Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T06:24:01.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trends in greenhouse gas emissions from consumption and production of animal food products – implications for long-term climate targets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2012

C Cederberg ,
F Hedenus ,
S Wirsenius  and
U Sonesson
C Cederberg*
Affiliation:
SIK, The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, PO Box 5401, SE-402 29 Gothenburg, Sweden Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden
F Hedenus
Affiliation:
Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden
S Wirsenius
Affiliation:
Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden
U Sonesson
Affiliation:
SIK, The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, PO Box 5401, SE-402 29 Gothenburg, Sweden
*
†E-mail: christel.cederberg@sik.se
Get access

Abstract

To analyse trends in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from production and consumption of animal products in Sweden, life cycle emissions were calculated for the average production of pork, chicken meat, beef, dairy and eggs in 1990 and 2005. The calculated average emissions were used together with food consumption statistics and literature data on imported products to estimate trends in per capita emissions from animal food consumption. Total life cycle emissions from the Swedish livestock production were around 8.5 Mt carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) in 1990 and emissions decreased to 7.3 Mt CO2e in 2005 (14% reduction). Around two-thirds of the emission cut was explained by more efficient production (less GHG emission per product unit) and one-third was due to a reduced animal production. The average GHG emissions per product unit until the farm-gate were reduced by 20% for dairy, 15% for pork and 23% for chicken meat, unchanged for eggs and increased by 10% for beef. A larger share of the average beef was produced from suckler cows in cow–calf systems in 2005 due to the decreasing dairy cow herd, which explains the increased emissions for the average beef in 2005. The overall emission cuts from the livestock sector were a result of several measures taken in farm production, for example increased milk yield per cow, lowered use of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers in grasslands, reduced losses of ammonia from manure and a switch to biofuels for heating in chicken houses. In contrast to production, total GHG emissions from the Swedish consumption of animal products increased by around 22% between 1990 and 2005. This was explained by strong growth in meat consumption based mainly on imports, where growth in beef consumption especially was responsible for most emission increase over the 15-year period. Swedish GHG emissions caused by consumption of animal products reached around 1.1 t CO2e per capita in 2005. The emission cuts necessary for meeting a global temperature-increase target of 2° might imply a severe constraint on the long-term global consumption of animal food. Due to the relatively limited potential for reducing food-related emissions by higher productivity and technological means, structural changes in food consumption towards less emission-intensive food might be required for meeting the 2° target.

Keywords

greenhouse gasemissions trendsanimal productionanimal consumptionclimate target
Type
Farming systems and environment
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , February 2013 , pp. 330 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

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

References

Bertilsson, J 2001. Utvärdering av beräkningsmetodik för metanavgång från nötkreatur (Evaluation of calculation method for enteric fermentation of cattle). Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Cederberg, C, Sonesson, U, Henriksson, M, Sund, V, Davis, J 2009a. Greenhouse gas emissions from Swedish production of meat, milk and eggs 1990 and 2005. SIK Report No. 793. SIK, Institutet för livsmedel och bioteknik, Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Cederberg, C, Flysjö, A, Sonesson, U, Sund, V, Davis, J 2009b. Greenhouse gas emissions from Swedish consumption of meat, milk and eggs 1990 and 2005. SIK Report No. 794. SIK, Institutet för livsmedel och bioteknik, Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Davis, J, Haglund, C 1999. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of fertiliser production – fertilisers used in Sweden and western Europe. SIK Report No. 654. SIK, The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
DeAngelo, BJ, de la Chesnaye, FC, Beach, RH, Sommer, A, Murray, BC 2006. Methane and nitrous oxide mitigation in agriculture. The Energy Journal 3 (special issue), 89–108.Google Scholar
Ecoinvent Centre 2007. Ecoinvent data, version 2.0. Ecoinvent Reports No. 1–25. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Ekonomifakta 2012. Fakta och statistik. Retrieved January 9, 2012, from http://www.ekonomifakta.se/sv/Fakta/Google Scholar
European Commission 2009. Annual European Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2007 and Inventory Report 2009. Submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat Technical Report No. 04/2009. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
European Commission 2011. A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. COM2011. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Food and Agricultural Organization 2009. Livestock in balance. The State of Food and Agriculture 2009. Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Flysjö, A, Cederberg, C, Strid, I 2008. LCA-databas för konventionella fodermedel – miljöpåverkan i samband med produktion: version 1 (LCA-database conventional feed – environmental impact in production: version 1). SIK Rapport No. 772. SIK, Institutet för livsmedel och bioteknik, Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Friel, S, Dangour, AD, Garnett, T, Lock, K, Chalabi, Z, Roberts, I, Butler, A, Butler, CD, Waage, J, McMichael, AJ, Haines, A 2009. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: food and agriculture. Lancet 374, 2016–2025.Google Scholar
Henriksson, M, Flysjö, A, Cederberg, C, Swensson, C 2011. Variation in carbon footprint of milk due to management differences between Swedish dairy farms. Animal 5, 1474–1484.Google Scholar
Hutchings, NJ, Sommer, SG, Andersen, JM, Asman, WAH 2001. A detailed ammonia emission inventory for Denmark. Atmospheric Environment 35, 1959–1968.Google Scholar
Giannakouris, K 2008. Ageing characteristics the demographic perspectives of the European societies Statistics in focus 72/2008. Retrieved December 9, 2011, from http://www.apapr.ro/images/BIBLIOTECA/demografie/eurostat%20focus%202008.pdfGoogle Scholar
International Dairy Federation 2010. A common carbon footprint for dairy, the IDF guide to standard lifecycle assessment methodology for the dairy industry. International Dairy Federation, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2006a. Emissions from livestock and manure management. In IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories – vol. 4, Agriculture, forestry and other land use (ed. S Eggleston, L Buendia, K Miwa, T Ngara and K Tanabe), chapter 10. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Program, IGES, Japan.Google Scholar
IPCC 2006b. Emissions from livestock and manure management. In IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories – vol. 4, Agriculture, forestry and other land use (ed. S Eggleston, L Buendia, K Miwa, T Ngara and K Tanabe), chapter 11. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Program, IGES, Japan.Google Scholar
IPCC 2007. Climate Change 2007: synthesis report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 2006a. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework. ISO 14040:2006(E). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
ISO 2006b. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044:2006(E). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Jenssen, TK, Kongshaug, G 2003. Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in fertiliser production. Proceedings no. 509. International Fertiliser Society, York, UK. ISBN978-0-851310-145-1.Google Scholar
Jordbruksverket 2005. Svenskt jordbruk i siffror 1800–2004 (Swedish agriculture in figures 1800–2004). Statistikrapport 2005:6. Jordbruksverket, Jönköping, Sweden.Google Scholar
Jordbruksverket 2009. Livsmedelskonsumtionen 1960–2006 (Food consumption 1960–2006). Statistiskrapport 2009:2. Jordbruksverket, Jönköping, Sweden.Google Scholar
Leip, A, Weiss, F, Wassenaar, T, Perez, I, Fellmann, T, Loudjani, P, Tubiello, F, Grandgirard, D, Monni, S, Biala, K 2010. Evaluation of the livestock sector's contribution to the EU greenhouse gas emissions (GGELS) – final report. European Commission, Joint Research Center, Ispra, Italy.Google Scholar
Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund 2002. Maten och miljön – livscykelanalys av sju livsmedel (Food and environment – LCA of seven food products). Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund, LRF, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Lindgren, E 1980. Skattning av energiförluster i metan och urin hos idisslare. Estimation of energy losses in methane and urine for ruminants. Report 47, Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Naturvårdsverket 2009. National inventory report 2009 Sweden – submitted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. Naturvårdsverket, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Naturvårdsverket 2011. Köttkonsumtionens klimatpåverkan – drivkrafter och styrmedel (Meat consumption's climate impact – driving forces and policy instruments). Report 6456. Naturvårdsverket, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
PRé Consultants bv 2010. SimaPro 7, LCA software. PRé Consultants bv, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Popp, A, Lotze-Campen, H, Bodirsky, B 2010. Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Global Environmental Change 20, 451–462.Google Scholar
Smith, P, Martino, D, Cai, Z, Gwary, D, Janzen, H, Kumar, P, McCarl, B, Ogle, S, O'Mara, F, Rice, C, Scholes, B, Sirotenko, O, Howden, M, McAllister, T, Pan, G, Romanenkov, V, Schneider, U, Towprayoon, S 2007. Policy and technological constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 118, 6–28.Google Scholar
Statistiska Centralbyrån 1992. Jordbruksstatistisk årsbok 1991 (Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics 1992). Statistiska Centralbyrån, Örebro, Sweden.Google Scholar
Statistiska Centralbyrån 2006a. Gödselmedel i jordbruket 2004/05 (Use of fertilisers and animal manure in agriculture in 2004/05). Statistiska meddelanden MI 30 SM 0603. Statistiska Centralbyrån, Örebro, Sweden.Google Scholar
Statistiska Centralbyrån 2006b. Jordbruksstatistisk Årsbok 2006 (The Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics 2006). Statistiska Centralbyrån, Örebro, Sweden.Google Scholar
Statistiska Centralbyrån 2008. Energianvändning i jordbruket 2007 (Energy use in the agricultural sector 2007). Statistiska Centralbyrån, Örebro, Sweden.Google Scholar
Sonesson, U, Cederberg, C, Flysjö, A, Carlsson, B 2008. Livscykelanalys av ägg (Life Cycle Assessment of eggs). SIK Report 783. SIK, The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M, de Haan, C 2006. Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Weidema, BP, Wesnaes, M, Hemansen, J, Kristensen, T, Halberg, N 2009. Environmental improvement potentials of meat and dairy products, EUR 23491 EN. Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. European Communities, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Westhoek, H, Rood, T, van der Berg, M, Janse, J, Nijdam, D, Reudrik, M, Stehfest, E 2011. The protein puzzle: the consumption of meat, dairy and fish in the European Union. PBL – Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wirsenius, S, Hedenus, F, Mohlin, K 2011. Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects. Climatic Change 108, 159–184.Google Scholar