fig. as no mineral nitrogen fertilisers are applied. Total and relative impacts of the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes). The low energy demand for roughage feed is remarkable as it was the main feed for dairy cows and ensiling grass uses energy. With a 9% reduced energy demand. Values are expressed for the functional unit kg of energy corrected milk (ECM) or as a percentage of SOY. transport. the manufacturing of which requires a lot of GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 65/112 . The lower energy demand of the GLEU alternative was mainly due to replacing most of the wheat and beet pulp (energy-rich feeds) with faba beans. 6). 17: Overview of the composition of the total feed for dairy cows in Devon and Cornwall (DAC) for the two feed alternatives SOY (overseas soya bean meal) and GLEU (European grain legumes). Crop production alone used more than 50% of the energy resources. 18). processing. whereas drying beet pulp. of which two-thirds were caused by CO2 emissions and one-third by N2O emissions. 19). small reductions in transport energy were achieved by replacing overseas soya bean meal with European grain legumes. In addition. GLEU was considered similar compared to SOY. which consequently leads to large CO2 emissions. MJ-eq. As mentioned above. Transport was of minor significance. ECM: energy corrected milk. With only a 4% reduction in the GWP. Production. The lower GWP of the GLEU alternative resulted from replacing soya bean meal and beet pulp (energy-rich feeds) with peas and faba beans.energy. / kg milk (ECM) 8 7 6 Soya bean meal 5 Peas & faba beans 4 Mineral feeds Diff. 18: Demand for non-renewable energy for producing one kg of milk in Devon and Cornwall (DAC) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes). GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 66/112 . The global warming potential (GWP) of milk production was dominated by housing (including direct animal methane-emissions) (Fig. Drying faba beans requires little energy. is very energy-intensive. with its high moisture content. The GWP of soya bean meal from Brazil was due to cultivation and CO2--release during and after transformation of rainforests into arable land. and transport of concentrate feeds contributed more than a third of the GWP of milk. drying beet pulp requires a lot of energy (in form of natural gas). protein rich feeds Energy rich feeds Transport of feeds 3 Feed processing 2 Roughage feed 1 Housing Calf production Manure management 0 SOY GLEU Fig. palm oil/meal MYA Land transform.4 0.2 0 SOY GLEU Fig. protein rich feeds Peas & faba beans Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Roughage feed Calf production Housing Manure management 0. 19: Global warming potential (100a) for producing one kg of milk in Devon and Cornwall (DAC) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes). Nutrient-driven Impacts Production of concentrate feeds accounted for about one-third of the eutrophication (nutrient enrichment).kg CO2-eq. / kg milk (ECM) 1. ECM: energy corrected milk.6 0. soya BRA Land transform. soya ARG Soya bean meal Diff. with different protein-rich feeds and grain legumes having the biggest impact GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 67/112 .2 1 Land transform.8 0. with a slight increase of 2% (Fig. calf production. protein rich feeds Peas & faba beans Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Roughage feed Calf production Housing Manure management 10 8 6 4 2 0 SOY GLEU Fig. This slightly higher eutrophication of GLEU was mainly due to replacing beet pulp with peas and faba beans. 20). Direct and indirect animal ammonia emissions and nitrate leaching that occur during grazing (for half the year) contributed in equal parts to eutrophication for the category ‘housing’. nitrate leaching was the main eutrophying process. which have a comparably high eutrophication potential. whereas volatile ammonia was the most important emission released from manure management.g N-eq. GLEU was similar to SOY in terms of eutrophication potential. The replacement of soya bean meal with peas and faba beans did not alter the overall result. as these feedstuffs have a similar eutrophication potential. Housing accounted for 28%. Transport was of minor significance for this impact category. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 68/112 . For feedstuff production. manure management for 20%. 20). and roughage feed. housing. / kg milk (ECM) 16 14 12 Soya bean meal Diff. and roughage feed for 12% of the eutrophication. The high eutrophication of manure management was mainly caused by ammonia emissions during slurry spreading. The use of propiconazole on wheat and barley was responsible for the high terrestrial ecotoxicity of energy-rich feeds. where the insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin was applied. ECM: energy corrected milk. The high terrestrial ecotoxicity of different protein-rich feeds was due to the large amount of rapeseed meal included both in the SOY and GLEU alternative.g N-eq. protein rich feeds Peas & faba beans Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Roughage feed Calf production Housing Manure management 10 8 6 4 2 0 SOY GLEU Fig. Pollutant-driven Impacts Terrestrial ecotoxicity of milk production was almost entirely caused by crop production (Fig. 21). as in the preceding case studies. the fungicide propiconazole and the insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin were responsible for the largest part of the terrestrial ecotoxicity according to EDIP97. The detailed analysis shows that. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 69/112 . 20: Eutrophication potential (EDIP) for producing one kg of milk in Devon and Cornwall (DAC) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes). / kg milk (ECM) 16 14 12 Soya bean meal Diff. Energy-rich feeds and different protein-rich feeds dominated this impact category. with a slight reduction of 3%. 2002) were also similar. although the increased use of peas.. They are dominated by the fungicide carbendazim. The overall changes between the feeding alternatives were small. ECM: energy corrected milk. which was applied in rapeseed. These ingredients GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 70/112 . In the CML method. there was a similar terrestrial ecotoxicity for the GLEU and SOY alternatives according to all the ecotoxicity assessment methods used.. wheat middlings. wheat and barley had a major effect on terrestrial ecotoxicity. TEP: Terrestrial ecotoxicity points. although the weighting given to active ingredients varies between methods. The results for terrestrial ecotoxicity according to the CST95 method (Margni et al. 2001). barley) were included in the same ratios in both feed formulas. since most ingredients that dominate terrestrial ecotoxicity (rapeseed meal. the insecticide cypermethrin has a very high impact factor and determines the results.TEP / kg milk (ECM) 350 300 Soya bean meal Diff. To summarise. Cypermethrin was mainly used in oilseed rape and to a lesser extend in wheat and barley. counteracted most of the reduction. The partial replacement of wheat with peas and faba beans was responsible for this reduction. 21: Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (EDIP) for producing one kg of milk in Devon and Cornwall (DAC) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes). Assessing terrestrial ecotoxicity with an alternative method. protein rich feeds Peas & faba beans Energy rich feeds Mineral feeds Transport of feeds Feed processing Roughage feed Calf production Housing Manure management 250 200 150 100 50 0 SOY GLEU Fig. led to similar results. CML (Guinée et al. where lambda-cyhalothrin was also applied. The fungicides and insecticides used on rapeseed. GLEU was similar to SOY in terms of terrestrial ecotoxicity. In the standard dairy cow feed formula only a small amount of soya bean meal was included (Tab. for all impact categories peas and faba beans are not favourable compared to soya bean meal. In addition.were incorporated in similar ratios in both feed formulas. and hence there were only minor differences between the alternatives. respectively. It is therefore not surprising that replacing soya bean meal with grain legumes did not lead to large reductions in the environmental impact of milk production. the two feeding alternatives had a similar environmental impact. Only in two categories (energy demand and aquatic ecotoxicity) was the GLEU alternative favourable compared to the standard SOY.6. and the partial replacement of energy-rich feeds (beet pulp and wheat) had a strong influence on the results in some impact categories.3 Summary of the Results A summary of the results of the different environmental impacts is given in Tab. 16. For most impact categories. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 71/112 . For the use of phosphorus and potassium resources. which have a higher demand for P and K resources. 6. This favourable effect in the GLEU alternative is due to using less pesticides and using active ingredients which are less harmful to aquatic organisms on peas and especially on faba beans compared to soya beans. the GLEU alternative was unfavourable and very unfavourable. This is mainly due to replacing beet pulp (and soya bean meal) with peas and faba beans in the GLEU alternative. 15). 69E+00 6.29E+00 1.43E-01 97% 2.92E+01 99% 3. 6).50E-02 95% 1. Total and relative impacts of the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes).96E+00 7.34E-01 1. Colours according to the assessment classes (see Tab. combined potential N & P [g N-eq/ kg ECM] Eutrophication.27E+00 108% Resource K [g K2O/ kg ECM] 5.43E-01 3. Feed alternatives Pollutant-driven impacts Nutrient-driven impacts Resource use-driven impacts SOY Environmental impacts Energy demand [MJ-eq/ kg ECM] Global warming potential 100a [kg CO2-eq/ kg ECM] Ozone formation [g ethylene-eq/ kg ECM] GLEU GLEU in % SOY 7.25E+00 91% 1.18E+00 96% 3.40E+01 101% 1.Tab.97E-03 105% 4.38E+01 1.34E-01 1.94E+01 1. separate N potential [g N-eq/ kg ECM] Eutrophication.47E+01 1.54E-01 3.23E+00 1. 16: Overview of the environmental impacts of milk production in Devon and Cornwall.63E-01 4.11E+00 2. total [m2a/ kg ECM] 1.41E-01 1.34E-01 82% 4.32E+00 103% 1. Values are expressed for the functional unit kg of energy corrected milk (ECM) or as a percentage of SOY. separate P potential [g P-eq/ kg ECM] Acidification [g SO2-eq/ kg ECM] Terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP [points/ kg ECM] Aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP [points/ kg ECM] Terrestrial ecotoxicity CML [points/ kg ECM] Aquatic ecotoxicity CML [points/ kg ECM] Human toxicity CML [points/ kg ECM] Terrestrial ecotoxicity CST [points/ kg ECM] Aquatic ecotoxicity CST [points/ kg ECM] GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 72/112 .66E-03 6.53E-01 98% Eutrophication.99E+00 123% Land occupation.41E-01 105% 1.50E+01 102% 1.73E-02 4.34E-01 97% Resource P [g P/ kg ECM] 2.37E-01 97% 6.27E-01 95% 1.85E-01 2. which was used in cereals and ii) the insecticide lambdacyhalothrin. Only in the milk case study was the ecotoxicity of GLEU slightly reduced. Since the results for ecotoxicity are very dependent on the active ingredients used and the method chosen to assess them. for about two-thirds of the global warming potential. which was used in pea. oilseed rape and cereal cultivation. Replacing soya bean meal with grain legumes had little effect on eutrophication (nutrient enrichment). namely i) the fungicide propiconazole. cereals.7 Overview of the Results for all Case Studies As known from earlier studies. transport. and for most of the ecotoxicity. The detailed analysis showed that two active ingredients are responsible for the largest part of terrestrial ecotoxicity according to EDIP97. rapeseed meal and peas dominated the results. This was largely due to the high global warming potential of soya beans. For terrestrial ecotoxicity (according to EDIP97 methodology). GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 73/112 . The transformation of Brazilian rainforest and Argentinean savannahs into soya bean cultivation areas leads to a large release of CO2 from biomass and soils. feedstuffs mainly contribute to the environmental impacts of animal products. The overall trend for terrestrial and aquatic ecotoxicity ranged between similar to unfavourable effects for GLEU compared with SOY. while soya bean meal contributed little to this impact category. though for milk production in Devon and Cornwall it is on the verge of being comparatively favourable. 17). The favourable effect of the GLEU alternative results from reduced transport and from the fact that pea and faba bean production is less energy-intensive than the combination of soya bean meal and energy-rich feeds that they are replacing. with the exception of pork production in Catalonia. where the GLEU alternative is similar to SOY (Tab. a careful interpretation of the results is advisable. The reason for this was the use of active ingredients (pesticides) during cultivation of the above-mentioned crops.6. Introducing grain legumes into animal feeds reduced the demand for non-renewable energy in all case studies except in North Rhine-Westphalia. Global warming potential was. feedstuff production (crop production. and processing) accounted for more than half of the energy demand and the eutrophication potential (nutrient enrichment). In nearly all case studies. reduced in all case studies. logging residues) due to land transformation in the pork production study in Catalonia.8 Sensitivity Analysis In a situation where some data might vary between sources or where the assumptions made are uncertain. 17: Overview of the environmental impacts of all case studies (pork. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 74/112 . 2006). Values are expressed for GLEU as a percentage of SOY. 6). • different slurry quantities according to different sources for milk production in Devon and Cornwall. chicken.e. a sensitivity analysis is recommended.Tab. Colours according to the assessment classes (see Tab. separate P potential [g P-eq/ kg commodity] Acidification [g SO2-eq/ kg commodity] Terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP [points/ kg commodity] Aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP [points/ kg commodity] Terrestrial ecotoxicity CML [points/ kg commodity] Aquatic ecotoxicity CML [points/ kg commodity] Human toxicity CML [points/ kg commodity] Terrestrial ecotoxicity CST [points/ kg commodity] Aquatic ecotoxicity CST [points/ kg commodity] 6. We performed sensitivity analyses on the effect of the following: • including the carbon released by slash (i. because land transformation proved to be main difference between the SOY and GLEU alternatives regarding GWP. combined potential N & P [g N-eq/ kg commodity] Eutrophication. separate N potential [g N-eq/ kg commodity] Eutrophication. particularly when the differences or assumption are thought to be critical for the results (ISO. to check whether the choice of the source influenced the results. total [m2a/ kg commodity] 102% 132% 102% 100% 103% 93% 117% 105% 106% 102% 93% 118% 106% 107% 101% 100% 104% 103% 101% 105% 98% 98% 98% 100% 99% 96% 126% 125% 123% 97% 111% 127% 89% 124% 82% 376% 165% 108% 119% 95% 176% 105% 104% 113% 95% 103% 108% 100% 102% 97% 83% 94% 63% 66% 105% 98% 108% 101% 98% 98% Global warming potential 100a [kg CO2-eq/ kg commodity] Ozone formation [g ethylene-eq/ kg commodity] Eutrophication. Case studies Pollutant-driven impacts Nutrient-driven impacts Resource use-driven impacts Environmental impacts Energy demand [MJ-eq/ kg commodity] pork pork broiler laying hen milk NRW CAT BRI BRI DAC 99% 94% 94% 96% 91% 95% 98% 90% 90% 96% 98% 106% 98% 95% 97% Resource P [g P/ kg commodity] 111% 104% 109% 107% 108% Resource K [g K2O/ kg commodity] 183% 168% 166% 143% 123% Land occupation. egg and milk production) of the two feeding alternatives SOY (overseas soya bean meal) and GLEU (European grain legumes). (with a 2% reduction). It could be argued that this carbon will also be released to the atmosphere sooner or later. only the carbon released during biomass burning (20% of the total carbon) is considered. DARDNI (2005). In the Catalonian case study 50% of the soya bean meal originates from Brazil. In addition to the 20% carbon released from biomass burning and the carbon released from the soil during soya bean cultivation. similar to the GWP of the standard SOY. • introducing technical measures against ammonia losses for pork production in Catalonia. (2001). where beet and citrus pulp were not used.2 Slurry Quantities (DAC) The data on slurry volumes for dairy cows varied between different sources (B. The different proportions of soya bean meal in the two feed alternatives resulted in an 11% reduced GWP for GLEU compared to SOY. the carbon in the slash (70% of the carbon). Cottrill. Walther et al. 18).8. the different assumptions for slurry quantities did not alter the results. 6. In the original calculation. Ammonia from housing and manure management dominated this impact category and changes in slurry quantity also led to altered ammonia emissions. which is considered to be a favourable effect. 70% of the carbon left in the slash was added to the land transformation. In the standard SOY the GWP was increased by 18% and in the GLEU alternative it was increased by 7% compared with the calculations according to Jungbluth et al. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 75/112 . the GWP of the GLEU alternative was. 6.8.1 Land Transformation (CAT) The estimates used for CO2-release from land transformation are conservative.• altered feed formulas for dairy cows. The only slight difference that could be seen was a difference in acidification (Tab. and 50% from the USA. a sensitivity analysis was carried out for these three different slurry quantities. checking the impact of an altered assumption on the use of technical measures. communication. Therefore. For the clearcutting of rainforests. Therefore we calculated a sensitivity analysis for the pork case study in CAT. in order to verify the influence on the environmental impacts when these ingredients that were taken by the economic optimisation model are replaced by ingredients with a lower energy demand. Oct. pers. For all other impact categories. lower table). see Tab. as an alternative allocation procedure for oil extraction co-products which are commonly used feed ingredients in the present case studies and test the impact of this choice. 2007). 2007). 18. is not included in the estimate (according to Jungbluth et al. (2007). • applying mass allocation for the oil extraction process. 7% 100. compared with other sources (Eide.0% 100. because no beet and citrus pulp were included and these have a high GWP due to the gas consumption for drying. separate N potential [g N-eq / kg ECM] Eutrophication. 18: Environmental impact of milk production for the two feeding alternatives SOY (overseas soya bean meal) and GLEU (European grain legumes) with different assumptions for the slurry quantities of cows (see lower table).5 6. combined potential N & P [g N-eq / kg ECM] Eutrophication.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.3 13.8.0% 100.7% 99.0% 100.1% 101.3 21.0% 100. 2007).7% 99. very high in the present case study.0% 99.7% 100.9% 99.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100. The GWP of the new formulas was also favourable.0% 100.. the energy demand of the new formulas was very favourable compared with the original formulas (Tab.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.0% 101.1% 99. pers..0% 100.8% 99. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 76/112 .0% 100.0 13. Summary of the impacts: Energy demand [MJ-eq / kg ECM] Global warming potential 100a [kg CO2-eq / kg ECM] Ozone formation [g ethylene-eq / kg ECM] Resource P [g P / kg ECM] Resource K [g K2O / kg ECM] Land occupation.0% 100.0% 100.6% 99. Hospido et al.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100. Cederberg.9% 99.0% 100.0% 100.9% 99.9% 100. Cottrill. communication (Oct.0% 99.0% 100.9% 100.0 WA 22. two alternative feed formulas were tested that contained no beet and citrus pulp and only a small amount of maize gluten (all of which have a rather high energy demand due to drying or processing). As could be expected.3 Feed Formulas without Beet and Citrus Pulp (DAC) As the energy demand of milk was.0% 100.0% 100. DA: DARDNI (2005). This positive effect was reduced a bit due to higher incorporation of soya bean meal in the newSOY alternative (including more CO2-emissions from land transformation and more transport). WA: Walther et al. total [m2a/ kg ECM] Eutrophication. 2001.0% 100.9% 100.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100. 2003. Two feed formulas were tested: one formula containing soya bean meal (newSOY) and one containing peas and faba beans (new-GLEU).0% 100. separate P potential [g P-eq / kg ECM] Acidifaction [g SO2-eq / kg ECM] Terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP [points / kg ECM] Aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP [points/ kg ECM] Terrestrial ecotoxicity CML [points / kg ECM] Aquatic ecotoxicity CML [points / kg ECM] Human toxicity CML [points / kg ECM] undiluted slurry per dairy cow per year [m3] undiluted slurry per cattle from 0-24 month of age [m3] DA in % of BC SOY GLEU WA in % of BC SOY GLEU 99.9% 100. BC: B.0% BC 19. 1998).7% 100.7% 99.0% 100.Impacts driven by pollutants Impacts driven by nutrients Impacts driven by resources Tab. (2001).0% 100. 2002.0% 100. 19).1 DA 19. Haas et al.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100. 01E-01 1.65E+00 2.41E-01 95% 100% 106% 103% 1. carbendazim and cypermethrin for oilseed rape cultivation lead to higher impacts of the new feed formulas.61E-02 6.77E-01 2.35E-01 97% 123% 126% 127% 3. for the nutrient.21E+01 2. the new feed formulas were (very) unfavourable.13E-01 4. total [m2a/ kg ECM] Eutrophication.81E-01 90% 135% 150% 143% 1. no beet and citrus pulp) and new-GLEU (European grain legumes.21E-01 96% 94% 98% 96% 2.76E+00 5. which has a comparably high eutrophication potential.67E+00 101% 126% 125% 117% 9. 6).48E-01 4.47E+01 95% 112% 118% 110% 1.43E+01 1. no beet and citrus pulp).57E-01 1.54E+01 1. Impacts driven by pollutants Impacts driven by nutrients Impacts driven by resources Summary of the impacts: Energy demand [MJ-eq / kg ECM] Global warming potential 100a [kg CO2-eq / kg ECM] Ozone formation [g ethylene-eq / kg ECM] Resource P [g P / kg ECM] Resource K [g K2O / kg ECM] Land occupation. rapeseed meal is the reason for the unfavourable to very unfavourable effect of the new feed formulas.36E+01 95% 112% 118% 110% 1.79E-01 93% 104% 111% 106% GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 77/112 .and pollutant-driven impacts. and new-SOY (overseas soya bean meal.38E+00 93% 68% 72% 74% 1.g. Tab.03E-02 87% 155% 177% 148% 5.49E-01 1.However. Values are expressed per kg of energy corrected milk (ECM) or as a percentage. separate N potential [g N-eq / kg ECM] Eutrophication.11E+00 93% 90% 96% 94% 3.18E-02 1.86E-01 76% 100% 132% 122% 7.05E+00 1. For ecotoxicity.83E-02 90% 144% 161% 152% 2. Colours according to the assessment classes (see Tab.19E+00 1.03E+01 92% 105% 114% 106% 4. for terrestrial ecotoxicity the use of the active ingredients lambda-cyhalothrin. The new feed formulas have higher N contents per kg of feed and thus higher N emissions occur (manure management and housing). In addition. separate P potential [g P-eq / kg ECM] Acidifaction [g SO2-eq / kg ECM] Terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP [points / kg ECM] Aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP [points/ kg ECM] Terrestrial ecotoxicity CML [points / kg ECM] Aquatic ecotoxicity CML [points / kg ECM] Human toxicity CML [points / kg ECM] Terrestrial ecotoxicity CST [TEP / kg ECM] Aquatic ecotoxicity CST [AEP / kg ECM] new-GLEU new-GLEU in new-SOY in new-GLEU in in % new% SOY % SOY % GLEU SOY new-SOY new-GLEU 5.57E-01 99% 117% 118% 111% 2.48E+00 1. E. combined potential N & P [g N-eq / kg ECM] Eutrophication. 19: Overview of the environmental impacts of milk production in DAC with the four feeding alternatives SOY (overseas soya bean meal) and GLEU (European grain legumes).01E+01 112% 178% 159% 145% 1.43E+00 97% 111% 115% 108% 1. there is a greater proportion of rapeseed meal.36E-01 3. In Nemecek & Baumgartner (2006) a sensitivity analysis of the allocation factors for the oil extracting process for soya and oilseed rape has been performed. 1997). Both of them are quite common in North Rhine-Westphalian pork production. In all the impact categories. the difference from the standard allocation was no higher than 2%. the impacts on eutrophication are reduced by about 10% and on acidification by about 27%. They are less common in Catalonian pork production. One reason for the different results in North Rhine-Westphalia and Catalonia is the difference in manure management. 6. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 78/112 . Instead of the standard allocation.8. 20). interpretations and conclusions. But the main point is that. Covering the slurry lagoon and the use of a spreader with tailed hoses are two possible measures (Menzi et al. where production of the commodities and their transportation was mass allocated and the processing was economically allocated.5 Technical Measures to Reduce Ammonia Losses (CAT) There are different technical options to reduce ammonia losses from manure management. resulting in a less favourable ratio compared to manure management without NH3 reduction measures.8. respectively (Tab.. Therefore. we performed a sensitivity analysis on pork production in Catalonia assuming the same technical measures against ammonia losses as in North RhineWestphalia. the sensitivity analysis tested the effect of allocating the oil extracting process solely by mass. these minimal changes do not influence the overall results. Thus. on an absolute level.4 Allocation Factors for the Oil Extracting Process Co-products from oil extraction were commonly used in the feed formulas for the present case studies.6. The introduction of the two technical measures reduced the impact of the SOY alternative more than the impact of the GLEU alternative (see new-GLEU compared with new-SOY). 0% 100. 6).0% 100.0% Resource P [g P] 104% 104% 100.0% 100.8% 106% 106% 100. New-SOY and new-GLEU are the newly-calculated feeding strategies (unaltered feed formulas) including the technical measures against ammonia losses.0% 100.0% 127% 127% 100.0% 108% 108% 100.0% Resource K [g K2O] 168% 168% 100.0% Land occupation.0% 100. newGLEU in % newSOY newGLEU in % SOY new-SOY in % SOY newGLEU in % GLEU 94% 94% 100.9% 72.0% 100. total [m2a] 132% 132% 100.6% 90.6% 91.9% 99.0% 100.0% 119% 107% 89.2% 121% 107% 88.0% 98% 98% 99.0% 105% 105% 100. 20: Overview of the effects of covering the slurry lagoon and spreading slurry with a spreader with tailed hoses on the environmental impact of pork production in Catalonia. separate P potential [g P-eq/ kg pork] acidifaction [g SO2-eq/ kg pork] terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP [points/ kg pork] aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP [points/ kg pork] terrestrial ecotoxicity CML [points/ kg pork] aquatic ecotoxicity CML [points/ kg pork] human toxicity CML [points/ kg pork] terrestrial ecotoxicity CST [TEP/ kg pork] aquatic ecotoxicity CST [AEP/ kg pork] GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 79/112 .0% 100.8% 99.0% 100. combined potential N & P [g N-eq/ kg pork] eutrophication. Colours according to the assessment classes (see Tab.5% 104% 104% 100.0% 108% 108% 99. Values are expressed as relative impact for the feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from oversea) and GLEU (European grain legumes). separate N potential [g N-eq/ kg pork] eutrophication.0% 100.9% 94% 94% 100.Tab.0% 98% 71% 72.8% 126% 126% 100.0% 165% 165% 100.0% Pollutant-driven impacts Nutrient-driven impacts Resource use-driven impacts Summary of the impacts: energy demand [MJ-eq/ kg pork] global warming potential 100a [kg CO2-eq/ kg pork] ozone formation [g ethylene-eq/ kg pork] eutrophication.0% 100.0% 100. It was therefore the dominant process step in animal production (it would be even more dominant if transport of feeds had been added). We will start with feedstuff production and processing. and second. In some categories. egg. the contribution of feedstuffs was lowest in the resource-driven impacts. which also influences the environmental impacts of animal products. Basset-Mens & van der Werf.g.2 Feedstuff production and processing In the following section we will look at feedstuff production (including processing but not transport and roughage production).1 Introduction Replacing soya bean meal from overseas with European grain legumes in feedstuffs was expected to improve the environmental performance of animal products for two reasons. which had effects in all the alternatives. then transport will be discussed.1). the results of this study revealed that replacing soya bean meal with grain legumes in pig. First. the feeding alternatives with European grain legumes (GLEU) were favourable compared to the standard feeds with overseas soya bean meal as the main protein source (SOY). In general. which had a significant role in eutrophication. depending on the impact category and the case study. they require less transportation. However. but in other categories this was reversed. Feedstuff production. we will look at the productivity of the animal production system. medium in nutrient-driven impacts and highest in pollutant-driven impacts. accounted for 40% to 100% of the impacts. and cow feed did not lead to an overall environmental improvement in pork and chicken meat. The reason for treating the production of the feed ingredients and their processing at the same time is that for data reasons they could not strictly be separated in our results (see chapter 6. chicken.7 Discussion 7. and manure management. which was of major importance to the environmental performance of the animal products analysed. 2005. which was a decisive factor for the impacts on global warming potential. showing that feedstuffs play a major role in the environmental impact of animal products (e. Eriksson GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 80/112 . and milk production. The different mechanisms leading to these contrasting results will be discussed in the following sections for the most important process steps in the animal production systems. These results are in line with other studies. The chapter will end with a discussion of further environmental impacts that have not been analysed in these case studies. European grain legumes have agricultural advantages leading to reduced fertiliser and pesticide inputs due to symbiotic nitrogen fixation and the break crop effect in crop rotations. 7. including processing. Finally. We will then continue by looking at land transformation. the arable crops are fertilised with mineral fertiliser. in some case studies. In this study. The results of this study. feedstuff production makes a large contribution to the total environmental burden of animal products for several reasons. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 81/112 . For the pollutant-driven impacts. with the exception of Spain (Nemecek & Baumgartner. the introduction of grain legumes into feedstuffs tended to have negative impacts. resulting in high yields of the raw materials (this will be discussed later in this chapter). Second. underline the importance of holistic approaches in evaluating environmental measures in order to prevent shifts from one environmental problem to another. improved ecotoxicity assessment methods would be needed in order to draw conclusions. as the positive effects of the reduced use of soya bean meal and energy-rich feeds were often counteracted by the negative effects of cultivating the grain legumes themselves or the accompanying protein-rich feeds. This is due to the pesticides with particularly high impact factors which are used on the feed ingredients replacing the soya bean meal. First. Here. which range from very favourable to very unfavourable effects for GLEU compared with SOY. Third. the results were determined by the whole composition of the feed formulas rather than by the replacement of soya bean meal with grain legumes. it must be emphasised that replacing soya bean meal with grain legumes alters the whole composition of the feed formulas. Against our expectations. For the feed formulas with grain legumes as the major protein source (GLEU). egg. especially sunflower and rapeseed meal. and milk production. no clear overall environmental improvement could be seen when replacing soya bean meal with grain legumes in the present case studies on pork and chicken meat. as results varied considerably depending on the methodology used. respectively from one process unit to another. the European animal production systems assessed have high outputs per time unit. (having an energyintensive production and also emitting greenhouse gases). In order to be able to produce these quantities of animal products large amounts of feedstuffs or supplementary feed (in the case of dairy cows) are needed. where farmyard manure from animal husbandry is not available (see also chapter 7. However. the production intensity of the feedstuffs incorporated in the European regions assessed is high.. There was little effect on nutrient-driven impacts.3). because they stem from regions specialised in arable farming. Katajajuuri.et al. 2007). Thus. not only the protein-rich feed part. These results underline that measures targeting this part of the life cycle could lead to significant environmental improvements. 2005. benefits could be found in resource use-driven impacts due to reduced amounts of energy-rich feeds. 2006). This is one of the reasons why the energy demand of producing 1 kg of milk. This is illustrated in the milk case study in DAC. Hospido et al. this leads to an overall high energy demand of milk production. where very energy-consuming ingredients are incorporated in the feed formula. such as beet and citrus pulp. Another factor influencing the total environmental burden of milk is the co-product allocation procedure applied. respectively. 2002.6). the results are determined by the composition of the whole feed formulas. which are discussed under 7. The high proportion of peas in the GLEU alternative in combination with the low yield level of Spanish peas resulted in unfavourable impacts on eutrophication potential and terrestrial ecotoxicity (according to EDIP) and in very unfavourable impacts on land occupation and use of potassium. However. The origin has implications on the biotic and abiotic conditions. From an environmental point of view. especially when their yield is comparatively low in relation to the yields of other feed ingredients. but the yield is diminished. the production techniques and inputs used. at nearly 8 MJ.. One can question the use of dried by-products. The applied feed formulas were calculated with an economic feedstuff optimisation model (see chapter Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. As the environmental impact of cultivating an arable crop is divided by its yield to obtain its impact per kilogram. Furthermore. is much higher than in other case studies. 2003.5 3. The drying has a high energy-demand and is necessary in order to make them a global tradable commodity. where the energy demand ranges between 1. which together influence the yield. Erzinger et al. 1998) and 4 . Another reason is that the relative amount of concentrate feeds in the total feed (including roughage) is relatively high. The feed formulas obtained reflect common practice. 2004..5 MJ/kg (Eide.7 MJ/kg (Rossier & Gaillard. This is exemplified in the Catalonian pork case study. 2004). As concentrate feeds have a much higher energy demand than roughage feed.As mentioned above. efforts should be made to optimise eco-efficiency of the feed ingredients. the frequently low yield level of grain legumes is a constraint to increasing their use. Two characteristics of the feed ingredients are important when assessing environmental performance: the origin and the yield of the agricultural commodity... In this case study. it has consequences on the transport distances. such as citrus and beet pulp (energy-rich feeds) and rapeseed meal and maize gluten (different protein-rich feeds).). as milk and meat are produced at the same time. in feedstuffs. this ratio becomes less favourable when the impacts of cultivation are similar. Nemecek et al. economic allocation was chosen. Haas et al. 2001.3. Either the drying could be done with renewable energy resources or GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 82/112 . 2004. which means having an optimal ratio between environmental impact and yield (see chapter 7. the formulas are not optimised regarding their impact on the environment. Cederberg. Therefore. When calculating feed formulas an environmental optimisation could be included by attributing systematically environmental information to the raw materials. and similar to very unfavourable effects for ecotoxicity. The SAA alternative for pork production in North Rhine-Westphalia had similar results to the GLEU alternative. the SAA alternative remained very similar to the GLEU alternative. The SAA alternative in the broiler chicken production had. in other impact categories. especially with regards to N and P. Hence. large reductions could be achieved. in the broiler chicken study the shift towards increased sunflower and gluten meal. To assess the impact of the energy-consuming feedstuffs. The changes in the composition of the feed formulas. would help reduce the environmental burden from animal excrement in manure storing and spreading. However. respectively. mostly favourable to very favourable effects on the resource use-driven impacts (except for energy demand and ozone formation). similar and favourable effects for energy demand and global warming potential. just as with introducing grain legumes into feed formulas. In the pork production case study. The inclusion of higher levels of synthetic amino acids (SAA) in pork and broiler chicken feed lead to different results in the two case studies. compared to SOY. as a consequence of the higher synthetic amino acid levels is the reason why this effect could not be seen in our case studies. as well as maize (instead of peas. soya bean and rapeseed meal as well as wheat) had positive effects. compared with SOY. which means. similar effects for nutrient-driven impacts. one has to bear in mind that the quantities of synthetic amino acids in feed formulas are small. Moreover. and there were only very small differences for the process steps ‘housing’ and ‘manure management’. This shows that. the effects from introducing higher levels of synthetic amino acids predominantly stem from the accompanying changes in the composition of the feed formulas. to avoid a shift from one environmental problem to another. This is contrary to our expectations that increasing levels of synthetic amino acids would improve the digestibility of the feed and hence lead to reduced emissions from manure and housing.these by-products could be used in the vicinity of the plants. We strongly suggest that feed optimisation models should be extended with environmental optimisation criteria. mainly on ecotoxicity impacts.8. their impact on the environment from production and transport is comparatively small. where they could be preserved by ensilaging. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 83/112 . similar impacts for nutrient-driven impacts.3). This highlights the importance of a holistic approach. SAA had a similar effect on the nutrient-driven impacts compared with SOY. In both case studies. a sensitivity analysis was calculated with alternative feed formulas not containing beet and citrus pulp and only little maize gluten (see chapter 6. For energy demand. the new feed formulas had much higher environmental impacts. Optimised feeding. However. and very favourable effects for ecotoxicity. distances between production areas of the domestic feed ingredients and Catalonia are relatively large. rapeseed meal and peas) mainly from the domestic market with the exception of soya bean meal.3 Transport One of the suggested advantages of replacing soya bean meal from North and South America with European grain legumes were the positive environmental impacts due to less transport. as well as from the main ports for agricultural commodities. domestic transport is comparatively high. But we can also identify differences with regard to their location in relation to the transport infrastructures. they are well-connected to water transport by canals and consequently some ingredients are delivered to the feed mill gate by barge (e. barley. The results of the five presented case studies from four European regions showed that transport of feeds is a key factor. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 84/112 .e. the port of Rosario is relatively close to areas where many agricultural commodities are grown.Altering the nutritional properties of grain legumes. rapeseed and sunflower meal as well as foreign wheat. The four European Regions have different supply chains for animal feedstuffs.e. Although the feed mills in North Rhine-Westphalia are a long way from a sea port. The three soya bean production areas considered. While feed compounders in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) cover their need for the principal feed ingredients (i. barley and maize). 7. However. At the same time they are not far from the domestic centres of arable crop production. have different conditions for domestic transport. maize. the feed compounders purchase the feed ingredients predominantly from the domestic market.g. wheat. Devon and Cornwall are relatively far away from the British oil and feed mill industries. before the soya beans leave for Europe. In Brittany both the ocean ports and the production areas of the main domestic feed ingredients are in comparison a medium distance from the feed mills. and thus keep lorry transport to a medium level. In Brittany (BRI) and in Devon and Cornwall (DAC). due to its geographical position in the northeast of Spain. due to their comparatively central geographic location. In Iowa (USA). soya bean. Thus. In Catalonia the feed industry is served by the large ports of Barcelona and Tarragona which are close by and this results in small transport distances not only from the port to the feed mills but also from the oil mills to the feed mills. Cordoba for Argentina. among them soya beans. as the oil mills are located close to these large ports. barley from the UK and maize from France. i. Mato Grosso for Brazil and Iowa for the USA. the feed compounders in Catalonia (CAT) are dependent on imports. e. through plant breeding would change their value in animal feeding. In Argentina. especially their protein content and their amino acid composition. wheat from France and the USA.g. So there is a 400km transportation distance (by lorry) to the port. but depend on the changes made as a consequence of this replacement to the ingredients of which the feed formulas are composed. In all assessed case studies. As mentioned above. tractor has the highest energy demand and global warming potential. barge. transport of feeds accounts for 4% to 21% of the total energy demand. the means of transport are also important. in this study a maximum of 20km. and also a reduction in maize in the GLEU alternative. Even though transport by trans-oceanic freighter has the least environmental impacts per kilometre of the means of transport compared. Throughout the assessed case studies. having approximately a quarter of the energy demand and of the impact on GWP of lorry transport. For global warming potential (GWP) the range is between 2% and 11%. There the soya beans are loaded to a barge transporting them over 1600km to New Orleans. i. rail. either by barge or by trans-oceanic freight ship.haulage by lorry is 300km to the port of Dubuque. Finally. It should be borne in mind that the transatlantic transport of soya bean meal is in the range of 10000km. As for the impact categories assessed (see chapter 4. for example in egg production in Brittany. their impact on energy demand and global warming potential from transport is not negligible. from where it is 970km by barge to the ocean port. Regarding the environmental impacts. Soya beans from Mato Grosso are transported for about 900km by lorry to a fluvial port. This means. the results are not solely due to replacing soya bean meal with European grain legumes. and trans-oceanic freight ship (see Appendix 7). there is an increase in sunflower meal and gluten meal. followed by lorry. Tractor transport has a nearly twofold higher energy demand and impact on GWP than transport by lorry. in addition to the distance. compared with the standard SOY. Per kilometre of transported ton. transport by trans-oceanic freighter has an energy demand and impact on GWP which is over sixteen times smaller than lorry transport. the GLEU alternative had. from where a trans-oceanic freighter takes them to Europe.2). soya beans from Brazil have a two disadvantages compared to US and Argentinean soya: higher impacts on GWP due to land transformation and higher impacts from transport. the long distances add up to a considerable impact for this form of transport. Transport by barge and rail are in the same range. Replacing soya bean meal in the GLEU alternative thus reduces impacts from water transport. are relatively efficient means of transport. Thus. As transport by tractor is only done over rather short distances. these changes mainly affect the road transport. reduced energy demand and reduced global warming potential for transport.e. these changes have consequences for transport and the impacts caused by it. As most of the European feed ingredients are transported by lorry. Even though ship transport. it is marginal for the impacts from transport. the soya beans from Brazil include a long GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 85/112 . Thus. Energy demand and GWP of feedstuffs could be reduced by choosing barge or rail transport instead of lorry. that due to replacing soya bean meal with peas. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 86/112 .g. are the relatively low costs of transporting by road compared with storing feed ingredients and the specialisation of entire regions in a branch of agricultural production. and oilseed rape were produced on-farm. The feed alternative SAA in the pork case study (NRW) only has small differences compared to the GLEU alternative. The short-SOY alternative for chicken meat production (BRI) has considerably higher impacts from transport on energy demand and GWP than the standard SOY due to the high proportions of soya bean meal from Brazil and Argentina (27. Even though transport is not the dominant process step in these two categories. in the standard SOY it accounts for 18%. although the former has higher environmental impacts per tkm. other protein-rich feeds and the energy-rich feeds they are replacing. This favours lorry transport to rail or barge transport. In areas specialising in animal production the stocking capacities are high and hence there is a problem with how to deal with manure. e. In the FARM alternative. several negative impacts on the environment. they rely on punctual delivery of those ingredients in the quantities their mills are able to process. However. hence the effects on transport are similar. barley. i. As a result.3% vs. respectively. e. 13.9%) in these feed formulas. peas. which influence transport. This results in negative environmental impacts. global warming potential and drinking water. impacts for transport are reduced fivefold for energy demand and global warming potential.inland transport distance by lorry to the fluvial port. The specialisation of entire regions in a particular branch of agricultural production in many European countries has. Two additional factors. In the chicken meat case study (BRI) the feed formulas of the SAA and GLEU alternatives differ much more. As a consequence. despite its economic advantages. for eutrophication. Regarding transport it can be said that the combination of European grain legumes with other protein-rich feeds in the GLEU alternatives has a lower energy demand and has a lower impact on global warming potential than soya bean meal. The former aspect leads to feed compounders trying to have small stocks and warehouse capacities. wheat. this important decrease is the main reason for a very favourable reduction.e. transport is 4% of the total energy demand. All the main feed ingredients. the effects of transport on energy demand and GWP are similar compared with SOY.g. Consequently. This is a strong argument for local feed production. chicken meat and egg production in Brittany. the effect on transport from replacing the soya beans is particularly noticeable for the case studies using Brazilian soya bean meal in comparatively large quantities. The FARM alternative in pork production (NRW) was especially designed to address the impacts of transport within Europe. there is only a little soya bean meal included in these feed formulas. when land transformation is taken into consideration. the effects of reclaiming land for soya bean cultivation and oil palm plantations were only considered as carbon release for the impact category GWP. carbon release from land transformation is what tips the scale for GWP in most of the case studies. In addition. which have high resource uses (energy demand. and not as much CO2 is released in this process. Therefore. land transformation increases the differences between GLEU and SOY. where no additional land is reclaimed for soya cultivation. For Brazil. carbon losses due to biomass-burning were not considered. showing GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 87/112 . the results of GLEU and SOY are also similar. In Argentina. 2007). but the slightly negative effect of GLEU changes to a slightly positive one. However. nutrients. The estimates used for CO2-release from land transformation are conservative. In the milk case study. impacts from transport could be lessened along with other environmental impacts caused by this segmentation. the differences between the alternatives are smaller. In the pork case study in Catalonia. differences between the alternative feed formulas could therefore be even bigger.4 Land transformation – a decisive factor on global warming potential The high demand for animal feeds increases competition for cultivation area and puts pressure on the Brazilian and Malaysian rainforests and Argentinean savannah. In Brazil. phosphate and potassium ore) and hence also negative impacts on global warming potential. but the impacts are still considered to be similar. where cultivation area is mainly reclaimed from savannah and not from rainforests. In the chicken meat and egg production studies (BRI) and in the pork production study (NRW). in accordance with the original source used (Jungbluth et al. have to be brought in by using mineral fertilisers. and 30% of it originates from Argentina.In regions specialising in growing arable crops. half of the soya bean meal is from the USA. The effects of including carbon release in the slash are exemplified in the sensitivity analysis for Catalonia. 7. the GWP of soya bean meal production is twice as high when carbon release from land transformation is included. and hence. In this case study. the favourable effect of GLEU compared to SOY only exists if carbon release from land transformation is considered. By bringing animal and feed production geographically closer. due to the absence of animal husbandry. only the carbon released during biomass burning (20% of total carbon) and released from soil during cultivation is considered. In this study. the carbon in the slash (70% of the carbon) is not included in the estimate. results for GWP are dominated by methane emissions from animals. (excluding beet and citrus pulp because of their high energy demand).5 Manure management – there is potential for optimisation Manure management mainly has effects on eutrophication potential and also on global warming potential (through induced N2O emissions). However. Ammonia losses can be reduced by diluting the slurry. Obviously manure applications should coincide with the nutrient requirements (namely N) of the fertilised plants. Avoiding manure spreading before heavy precipitation is essential. the crude protein (N) content did not differ much between the alternatives. Manure storage can be optimised by covering the slurry lagoon. In most case studies. 7. Exceptions are the short-fattening feed formulas in the broiler study in BRI and the new feed formulas for the milk study (DAC). which is covered with animal excrement. but light rain after manure application reduces the saturation deficit of the air and thus ammonia volatilisation. loss of biodiversity should be considered. clean and as small as necessary. incorporation of the slurry and dung into the soil or using a spreader with tailed hoses (Menzi et al. Ammonia losses in housing can be reduced by keeping the housing surface. respectively. At the same time induced N2O emissions are reduced. The consequence is a 16% higher eutrophication potential of manure management and a 13% higher one for housing. Hence. a practice which in the regions studied was found to be common only in North Rhine-Westphalia. 1997). This results in a higher eutrophication potential of manure management (+8%) and especially of housing (+22%) in the short-SOY alternative. depending on the animal species. The altered feed composition for dairy cows. Here. methodological improvements need to be made in order to assess this impact properly for tropical rainforests as well. the crude protein content is 15% higher than in the SOY alternative. Other possibilities to reduce impacts from animal excrement are through improved housing and manure management. the eutrophication potential of manure management and housing in the alternatives was similar. There are different measures and techniques to reduce emissions from manure spreading. Besides the effects on GWP. that were calculated as a sensitivity analysis (chapter 6.. These results highlight the importance of considering the effects of altered N and P content of the diets on animal emissions. soil loosening before the slurry application. For animal husbandry several measures. this has two disadvantages: It requires new construction measures and might conflict with animal welfare. (1997). In the short-SOY alternative. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 88/112 . are described by Menzi et al. leads to a 28% higher crude protein content of the SOY alternative.that the global warming potential of SOY and the GLEU alternative would increase by 18% and 7%.8.1). e. using the reciprocal values. if simple. which means there is 4% less feed needed for the pork production in North RhineWestphalia.804kg of feed per kg weight gain (live weight) in Catalonia. the ratio between environmental impact and yield (Huppes & Ishikawa. However. Nevertheless. whether the yield is high or low. ploughing. Another example is the chicken meat production in Brittany: The short-SOY production system (41 days fattening) yields 0. i. but also at the input level of the same system.5). but also the economical feed conversion rate.8. harrowing. the productivity of the pork production system in North Rhine-Westphalia is higher than in Catalonia. respectively. This not only has consequences on the economic performance of the production system. productivity of the short-SOY production system is higher than the medium fattening period of 60 days.e.g. In this respect an improvement in productivity has to be aimed for. drilling and harvesting. 7. such as covering the slurry lagoon and spreading the slurry with a spreader with tailed hoses. some cropping activities. However.6 Productivity of Agricultural Goods The productivity of agricultural production systems is an important aspect when aiming for environmental optimisation. A higher production system productivity lessens the environmental burden per kg output. This is demonstrated by Spanish and German pea production. Hence. more accurate feeding regimes and skilful farmers.472kg of live weight per kg feed. we would like to stress that such productivity improvements should not be done at the expenses of animal welfare. it might be difficult to achieve further significant improvements in these fields. it is 38dt for German pea production. this could be achieved by breeding improvements or by advances in animal health. In animal production systems. while the SOY production system (60 days fattening) only produces 0. it is 2. this occurs until an GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 89/112 . will be improved when the environmental impacts are divided by a higher yield. In North Rhine-Westphalia. allowing better animal performances. This can be achieved through good agricultural practice including less feed spoilage. It is not only a matter of improving the biological feed conversion rate. the inputs into the two pea productions are not the same. This is illustrated by the different feed conversion rates in the two case studies on pork production. are introduced (see 6. In general. but also on the environmental performance. 2006). remain the same. Thus. the eco-efficiency. but more expensive measures.483kg of live weight per kg feed. While the yield per ha is 12dt for Spanish pea production. meaning the ratio between feed purchased and meat sold. In other words. Productivity is important not only at the production system output level. At the same time.686kg of feed per kg weight gain (live weight) compared with 2.The results of the sensitivity analysis on technical measures in manure management showed that the impact on eutrophication potential and on acidification can be reduced by 10% and 27%. the low eco-efficiency means that the peas have higher environmental impacts per kg commodity in most impact categories. the less milk a cow produces. landscape aesthetics (social function) and light (unlimited resource) are other unconsidered impact categories. but the entire feed should be considered. the higher the greenhouse gas emissions per kg of milk. In the case of Spanish peas. However. Further improvement in the yield might cause proportionally higher environmental impacts. To achieve an environmentally-friendly feed for dairy cows. 7. Stratospheric ozone depletion.3). soil quality.optimum eco-efficiency level is reached. and animal welfare are aspects that were not included in the life cycle assessment. hay) should be analysed and optimised. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 90/112 . if irrigated crops are incorporated in the feed formulas. grass silage. thus reducing the eco-efficiency. The clear-cutting of rainforests for soya bean cultivation has effects on biodiversity and soil quality. and milk. and these two impact categories are also affected by the cultivation of grain legumes and other feedstuffs. odour. some environmental impact categories were not considered. However. Thus. in order not to reduce the milk yield. eggs. as the number of animals needed to supply milk is essential for this category. In addition to the composition of the concentrate feeds. For the feed alternatives analysed. where concentrate feeds largely contribute to the environmental impact and direct animal emissions are less signficiant. For other impact categories. water use. Therefore optimised eco-efficiency of feed ingredients has to be a target in order to improve animal production systems. but should be of minor importance for the present case studies. Water use may be important. noise. the ratio between concentrate and roughage feeds and the kind of roughage used (fresh grass. which proved to be one reason for the unfavourable impacts of the GLEU alternative for eutrophication as well as for land occupation and the potassium resource use (see chapter 6. Casey & Holden (2005) found a negative linear relationship between greenhouse gas emissions per kg milk and milk output per cow. not only the protein sources of concentrate feeds. although it made up 70% of the feed ratio. greenhouse gas emissions may be an exception within the impact categories.3. which could counteract any positive effect for the environment. the first three aspects could be of particular importance. maize silage. the feeding has to be carefully adapted. Biodiversity. In all impact categories.7 Unconsidered Impacts Due to restricted data availability or missing methodological tools. roughage feed had only a minor environmental impact compared to concentrate feeds. reducing the concentrate feed supply may improve the environmental impact of milk production. but which are affected by the production of meat. Aspects of animal welfare. especially in the studies where Brazilian soya bean meal is used (bearing in mind the effects of the clear-cutting of rainforests).Some unconsidered impacts. where two different animal production systems (short and medium fattening periods) were compared. especially biodiversity and soil quality. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 91/112 . which are strictly speaking not environmental but rather ethical questions and thus not part of the present study. should not be ignored for the broiler study in Brittany. We assume that the GLEU alternative might be favourable compared with SOY for these two impact categories. might influence assessment of the environmental performance of the different feeding alternatives. As a possible measure we propose integrating environmental criteria into feedstuff models. as the positive effects of the reduced use of soya bean meal and energy-rich feeds are often counteracted by the negative effects of cultivating the grain legumes themselves or the accompanying protein-rich feeds. The same applies to feed formulas containing higher levels of synthetic amino acids. and milk production revealed that replacing soya bean meal with grain legumes does not lead to an overall environmental improvement. and Outlook Conclusions Introducing European grain legumes into feedstuffs for European animal production was expected to improve the environmental performance of animal products. There is little effect on nutrient-driven impacts. these results should be checked with improved ecotoxicity assessment methods. faba beans). especially sunflower and rapeseed meal. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 92/112 . Again the reason lies in the crop production. Clear benefits can only be found regarding the resource use-driven impacts due to less transport. Recommendations The diverging results across the different environmental aspects highlight the importance of a holistic approach to evaluating the integration of European grain legumes into animal feed. where the feed ingredients replacing the soya bean meal involve using particularly harmful pesticides. reduced incorporation of energy-rich feeds and absence of land transformation. the introduction of European grain legumes into animal feeds cannot be regarded as an environmental improvement on the nutrient-driven impacts. the results are more determined by the composition of the whole feed formulas than by the replacement of soya bean meal with grain legumes itself. The results of the five case studies on meat. The impact of this feeding system is more influenced by the changes induced in the composition of the feed formulas than by the increase of the synthetic amino acids. allowing the optimisation of feed formulas in terms of economic and environmental aspects. it has to be emphasised that the positive effects of symbiotic Nfixation occur for both the standard feeding system SOY and the alternative feeding system GLEU. It must be highlighted that replacing soya bean meal with grain legumes changes the composition of the whole feed formulas and not only the protein-rich feeds part. Consequently. In addition. egg. in order to make it possible to detect shifts from one environmental problem to another. However. as in some case studies they vary considerably depending on the methodology chosen. For the pollutant-driven impacts. the introduction of grain legumes into feedstuffs tends to be negative. Hence. Efforts for improvements should target feedstuff production. as it represents a significant share of the environmental impacts of animal production. as one grain legume (soya beans) is replaced by another one (peas. Recommendations.8 Conclusions. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 93/112 . This is particularly important in cases where Brazilian and Argentinean soya bean meal is used. adjusting the timing of slurry spreading and use of appropriate spreading techniques). and phosphorus-content of the diet.Several factors have been identified that improve the environmental performance of animal products: • Local feedstuff production is favourable. nitrogen-. unlike now. Here.g. to get better results which are not. a more reliable methodology is needed. This study showed that a generalisation of the results is not possible. a simplified approach was used to estimate emissions according to the energy-.e. The environmental impact of introducing European grain legumes into animal feeds of other animal production systems or in other regions need to be analysed individually. transport infrastructure. • Finally. eco-efficiency. Especially for dairy cows. Here. Here. 2008). as results are highly dependent on composition of feed formula. methodological improvements need to be made. The same applies for ecotoxicity assessment. as dependent on the active ingredients used for treating a crop. origin of feeds. Outlook For comparison of the environmental performance of European grain legumes and overseas soya bean meal as animal feed it would be important to assess the impacts on biodiversity and soil quality. As direct animal emissions play an important role in global warming potential as well as in eutrophication. improved consideration of the effects that diet composition (including roughage and concentrate feed) has on animal methane emissions would help give a better understanding of the impact the feeding strategy has on global warming potential. are important. In this study. as lower yields often lead to higher emissions per unit of the commodity. • Feedstuffs that need little inputs in crop production and processing are preferable. • Improved feed conversion efficiency reduces the consumption of feedstuffs by animals and hence reduces the overall environmental impact of animal products. the links between feed ingredients and excretion and direct emissions. it is important to consider inputs in relation to yield levels. i. the consumption of large amounts of animal products has to be questioned (see also Davis & Sonesson. and farm management practices. feed conversion rate of animals. as natural habitats are transformed into crop land for soya bean cultivation. by covering the slurry lagoon. • Manure management has scope for improvement (e. respectively. as the examples of milk (Eide. eggs. 2002) and pork production (Davis & Sonesson.To assess the overall environmental impact of pork. and storage of the respective product. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 94/112 . the agricultural phase is a major hot spot. distribution. However. packaging. and milk. important processes that also need to be considered are: processing. chicken meat. 2008) show. Göteborg. Agreste Bretagne. Available at http://www. 2005b. Porto de Santos.arabbrazil. CODESP. 34: 429436. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2008.agriculture.08. ArabBrazil Trade Consulting.. Accessed 12.portodesantos. AgrarNet. AG Decision Maker. 2008. Accessed 12.. La statistique agricole.1.08. 26-27 April 2001. 2005. Animal production sectors in seven european countries.1. The orange story. Accessed 12. ARIANE version 2005v2.cat/economia/doc/doc_51992949_1. Agreste. et al. Geerken T. Santos and its market. ArabBrazil.htm.08.de/tabellen/f2960. 2005. 1998.fr/IMG/pdf/R5306A01. Direction Régionale de l’Agriculture et de la Forêt de Bretagne. Accessed 12. 36: 18-19. Cederberg C.edu/agdm/homepage. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment. Available at http://www. Available at http://agreste. Cechura L. Available at http://www. Accessed Jan.. Hucko J. 2008. Accessed 12. Gothenburg.. 2007. BOCM-PAULS. 2005. Companhia Docas do Estado de São Paulo.co. Easy ways and accesses.9 References AgDM. Scenario-Based Environmental Assessment of Farming Systems: the Case of Pig Production in France. 2005. Direction Régionale de l’Agriculture et de la Forêt de Bretagne. 2008.uk/. En région.1. SIK-Rapport 643.1.xls. 2005.extension.gouv. Agreste Bretagne. & Hernández E. (eds).gouv.M. Accessed Jan.pdf. Synthetic studies preceding the GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 95/112 .08.iastate. Available at http://agreste..gencat.M..A Comparison of Conventional and Organic Farming.com/negocios/mercado5-i.gouv. Getreide.bmelv-statistik. A standardised method to assess the environmental impact of grain legumes.de/.html.W. Available at http://agreste.. 2008.08. BOCM PAULS. Service de Statistique Agricole.bocmpauls. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on LCA in Foods.01. Available at http://www. Universitat Politència de Catalunya. Service de Statistique Agricole.1. System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production. outil d'optimisation de formules d'aliments composés. Crépon K. Recensement avicole 2004-2005 . AgrarNet.html.1. Accessed 12.08. Casey J. Available at http://www. Accessed 12. Cederberg C.La volaille de chair perd 1m2 sur 5.com/orgsto. 2005a.. Available at http://www. Alvarez L. Accessed 12.1.. Life Cycle Assessment of Milk Production . 22-27. Available at http://www. Miguelanez R.pdf. BMELV. Grain Legumes. SIK. & Nemecek T.1. 105: 127-144. 2006. 2001. 2005. 2008.fr/IMG/pdf/R5306A02.. 2007.pdf. VITO.html. 86 p. Charles R.. Cottrill B.08.agriculture.08. & Holden N. Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK).La filière oeufs de consommation perd du terrain. & Pressenda F.G. The relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and the intensity of milk production in Ireland. & Stadig M.fr/region_5/index. Eficiència energètica en el sector de fabricació de pinsos i Situació a Catalunya. Basset-Mens C.und Kartoffelernte 2006 nach Ländern. & van der Werf H.agranet. CEREOPA. Recensement avicole 2004-2005 .agriculture. . 2004. Agriculture in the European Union – statistical and economic information 2004. Farm Nutrient Management Scheme (Northern Ireland) 2005. Paris. Transportation.1136162. EUROSTAT. Crops. SIK . Available at http://seattletimes. Environmental potential of grain legumes in meals . Accessed 11. Grain Legumes Integrated Project. Final Report WP2. 2005..nwsource. Stern S. Accessed 12. 224 p. Choices: Fish.. & Zimmermann A. Available at http://www..08. AGRARForschung.A. 2005.01..eu/portal/page?_pageid=0. Farm Nutrient Production and Storage Workbook. 2004.defra.com/html/nationworld/2002339093_brazilfuel17. FNMS 4.02. Available at http://ec. Department for Environment.. 2004. Tools for Environmental Analysis and Management.. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 96/112 . Available at http://www. 2004.0_45572076&_dad =portal&_schema=PORTAL. WP 2. Ecobilan.xls. & Sonesson U. 7: 115-126.aidenvironment. Göteborg 47 p.M.gov.Life cycle assessment of meals with varying content of peas.The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology. CD-ROM. 11: 120-125. Livestock Production Science. Available at http://www. Accessed 12.2008. Dux D.org/cgibin/absolutenm/templates/?a=1141&z=3. 2008.2.1. 80: 69-77. ecoinvent Centre. Managing the soy boom: Two scenarios of soy production expansion in South America.europa. Eide M. 2005. 11: 60-65. 80 p.. Davis J.com/. Accessed 13. Dalby R. Dros J. Accessed 12.. 2008. Defra. DEFRA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. & Nybrant T. Int J LCA.uk/esg/datasets/dec_region04. World Ports Distances Calculator Accessed 12.08. & Aanondsen S. Environmental Impacts of Wild Caught Cod and Farmed Salmon . Erzinger S. 2002. 2003.1. 2005. Ellingsen H.08. Dübendorf. Economics and Statistics. Washington Business Magazine.org/soy/06_managing_the_soy_boom. TEAM™ User’s Manual. General and regional statistics.ruralni.. 10: 143-154. Accessed 26. Environmental Analysis of the Food Chain. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. . Ökologie und Wirtschaftlichkeit in der Milchproduktion.pdf.H. European Union. Distances.europa. Environmental Impact Assessment of Conventional and Organic Milk Production. 1 .building of models simulating the raw materials supply of feed compounders. econinvent data v1. Badertscher Fawaz R. Economic Analysis. 2006.08. The Seattle Times.gov. ..1.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.A Comparison with Chicken.gov. Accessed 12. Electricity.com.0.S. Accessed 13.07.2008. Available at http://statistics.2.defra.15. DARDNI.02. Dickerson M. 2005. Elmquist H. Available at http://epp.J. 2005.1. GLIP Deliverable D2. Final reports ecoinvent 2000 No.pdf.2008.distances.02.1.eurostat.uk/fnms-storage-workboo_cmb. 2008. SIK report no 771. Environmental Systems Analysis of Pig Production .awb. Economics and Statistics. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of industrial milk production.. Eriksson I. De Boer I..html. Available at http://statistics.eu/agriculture/agrista/2004/table_en/2004enfinal. Version 4.2005. Available at http://www. Brazil's ethanol effort helping lead to oil self-sufficiency. UNIP.08.the Impact of Feed Choice.uk/esg/.ec.1. 2008. Food and Rural Affairs.M.pdf. . London. & Wenzel H. Rebitzer G. Nemecek T. Cambridge University Press. Frischknecht R. Simplified Life Cycle Assessment of Galician Milk Production. Available at http://www.G. Lindeijer E. GO-East.07. Government Office for the East of England. 2004.com. Houghton J. & Ishikawa M. Vol. Agroscope FAL Reckenholz 42 p. & Feijoo G. Guthrie.P.08. Hauschild M.1. . Available at http://www. Iowa Farmer Today.guthrie. Ports...01. 565 p. Meira Filho L.fediol. van Duin R. 2006. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment. ecoinvent report 1. & Spielmann M.. Chapman & Hall. Available at http://www... Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories (ecoinvent). Search engine for the database of member companies. Hospido A.08.. Kumpulan Guthrie Berhad..guthrie. 76 p.01. Moreira M. Hellweg S. Guthrie. Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) and Centre of Environmental Science (CML). Environmental assessment of products.. Accessed 12.. Mills. boosts input costs.08.-J. Accessed 16. 2006. Wetterich F. Modell zur Berechnung der Schwermetallflüsse in der Landwirtschaftlichen Ökobilanz. Udo de Haes H. 2008.A. Available at http://www..ecoinvent data v1.. 2008. de Bruijn H. Suh S.A. Note on E/E terminology. Netherlands.com. GNIS.eco-efficiencyconf.02. & Maskell A. Available at http://www.08. Extension of the “Nitrate leaching potenial”-model for the evaluation of the nitrate leaching potential of grazed grassland in LCA. La production du mais en France en 2002.An operational guide to the ISO standards. Huppes G.. Accessed 13. Hoskins T.. 2nd International Conference on Quantified Eco-Efficiency Analysis for Sustainability. Huijbregts M. Available at http://www.htm. 2005. Accessed 12. Doka G. 28-30 June 2006.J. Available at http://www. 2001. Callander B.eugrainlegumes.H.my/files/statistic/estates_msia.A..com/articles/2005/09/13/top_stories/01hurricane. Accessed 04.T... Life cycle assessment . Haas G. Kleijn R.FAO. 83: 43-53. de Koning A. Roorda A..1. FEDIOL.. Althaus H. Hurricane undercuts grain prices. Hischier R.. 2.em. Freiermuth R. extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment.A. International Dairy Journal.iowafarmer. Accessed 12.B. 2003.asp..php.my/files/statistic/mills_msia.. Key Statistics of Food and Agricultural External Trade.T.pdf. 2001.org/content/home. 2: Scientific background. Overview and Methodology . van Oers L. Climate Change 1995 .. 2005. 1995. Huppes G...01. Guinée J.terminology.shtml.. & Köpke U.. Comparing intensive. Kumpulan Guthrie Berhad. & Weidema B. FAO-Statistics.. Ministry of Housing. Dübendorf.. 1998.1. Huguenin O. Estates in Malaysia. GLIP. Harris H.org/pages/mais/chap1/4.2008. Heijungs R. Den Haag and Leiden. Factories and Installations in Malaysia. Available at http://www.07.. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 97/112 . Grain Legumes Integrated Project: an overview.be/4/index2..The science of climate change.gnis-pedagogie.01.. Kattenberg A. 2003.org/es/ess/toptrade/trade. United Kingdom... Jungbluth N.fao. Accessed 16... 2008. Accessed 12. Gorrée M. 13: 783-796.org/summary/index.02. 2004. 2002. EU Oil and Proteinmeal Industry.htm.2008.. 2005.pdf. Wegener Sleeswijk A. 08. Roth F. Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. Ausgabe 2003. Accessed 12. IPCC. 27-29 August 2007.08. Itharattana K.. ISO. MapCrow..org/docrep/005/Y9422E/y9422e05.edu/research/webpapers/paper_11420.iastate. Experiences and Improvemtent Possibilities . 1993. & Crettaz P. 17. Available at http://www... Available at www. Life Cycle Inventories of Bioenergy. ISO. Travel Distance Calculator. 2003. Ammoniakemissionen nach der Gülleanwendung auf Grünland.. yield and production of Thai cassava roots. A Modal Share Analysis.htm. Lence S. 2001. Kljun N. LBL. and Sutter J. Dinkel F.S. Accessed 12.econ.08. & Windisch W. UK. Dübendorf. Final report ecoinvent data v2.01. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 98/112 .usda.1. MATRIC Research paper 00-MRP-2. Available at http://www. Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Accessed 12.de/Dateien/Rapsanbau_.. Anuario de Estadística Agroalimentaria. Cambridge University Press. LBL. Ministerio de Agricultura. 1978-2004.1. Swiss Federal Insitute of Technology. 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management. Accessed 12. ISO 14040 . SRVA & FiBL. 608 p. Germany.1.IBGE..LCA Case Study of Broiler Chicken Production.asp.gov/tmd/TSB/Modal_Share.Volume II: Invited Papers. ETH.1.08. 2007.X..mappy. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Tierernährung... Pesca y Alimentación. 2003. Available at http://www.08. Lindau 150 p.1. IPCC. Kirchgessner M. 1996. 2006. 2008... Doka G. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.mapa. Zürich. Marathon N.T. Kirchgessner M. Switzerland. Spielmann M.ima-agrar. Geneva... Rapsanbau in Deutschland. Tierernährung.br/home/presidencia/noticias/25112004pam.E. 2008. DLG-Verlags-GmbH.-M. Verminderung der Stickstoff. Forecast of area. 46 p.Life cycle assessment .fao. Transportation of U.pdf. IMA.com.shtm. Switzerland.. FAO. Katajajuuri J. Accessed 12. Produção Agrícola Municipal 2003.info/. Zurich. Katz P. 2000. 2004.1.Environmental management .gov. Stettler C. Available at http://www.pdf. Deckungsbeiträge.pdf.. Chudacoff M.H. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. 1997. Faist Emmenegger M. Cambridge.ibge. In: Houghton J. Available at http://www.es/es/estadistica/pags/anuario/Anu_03/indice. 11382.. 21: 889-120. Available at http://www. Accessed 12. Ph. Dauriat A.medien.08. Frankfurt am Main. Gnansounou E. Jolliet O. In: Proceedings of the Expert Consultation on Root Crop Statistics . 2008. & Vachal K.D. Accessed 12. Lausanne 79 p.08. Jungbluth N. CH. 2006..agrar.und Methanausscheidung von Schwein und Rind durch die Fütterung. Thesis. Available at http://www. Accessed 12. A comparative marketing analysis of major agricultural products in the United States and Argentina. The Edinburgh Building Shaftesbury Road. 2003..mapcrow.. Institute of Soil and Water Management. information.0 No. Critical Surface-Time 95: A life cycle impact assessment methodology including fate and exposure.1. 2008. VanWechel T.ams. Mappy S. Route planning. et al.. (eds).08. MAPA. Grains.Principles and framework. Heil A. Menzi H. Dübendorf. McVey M...edu/AGDM/articles/others/McVeyNov00. Schumacher K. Methanemissionen der schweizerischen Landwirtschaft. Gaillard G. Meyers S. National Atlas of the United States.H. NASS. BUWAL. Available at http://www. Charles R. Nemecek T. Agroscope ReckenholzTänikon Research Station ART..1. Gaillard G.08. Erzinger S.. 107 p. 2003a. 285 p. Frick R. & Vliet O. Methode zur Beurteilung der Wirkungen landwirtschaftlicher Bewirtschaftung auf die Bodenqualität in Ökobilanzen – SALCA-SQ. 2004. Nemecek T. AGRARForschung. Lehman B.01. 2008. SALCA . & Kaufmann R.. Ammoniak-Emissionen in der Schweiz: Ausmass und technische Beurteilung des Reduktionspotentials. Accessed 12. Concerted Action GL-Pro WP4: Environmental Analysis. Spreen T. Umweltinventare für die Landwirtschaft..ecoinvent data v1. Schriftenreihe der FAL 26. 130 p. Version 031a. Agroscope FAL Reckenholz.nass.. Muraro R... ecoinvent report 15.und Futterbau. Accessed 12. 2001..asp. Ökobilanzierung von Anbausystemen im Schweizerischen Acker. Life cycle inventories of agricultural production systems . 2006. FAL. Crettaz P. Preliminary Assessment of Potential CDM Early Start Projects in Brazil. Meier S. Heil A.. 2003b. Nemecek T.Margni M.lbl.01. Baumel P. & Erzinger S.08. 2006..gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/. Schriftenreihe Umwelt 298. Zürich.. Zürich-Reckenholz. & A. 1998. & Pahl H. Bericht FAL und FAT 86 p.extension. Online at http://www.html?lang=de 98 p.. Weiss F. Comparative Costs of Growing Citrus in Florida and Sao Paulo (Brazil) for the 2000-01 Season..html. Dubois D. 2002. Huguenin-Elie O..admin.. Minonzio G. Brazilian soybeans -. Available at http://www. Huguenin O. & Zimmermann A. Environmental impacts of introducing grain legumes into European crop rotations.pdf. 2000.-R. 156 p. Z. Schriftenreihe der FAL 58.. Agroscope FAL Reckenholz.-S. Nemecek T.P. 11: 324-329. Gaillard G. 2000... 1997.gov/natlas/Natlasstart.. Oberholzer H. Life cycle impact assessment of pesticides on human health and ecosystems. Dux D.. Blaser S. Environmental Impacts of Introducing Grain Legumes into European Crop Rotations and Pig Feed Formulas.art. Nemecek T. Zürich-Affoltern. 93: 379-392. Grub A. European Journal of Agronomy 28: 380-393.. Casta P. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories (ecoinvent). & Fuhrer J..v. Nemecek T..nationalatlas...Swiss Agricultural Life Cycle Assessment Database.. Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für Agrarökologie und Landbau. Weisskopf P.ch/themen/00617/00622/index.08. Referenzwerte für Ökobilanzen von Landwirtschaftsbetrieben. & Baumgartner D.. Available at http://www..usda. Nationalatlas. Nemecek T. & Pozzan M.. & Zimmermann A. & Freiermuth R.iastate. von Richthofen J. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment.. Dubois G.. Available at http://ies. Rossier D.gov.01. Data and Statistics..gov/iespubs/46120.. 10: 68-76. Sathaye J. 2005a.. Accessed 12... & Wisner B. Int J LCA.. 2008. Modelling Representative Life Cycle Inventories for Swiss Arable Crops. Mai 2003.. 2008. 2005b.Transportation problems. Erzinger S.. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 99/112 . & Jolliet O.. . Accessed 12. Available at http://www.com/index. Agroscope FAL Reckenholz.08. 2002.. Accessed 27. FAL-Schriftenreihe 53. Chechura L. & Giegrich J. Available at http://www. WP2. Bilan 2005. Pressenda F. Malaysian Ports. Accessed 12.html?lang=de 25 p. Richner W. Deliverable D2.usda. Freiermuth R.asp.1. United Kingdom..Institut für Energie.08..Ostermayer A. 2007.php?id=1830..SALCA-NO3. Oberholzer H. Statistischen Ämter des Bundes und der Länder.. Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina / WRS-01-3.de/1630. Schmid M. ufop. Ernten von Raps 2001-2006. 1999.-R. & Hucko J.com/index. and Policy in Argentina. Kuenzi N. Erdin D.08. 2006. & Gaillard G. Schriftenreihe der FAL 33. Protéagineux France.. Crépon K. FAL..1. Hammon H. Estimation of energy balance at the individual and herd level using blood and milk traits in highyielding dairy cows. Repubilca Argentina..... Accessed 12. 2008.1... Available at http://www.gov/publications/wrs013/wrs013e.admin.art. der Stickstoffaufnahme durch die Pflanzen und verschiedener Bodeneigenschaften. & Blum J. Statistik-Portal. Accessed 12. Accessed 12.ers. Cottrill B.de/StatistikPortal/de_inhalt11. Available at http://www.1. 131 p.. Journal of Dairy Science. Prasuhn V. 2002.08. Online at http://www.M. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 100/112 .php?id=1828. PROLEA. Knappe F.. Landwirtschaft.psml.1a.statistik-portal. 2006. Zbinden Y. 85: 3314-3327. 2001.1.SALCA-Phosphor. Bilan 2005. 142 p..de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Presse/pm/2007 /07/PD07__301__413. von Euw D. Der Schweinebestand steigt weiter.. & Fuhrer J.gov. Tschuemperlin K.ufop. ifeu . Portsworld. Zürich 22 p. The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World.. The Times. Vogt R.com/main/ports.ar/. 2004.08.mecon. & Walther U. 2008.08. 2000.art.destatis. Economic feedstuffs models adapted to different countries . N-Düngung)... Busquet M. 10th Edition. Morel C.html?lang=de. Available at http://www.und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH. Ganaderia. Grain Legumes Integrated Project.admin. Leuenberger H. London. CEREOPA . Pesca y Alimentos.2.1. Soybeans. Accessed 12.2007. Ökobilanz für DL-Methionin in der Geflügelmast.. Agriculture.htm. Neftel A.php.Presentation and description of the models.Methode und Anwendung in 50 Landwirtschaftsbetrieben. USDA.portsworld. 2008.. Bodenbearbeitung. Zürich. Online at http://www. 180 p. Ökobilanzierung des Landwirtschaftsbetriebs . Reist M.2. Paris 21 p.prolea. Agrarstatistik. Modell zur Beurteilung des Nitratauswaschungspotenzials in Ökobilanzen . Forschungsanstalt für Agrarökologie und Landbau (FAL)... Berger J. Lachgasemissionen aus der Schweizer Landwirtschaft. Rossier D. Erfassung der PO4-Austräge für die Ökobilanzierung . Available at http://www. Detzel A.Centre d’Etude et de Recherche sur l’Economie et l’Organisation des Productions Animales.W.pdf. SAGPyA – Secretaria de Agricultura. 2006. 2007. Oléagineux France.sagpya. Available at http://www.11. Unter Berücksichtigung der Bewirtschaftung (Fruchtfolge.prolea.ch/themen/00617/00622/index. Philipona C.. Economic Analysis. der mikrobiellen Nitratbildung im Boden. PROLEA. Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland. Heidelberg.ch/themen/00617/00622/index. Chilliard Y. Available at http://www. 2008.. 544 p. Estimaciones Agrícolas. 2008.. 2001.Economic interest of grain legumes in European crop rotations. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 101/112 .. Agricultural Systems.usda. The Environmental Impacts of the Production of Concentrated Feed: the Case of Pig Feed in Bretagne. Germany. 2006. Muenster. Pahl H.gov/oce/weather/pubs/Other/MWCACP/Graphs/Argentina/Argentina Soybean. & Flisch R.. 2006.und Futterbau..2 .G. Accessed 12. van der Werf H. Walther U. 83: 153-177... Major World Crop Areas and Climatic Profiles. Available at http://www. 8: 1-80.1.08.. Argentina Soybean Production Statistics.USDA. European extension network for the development of grain legumes production in the EU “GL-Pro”. Petit J.pdf. & Sanders J. 2005. Agrarforschung.M.-S.-P. Grundlagen für die Düngung im Acker. Ryser J. Deliverable 3. & Nemecek T. von Richthofen J. 10 Appendices 10.1 Appendix 1: Flow diagram of the LCA of pork production GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 102/112 . PHOSBI.g. buildings. infrastructure Chicken meat from broiler chickens Direct or indirect emissions. orange juice. citrus fruits) European grain legumes production (peas. wheat. e. maize. equipment) Crop production Oil seeds production (e. beet root.g. etc. sugar. CaCO3 Transport Processing Maize gluten production Sugar refinery. USA) Transport Production of synthetic amino acids. oil seed rape. fertilisers. Oil mill Transport Oil mill European Feed mill Transport Production of concentrated feed Transport Chicken meat production system Broiler chicken fattening Building. operation Manure storage system Manure spreading system Building.g. sunflower. faba beans) Soya bean production. land transformation (ARG. BRA. soya oil. barley. vitamins.2 Appendix 2: Flow diagram of the LCA of chicken meat production Elementary flows System boundary Preliminary stage Production of energy (fuel.g. NH3 NO3 PO4 Pesticides CH4 N2O CO2 Heavy metals GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 103/112 . bran) Transport Energy rich feeds production (e. electricity) Production of agricultural inputs (seeds. incl. rape seed oil. oil palm) Co-products from processing (e. pesticides) Production of infrastructure (machinery.10. juice-press. 10.3 Appendix 3: Flow diagram of the LCA of egg production Elementary flows System boundary Preliminary stage Production of energy (fuel, electricity) Production of agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilisers, pesticides) Production of infrastructure (machinery, buildings, equipment) Crop production Energy rich feeds production (e.g. wheat, barley, maize, beet root, citrus fruits) Oil seeds production (e.g. oil seed rape, sunflower, oil palm) Co-products from processing (e.g. soya oil, rape seed oil, sugar, orange juice, bran) Transport European grain legumes production (peas, faba beans) Soya bean production, incl. land transformation (ARG, BRA, USA) Transport Production of synthetic amino acids, vitamins, PHOSBI, CaCO3 Transport Processing Maize gluten production Sugar refinery, juice-press, etc. Oil mill Transport Oil mill European Feed mill Transport Production of concentrated feed Transport Egg production system Young hen production Transport Egg production with laying hens Building, operation Manure storage system Manure spreading system Building, infrastructure Direct or indirect emissions, e.g. Eggs NH3 NO3 PO4 Pesticides CH4 N2O CO2 Heavy metals GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 104/112 10.4 Appendix 4: Flow diagram of the LCA of milk production Elementary flows System boundary Preliminary stage Production of energy (fuel, electricity) Production of agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilisers, pesticides) Production of infrastructure (machinery, buildings, equipment) Crop production Oil seeds production (e.g. oil seed rape, sunflower, oil palm) Energy rich feeds production (e.g. wheat, barley, maize, beet root, citrus fruits) Co-products from processing (e.g. soya oil, rape seed oil, sugar, orange juice, bran) Transport European grain legumes production (peas, faba beans) Soya bean production, incl. land transformation (ARG, BRA, USA) Transport Production of synthetic amino acids, vitamins, PHOSBI, CaCO3 Transport Processing Maize gluten production Sugar refinery, juice-press, etc. Oil mill Transport Oil mill European Feed mill Transport Production of concentrated feed Transport Roughage feed Pasture Milk production system Replacement system with calves Transport Milk production with dairy cows Grass silage Building, operation Manure storage system Manure spreading system Building, infrastructure Meat from surplus calves Milk from dairy cows Direct or indirect emissions, e.g. NH3 NO3 PO4 Pesticides CH4 N2O CO2 Heavy metals GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 105/112 10.5 Appendix 5: Correction factors for feedstuff ingredients where no production or life cycle inventories were available. Approximated feedstuff ingredients cassava citrus pulp maize gluten palm kernel meal sugar cane molasses wheat bran wheat middlings Correction factors 0.88 1.34 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.60 0.75 Similar life cycle inventories grain maize dehydrated beet pulp maize starch palm kernel oil sugar beet molasses wheat grains wheat grains Basis of correction energetic energetic economic economic energetic energetic energetic Example given for cassava: Cassava was used in pig feed formulas in Catalonia. It is used in feed formulas as an energy-rich feed. Due to limited resources in the project, it was not possible to compile a life cycle inventory of cassava. Therefore an approximation was needed. As the value of cassava in animal feed is its energy content, this was used as a basis of correction. The closest available life cycle inventory was grain maize (extensive production). The energy content of maize is 3.37 MJ/kg commodity; for cassava it is 2.95 MJ/kg commodity. Dividing 2.95 MJ/kg by 3.37 MJ/kg results in the correction factor 0.88, i.e. due to its lower energy content the use of 1kg of cassava approximated with grain maize has to be multiplied by 0.88. In other words, we would need 0.880kg of grain maize to obtain the energy value of 1kg of cassava. A similar procedure applies for the other approximated feedstuff ingredients. GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 106/112 at farm. D barley grains conventional. RER chemicals inorganic. at plant. MY tallow. CH Trockenschnitzel (Zuckerproduktion. at farm. D soya beans conventional. at farm. F protein peas conventional. loose. at farm. Frischgewicht): Produktion rape seed conventional. BR soya beans conventional. BR soya beans conventional. at farm. D wheat grains conventional. BR soya beans conventional. F wheat grains conventional. CH magnesium oxide. F wheat grains conventional. at farm. F fava beans IP. DE maize starch. E barley grains conventional. at farm. at plant. E wheat grains conventional. at farm. at farm. at plant. at farm. CH grain maize IP. at plant.6 Appendix 6: Used life cycle inventories for feedstuff ingredients Feedstuff ingredients and their origin pea DEU in feed (kg) pea ESP in feed (kg) pea FRA in feed (kg) pea GBR in feed (kg) faba bean FRA in feed (kg) faba bean GBR in feed (kg) rapeseed meal DEU in feed (kg) rapeseed meal ESP in feed (kg) rapeseed meal FRA in feed (kg) rapeseed meal GBR in feed (kg) sunflower meal ARG in feed (kg) sunflower meal DEU in feed (kg) sunflower meal ESP in feed (kg) sunflower meal FRA 29% in feed (kg) sunflower meal FRA 33% in feed (kg) sunflower meal HUN in feed (kg) palm kernel meal MYS in feed (kg) maize gluten meal EUR in feed (kg) maize gluten meal USA in feed (kg) soya meal ARG in feed (kg) soya meal BRA in feed (kg) soya meal USA in feed (kg) wheat DEU in feed (kg) wheat ESP in feed (kg) wheat FRA in feed (kg) wheat GBR in feed (kg) wheat USA in feed (kg) wheat middlings DEU in feed (kg) wheat middlings ESP in feed (kg) wheat middlings FRA in feed (kg) wheat middlings GBR in feed (kg) wheat middlings USA in feed (kg) barley DEU in feed (kg) barley ESP in feed (kg) barley FRA in feed (kg) barley GBR in feed (kg) maize DEU in feed (kg) maize ESP in feed (kg) maize FRA in feed (kg) beet molasses DEU in feed (kg) beet molasses GBR in feed (kg) beet pulp DEU in feed (kg) beet pulp GBR in feed (kg) cassava THA in feed (kg) citrus pulp BRA in feed (kg) citrus pulp USA in feed (kg) rape seeds FRA in feed (kg) sugar cane molasses BRA in feed (kg) wheat bran DEU in feed (kg) soya oil ARG in feed (kg) soya oil BRA in feed (kg) soya oil USA in feed (kg) palm oil MYS in feed (kg) tallow EUR in feed (kg) lysine CHN in feed (kg) lysine EUR in feed (kg) methionine EUR in feed (kg) threonine EUR in feed (kg) CaCO3 EUR in feed (kg) calcined magnesite EUR in feed (kg) PHOSBI EUR in feed (kg) vitamins and trace elements EUR in feed (kg) Used life cycle inventories from SALCA protein peas conventional. at farm. F wheat grains conventional. at farm. BR soya beans conventional. at plant. Frischgewicht): Produktion Trockenschnitzel (Zuckerproduktion. at farm. at farm. Frischgewicht): Produktion wheat grains conventional. Frischgewicht): Produktion Trockenschnitzel (Zuckerproduktion. at farm. CH sunflower IP. GLO GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 107/112 . at farm. Frischgewicht): Produktion Melasse (Zuckerproduktion. E sunflower IP. at farm. CH rape seed conventional. at farm. F Melasse (Zuckerproduktion. at plant. at farm. E barley grains conventional. US wheat grains conventional. F rape seed conventional. at farm. F sunflowers conventional. MY maize starch. at farm. CH sunflowers conventional. F grain maize IP. Frischgewicht): Produktion Trockenschnitzel (Zuckerproduktion. at farm. at farm. E crude palm kernel oil. at farm. at farm. D rape seed extensive. at farm. E sunflower IP. Frischgewicht): Produktion grain maize IP. at farm. at farm. at plant. at farm. DE soya beans conventional. CH sunflowers conventional. CH fava beans IP. at farm. at farm. at plant. US crude palm oil. at farm. at plant. milled. D wheat grains conventional. CH Melasse (Zuckerproduktion. at farm. F barley grains conventional. at farm. GLO chemicals inorganic. CH grain maize IP. at farm. at farm. CH Methionin synthetisch: Produktion Methionin synthetisch: Produktion Methionin synthetisch: Produktion Methionin synthetisch: Produktion limestone. E protein peas conventional. at farm. at farm. D protein peas conventional. at farm. at farm. at farm.10. E wheat grains conventional. CH rape seed conventional. E wheat grains conventional. at farm. F wheat grains conventional. /tkm] 2.856 0.011 Non-renewable energy [MJ-eq.2 GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 108/112 .649 0.165 0./tkm] 0.298 0.037 0. updated version 1.782 4.046 0.167 Source: ecoinvent Centre (2004).10.711 0.7 Appendix 7: GWP and energy-demand of different means of transport Means of transport Geographical coverage of data Lorry (32t) Tractor Rail (freight) Barge (freight) Vessel (freight) Europe Switzerland Europe Europe Overseas GWP [CO2-eq. port NL Port NL . 13 Distances.cooperative cooperative . (pers. 50 % NRW Kelheim .port NL port NL .feed mill farm .Münster Rotenburg .Lowestoft Lowestoft .feed mill farm .cooperative 10000 300 20 ship barge tractor cooperative .oil mill oil mill .Lezoux Lezoux .feed mill farm .feed mill Kelheim . p. Charente Maritime (Montguyon) Montguyon .Rosario ocean port ARG .cooperative cooperative .Lezoux Toulouse .Münster 350 lorry 20 tractor 60 lorry 20 tractor 265 lorry tractor lorry barge tractor Mappy SA (2008) DEFRA (2008) BOCM PAULS (2008).cooperative Poitou-Charentes (50%) (Ruffec) Midi-Pyrénées (50%) (Toulouse) 20 tractor IMA (2008).cooperative cooperative .Münster Niedersachen (Verden 50%) Sachsen-Anhalt (Magdeburg 50%) Verden . Dietz.Münster Norwich Norwich .distribution centre distribution centre .Münster 300 600 100 50 120 15000 300 barge rail lorry lorry lorry ship barge Mappy SA (2008) Frischknecht R.Rotterdam Rotterdam . wheat bran: 100%) oil mill . communication) Bruce Cottrill.com (2008) estimate Mappy SA (2008) EUROSTAT (2008). Crépon (pers.Rotterdam Rotterdam .Port Kelang Port Kelang . Radlinsky (pers.Münster e.cooperative cooperative .Münster Salzwedel .feed mill farm .Rotterdam 1400 ship port NL .Itacoatiara 970 barge McVey et al.Münster Cordoba 9500 10 300 20 ship lorry barge tractor McVey et al.cooperative cooperative .feed mill farm . BLE (pers. Distances. Agreste (2008) France (90%) cooperative .inland port BRA Sapezal .feed mill Rotterdam . et al.port Brazil Sao Paulo (Province).ocean port BRA Porto Velho .port NL port NL .cooperative Itacoatiara . communication) CODESP (2008) Mappy SA (2008) EUROSTAT (2008).Brake Brake .Port UK Port UK .piglet farm piglet farm . AgrarNet (2008) The Times (1999) The Times (1999) estimate USDA (2001).Münster 50 % Bayern.Münster 20 50 540 250 tractor lorry ship barge Beet pulp and molasses Germany (100%) sugar refinery .com (2008) estimate The Times (1999) USDA (2006) cooperative . (2004) Frischknecht R.pig farm feed mill .ocean port MYS ocean port MYS .g.pig farm Ruffec . PROLEA (2008a). (2001) A. et al.Rotterdam 370 lorry 12100 ship port UK .cooperative Maize France (20%) Mineral feed Germany (100%) Palm oil Malaysia (100%) Peas Germany (100 %) farm . communication).Münster Norwich Norwich .feed mill Barley Germany (80%) cooperative .feed mill farm .Lowestoft Lowestoft .oil mill Rotterdam . (2000). Muraro et al. BMELV (2006) Mappy SA (2008) K. communication). Statistik-Portal (2008).Münster Magdeburg .feed-mill farm . IBGE (2003). FAO (2004) distance: rough estimate The Times (1999) K.Münster 190 lorry factory Brazil .port UK Rosario .cooperative cooperative .com (2008) Mappy SA (2008) farm . Distances.port NL feed mill Bordeaux .Bordeaux Port France . (2000) inland port .oil mill oil mill .Rotterdam Rotterdam port.oil mill Wheat UK (10%) Wheat and wheat bran Germany (wheat: 90%. communication).feed-mill Formulated feed Animal transport feed mill .oil mill oil mill .Salzgitter Salzgitter .Münster Hagen .Münster 380 lorry 1000 20 50 540 250 lorry tractor lorry ship barge Mappy SA (2008) DEFRA (2008) Mappy SA (2008) EUROSTAT (2008) The Times (1999) Mappy SA (2008) EUROSTAT (2008) 20 tractor 410 lorry The Times (1999) 100 100 100 lorry lorry lorry estimate estimate estimate GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 109/112 . Mappy SA (2008) EUROSTAT (2008) Mappy SA (2008) B.feed mill Rapeseed meal Germany (100%) Brazil (Mato Grosso) (50%) Soya bean meal and oil ARG (50%) Germany (10%) Sunflower meal 29% Negeri Sembilan Province Rantau . (2000) ocean port BRA .Münster Bayern (Kelheim 30%) Northwest-Germany (Salzwedel 70%) Kelheim .com (2008) Mappy SA (2008) estimate cooperative .Brake Brake .Münster area around Sapezal 20 150 320 20 cooperative .cooperative Bayern (Kelheim 70%) Lower-Saxony (Rotenburg 30%) 20 tractor Germany (90%) Sources for origin or transport distances EUROSTAT (2008) 490 lorry UK (10%) farm .oil mill oil mill .feed mill farm .cooperative Freyburg .cooperative cooperative .Münster 10 300 20 400 320 lorry Barge tractor barge barge farm . (2004) Guthrie (2005b).feed mill plant .Port France Santos .Salzgitter Salzgitter .Münster Brandenburg Brandenburg .8 Appendix 8: Origin of Feed Ingredients and Transport Distances for the Pig Feed Study NRW Feed ingredients Origin Transport sections Origin of transported goods Average transport distance (km) Means of transport farm . Crépon (pers.oil mill oil mill . GNIS (2008) Mappy SA (2008) Distances.Santos 300 lorry Citrus pulp Brazil (100%) port Brazil .Porto Velho 930 lorry McVey et al.10.feed mill farm . Arab Brazil (2008). Guthrie (2005a) Guthrie (2005a) Portsworld (2008).feed mill Rotterdam port -oil mill Rotterdam .feed mill sugar refinery .ocean port ARG Cordoba .Port DEU Port DEU . port ESP port ESP .Cervera 0.feed mill cooperative .9 Appendix 9: Origin of Feed Ingredients and Transport Distances for the Pig Feed Study CAT Feed ingredients Origin Transport sections farm .New Orleans New Orleans. et al.feed mill Peas Means of transport cooperative .Cervera area around Sapezal Sapezal .feed mill cooperative .Dubuque Dubuque .Cervera Average transport distance (km) farm . Louis (Missouri) 100 20 520 20 860 20 770 lorry tractor lorry tractor train tractor rail Mappy SA (2008) MAPA (2008) Mappy SA (2008) K. PROLEA (2008b).Lleida Cervera .Cervera (50%) Evreux . (2000) McVey et al.com (2008) estimate Mappy SA (2008) tractor MAPA (2008) GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 Mappy SA (2008) Distances.Cervera Wellington (Sumner.com (2008) Distances.Tarragona Tarragona .pig farm feed mill .Port ESP Port ESP .Barcelona Barcelona port .Cervera 0.Port ESP port ESP . Louis .port DEU Port DEU .ocean port USA ocean port USA . 15% Extremadura (Badajoz) Leon . Real) (50%) MAPA (2008) Lleida .cooperative Sunflower meal 29% Valladolid Ciudad Real Badajoz Valladolid .distribution centre distribution centre . 25 % CastillaLeon (Burgos).g.inland port BRA inland port .cooperative cooperative .cooperative Spain (85%) cooperative . et al.feed mill 20 858 lorry oil mill .oil mill Barcelona .Cervera Centre . (2000).Cervera north east.port ESP port ESP .feed mill farm .Cervera 9350 90 ship lorry feed mill .oil mill oil mill . 2004 20 tractor 747 lorry 20 tractor 945 lorry 20 tractor MAPA (2008) Feed mill: Alvarez (2005) K.gov (2008) Dalby (2005) Marathon et al. MapCrow (2008) estimate Mappy SA (2008) estimate Hoskins (2005) Hoskins (2005).cooperative cooperative .Barcelona Barcelona port . Crépon (pers.inland port USA inland port .port ESP port ESP .com (2008) estimate Mappy SA (2008) estimate McVey et al. Eastern England Norwich-Felixstowe Felixstowe .feed mill farm . Crépon (pers.pig farm Cervera .New Orleans 1100 barge Mappy SA (2008) ocean port USA .Porto Velho Porto Velho .235 Norwich ..oil mill oil mill .Barcelona Barcelona port .Cervera 27% Badajoz-Cervera 27% cooperative . (2006) Distances.feed mill Germany (50%) 529 620 farm .Barcelona (50%) Burgos .com (2008) K. Agreste (2008) K.feed mill farm .Blois Blois .oil mill oil mill .Itacoatiara Itacoatiara (Rio) . communication). communication) Mappy SA (2008) Nationalatlas.com (2008) Mappy SA (2008) Mappy SA (2008) Mappy SA (2008) estimate 110/112 .Cervera (33%) Badajoz .Cervera 50 % Andalucia (Sevilla). Kansas) Wellington .Lleida 60 60 10 lorry lorry tractor cooperative .Cervera 0.cooperative Soya bean meal and oil lorry 20 90 3280 90 20 580 13810 90 20 cooperative .cooperative cooperative .cooperative cooperative .oil mill Brazil (Mato Grosso) (50%) tractor lorry ship lorry tractor lorry ship lorry tractor farm .feed mill New Orleans .com (2008) Mappy SA (2008) Itharattana (2003) FAO (2004) MapCrow (2008) Distances.Cervera (33%) Centre (50%) (Blois) Normandie (50%) (Evreux) Blois .inland port USA Wismar cooperative .Cervera (50%) Sources for origin or transport distances oil mill . 2004 Frischknecht R.port THA Port THA .feed mill lorry 20 tractor plant . ufop (2008).feed mill farm .10. Crépon (pers.Lleida Lleida . (2000) McVey et al. chiang mai Chiang mai .cooperative Rape seed meal tractor e.cooperative cooperative .Port ESP port ESP .oil mill Wheat Mappy SA (2008) farm .Cervera Burgos Burgos . 15 % Aragon (Huesca).Wismar port Wismar .piglet farm piglet farm .47 Burgos. Statistik-Portal (2008).Barcelona (25%) Barcelona .oil mill Barcelona . Charente Maritime (Montguyon) Spain (90%) France (10%) 20 Montguyon .Cervera (33%) Ciudad Real .Tarragona Taragona . (2006) inland port USA -ocean port USA St. communication).cooperative Europe (100%) Cuenca (47 %) Burgos (29%) Valladolid (24%) Cuenca .feed mill farm . communication) estimate Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Wismar) cooperative .Cervera Fort Dodge Fort Dodge.feed mill Barley UK (15%) Cassava Thailand (100%) France (45%) Maize farm .ocean port BRA ocean port BRA .cooperative Spain (55%) Mineral feed Origin of transported goods 440 lorry Mappy SA (2008) 100 lorry 20 tractor 5 1930 5 100 20 930 970 8800 10 100 20 300 1600 9400 10 100 lorry ship lorry lorry tractor lorry barge ship lorry lorry tractor lorry barge ship lorry lorry Mappy SA (2008) IMA (2008).Cervera 45% Huesca.port UK Port UK .294 Valladolid.Cervera farm .cooperative cooperative . 25% Castilla-la Mancha (Cuenca) Sevilla . Marathon et al.cooperative Spain (100%) Spain (40%) Catalunia (Lleida) (50%) Castilla-La Mancha (Ciud.St. Crépon (pers.Bangkok Bangkok .Cervera 25 % Castillla-Leon (Leon).cooperative Spain (50 %) USA (50%) France (35%) USA (25%) Formulated feed Animal transport estimate Go-East (2008) Distances.Barcelona Barcelona . GNIS (2008) Mappy SA (2008) MAPA (2008) 615 lorry Mappy SA (2008) 600 100 rail lorry Frischknecht R..Barcelona (50%) Ciudad Real -Barcelona (50%) Barcelona .cooperative cooperative .feed mill farm .Barcelona (25%) Cuenca .feed mill farm . AgrarNet (2008) estimate Distances.Tarragona Tarragona .feed mill farm . communication) K.feed mill Saint-Nazaire . communication). Crépon (pers.feed mill Poitou-Charentes (50%) (Ruffec) Midi-Pyrénées (50%) (Toulouse) 150 lorry The Times (1999) 20 tractor 475 lorry K.cooperative Sunflower oil cake 29 Average transport distance (km) Origin of transported goods farm .Saint-Nazaire Toulouse . Agreste (2008) farm . Distances.oil mill Negeri Sembilan Province 50 lorry oil mill .cooperative cooperative .Saint-Gérand 535 lorry farm . (2004) distribution centre .cooperative cooperative . Distances.Bourbriac 10 60 lorry lorry assumption assumption France GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 111/112 .port FRA Rosario .Saint-Gérand 200 78 rail lorry K. Agreste (2008) K.feed mill Oise 550 lorry K.feed mill Brest .Rouen 260 lorry Mappy SA (2008) K.feed mill Blois .com (2008) port FRA . Crépon (pers.port FRA Itacoatiara .Saint-Nazaire Saint Nazaire .Saint-Gérand 200 78 rail lorry K. Agreste (2008) France France France France Brazil (Mato Grosso) cooperative . (2000) ocean port BRA .distribution centre 600 rail Frischknecht R. communication) oil mill . Crépon (pers.distribution centre 600 rail Frischknecht R.Saint-Gérand Evreux . communication) K. (2000). Crépon (pers. Guthrie (2005b) France France Mappy SA (2008) K.broiler farm feed mill .inland port BRA inland port .cooperative Picardie (Beauvais) 20 tractor cooperative .com (2008) port FRA .com (2008) port FRA . Agreste (2008) ocean port ARG . (2004) distribution centre . communication) cooperative . communication) farm .Porto Velho 930 lorry McVey et al.cooperative Yonne (Sens) 20 tractor cooperative .oil mill oil mill . Nemecek & Baumgartner (2006) K.SaintGérand 150 lorry Mappy SA (2008) farm .feed mill Beauvais .cooperative Charente Maritime (Montguyon) 20 tractor cooperative .ocean port MYS Rantau . Crépon (pers. communication).SaintGérand 150 lorry Mappy SA (2008) farm . Crépon (pers. communication) K.feed mill Sens .ocean port ARG Argentina Ruffec .cooperative Centre (50%) (Blois) Normandie (50%) (Evreux) 20 tractor cooperative .distribution centre 600 rail Frischknecht R. communication) cooperative .Itacoatiara 970 barge McVey et al. communication) plant . (2000) Porto Velho . PROLEA (2008a). Crépon (pers.feed mill Blois . communication) 150 lorry Mappy SA (2008) 20 tractor Lence (2000) 300 lorry USDA (2001) France cooperative .feed mill Rouen . (2004) plant .10 Appendix 10: Origin of Feed Ingredients and Transport Distances for the Egg and Chicken Study BRI Feed ingredients Barley CaCO3 Faba beans Maize Maize gluten meal Mineral feed Palm oil Peas Rape seeds Rapeseed meal SAA + PHOSBI Soya bean meal and oil Origin farm .ocean port BRA area around Sapezal 20 tractor Sapezal .feed mill Saint-Nazaire . Crépon (pers.Port Kelang 120 lorry Guthrie (2005a) ocean port MYS .oil mill Sens . (2004) Guthrie (2005a). communication).port FRA Port Kelang . et al. et al. Crépon (pers.feed mill Montguyon .Saint-Gérand Angers .feed mill 100 lorry Frischknecht R.feed mill Blois . communication). et al. Crépon (pers. PROLEA (2008b).Saint-Gérand Angers . Crépon (pers. Crépon (pers.cooperative Centre (50%) Pays de la Loire (25%) Bretagne (25%) 20 tractor K. (2004) distribution centre . Crépon (pers.Brest 8760 ship McVey et al. communication) feed mill . et al. Crépon (pers. communication).Saint-Gérand 500 lorry farm .egg farm Saint-Gérand .Saint-Gérand 500 lorry plant . Crépon (pers.feed mill 100 lorry Frischknecht R. GNIS (2008) Mappy SA (2008) France France Malaysia farm .cooperative Centre (50%) Pays de la Loire (25%) Bretagne (25%) 20 tractor K. et al. Crépon (pers.feed mill 100 lorry Frischknecht R.feed mill Sunflower oil cake 33 Means of transport Transport sections farm .Saint-Gérand 400 lorry K. communication) France Wheat Formulated feed Sources for origin or transport distances plant .10. PROLEA (2008b).Rosario estimate.Saint-Gérand 410 lorry K.Brest 14200 ship Portsworld (2008).Pontivy Saint-Gérand .SaintGérand Rufino area Rufino area . (2004) France K.Saint-Nazaire 11400 ship Distances. et al. PROLEA (2008a). 11 Appendix 11: Origin of Feed Ingredients and Transport Distances for the Milk Study DAC Feed ingredients Origin Transport sections farm .ocean port ARG ocean port ARG .com (2008) port UK .Exeter Centre (50%) (Blois) Normandie (50%) (Evreux) Blois .Exeter UK (100%) USA (100%) 20 factory Brazil .Exeter Eastern (Cambridge) (50%). FEDIOL (2008) 20 tractor Mappy SA (2008).10.feed mill 130 lorry 20 tractor Mappy SA (2008) K.Exeter Cordoba Cordoba .feed mill Molasses cane tractor Santos . Crépon (pers.cooperative Faba beans Origin of transported goods feed mill .port Brazil Field .port UK Port UK . Muraro et al.feed mill Peas Sources for origin or transport distances North Sao Paulo (Ribeirao Preto) . Dicalcium Europe (100%) phosphate. DEFRA (2008) farm .oil mill oil mill .port FRA farm .Exeter Lincoln . (pers.port UK Port UK . (2000) McVey et al.Le Havre Evreux .oil mill oil mill .Itacoatiara 20 220 410 20 370 11800 10 410 20 930 970 tractor lorry lorry tractor lorry ship lorry lorry tractor lorry barge ocean port BRA .port UK port UK .cooperative France (20%) lorry lorry mill brazil .Bideford 250 lorry Mappy SA (2008) 30 200 barge lorry Mappy SA (2008) Mappy SA (2008) 20 tractor estimate GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes – Environment-Friendly Animal Feed? February 2008 112/112 . DEFRA (2008) cooperative . Agreste (2008) 430 lorry Mappy SA (2008). DEFRA (2008).Factory Maize gluten Average Means of transport transport distance (km) port Brazil .Exeter Eastern (Cambridge) (60%).Exeter ship lorry 20 tractor Ethanol factory USA . Cotrill (pers.cooperative Barley UK (100%) cooperative .inland port BRA inland port .Bristol Bristol . DEFRA (2008) 9750 130 50 120 port FRA .Liverpool Liverpool port -oil mill Liverpool .port UK Port Kelang . (2000).Santos cooperative . communication).Exeter Lincoln (Eastern Midlands) Lincoln .oil mill oil mill .Exeter Norfolk .port UK Port UK .feed mill Beet pulp UK (100%) Citrus pulp Brazil (100%) Sugar refinery .cooperative cooperative .cooperative cooperative .Exeter Negeri Sembilan Province Rantau . (2000) Distances.Exeter Lincoln .Bristol 14700 ship Portsworld (2008). 13 Distances. DEFRA (2008) USDA (2006) USDA (2001). p.feed mill Soya bean meal and soya bean oil B. Calcined magnesite.port UK Itacoatiara .oil mill oil mill .Southampton Southampton . (2000) McVey et al.cooperative UK (100%) BOCM-PAULS (2008). Essex (70%) Lincolnshire .Exeter Norwich .Bristol Bristol . IBGE (2003). IBGE (2003).feed mill farm .Exeter Essex .Liverpool 9200 ship port UK . Eastern Midlands (Lincoln) (50%) Cambridge . Dickerson (2005) CODESP (2008) Mappy SA (2008) Guthrie (2005a).port UK port UK .feed mill farm .Exeter Lincolnshire (30%). PROLEA (2008b).Port Kelang port brazil .ocean port MYS farm . vitamins and trace elements) Palmkernel meal and plam oil lorry 9750 130 port USA . DEFRA (2008) 430 lorry Mappy SA (2008).feed mill York (30%) Norwich (35%) Perth (35%) York . Mappy SA (2008) 360 UK (80%) Rape seed meal Mappy SA (2008). Mappy SA (2008) Bruce Cottrill. FAO (2004). EUROSTAT (2008).Le Havre Le Havre . Arab Brazil (2008).cooperative UK (100%) cooperative . (2001) CODESP (2008) Mappy SA (2008) lorry farm .Liverpool Liverpool . DEFRA (2008) Mappy SA (2008).Porto Velho Porto Velho .feed mill farm . Guthrie (2005b) Guthrie (2005a) ocean port MYS .ocean port BRA Bristol .com (2008) estimate Mappy SA (2008).dairy farm Exeter .Exeter ARG (30%) Brazil (Mato Grosso) (70%) Wheat and wheat middlings 400 lorry 100 lorry Mappy SA (2008) estimate 320 lorry NASS (2008) 7600 130 100 ship lorry lorry Distances.cooperative cooperative .com (2008) estimate Mappy SA (2008) Nemecek & Baumgartner (2006) McVey et al.16. Eastern Midlands (Lincoln) (40%) Cambridge .Exeter Perth .feed mill Formulated feed DEFRA (2008) ship lorry lorry lorry cooperative .Exeter 10 410 lorry lorry estimate Mappy SA (2008).Exeter area around Sapezal Sapezal .com (2008) Mappy SA (2008) ecoinvent Centre (2004) 600 rail ecoinvent Centre (2004) Meyers et al. DEFRA (2008) 90 lorry Mappy SA (2008). communication).Santos Santos .port brazil Malaysia (100%) 520 300 Mineral feed (CO3Ca.port USA USA (Illinois) Springfiled Chicago Chicago .Rosario Rosario . Distances.feed mill Liverpool port -oil mill Liverpool .feed mill farm . communication).feed mill Brazil (100%) 610 Sao Paulo (Province). p.Bristol Bristol .