Journal of Cleaner Production 100 (2015) 126e139

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Life cycle assessment of pigmeat production: Portuguese case study

and proposal of improvement options

lez-Garca a, *, Sara Belo a, Ana Cla

udia Dias a, Joa
~o Va

rzea Rodrigues b,
Sara Gonza

nio Ferreira c, Lus Pinto de Andrade b, Luis Arroja a

rio Roberto da Costa c, Anto
Rosa
a
b
c

CESAM, Department of Environment and Planning, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
CERNAS, Instituto Polit

ecnico de Castelo Branco, 6000-084 Castelo Branco, Portugal
Department of Animal Sciences, Instituto Polit

ecnico de Coimbra, 3040-316 Coimbra, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 21 August 2014
Received in revised form
9 March 2015
Accepted 16 March 2015
Available online 24 March 2015

The aim of this study was to provide a detailed environmental evaluation of pigmeat production (the
second most widely eaten type of meat) in Portugal, using relevant and good quality data in order to
obtain representative results for this production sector.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology was used for the evaluations from a cradle-toslaughterhouse gate perspective. The system under study was divided in three subsystems: crop and
feed production (S1), pigmeat production (S2) and slaughtering (S3). The production system under study
considered the Best Available Techniques (BATs) for intensive rearing of pigs.
According to the results and in line with other studies, S1 was the most inuential subsystem in the
environmental prole (ranging from 70% to 100% depending on the impact) mainly due to agricultural
activities involved in the production of feed components. Activities carried out on the pig farms (S2) were
remarkable in categories such as climate change due to background processes involved in the production
of electricity requirements, e.g. emissions derived from slurry management (such as CH4 and N2O), and
water depletion. Slaughtering-related contributions were negligible regardless of the category assessed.
Different alternatives for the valorisation of animal by-products derived from the slaughterhouse were
proposed for energy and feed production. A comparison with other related studies focused on pigmeat
production was performed and no remarkable differences were identied. Thus, achievements and
environmental hotspots identied in this specic case study for Portugal could be extended to the European production chain.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Life cycle assessment (LCA)
Environmental analysis
Pigmeat
Portugal
Slaughterhouse

1. Introduction
The food chain is one of the most important actors in worldwide
environmental impacts (Garnett, 2009, 2011; Reckmann et al.,
2013). Hence, the food industry has received increasing attention
over recent years since it is one of the world's largest industrial
sectors (Roy et al., 2009). Within the food sector, meat and dairy
products are the foods carrying the greatest environmental burdens, mainly in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) production
(Garnett, 2009, 2011). With regard to meat, its consumption has
increased by 63% in Europe during the last 40 years (FAO, 2004).
Thus, livestock production or farming systems play a major role in

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 351 234370387.

E-mail address: sara.gonzalez@usc.es (S. Gonz

alez-Garca).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.048
0959-6526/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

the environment (de Vries and de Boer, 2010; Herrero et al., 2011).
The livestock-related sector involves not only environmental effects
but also provides human society with food, employment and other
incomes (Herrero et al., 2011). Environmental emissions are the
result of the activities carried out during all the stages in the livestock product life cycle, from the farming stage and its inputs/
outputs to production, distribution, maintenance, preparation and
nal waste disposal (Garnett, 2011). In fact, the livestock sector is
responsible for 18% of global GHG emissions mainly due to carbon
dioxide (from fossil fuels consumption to power machinery),
methane (from ruminant digestion and manure management) and
nitrous oxide (from manure, urine and application of nitrogen
fertilisers) emissions, especially at the farm stage (Beauchemin
et al., 2010; de Vries and de Boer, 2010; Garnett, 2011; Reckmann
et al., 2012). Thus, the promotion of more environmentally
friendly livestock product consumption could help to mitigate the


lez-Garca et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 100 (2015) 126e139

S. Gonza

derived environmental impacts (de Vries and de Boer, 2010). For

this reason, changes in production practices (conventional vs
organic production) and in animal diet are examples of activities
proposed to reduce the environmental proles (Basset-Mens et al.,
2007; de Boer, 2003; Halberg et al., 2005; Hospido et al., 2003).
Meat is a very important part of the European diet. Pigmeat is
the most widely produced type of meat in Europe, with Europe
being the second largest producer in the world after China
(Eurostat, 2013). The European annual average consumption of
meat is 64.7 kg per capita (European Commission, 2013), with
pigmeat being the most widely consumed at a rate of 31.8 kg per
capita (European Commission, 2013; Marquer, 2010). In this study,
special attention has been paid to Portugal where pigmeat represents 45% of total meat production (INE, 2013). In 2013, around
346,000 tonnes of pigmeat were produced, which represent 1.57%
of total European production (Marquer et al., 2014).
The evaluation of the contribution of agricultural systems and
livestock production to environmental impacts has been performed
using different assessment methods for many years (Reckmann
et al., 2012). One of these is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology (ISO 14040, 2006) in which different approaches can be
considered (attributional or consequential). Many studies have
used LCA to assess the environmental proles of livestock products,
such as beef (Beauchemin et al., 2010; Cedeberg and Stadig, 2003),

lez-Garca et al., 2014;
chicken (da Silva et al., 2012; Gonza
Katajajuuri, 2007; Williams et al., 2006), milk (Castanheira et al.,

lez-Garca et al., 2013a; Hospido et al., 2003) or eggs
2010; Gonza
(de Vries and de Boer, 2010; Mollenhorst et al., 2006).
Pigmeat production systems all over Europe (Germany, France,
Great Britain, Sweden and Denmark) have been assessed in the
literature from an environmental point of view considering conventional, organic and red label (Porc Fermier Label Rouge quality)
practices (Basset-Mens et al., 2007; Basset-Mens and van der Werf,
, 2004; Dalgaard et al., 2007; Nguyen
2005; Cederberg and Flysjo
et al., 2011; Reckmann et al., 2012, 2013; Williams et al., 2006). The
fact that all these studies have used the LCA method as an impact
assessment tool offers the possibility to compare the environmental proles and identify the best production system. However, a
wide range of results have been found mainly related to methodological choices (system boundaries, functional unit and allocation
or system expansion approaches) and assumptions. However, there
is no available study corresponding to Portugal.
This study is focused on the environmental evaluation of pork
production, from a cradle-to-gate perspective using an attributional LCA. Moreover, detailed inventory data are reported in this
study which could help the LCA community focus on the quantication of environmental impacts derived from food, specically
meat, which is a basic and essential part of the human diet. In
addition, this study allows not only the estimation of the environmental prole per kg of pork but also the identication of the
environmental hotspots in the production chain as well as the
environmental assessment of the different management alternatives to slaughterhouse by-products.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Goal and functional unit denition
This study aims to assess from an environmental perspective the
pig production chain in Portugal under conventional practices,
based on an LCA approach and following the ISO 14040 guidelines
(ISO 14040, 2006).
LCA relates the environmental impact to a functional unit (FU),
which reects the main function of the production system
expressed in quantitative terms. Therefore, all the inputs and

127

outputs should be related to that reference ow. A FU based on 1 kg

of meat (carcass weight) at the slaughterhouse gate has been
considered for assessment. However, FU depends on the function of
the product and the primary function of livestock products is to
satisfy the human body's need for proteins (Schau and Fet, 2008).
Therefore, a discussion of environmental results achieved in this
case study has been carried out considering different FUs
commonly used in meat production systems.
2.2. Description of the system and system boundaries
The system boundaries from a cradle-to-gate perspective of the
pigmeat production chain under assessment are illustrated in Fig. 1.
Thus, all the processes or activities involved in all phases of the life
cycle of pigmeat production in Portugal under intensive conditions
are reported, from the production of different inputs to the
slaughtering of pigs and processing to pigmeat as slaughter weight.
Thus, further activities such as packaging of pigmeat, food
retailing, consumption and nal disposal have been excluded from
the system boundaries since they have not reported remarkable
contributions to the global environmental prole in previous

lez-Garca et al., 2013b) nor
studies related to food products (Gonza
in related pigmeat production systems available in the literature
(Dalgaard et al., 2007; Nguyen et al., 2011). The high consumption
rates of pigmeat have necessitated changes from a traditional to an
intensive industrial pig production system.
The pig production chain has been divided in three main subsystems: crop and feed production (S1), animal production (S2) and
slaughtering (S3). Animal production generally involves four phases or stages: the breeding phase (mating and gestating), the maternity phase (farrowing and lactating), the rearing phase and the
nishing phase.
Crop and feed production subsystem (S1): This subsystem involves all the activities related to the production of the pig feed. In
this study, pig production at farm level was considered landless as
described by Nguyen et al. (2011). According to the physiological or
life stage of the animal, different types of diets are supplied. The
diets consist of different inputs with the main ingredients being
wheat (grain and silage), maize grain, barley grain and soybean
meal. Other feed components known as premix including minerals, vitamins and amino acids are added as per the requirements
of the different stages of growth and breeding.
Table 1 reports the feed ingredients (in %) for the different feed
compositions used for gestating and lactating sows, male pigs
(boars), weaning piglets and nished pigs.
Production of all feed components has been considered within
the system boundaries, except sh meal and premix. The production of premix and sh meal has been excluded from this subsystem's boundaries since there is insufcient inventory data for
the manufacture of these products.
Agricultural activities performed in the production of the
remaining feed components (Table 1) have been computed taking
into account the production and application of agrochemicals
(fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides), production of diesel used in
agricultural machinery, combustion emissions from diesel use and
transport activities.
Animal production subsystem (S2): This subsystem encompasses
all the activities carried out at the pig farm taking into account all
life stages of the pig (the sows, the piglets and the grow-nishing
pigs) including the slurry management and its application on
agricultural lands. Moreover, distribution of pig feed from Portuguese feed producers to the farm gate has also been included
within this subsystem's boundaries (400 km). The main characteristics of the average animal production subsystem are shown in
Table 2.


lez-Garca et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 100 (2015) 126e139

S. Gonza

128

Fig. 1. Overview and system boundaries of the intensive production chain of Portuguese pork (Base scenario). Dotted boxes correspond to processes excluded from assessment.

The animals are housed in an indoor system, separately in

different areas with appropriate specic conditions depending on
their life stage. In the breeding phase, the sows are articially
inseminated and remain housed in the mating/gestating housing
section during their gestation period (100 days). Gestating sows are
moved to the farrowing section 15 days before the provisional
farrowing date, where they stay until weaning. The farrowing area
consists of 8 compartments, each equipped with 16 individual pens.
These separate compartments are important to maintain the allin, all-out policy. On average, about 13 piglets are born per litter
but just 12.4 are born alive and 11.7 survive after weaning.
Piglets are weaned at approximately 28 days after farrowing.
After that, the sows go back into the mating/gestating section and
the cycle starts again.
Weaning pigs are reared in a separate sector (nursery housing)
where they are kept in small groups of 21 pigs per compartment.
Finally, at 45 days of life, pigs are moved to the last housing section
(nishing) where they are fattened in order to reach the optimum
weight to be sent to the slaughterhouse. The grow-nishing pigs
are slaughtered at about 180 days of life, when they reach a weight
of about 105 kg.

The housing system is currently being transformed: during this

time pigs will be housed in a group after a positive pregnancy
diagnosis.
All the pig production system involves electricity consumption.
Electricity is consumed in all the housing sections (farrowing,
nursery and grow-nishing) in illumination and feeding processes.
In addition, the farrowing and nursery housing sections also
require mechanical ventilation and an electrical heating system
(infrared lamps).
The housing sections are manually cleaned twice a week with
the exception of the nursery section which is cleaned after the
removal of each animal group (thus, once per cycle), and the farrowing section where a drag chain is used for cleaning activities. In
the remaining sections, a system based on high pressure water is
used. The manure is forwarded (piped) by gravity into the collection well, solids are separated and then the manure is forwarded to
the sedimentation pond (in-house storage and outside storage).
Slaughtering subsystem (S3): This subsystem considers the
slaughtering process which starts at the end of the fattening period.
In this subsystem there is a high requirement for heat, electricity
and water. In this case, pigs are slaughtered at an average live

Table 1
Feed composition of the different diets used for gestating and lactating sows, male pigs (boars), weaning pigs and nished pigs.
Feed composition

Gestating sows

Lactating sows

Male pigs

Weaning pigs

Finished pigs

Maize grain (%)

Barley grain (%)
Wheat silage (%)
Soybean oil (%)
Animal fat (%)
Wheat grain (%)
Soybean meal (%)
Sunower (%)
Rape meal (%)
Sugarbeet molasses (%)
Othersa (%)
Premixb (%)

43.1
5.0
14.9
0.0
0.7
13.6
5.0
7.5
5.5
1.0
0.0
3.7

28.2
30.1
6.3
0.0
0.0
7.0
13.5
4.0
3.0
1.0
0.0
6.9

28.2
30.0
6.3
0.0
0.0
7.0
13.4
4.0
3.0
1.0
0.0
7.1

27.0
21.5
17.4
1.5
0.0
0.0
20.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.5
4.5

50.0
3.0
17.6
0.0
0.9
0.0
19.4
2.2
3.0
1.0
0.0
2.9

a
b

Fish and biscuit meal.

Premix is a mixture of minerals, vitamins and amino acids.


lez-Garca et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 100 (2015) 126e139

S. Gonza

129

considered in a sensitivity analysis where improvement alternatives have been proposed and discussed below.

Table 2
Main parameters corresponding to the pig farm under assessment.
Parameter

Value

Unit

No. of boars
Average weight per boar
No. of reproduction sows
Average weight per reproduction sow
Sows replacement rate
No. of piglets born per litter
No. of live born piglets per litter
No. of litters per sow and year
Weaning age
Preweaning mortality
Age at the end of the nursery phase
Total of slaughtering pigs
Slaughtering live weight
Slaughtering average age
Carcass yield
Total farming area
Breeding area
Farrowing area
Nursering area
Grow nishing area

3
250
445
200
35.8
13.0
12.4
2.30
28.4
10
1.50
11.5
105
180
78
213.6
693
512
480
2112

pigs
kg
pigs
kg
%
pigs
pigs
litters
days
%
months
pigs
kg
days
%
ha
m2
m2
m2
m2

weight of 105 kg, resulting in a carcass weight of 81.9 kg. Based on

current locations of pig farms and slaughterhouses, it was assumed
that the nisher pigs are transported 200 km from the pig farm to
the slaughterhouse by road. By-products such as visceras, bones
and blood are sent for the production of components for pet food
and bioenergy. These kinds of activities were excluded from the
system boundaries in the base scenario. They lie outside of the
slaughterhouse and consist in valorisation, i.e. the solid stream has
the status of a by-product, in accordance with the methodology
proposed by Clift et al. (2000). However, the valorisation of this byproduct stream has been analysed in a sensitivity analysis reported
below, where different valorisation alternatives have been
considered. The slaughterhouse presents a wastewater treatment
plant, where wastewater produced in the slaughter-related activities is treated. The production of capital goods and infrastructures
were excluded from the assessment in all the subsystems.
2.3. Allocation approach
Allocation, an important issue in LCA studies, consists in
assigning the input and/or output ows of a process to the product
system under study. It is required for multi-functional processes
and the selection of an allocation approach can have a strong effect
on the results.
In this study, allocation was not required. In the pig farm (S2),
the unique product is live nisher pigs. As previously mentioned,
slurry from the pig farm is used on agricultural elds to replace
mineral fertilisers. Slurry handling, storage (in-house storage less
than 1 month and outdoor storage with a natural crust cover),
distribution and spreading processes were taken into account as
well as the corresponding avoided fertiliser production. Environmental burdens derived from slurry management were computed
within the pig farm and allocated to the nisher pigs. In addition,
impacts associated with the mineral fertiliser application onto the
eld were also deducted from the subsystem.
With regard to the slaughterhouse (S3), the main product is the
slaughtered pig ready for delivery to nal markets. Animal byproducts from both subsystems were considered as biodegradable waste in accordance with Reckmann et al. (2013) and their
further valorisation has been excluded from the slaughterhouse
system boundaries (base scenario). However, these animal byproducts can be used for biogas, heat and animal feed production
(Nguyen et al., 2011). Reuse of animal by-products has been

2.4. Inventory analysis

In LCA studies, it is important to consider real and valuable data
to obtain representative environmental results. In this study, inventory data for farming- and slaughtering-related subsystems (S2
and S3) were collected by means of surveys and visits to representative Portuguese pig farms and slaughterhouses. All this primary data corresponds to the year 2012. Table 3 shows a detailed
description of the most representative primary inventory data for
the whole pigmeat production system under analysis. Inventory
data detailed in Table 3 are reported per functional unit (1 kg meat
e carcass weight).
These primary data were completed with secondary data taken
from literature (Weidema et al. , 2013) regarding feed component
production (agricultural processes focused on the production of
maize, barley, wheat, soybean, rape, sunower and sugar beet),
electricity production taken from the Portuguese national grid,
avoided mineral fertiliser production, fossil fuels such as natural
gas and transport activities (including tailpipe emissions).
In the animal production system, the slurry handling and storage mostly involves emissions of methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), ammonia (NH3) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) into the air
(Nguyen et al., 2011; Reckmann et al., 2013), all of them being
computed within the subsystem boundaries. Emissions of CH4 from
enteric fermentation and from slurry management were calculated
taking into account emission rates/factors from the Tier 1 and Tier 2
methods, respectively (IPCC, 2006). Remaining emissions of NH3
and NOx were considered using emission factors reported in

Table 3
Main characteristics of pig slurry produced and managed in the pig farm under
study and derived emissions from pig slurry handling and management (per kg of
produced slurry).
Item

Handling

In-storage

Outside storage

Slurry Composition
Dry matter (DM) e g kg1
N (g kg1)
P (g kg1)
K (g kg1)

95
6.55
0.65
2.62

90.3
5.64

85.8
5.42

Item

In-storage

Outside storage

On-farm emissions
CH4 (enteric fermentation) e mg kg1
CH4 (slurry management) e mg kg1
N2O (mg kg1)
N2 (mg kg1)
NOx (mg kg1)
NH3 (mg kg1)

260
660
20.6
78.6
28.1
1034

44.3
169
60.4
137

Item

Field application

Slurry application related emissions

85.2
N2O (mg kg1)
N2 (mg kg1)
509
1
NOx (mg kg )
11.6
NH3 (mg kg1)
461
NO3  (g kg1)
1.16
PO4 3 (mg kg1)
59.8
Indirect N2O (mg kg1)
102
Avoided mineral fertiliser
1
N mineral fertiliser (g kg )
3.79
P mineral fertiliser (g kg1)
0.63
K mineral fertiliser (g kg1)
2.62
Avoided fertiliser application emissions
N2O (mg kg1)
59.6
NOx (mg kg1)
56.9
1
NH3 (mg kg )
299

After application

770

130

lez-Garca et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 100 (2015) 126e139

S. Gonza

Nguyen et al. (2011). In addition, pigs emit CH4 into the air from
their enteric fermentation which has also been considered and
calculated taking into account average emission rates from IPCC
(2006) for breeding and nishing pigs. Slurry is delivered by
tanker trucks to agricultural lands placed in the farm and in the
surrounding areas (5 km). Emissions derived from slurry spreading
have also been considered, such as N2O, NH3 and NOx into the air as
well as nitrate (NO3  ) and phosphate (PO4 3 ) leaching. N2O
emissions were calculated considering emission factors reported in
Nguyen et al. (2011). Remaining emissions were also calculated
according to Nguyen et al. (2011).
This slurry spreading (after storage and stabilisation) substitutes
mineral fertilisers. Thus, avoided emissions derived from mineral
fertilisers production and application were also computed within
this subsystem's boundaries in accordance with Dalgaard et al.
(2007), Nguyen et al. (2011) and Reckmann et al. (2013). It has
been assumed that the substitution rate for nitrogen (N) is 0.7 kg
mineral N fertiliser per kg N content in pig slurry applied to soil
(Dalgaard et al., 2007; Nguyen et al., 2011). With regard to phosphorus (P) and potassium (K), the substitution rate assumed was
97% and 100%, respectively (Nguyen et al., 2011).
The calculated emissions derived from slurry handling, storage
and application are reported in Table 4 as well as CH4 emission from
enteric fermentation. Slurry characteristics are also reported in
Table 4.
A sensitivity analysis has been performed in this study taking
into account different valorisation strategies for animal byproducts from slaughtering activities (such as production of
biogas, heat and animal feed). Corresponding inventory data for all
these co-product valorising processes were taken from Nguyen
et al. (2011).
Moreover, differences not only on the functional unit denition
but also on impact assessment method, farming conditions and
system boundaries were identied with regard to environmental
studies available in the literature and focused on pigmeat production in different European countries. Therefore, a comparison and
discussion between our results and those reported in the literature
has been carried out in order to identify divergences.
2.5. Impact assessment methodology
Among the steps dened within the life cycle impact assessment stage of the standardised LCA methodology (ISO 14040,
2006), only classication and characterisation were undertaken in
this study. Normalisation and weighting were not performed, as
these optional elements were not considered to provide additional
robust information for the objectives of the study (ISO 14040,
2006).
Animal production systems (in this case, pig) involve emissions
into the environment and consumption of resources (water, fossil
fuels, etc). The environmental effects of these emissions and consumption of resources can be illustrated in terms of different
impact categories: acidication, eutrophication, climate change
and photochemical oxidant formation potentials are affected
considerably by derived emissions such as CO2, CH4, NH3 and N2O.
In addition, special attention is paid to fossil fuels and water
depletion in order to identify energy and water requirements
through the life cycle (Reckmann et al., 2012). Therefore, all these
impact categories are the most widely used in environmental
studies regardless of the animal production system (Basset-Mens
and van der Werf, 2005; Beauchemin et al., 2010; Cederberg and
, 2004; Dalgaard et al., 2007; Reckmann et al., 2012;
Flysjo
Williams et al., 2006). Thus, the following impact categories have
been considered for assessment in this study: climate change (CC),
fossil fuel depletion (FD), freshwater eutrophication (FEU), marine

Table 4
Summarised data inventory for the pigmeat production system per functional unit
(1 kg pigmeat e carcass weight).
Input
Crop and feed production subsystem (S1)
Electricity
Maize
Barley
Wheat silage
Soybean oil
Animal fat
Wheat grain
Soybean meal
Sunower
Rape meal
Sugarbeet molasses
Transport e truck
Transport e container
Animal production subsystem (S2)
Feed (from S1)
Electricity
Water
Transport e truck
Slaughtering subsystem (S3)
Finished pig (from S2)
Tap water
Water
Cleaning agents
Electricity (slaughtering)
Electricity (WWTP)
Natural gas
Transport e truck
Transport e tanker truck
Output
Crop and feed production subsystem (S1)
Feed (to S2)
Animal production subsystem (S2)
Finished pig (to S3)
Slurry to managementa,b
Emissions into air (on-farm)
CH4
N2O
N2
NOx
NH3
Emissions into air (manure management)
N2O
N2
NOx
NH3
Emissions into water
NO3 
PO4 3
Slaughtering subsystem (S3)
Pigmeatecarcass weight
Treated wastewater
Animal by-product
Emissions into air
CO2
CO
CH4
N2O
NOx
NMVOC
Emissions into water
BOD
COD
a
b

Value

Unit

0.23
1.29
0.52
0.59
27.3
12.4
75.0
0.64
65.4
63.8
17.7
0.53
6.7

Wh
kg
kg
kg
g
g
g
kg
g
g
g
t km
t km

3.59
0.25
18.9
1.43

kg
kWh
kg
t km

1.28
0.20
0.57
52.9
48.9
0.02
0.66
0.21
60.1

kg
kg
kg
mg
Wh
Wh
g
t km
kg km

Value

Unit

3.59

kg

1.28
12.0

kg
kg

11.1
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.14

g
g
g
g
g

0.02
0.06
0.01
0.14

g
g
g
g

0.13
0.01

g
g

1.00
0.77
0.22

kg
kg
kg

1.73
0.77
3.09$102
3.09$103
2.16
7.72$102

g
mg
mg
mg
mg
mg

9.67$102
7.24$101

mg
mg

Average slurry production e 12,02 kg. FU1.

Slurry density e 1029 kg. m3.

eutrophication (MEU), ozone depletion (OD), photochemical

oxidant formation (POF), terrestrial acidication (TA) and water
depletion (WD). Moreover, toxicity-related impact categories
, 2004)
(Basset-Mens and van der Werf, 2005; Cederberg and Flysjo


lez-Garca et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 100 (2015) 126e139

S. Gonza
Table 5
Impact assessment results per kg carcass weight associated with the Portuguese pig
meat production system under intensive conditions (base scenario).
Impact category

Unit

Value

CC
FD
FE
FEU
HT
ME
MEU
OD
POF
TA
TE
WD

kg CO2 eq
kg oil eq
g 1,4-DCB eq
g P eq
kg 1,4-DCB eq
g 1,4-DCB eq
g N eq
mg CFC-11 eq
g NMVOC
g SO2 eq
kg 1,4-DCB eq
m3

3.34
0.457
84.04
0.558
2.83
11.69
41.29
0.125
14.91
22.83
14.31
3.07

have also been considered such as freshwater ecotoxicity (FE),

human toxicity (HT), marine ecotoxicity (ME), and terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE). Characterisation factors from ReCipe Midpoint
methodology (Goedkoop et al., 2008) have been used and the GaBi
6.0 software version has been selected to process the inventories
(GaBi, 2014).

131

production subsystems and impact categories are described in the

following sections.
3.1.1. Subsystem 1 e crop and feed production
Within S1 (Fig. 3a), feed component production has been
identied as the main contributor to all the categories with environmental impacts ranging from 83% to 100% depending on the
category.
Feed component production involves not only the agricultural activities related to the production of soybean, barley,
maize, wheat, sugar beet, rape and sunower but also the production of molasses from sugar beet at a sugar renery, rape
meal at an oil plant as well as animal fat. As shown in Fig. 3b,
four feed ingredients have been identied as the environmental
hotspots: soybean (oil and meal), maize grain, wheat (silage and
grain) and barley (grain). Production of these ingredients, which
are also the main feed sources in pig feed (see Table 1), presents
contributions from 63% to 97% (depending on the category) to
the environmental impacts derived from this contributing
factor.
Production of electricity requirements as well as transport activities related to the supply of feed components have been taken
into account, although their contributions to the environmental
prole derived from S1 are negligible (Fig. 3a) except in CC, FD, POF

3. Results
3.1. General environmental results
Table 5 reports the environmental performance in the selected
impact categories for the base case, where by-product valorisation
derived from the slaughterhouse (blood, bones, viscera, etc) has
not been included within the pig production system boundaries.
Fig. 2 displays the distribution of environmental results per
contributing subsystem for each impact category. Thus, the subsystem that generates the higher environmental loads is identied. According to the results, the subsystem related to the
production of pig feed (S1) is the principle cause of environmental
burden when compared with all the categories analysed. S2 (animal production) contributes 12% and 25% respectively for the
categories CC and WD. More detailed results for the different

Fig. 2. Relative contributions (in %) from subsystems involved in the life cycle of
Portuguese pigmeat production system (S1 e Crop and feed production subsystem; S2
e Animal production subsystem; S3 e Slaughtering subsystem) to the impact categories under assessment.

Fig. 3. a) Contributions (in %) from processes involved in the crop and feed production
subsystem (S1). b) Distribution of environmental burdens from feed components
production.

132

lez-Garca et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 100 (2015) 126e139

S. Gonza

and TA, where transport activities contribute from 4% to 17%

depending on the impact category.
3.1.2. Subsystem 2 e animal production
According to Fig. 2, the subsystem S2 (animal production stage)
mostly affected the categories of CC and WD with a contribution of
12% and 25% respectively. Contributions to CC are mainly related to
on-farm emissions (mostly CH4) derived from enteric fermentation
as well as slurry storage, handling and management. In order to
identify the contributions to the overall environmental prole
derived from S2, Fig. 4 shows the processes involved and distribution ratios per impact category.
According to Fig. 4, with the inclusion of CH4 emissions from
enteric fermentation, the emissions derived from slurry handling
and storage (such as N2O, NH3, NOx and CH4) contribute negatively
to categories such as CC, MEU, POF and TA (70%, 16%, 21% and 27%
respectively of total impacts derived from S2).
Slurry application contributions involve not only emissions
derived from slurry application onto agricultural land (such as N2O,
NH3, NOx, NO3  and PO4 3 ) but also emissions related to slurry
spreading (mainly combustion emissions from diesel used in the
machine) and slurry transport from the pig farm up to the land
where it is applied. Contributions from this process are remarkable
in categories such as FEU, MEU, OD and TE (51%, 63%, 86% and 64%
respectively of derived impacts from S2).
As previously mentioned, the use of pig slurry as organic fertiliser on agricultural land avoids the production of specic
amounts of mineral N-, P- and K-based fertilisers. These production
processes avoiding mineral fertiliser lead to positive environmental
burdens (environmental credits), contributing to the reduction of
environmental loads (see Fig. 4).
3.1.3. Subsystem 3 e slaughtering
As shown in Fig. 2, the subsystem related to slaughtering activities in the slaughterhouse reports negligible contributions to all
the categories under assessment. These contributions are higher in
FD and WD, being lower than 5% of total impacts. Fig. 5 displays the
contributions from processes involved in S3.
According to the contributions reported in this gure, production of the electricity requirements in the slaughterhouse is a
signicant factor with contributions over 30% in categories such
as CC, FD, HT, POF, TA and WD. Transport activities (transportation
of pigs from the pig farm to the slaughterhouse) are also
remarkable (due to diesel use and combustion-derived emissions)

Fig. 4. Contributions (in %) from processes involved in the animal production subsystem (S2).

Fig. 5. Contributions (in %) from processes involved in the slaughtering subsystem

(S3).

in all categories except HT, OD and WD due to the travelled

distance.
Production of tap water requirements is important in FE, FEU
and OD (18%, 53% and 27% respectively) mainly due to the related
energy requirements. Production of cleaning agents is a hotspot in
terms of OD (43% of total contributions to this category from S3)
due to emissions derived from their production processes.
Wastewater produced in the slaughterhouse is sent to a WWTP,
whose operation has been considered within this subsystem's
boundaries. However, this process presents low contributions to
the total impacts of the assessed system.
Finally, the production of heating requirements in a boiler using
natural gas as fuel reports a light contribution to the environmental
prole derived from S3-related activities (lower than 5%).
3.2. Environmental results per impact category
3.2.1. Climate change (CC)
Results in this impact category are expressed in terms of kg CO2
eq, representing a 100-year time horizon. The most inuential
subsystem in CC is the crop and feed production subsystem (S1),
contributing 86% to the overall value. Production of forage crops
considerably affect this impact category, as reported earlier. The
animal production subsystem (S2) resulted in 0.39 kg CO2 eq (12%),
whereas slaughtering activities (S3) reect 2% of the overall CC. The
gases contributing most to CC are CO2, N2O and CH4, which
represent 57%, 32% and 11% of total GHG emissions, respectively.
CO2 and N2O ows mainly derive from the agricultural practices
(70% and 99% respectively) predominantly related to soybean,
maize, wheat and barley production. On the contrary, CH4 ow
mostly derives from on-farm emissions related to slurry management and enteric fermentation (75%), followed by feed production
to a much lesser extent (21%).
3.2.2. Fossil depletion (FD)
This impact category assesses the requirement of nonrenewable resources which contain hydrocarbons such as liquid
petrol, coal, etc. Results in this category are expressed in terms of kg
oil eq (being equivalent to 42 MJ), and it reects the fossil fuels
requirement through the life cycle of the system under study. The
crop and feed production subsystem is again the main fossil fuel
consumer, with a share of 88%, followed by S2 (7%) and S3 (5%).
With regard to fossil fuel consumption throughout the pigmeat


lez-Garca et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 100 (2015) 126e139

S. Gonza

production system, crude oil and natural gas represent 68% and
natural gas, 24% of the total, respectively.
3.2.3. Toxicity-related categories
In this study, four different toxicity-related categories have been
considered for assessment: human toxicity (HT), freshwater ecotoxicity (FE), marine ecotoxicity (ME) and terrestrial ecotoxicity
(TE). Characterisation results are presented in kg 1,4dichlorobenzene (BC) eq. In these four categories, S1 has been the
single activity responsible for contributing emissions (~100%).
Emission of phosphorous and heavy metals into water and soil are
the main contributing substances responsible for these results.
3.2.4. Freshwater eutrophication (FEU) and marine eutrophication
(MEU)
Eutrophication consists in the nutrient enrichment of the
aquatic environment as a result of human activities, considering
those nutrients that limit the aquatic biomass yield, mainly the
phytoplankton. The phytoplankton growth depends on the availability of P and N. The ReCiPe method considers two types of
eutrophication depending if the nutrient enrichment is at freshwater (FEU) or seawater (MEU) level, since both of them present
different limiting nutrients. Thus, eutrophication potential in
freshwater and seawater are measured by phosphorous enrichment (kg P eq) and by nitrogen enrichment (kg N eq), respectively.
In both categories, once again the crop and feed production
subsystem (S1) is the activity entirely responsible for contributing
substances (98% and 100% respectively for FEU and MEU). PO4 3
and P emissions are responsible for contributions to FEU, which
mainly derive from soybean-, maize-, wheat- and barley-related
agricultural activities. With regard to MEU, NO3  emission
derived from agricultural practices adds to 98% of total emissions
derived from S1, and is the main substance contributing to this
impact category.
3.2.5. Ozone depletion (OD)
This category accounts for the destruction of the stratospheric
ozone layer by anthropogenic emissions of ozone-depleting substances which contain chlorine or bromine atoms. The values are
reported in kg of CFC-11 (trichlorouoromethane). According to the
results, 98% of total contributing substances derive from S1 (i.e. 67%
Halon 1301 and 21% Halon 1211) and they also derive from agricultural practices related to the production of feed components.
3.2.6. Photochemical oxidants formation (POF)
In this impact category, the air pollutants formed by the action
of sunlight on NOx and hydrocarbons are quantied. The results are
expressed in kg of NMVOC eq. As in previous categories, S1 is the
most inuential factor with a share of 95% of total contributions.
Inorganic emissions (mostly NOx) into freshwater derived from S1related activities represent 98% of total contributing substances.
3.2.7. Terrestrial acidication (TA)
This category assesses the change in acidity in the soil due to the
emissions of inorganic acidifying substances such as sulphates,
nitrates and phosphates into the air. The results are expressed in kg
of SO2 equivalent. In this category, 94% of total acidifying emissions
derive from the crop and feed production subsystem (S1). The main
substances contributing to TA are NH3 (62%), NOx (20%) and SO2
(17%).
3.2.8. Water depletion (WD)
This impact category expresses the amount of water used
through the life cycle of the systems under study. This category is
particularly interesting in agricultural-based systems since water is

133

a scarce resource and extracting water could cause signicant

damage to ecosystems. In this case, contributions from S1 (water
requirements in agricultural practices) add up to 70% of total water
requirements through the system under study, followed by S2
(24%) and S3 (6%).
3.3. Land use
Land use refers to the loss of land as a resource, in the sense of
being momentarily unavailable for other purposes due to crops
which are cultivated for pig feed production as well as for pig
rearing activities. The pigmeat production system under study in an
intensive regime involves a total of 5.28 m2$a per kg carcass weight
(4.12 m2$a per kg live weight). Contributions from S1 to land use
reports 99.9% of total requirements of land use since it is the subsystem which considers the production of animal feed and thus, the
corresponding agricultural activities. If this contribution is assessed
in more detail, there are ve agricultural processes responsible for
the main land requirements: cultivation of maize (32.6%), soybean
(19.8%), wheat (16.1%), barley (12.5%) and sunower (15.1%).
4. Discussion
According to the results previously reported, S1 (focused on
animal feed production) is the subsystem responsible for the
highest contributions to all the impact categories considered for
assessment mainly due to the cultivation of four ingredients
(wheat, barley, maize and soybean). Baumgartner et al. (2008) reported that there is a need for high-quality protein for animal
fodder production, with soybean meal being the main protein
source. Alternative protein sources such as grain legumes (peas,
beans, etc.) could be considered in order to propose improvements
to the environmental burdens derived from feed production. Special attention has been paid in the literature to the use of peas as a
protein source and substitute for soybean meal since the cultivation
of grain legumes does not require mineral fertilisation activities
(Baumgartner et al., 2008) e an important environmental hotspot.
Nevertheless, differences are identied in terms of protein content
between soybean meal and peas, with the level being lower in the
legumes. Thus, if the protein ratio is maintained, a larger amount of
pea mass will be required due to changes in fodder composition
ratios. In addition, there are differences in the feed composition
depending on the different stages of growth and breeding (Table 1).
Thus, since feed formulation and production is beyond the control
of pig farmers, special attention has been paid to other subsystems
where improvement alternatives could directly affect pig farming
activities.
4.1. Alternative functional units and comparison with published
studies
According to the literature, LCA results related to meat production systems can be reported in terms of different functional
units:
1. kg live weight at slaughter in order to reect its function as a
producer of market goods (Basset-Mens and van der Werf,
2005; Blonk et al., 1997)
2. kg carcass weight or kg dead weight at slaughter gate (Nguyen
et al., 2011) in order to reect the valuable product ready to
be delivered to wholesalers and retailers (0.78 kg carcass
weight$kg1 live weight);
3. kg of edible product (de Vries and de Boer, 2010) or kg of bone
, 2004) since pork is
and fat-free meat (Cederberg and Flysjo
fattened in order to produce meat instead of other non-edible


lez-Garca et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 100 (2015) 126e139

S. Gonza

134

products, such as leather. Moreover, this unit reects the edible

parts from meat production since people neither eat the bones
nor usually the fat (0.62 kg edible product$kg1 carcass weight);
4. kg of edible protein (de Vries and de Boer, 2010; Flachowsky and
Hachenberg, 2009) since the production of protein is the main
aim of animal production in Europe (Reckmann et al., 2012;
Schau and Fet, 2008) (0.13 kg protein$kg1 carcass weight);
5. average daily intake (ADI) of pig meat in an OECD country (de
Vries and de Boer, 2010; Reckmann et al., 2012), which is
around 0.082 kg per person per day.
Table 6 shows the environmental results derived from pigmeat
production in Portugal under intensive conditions, taking into
account different functional units proposed in the literature as
well as considering impact assessment methods. According to
Reckmann et al. (2013), the use of different characterisation
methods can affect the results. In the case of global warming or
climate change, if the same time horizon is used, no differences
are reported in the results. However, other impact categories
related to environmental impacts on a regional scale such as
eutrophication and acidication can report differences in the results. The ReCiPe method (Goedkoop et al., 2008) considers two
different types of eutrophication (freshwater and marine). Con
e et al., 2002) considers only
trary to this, the CML method (Guine
one global eutrophication impact. Table 6 combines results reported by other published studies related to pig production in
different European countries. The table only includes the impact
categories considered for assessment in the literature which are
common to all studies in order to make the comparison easier.

Thus, environmental results have been detailed in terms of climate

change (or global warming potential), acidication, eutrophication
and energy use.
An important aspect that must be taken into account when
environmental results are being compared between different pigmeat production systems is the denition of system boundaries.
There are numerous studies where environmental proles have
been calculated from a cradle-to-farmgate perspective (Basset , 2004;
Mens and van der Werf, 2005; Cederberg and Flysjo
Hirschfeld et al., 2008; Williams et al., 2006). However, the cradleto-slaughterhouse gate perspective has only been considered by
some studies and animal by-products are not always considered
within the system boundaries (Nguyen et al., 2011; Reckmann et al.,
2013).
Moreover, the inclusion or not of slurry management within the
system boundaries, differences in the pig production regime
(organic, intensive, etc.) and transport distances as well as allocation approaches of co-products (economic allocation or system
expansion) and characterisation methods also have an inuence on
the environmental results (Basset-Mens and van der Werf, 2005;
, 2004; Hirschfeld et al., 2008; Williams
Cederberg and Flysjo
et al., 2006).
The main impacts derived from meat production regardless of
the type of meat (chicken, pork or beef) are related to farming ac
lez-Garca et al., 2014;
tivities (Castanheira et al., 2010; Gonza
Hospido et al., 2003; Reckmann et al., 2012). Within farming activities (including S1 and S2), production of animal feed (S1) is an
environmental hotspot due to agricultural activities related to the
production of forage crops followed by emissions from enteric

Table 6
Impact assessment results associated with the Portuguese pig meat production system under intensive conditions considering different functional unit (FU).
Reference

CC (kg CO2eq)

This study

Dalgaard et al. (2007)

Halberg et al. (2007)

,f

Dalgaard and Halberg

(2005),g
Stephenson (2010)
Nguyen et al. (2011)
Xueqin and van Ierland
(2004)
Blonk et al. (1997)
de Vries and de Boer
(2010)
Basset Mens and van der
Werf (2005)

Cederberg and Flysjo

(2004)
Williams et al. (2006)
Dalgaard et al. (2007)
Reckmann et al. (2013)

a
b
c
d
e
f
g

3.3
3.3
25.9
5.4
0.44
2.6
3.3
3.3
3.6
2.8e3.3
3.8e4.3
2.7
3.3
2.2
77.9
3.7
3.9e10

FD (MJeq)
19.2
19.2
149
30.9
2.5
14.3
18.4

13.6
397
45
16.0
18e34
95e236

2.3e4.0
3.0
2.6c
5.6
3.4
3.6
3.2
2.4
3.0

19.5
15.4
17.0

FEU (g Peq)

MEU (g Neq)

0.558

41.29

4.32
0.899
0.074
0.435
0.558

320
66.60
5.46
32.19
41.27

EU

TA (g SO2eq)

232 g NO3eq
232 g NO3eq
269e381 g NO3eq
353e501 g NO3eq
230 g NO3eq

22.8
19.5
177
36.8
3.02
17.7
22.7
45
45
50.9e61.4
67e81
43

185 g NO3eq
2.5 kg Neq

42.5
0.68 kg NH3eq

24.5 g PO4 3 eq

3

18 g PO4
eq
5e20 g PO4 3 eq

31
5e65

16.6e21.6 g PO4 3 eq
274 g NO3eq
170 g NO3eq

22.6e43.5
57
37

760 g NO3eq
301 g NO3eq
301 g NO3eq
23.3 g PO4 3 eq
18.4 g PO4 3 eq
21.4 g PO4 3 eq

Including slaughtering activities.

Excluding slaughtering activities.
3.6e4.4 kg CO2 eq$kg1 edible product.
It is not specied.
Including delivery activities from slaughterhouse.
Organic farming.
Conventional farming; CW carcass weight; LW live weight; ADI average daily intake.

290
61
64
57.1
45.11
56.8

FU

Country
a

Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per

kg CW
kg CWa
kg eatable proteina
kg edible producta
ADI
kg LWb
kg CWb
kg CWb
kg CWa,e
kg LWb
kg CWb
kg LWb

Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

LWb
LWb
eatable protein
LWb
LWb
LWb
eatable protein
LWa
CWb
CWb
b

CW
CWb
CWa,e
CWa
LWb
CWb

PT

DK

NL

d
FR
SW
GB

GE


lez-Garca et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 100 (2015) 126e139

S. Gonza

fermentation and slurry management regardless of the category

under study.
All the studies consulted reported animal feed production (S1)
as the main activity responsible for environmental impact (values
ranging from 20% to 90% depending on the category). Activities
related to pig production (S2) e mainly on-farm emissions as well
as emissions derived from slurry management e were responsible
for around 30%, 40% and 75% of emissions contributing to climate
change, eutrophication and acidication, respectively.
Slight differences have been found between these studies and
our study, where the environmental prole is similar except in
terms of acidifying emissions regardless of the impact assessment
method considered (see Table 6). GHG emissions at farm gate
(including S1 and S2) in our study is 2.6 kg CO2 eq$kg1 live weight
or 3.3 kg CO2 eq$kg1 carcass weight (Table 6). Results ranging from
2.2 to 3.7 kg CO2 eq$kg1 live weight and from 2.6 to 3.8 kg CO2
eq$kg1 carcass weight have been reported in the literature
considering the same system boundaries and farming regime
(conventional or intensive).
More signicant results have been found for organic farming
regimes in Halberg et al. (2007) and Basset Mens and van der Werf
(2005) adding up to 4.3 kg CO2 eq$kg1 carcass weight at farm gate.
Williams et al. (2006) also reported a high value for climate change
(5.6 kg CO2 eq per kg carcass weight at farm gate), which is related
to feed production and transport activities. It is also important to
reiterate that the use of different databases introduces errors into
the comparisons (Reckmann et al., 2013). Moreover, emissions onfarm and related to slurry application were calculated taking into
account emissions factors. The calculation method, which also depends on the country, appears to be a signicant factor in these
differences. In fact, emission differences (although in minor ratios)
are also observed in other categories such as eutrophication and
energy use. In the case of eutrophication, there are only four case
studies which present the characterisation results in g PO-3
4 eq
(Basset Mens and van der Werf, 2005; Blonk et al., 1997; de Vries
and de Boer, 2010; Reckmann et al., 2013). If eutrophication results are compared regardless of the system boundary and functional unit, differences are lower than 6%.
With regard to energy use (expressed in MJ eq), the results
corresponding to our study are in line with most of those from the
literature.
On the subject of land use, our study reports 5.28 m2$a per kg
carcass weight considering an attributional assessment. This value
is also in line with Nguyen et al. (2011), where 5.8 m2$a per kg
carcass weight is reported in Denmark in a cradle-toslaughterhouse gate study.
4.2. Valorisation of by-products derived from slaughterhouse
Slaughtering activities involve not only the production of waste
water but also an important amount of by-products (~0.22 kg per
kg carcass weight). The valorisation of this stream has not been
considered within the system boundaries of the base system (Base
Scenario) since it is outside slaughterhouse-related activities (they
do not receive any revenue for them).
However, this stream could be valorised in different applications: biogas, energy and animal feed production (Nguyen et al.,
2011). For this reason, different alternative scenarios have been
proposed where by-product valorisation has been considered
within the system boundaries taking into account usual valorisation practices.
According to the European regulation concerning animal byproducts not intended for human consumption (European
Community, 2002), these by-products are classied into three
categories depending on the degree of risk to public and animal

135

health and the environment arising from those animal by-products.

This regulation also denes which treatments/disposals/valorisation shall be used for each category. In the system under study,
57% of total animal by-products (that is, slurry from slaughterhouse
and residues such as intestines and stomach) are classied as
category 2 material and can be destined for biogas production by
anaerobic digestion or incineration with energy recovery (Bacenetti

et al., 2014a, 2014b). The remaining 43% (that is,
et al., 2013; Lijo
residues such as bones, blood, meat, scraps) are classied as category 3 material and can be destined for animal feed production and
energy (e.g. heat). Thus, an alternative scenario (Scenario A) has
been proposed for analysis where biogas (and corresponding conversion into heat and electricity), heat and animal feed production
processes have been included within the system boundaries.
Moreover, these production processes avoid the production of an
equivalent amount of electricity, heat, district heat and animal feed.
Thus, these avoided processes have also been considered. With
regard to animal feed, barley is an important component in pig feed
(see Table 1). Therefore, and in accordance with Nguyen et al.
(2011), barley production has been considered as avoided with
the animal feed produced from animal by-products. Inventory data
concerning the biogas, heat and animal feed production processes
have been adapted to the amount of animal by-product processed
in our case study taking data from Nguyen et al. (2011) and the GaBi
(2014).
Moreover, it is common in Portugal for part of the animal byproduct from slaughterhouses (category 2 material) to go through
an incineration process in order to recover energy (electricity and
heat). The remaining part (category 3 material) can be dedicated to
animal fat and feed production. Thus, an alternative scenario has
been proposed (Scenario B) taking into account the production of
energy, animal fat and animal feed from that animal by-product
from the slaughtering subsystem. In this scenario, 57% of animal
by-product is sent for incineration and the remaining 43% to animal
fat and feed production. Moreover, avoided processes with associated environmental loads have also been computed within this
Table 7
Main inventory data for the alternative valorisations of animal by-product derived
from slaughtering subsystem e S3 e per kg pigmeat carcass weight.
Scenario A e Valorisation I Valorisation II
Valorisation I: Electricity and heat
production (biogas)

Valorisation II: Energy and animal

feed production

Inputs
Animal by-products
Electricity
Heat
Outputs
Electricity
Heat
Emissions into air
CH4
N2O
SO2
NOx

Inputs
Animal by-products
Electricity
Heat
Outputs
Heat
Animal feed
Emissions into air
N total
Emissions into water
P total

Value
127 g
0.250 Wh
1.65 Wh
Value
8.96 Wh
11.60 Wh
851.5 g
49.66 g
1.65 mg
46.3 mg

Value
94.74 g
8.24 Wh
6.54 Wh
Value
11.75 Wh
74.18 g
2.75 mg
0.09 mg

Scenario B e Valorisation III Valorisation IV

Valorisation III: Electricity and heat
production (incineration)

Valorisation IV: Animal fat and

feed production

Inputs
Animal by-product
Outputs
Electricity
Heat
Emissions into air
CO2
SO2
N2O

Inputs
Animal by-product
Electricity
Heat
Outputs
Animal fat
Animal feed
Condensate

Value
127 g
Value
17.47 Wh
45 Wh
85.71 g
11.18 mg
0.23 mg

Value
94.74 g
2.54 Wh
31.11 Wh
Value
11.40 g
14.25 g
69.16 g

136

lez-Garca et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 100 (2015) 126e139

S. Gonza

system boundary (electricity, heat and barley production). Inventory data concerning the incineration and fat and feed production processes as well as associated avoided processes have
been taken from the Ecoinvent Database (Weidema et al., 2013).
Table 7 presents a short description of inventory data managed
in both scenarios concerning the valorisation of animal by-product.
Fig. 6 shows the processes included and avoided within the system
boundaries of both alternative scenarios (Scenario A and Scenario
B) for valorisation of animal by-product in comparison with the
Base Scenario.

Fig. 7a shows the comparison between the environmental proles corresponding to the three scenarios proposed for assessment.
There are large differences in these results depending on the
category. The consideration of the stream within the system
boundaries involves an increase in the characterisation results in
categories such as POF, TA, TE, FEU, MEU, OD and toxicity-related
categories. However, reductions up to 30% are achieved in Scenario A in relation to Base Scenario in terms of CC.
If the environmental proles between both alternative scenarios
are compared, the choice of the best valorisation alternative is not

Fig. 6. Overview and system boundaries of the alternative scenarios proposed including the valorisation of animal by eproduct (organic waste). a) Scenario A e biogas animal
feed heat production; b) Scenario B e incineration animal feed animal fat production.


lez-Garca et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 100 (2015) 126e139

S. Gonza

137

Fig. 7. a) Comparative environmental proles between Base Scenario and alternative scenarios A and B; b) Distribution of environmental burdens per impact category in Scenario A;
c) Distribution of environmental burdens per processes involved in the organic waste treatment in Scenario A; d) Distribution of environmental burdens per impact category in
Scenario B; e) Distribution of environmental burdens per processes involved in the organic waste treatment in Scenario B.

138

lez-Garca et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 100 (2015) 126e139

S. Gonza

totally clear and it depends on the category under analysis. Scenario

A presents the best results in six impact categories (CC, FD, FE, FEU,
OD and WD) in comparison with the Base Scenario, where animal
by-product valorisation has not been considered. Scenario B reports
slight environmental reductions in only two categories (FD and
WD). If both alternative scenarios are directly compared in order to
select the best valorisation, Scenario A should report reductions in
CC (31%), FEU (30%) and OD (100%) regarding Scenario B. In the
remaining categories, Scenario B should be the best choice with
reductions ranging from 2% to 76% depending on the category.
In Scenario A, the animal by-product valorisation has been
divided in two different sections: the major share of animal byproduct is destined for electricity and heat production by means
of a biogas production process (Valorisation I) and the minor share
to heat and animal feed production (Valorisation II). According to
the contributions reported in Fig. 7b, both valorisation sections
have a negligible contribution in categories such as FD, FE, FEU, OD
and WD. Nevertheless, in other impact categories such as CC, HT,
ME, MEU, POF and TA, the effect from by-product valorisation activities are important, contributing to a reduction in the emission of
global GHGs and increasing the contributions to the remaining
mentioned categories (up to 113% in TA and 307% in POF).
Emissions into air derived from the biogas production and
combustion steps (CO2, SO2 and NOx) are the main activities
responsible for increments in MEU, POF and TA (Fig. 7c). To the
contrary, the reuse of the digestate obtained in the biogas production process as organic fertiliser derives on avoided N2O and
CH4 emission, involving an environmental credit in terms of CC. In
other categories related to toxicity such as HT, ME and TE, the increments on the characterisation results are related to derived
emissions from the energy and animal feed production steps. The
avoided processes of heat, electricity and barley production reports
environmental credits as shown in Fig. 7c, contributing with small
reductions in characterisation results.
In Scenario B, two animal by-product valorisation sections have
been considered: heat and electricity by means of an incineration
process (Valorisation III) and animal fat and feed production (Valorisation IV), taking into account the corresponding avoided
products. According to Fig. 7d, the animal by-product valorisation
only has a remarkable effect on the environmental results in terms
of FD, FEU, OD and WD. In FD and WD, the animal by-product
valorisation presents a positive effect reducing fossil fuels and
water consumption mainly due to the avoided heat and electricity
production related to the incineration step (Fig. 7e). In FEU and OD,
the behaviour is totally different. In both categories, there is an
increment in the environmental burdens in comparison with the
Base Scenario (Fig. 7d). Contributions to both categories are related
to emissions derived from the incineration step, such as phosphate
and phosphorous into water (FEU) and trichlorouoromethane and
dichlorotetrauoroethane into air (OD), which considerably affect
these categories, thus increasing the impact. According to Fig. 7e,
the avoided processes mentioned related to animal feed and energy
production derived from the animal by-product valorisation
contribute with environmental credits in all the categories, minimising the impacts derived from by-product valorisation processes.
5. Conclusions
Farming activities related to meat production play a major role
in the environmental problems all over the world. This study
addresses the environmental impacts associated with pigmeat
production in Portugal considering the best available techniques
for the pork sector from a cradle-to-slaughterhouse gate
perspective, and thus representing the rst environmental study
for the Iberian sector. This study allows not only the estimation of

environmental prole per kg of carcass weight but also the

assessment of different alternatives for the animal by-product
derived from the slaughtering activities in order to valorise an
organic waste.
The results of our study have demonstrated that they are in line
with others reported in the literature, which implies that Portuguese practices are representative of European strategies. The large
environmental burdens derived from feed production highlight the
need for more mitigation strategies focused on their reduction. It is
important to note that although this study is focused on pig, similar
trends are observed in other livestock farming systems such as
dairy farms. Thus, more attention should be paid to the proposal of
mitigation strategies specically regarding animal feed production.
Therefore, future studies regarding the use of alternative protein
sources in animal feed production (e.g. grain legumes instead of
soybean meal) should be carried out in order to corroborate their
benets to the environment.
The valorisation of the animal by-product (organic waste)
derived from slaughtering activitites into bionergy and feed involves interesting environmental results, specically in terms of CC
and FD. However, more research is required in order to determine
its application not only in Portugal but also in other European
countries.
Acknowledgements
The research leading to these results has received funding from
COMPETE (Programa Operacional Fatores de Competitividade), cofunded by FEDER through the project EcoDeep e Development of
Eco-efciency Tools for the Agri-food Sector (FCOMP-05-0128FEDER-018643).
Dr. Sara Gonz

alez-Garca would like to express her gratitude to
the Galician government (POS-A/2012/055) for its nancial support
(DOG number 62, pages 9405-9410, 1 April 2013) for a postdoctoral
research fellowship taken at the University of Aveiro (Portugal),
where this paper was prepared.
References

lez-Garca, S., 2013. Anaerobic digestion of
Bacenetti, J., Negri, M., Fiala, M., Gonza
different feedstocks: impact on energetic and environmental balances of biogas
process. Sci. Total Environ. 463e464, 541e551.
Basset-Mens, C., van der Werf, H.M.G., 2005. Scenario-based environmental
assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 105, 127e144.
Basset-Mens, C., van der Werf, H.M.G., Robin, P., Morvan, Th, Hassouna, M.,
s, F., 2007. Methods and data for the environmental inventory
Paillat, J.-M., Verte
of contrasting pig production systems. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 1395e1405.
Baumgartner, D.U., de Baan, L., Nemecek, T., 2008. European Grain Legumes e
Environment-friendly Animal Feed? Life Cycle Assessment of Pork, Chicken,
Meat, Egg, and Milk Production. Grain Legumes Integrated Project (GLIP).
nikon Research Station ART, Zrich.
Agroscope Reckenholz-Ta
Beauchemin, K.A., Janzen, H.H., Little, S.M., McAllister, T.A., McGinn, S.M., 2010. Life
cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western
Canada: a case study. Agric. Syst. 103, 371e379.
Blonk, H., Laeur, M., Van Zeijts, H., 1997. Towards an Environmental Infrastructure
of the Dutch Food Industry: Exploring the Information Conversion of Five Food
Commodities. the Netherlands IVAM Environmental Research. University of
Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Castanheira, E.G., Dias, A.C., Arroja, L., Amaro, R., 2010. The environmental performance of milk production on a typical Portuguese dairy farm. Agric. Syst. 103,
498e507.
, A., 2004. Environmental Assessment of Future Pig Farming
Cederberg, C., Flysjo
SystemseQuantications of Three Scenarios from the FOOD 21 Synthesis Work.
SIK report 723/2004.
Cederberg, C., Stadig, M., 2003. System expansion and allocation in life cycle
assessment of milk and beef production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8, 350e356.
Clift, R., Doig, A., Finneveden, G., 2000. The application of life cycle assessment to
integrated solid waste management, part 1emethodology. Trans. Inst. Chem.
Eng. 78, 279e287. Part B.
da Silva, V.P.J., Cherubini, E., Soares, S.R., 2012. Comparison of two production
scenarios of chickens consumed in France. In: Corson, M.S., van der
Werf, H.M.G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Life


lez-Garca et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 100 (2015) 126e139

S. Gonza
Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food Sector (LCA Food 2012), 1e4 October 2012,
Saint Malo, France. INRA, Rennes, France, pp. 542e547.
Dalgaard, R., Halberg, N., 2005. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of Danish pork. In:
Proceedings from the International Workshop on Green Pork Production, Paris,
France, 25e27 May 2005, pp. 165e167.
Dalgaard, R., Halberg, N., Hermansen, J.E., 2007. Danish Pork Production. An Environmental Assessment. DJF Animal Science No. 82.
de Boer, I.J.M., 2003. Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic
milk production. Livest. Prod. Sci. 80, 69e77.
de Vries, M., de Boer, I.J.M., 2010. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock
products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livest. Sci. 128, 1e11.
European Commission, 2013. Prospects for Agricultural Markets and Income in the
EU 2013-2023. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets-and-prices/mediumterm-outlook/2013/fullrep_en.pdf (accessed February, 2014).
European Community, 2002. Regulation (EC) no 1774/2002 of the European
parliament and of the Council of 3 october 2002 laying down health rules
concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption. Off. J.
Eur. Communities L 273, 1e95.
Eurostat, 2013. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Statistics, 2013 ed., ISBN 978-9279-33005-6 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3930297/5968754/KS-FK13-001-EN.PDF/ef39caf7-60b9-4ab3-b9dc-3175b15feaa6 (accessed February,
2014).
FAO, 2004. Global Warming. The Impact of Meat Production and Consumption on
Climate Change. Presentation by R.K. Pachauri, London, 2008.
Flachowsky, G., Hachenberg, S., 2009. CO2 footprints for food of animal origin e
present stage and open questions. J. Verbraucherschutz Lebensmittelsicherheit
4, 190e198.
GaBi, 2014. PE International AG; LBP-gabi. University of Stuttgart: GaBi Software
System, Leinfelden-Echterdingen (Germany).
Garnett, T., 2009. Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options
for policy makers. Environ. Sci. Policy 12, 491e503.
Garnett, T., 2011. Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy 36,
S23eS32.
Goedkoop, M.J., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., de Schryver, A., Struijs, J., Van Zelm, R.,
2008. ReCiPe 2008, a Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises
Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level.
ReportI: Characterisation, rst ed.. http://www.lcia-recipe.net (accessed
February 2014).

lez-Garca, S., Castanheira, E.G., Dias, A.C., Arroja, L., 2013a. Using life cycle
Gonza
assessment methodology to assess UHT milk production in Portugal. Sci. Total
Environ. 442, 225e234.

lez-Garca, S., Castanheira, E.G., Dias, A.C., Arroja, L., 2013b. Environmental life
Gonza
cycle assessment of a dairy product: the yoghurt. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18,
796e811.

lez-Garca, S., Gomez-Fern

Gonza
andez, Z., Dias, A.C., Feijoo, G., Moreira, M.T.,
Arroja, L., 2014. Life cycle assessment of broiler chicken production: a portuguese case study. J. Clean. Prod. 74, 125e134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2014.03.067.

e, J.B., Gorre

e, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., de Koning, A., van
Guine
Oers, L., Wegener Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., de Bruijn, H., van
Duin, R., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Lindeijer, E., Roorda, A.A.H., van der Ven, B.L.,
Weidema, B.P. (Eds.), 2002. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment; Operational
Guide to the ISO Standards. Institute for Environmental Sciences, Leiden, The
Netherlands.
Halberg, N., van der Werf, H.M.G., Basset-Mens, C., Dalgaard, R., de Boer, I.J.M., 2005.
Environmental assessment tools for the evaluation and improvement of European livestock production systems. Livest. Prod. Sci. 96, 33e50.
Halberg, N., Hermansen, J.E., Kristense, IbS., Eriksen, J., Tvedegaard, N., 2007.
Comparative Environmental Assessment of Three Systems for Organic Pig
Production in Denmark. Available from: http://orgprints.org/15585/1/15585.pdf
(accessed March, 2014).

139

Herrero, M., Gerberb, P., Vellingac, T., Garnettd, T., Leipe, A., Opio, C., Westhoekf, H.J.,
Thorntona, P.K., Oleseng, J., Hutchings, N., Montgomery, H., Soussanai, J.-F.,
Steinfeld, H., McAllister, T.A., 2011. Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions: the
importance of getting the numbers right. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 166e167,
779e782.
Hirschfeld, J., Weiss, J., Preidl, M., Korbun, T., 2008. Klimawirkungen der Landwirtschaft in Deutschland (in German; Climate impacts of German agriculture).
Schriftenreihe des IOW 186/08. IOW, Berlin.
Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2003. Simplied life cycle assessment of
Galician milk production. Int. Diary J. 13, 783e796.
INE, 2013. Estatsticas Agrcolas 2012. Instituto de Estatstica de Portugal, I.P, Lisbon.
http://www.ine.pt (accessed February 2014).
IPCC, 2006. Greenhouse Gas Inventories. In: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories, vol. 4 (chapter 10 and 11). http://www.ipcc-nggip.
iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html (accessed February 2014).
ISO 14040, 2006. Environmental ManagementeLife Cycle AssessmentePrinciples
and Framework, Second ed. (Geneva, Switzerland).
Katajajuuri, J.M., 2007. Experiences and Improvement PossibilitieseLCA Case Study
of Broiler Chicken Production. MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Biotechnology
and Food Research, Food Ecology, Jokioinen, Finland. http://www.lcm2007.org/
paper/176.pdf (accessed March 2013).

, L., Gonz

Lijo
alez-Garca, S., Bacenetti, J., Fiala, M., Feijoo, G., Lema, J.M.,
Moreira, M.T., 2014a. Life cycle assessment of electricity production in Italy from
anaerobic co-digestion of pig slurry and energy crops. Renew. Energy 68,
625e635.

, L., Gonza

lez-Garca, S., Bacenetti, J., Fiala, M., Feijoo, G., Moreira, M.T., 2014b.
Lijo
Assuring the sustainable production of biogas from anaerobic mono-digestion.
J. Clean. Prod. 72, 23e34.
Marquer, P., 2010. Pig Farming in the EU, a Changing Sector. Agriculture and Fisheries. Eurostat Statistics in focus 8/2010. http://edz.bib.uni-mannheim.de/
www-edz/pdf/statinf/10/KS-SF-10-008-EN.PDF (accessed February 2014).
Marquer, P., Rabade, T., Forti, R., 2014. Pig Farming Sector e Statistical Portrait 2014.
ISSN: 2314e9647; Catalogue number: KS-SF-14-015-EN-N.
Mollenhorst, H., Berentsen, P.B.M., de Boer, I.J.M., 2006. On-farm quantication of
sustainability indicators: an application to egg production systems. Br. Poult.
Sci. 47, 405e417.
Nguyen, T.L.T., Hermansen, J.E., Mogensen, L., 2011. Environmental Assessment of
Danish Pork. Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Reckmann, K., Traulsen, I., Krieter, J., 2012. Environmental impact assessment e
methodology with special emphasis on European pork production. J. Environ.
Manag. 107, 102e109.
Reckmann, K., Traulsen, I., Krieter, J., 2013. Life cycle assessment of pork production:
a data inventory for the case of Germany. Livest. Sci. 157, 586e596.
Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Shiina, T., 2009.
A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J. Food Eng. 90,
1e10.
Schau, E.M., Fet, A.M., 2008. LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13, 255e264.
Stephenson, J., 2010. Livestock and Climate Policy: Less Meat or Less Carbon? Round
Table on Sustainable Development. OECD, Paris. Available from: http://www.
oecd.org/dataoecd/54/37/44682539.pdf (accessed March, 2014).
Weidema, B.P., Bauer, C., Hischier, R., Mutel, C., Nemecek, T., Reinhard, J.,
Vadenbo, C.O., Wernet, G., 2013. Overview and Methodology. Data Quality
Guideline For The Ecoinvent Database Version 3. Ecoinvent Report 1(v3). The
Ecoinvent Centre, St. Gallen.
Williams, A.G., Audsley, E., Sandars, D.L., 2006. Determining the Environmental
Burdens and Resource Use in the Production of Agricultural and Horticultural
Commodities. Craneld University and Defra. Main Report, Defra Research
Project. www.craneld.ac.uk (accessed March 2012).
Xueqin, Z., van Ierland, E.C., 2004. Protein chains and environmental pressures: a
comparison of pork and novel protein foods. Environ. Sci. 1 (3), 254e276.