Resource use and environmental impacts from beef production in eastern Australia investigated using life cycle assessment

2016 ◽  
Vol 56 (5) ◽  
pp. 882 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Wiedemann ◽  
Eugene McGahan ◽  
Caoilinn Murphy ◽  
Mingjia Yan
Keyword(s):  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Fresh Water ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Water Consumption ◽  
Arable Land ◽  
Beef Production ◽  
Land Occupation ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Eastern Australia

Resource use and environmental impacts are important factors relating to the sustainability of beef production in Australia. This study used life cycle assessment to investigate impacts from grass-finished beef production in eastern Australia to the farm gate, reporting impacts per kilogram of liveweight (LW) produced. Mean fossil fuel energy demand was found to vary from 5.6 to 8.4 MJ/kg LW, mean estimated fresh water consumption from 117.9 to 332.4 L/kg LW and crop land occupation from 0.3 to 6.4 m2/kg LW. Mean greenhouse gas emissions ranged from 10.6 to 12.4 kg CO2-e/kg LW (excluding land use and direct land-use change emissions) and were not significantly different (P > 0.05) for export or domestic market classes. Enteric methane was the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and multiple linear regression analysis revealed that weaning rate and average daily gain explained 80% of the variability in supply chain greenhouse gas emissions. Fresh water consumption was found to vary significantly among individual farms depending on climate, farm water supply efficiency and the use of irrigation. The impact of water use was measured using the stress-weighted water use indicator, and ranged from 8.4 to 104.2 L H2O-e/kg LW. The stress-weighted water use was influenced more by regional water stress than the volume of fresh water consumption. Land occupation was assessed with disaggregation of crop land, arable pasture land and non-arable land, which revealed that the majority of beef production utilised non-arable land that is unsuitable for most alternative food production systems.

Resource use and environmental impacts from Australian export lamb production: a life cycle assessment

2016 ◽  
Vol 56 (7) ◽  
pp. 1070 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. G. Wiedemann ◽  
M.-J. Yan ◽  
C. M. Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Fresh Water ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Water Consumption ◽  
Energy Demand ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Arable Land ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Land Occupation ◽  
Fossil Fuel Energy

This study conducted a life cycle assessment (LCA) investigating energy, land occupation, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fresh water consumption and stress-weighted water use from production of export lamb in the major production regions of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The study used data from regional datasets and case study farms, and applied new methods for assessing water use using detailed farm water balances and water stress weighting. Land occupation was assessed with reference to the proportion of arable and non-arable land and allocation of liveweight (LW) and greasy wool was handled using a protein mass method. Fossil fuel energy demand ranged from 2.5 to 7.0 MJ/kg LW, fresh water consumption from 58.1 to 238.9 L/kg LW, stress-weighted water use from 2.9 to 137.8 L H2O-e/kg LW and crop land occupation from 0.2 to 2.0 m2/kg LW. Fossil fuel energy demand was dominated by on-farm energy demand, and differed between regions and datasets in response to production intensity and the use of purchased inputs such as fertiliser. Regional fresh water consumption was dominated by irrigation water use and losses from farm water supply, with smaller contributions from livestock drinking water. GHG emissions ranged from 6.1 to 7.3 kg CO2-e/kg LW and additional removals or emissions from land use (due to cultivation and fertilisation) and direct land-use change (due to deforestation over previous 20 years) were found to be modest, contributing between –1.6 and 0.3 kg CO2-e/kg LW for different scenarios assessing soil carbon flux. Excluding land use and direct land-use change, enteric CH4 contributed 83–89% of emissions, suggesting that emissions intensity can be reduced by focussing on flock production efficiency. Resource use and emissions were similar for export lamb production in the major production states of Australia, and GHG emissions were similar to other major global lamb producers. The results show impacts from lamb production on competitive resources to be low, as lamb production systems predominantly utilised non-arable land unsuited to alternative food production systems that rely on crop production, and water from regions with low water stress.

On-farm greenhouse gas emissions and water use: case studies in the Queensland beef industry

2011 ◽  
Vol 51 (8) ◽  
pp. 667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Eady ◽  
James Viner ◽  
Justin MacDonnell
Keyword(s):  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Beef Production ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Climate Change Research ◽  
On Farm

In response to climate change, research is being undertaken to understand the on-farm greenhouse gas emissions and water use for agricultural systems and investigate options farmers may have for mitigating or offsetting emissions. In the present study, a life cycle assessment framework is used to determine on-farm GHG emissions and water use, and the overall ‘cradle-to-farm gate’ GHG emissions and water use attributed to beef production. The total on-farm emissions for the two properties were 2984 t CO2-e/year (or 1.93 t CO2-e/livestock unit) for the 634-cow enterprise turning off weaner cattle at Gympie and 5725 t CO2-e/year (or 1.70 t CO2-e/livestock unit) for the 720-cow enterprise turning off finished steers in the Arcadia Valley. The on-farm emissions are largely attributable to enteric methane emissions from the beef herd. The overall ‘cradle-to-farm gate’ GHG emissions associated with enterprise products were 3145 t CO2-e/year at Gympie and 7253 t CO2-e/year in the Arcadia Valley, with the additional emissions coming from off-farm inputs (fuel for farm vehicles and earth-moving equipment, electricity, supplementary feed, agricultural chemicals, farm services) and additionally, for the Arcadia Valley enterprise, from purchased store steers. The carbon footprint of beef products at the farm gate ranged from 17.5 to 22.9 kg CO2-e/kg liveweight at Gympie, where wearers are the primary product, and from 11.6 to 15.5 kg CO2-e/kg liveweight in the Arcadia Valley, where finished steers are the primary product. Green water use ranged from 7400 to 12 700 L/kg liveweight depending on class of livestock, with on-farm blue water use of 51–96 L/kg liveweight and off-farm blue water use of 0.1–59 L/kg liveweight. The ability to offset on-farm GHG emissions through reforestation varied between the two locations, with predicted biosequestration rates of 19.3–34.7 t CO2-e/ha per year at Gympie (rainfall 1200 mm/year) from eucalypt plantation and 1.5–9.8 t CO2-e/ha per year in the Arcadia Valley (rainfall 600 mm/year) through reforestation from a combination of brigalow regrowth, leucaena and environmental eucalypt plantings. The area that would need to be reforested to offset on-farm emissions (over a 30-year time horizon) would be 86–155 ha at Gympie (7–13% of the holding) and 629–4108 ha in the Arcadia Valley (9–60%). If carbon sequestration could be achieved at the higher end of the rates nominated, a significant proportion of on-farm emissions could be offset by sequestration in timber, with minimal impact on beef production. However, at the lower end of the forest sequestration range, the required level of land-use change would reduce the carrying capacity, and hence beef production, especially at the Arcadia Valley site.

scholarly journals Practice Matters: Pro-environmental Motivations and Diet-Related Impact Vary With Meditation Experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ute B. Thiermann ◽  
William R. Sheate ◽  
Ans Vercammen
Keyword(s):  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Animal Protein ◽  
Mindfulness Practice ◽  
Dispositional Mindfulness ◽  
Land Occupation ◽  
Environmental Behaviors ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Protein Consumption ◽  
Meditation Experience

Mindfulness has emerged as a potential motivator for sustainable lifestyles, yet few studies provide insight into the relationship between mindfulness practice levels and individual engagement in pro-environmental behaviors. We also lack information about the significance of meditators’ behavioral differences in terms of their measurable environmental impact and the motivational processes underlying these differences in pro-environmental performance. We classified 300 individuals in three groups with varying meditation experience and compared their pro-environmental motivations and levels of animal protein consumption. Exceeding prior attempts to compare high-impact behaviors of mindfulness practitioners and non-practitioners, we created the most detailed classification of practice engagement by assessing frequency, experience and type of meditation practice. This nuanced view on mindfulness practice reveals that advanced meditators, who reported high levels of connectedness with nature (CWN), subjective happiness and dispositional mindfulness showed significantly more concern for the environment. They also demonstrated the lowest levels of greenhouse gas emissions, land occupation and water use related to their animal-protein consumption. This study is the first to follow a self-determination theory perspective to deepen our understanding of the motivational differences between meditator groups. We revealed that advanced meditators reported significantly more integrated motivation toward the environment than non-meditators. We also provided preliminary evidence for a new theoretical framework suggesting that experiential strategies such as mindfulness practices could strengthen the relational pathway of pro-environmental behaviors. Using sequential mediation analysis, we confirmed that the negative effect of mindful compassion practice on greenhouse gas emissions from animal-protein consumption is partially mediated by CWN and integrated motivation toward the environment. While our study does not support assumptions of causality, it shows that much can be learned by studying the motivations of advanced meditators for maintaining high levels of pro-environmental behavior.

scholarly journals Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Calf- and Yearling-Fed Beef Production Systems, With and Without the Use of Growth Promotants

Animals ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Basarab ◽  
Vern Baron ◽  
Óscar López-Campos ◽  
Jennifer Aalhus ◽  
Karen Haugen-Kozyra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Beef Production ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Growth Promotants

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and grain arsenic levels in rice systems

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 407-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce A. Linquist ◽  
Merle M. Anders ◽  
Maria Arlene A. Adviento-Borbe ◽  
Rufus L. Chaney ◽  
L. Lanier Nalley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Gas Emissions
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document