sustainability, rendering, & pet food › assets › 5c802a9721c... · 2019-03-06 · sheep...
TRANSCRIPT
-
Sustainability, Rendering, & Pet Food
Kurt A. RosentraterIowa State University
-
Acknowledgements• Partial support provided by
– Pet Food Sustainability Working Group (PSWG)– Pet Food Institute (PFI)
• Peter Tabor & Mary Emma Young
• Co-investigators– Mingjun Ma Mariana Rossoni-Serao, Elisabeth Lonergan, Ranga
Arachchige
A work in progress….these are preliminary findings
-
Outline• Need• Objectives• Methodology• Results• Data gaps• Key takeaways
-
Need• Many challenges for the pet food industry &
ingredient suppliers– Changing consumer demands – industries respond– Push for different ingredients
• Better nutrition??– Greater focus on sustainability
• Better for the environment??– Perceptions vs. reality
• Education vs. training vs. www/social media
-
Sustainability• Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
– Standardized approach to understanding environmental impacts from
• Processes, products, ingredients, etc.
-
Sustainability
• What answer do you want?
-
Sustainability
•It depends!
-
Objectives• Review published literature (scientific journals) for meat-based
ingredients & rendered ingredients– Products
• Beef, pork, sheep, poultry, fish• Byproducts/rendered products
– Sustainability metrics (life cycle assessment results)• GHG (global warming potential -- CO2 & CH4 & NOx)• Eutrophication• Acidification• Land use• Water use
– Calculate estimates of savings by using rendered products instead of meat products (kg/kg tradeoff)
-
Methodology
Typical stages of a product life-cycle, from raw material to end of life.
Farm
-
Methodology• Literature databases extensively searched
– Specified types of animals and environmental impacts– In total, 55 published LCA studies were found – Key metrics/data extracted from each paper
• Most quantified GHG (i.e., global warming potential)• Only a few reported eutrophication, acidification, land use, water use• Most were focused on North America and European animal production
processes • Each had different functional units, system boundaries, environmental impacts
studied, ag production methods, and purposes• Difficult to compare results amongst the studies
– Apples to oranges– We were able to compile results and establish ranges– Then estimate ranges for environmental savings due to rendered products
-
MethodologyAnimal mass allocations.
Conversion factors for determining meat vs. non-meat portions of animals.
(USDA, 2001; Jayathilakan et al., 2012; Sams, 2001)
Mass allocation category
Beef
Sheep
Poultry
Pork
Market live weight
100%
100%
100%
100%
Dressing percentage (Carcass weight percentage)
63%
62.5%
77%
77.5%
By-products
37%
37.5%
23%
22.5%
Bones (per carcass weight)
15%
16%
25%
11%
Beef
Sheep
Poultry
Pork
Non-meat ratio (live weight basis)
46%
48%
42%
31%
Non-meat ratio (carcass weight basis)
52%
54%
48%
34%
Non-meat ratio (meat basis)
85%
92%
72%
45%
-
MethodologyAllocations of non-meat components.
(USDA, 2001; Jayathilakan et al., 2012; Sams, 2001)
* Environmental savings can be allocated using these percentages
By-product composition
Beef by-product (100%)
Sheep by-product (100%)
Pork by-product (100%)
Poultry by-product composition
Poultry By-product (100%)
Fat and blood
14.2%
16.4%
13.5%
Feathers
14.8%
Red offal
3.5%
4.9%
4.5%
Heads
5.3%
Gut content
8.9%
9.8%
9.0%
Blood
6.7%
Hide
12.4%
18.0%
13.5%
Gizzard and proventriculus
7.4%
Stomach/Intestines
17.7%
14.8%
22.5%
Fee
7.4%
Feet/Head
26.6%
19.7%
18.0%
Intestines and glands
17.9%
Bone
16.7%
16.4%
19.1%
Bone
40.6%
-
Beef production GHG emissions Sources: Swanson et al. (2013); Nijdam et al. (2012); JW Casey & NM Holden (2006); Cederberg et al. (2009a, b); Peters et al (2009); Williams et al. (2006); Blonk et al. (2008); van Oort & Andrew (2016); Nguyen et al. (2010); Edwards-Jones et al. (2009); Pelletier et al. (2010); Phetteplace et al., (2001); X.P.C. Vergé et al. (2008); Beauchemin et al. (2011); Capper (2011); Huerta et al. (2016); Nielsen et al. (2003); Lupo et al. (2013); Mogensen et al. (2015); Ogino et al. (2016); Roop et al. (2013); Rotz et al. (2015)
Easiest to illustrate ranges(due to differences)
-
Potential GHG emission savings for beef by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.
-
Beef production land useSources: Nijdam et al. (2012); Cederberg et al. (2009a); Williams et al. (2006); Blonk et al. (2008); Nguyen et al. (2010); Pelletier et al. (2010)
-
Potential land use savings for beef by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.
-
Beef production eutrophication potential Sources: Williams et al. (2006); Nguyen et al. (2010); Nielsen et al. (2003); Ogino et al. (2016)
-
Potential eutrophication savings for beef by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.
-
Beef production acidification potential Sources: Williams et al. (2006); Nguyen et al. (2010); Nielsen et al. (2003); Ogino et al. (2016)
-
Potential acidification savings for beef by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.
-
Poultry production GHG emissions Sources: Swanson et al. (2013); Vries & Boer (2010); Nijdam et al. (2012); Blonk et al. (2008); van Oort & Andrew (2016); Katajajuuri (2007); Cederberg C et al. (2009); Williams et al. (2006); Vergé et al. (2009); González-Garcia et al. (2014); Nielsen et al. (2003); Pelletier (2008)
-
Potential GHG emission savings for poultry by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.
-
Poultry production land useSources: Vries & Boer (2010); Nijdam et al. (2012); Blonk et al. (2008); Williams et al. (2006)
-
Potential land use savings for poultry by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.
-
Poultry production eutrophication and acidification potentialsSources: Williams et al. (2006); González-Garcia et al. (2014); Nielsen et al. (2003); Pelletier (2008)
-
Potential eutrophication and acidification savings for poultry by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.
-
Pork production GHG emissionsSources: Nijdam et al. (2012); Swanson et al. (2013); Blonk et al. (2008); van Oort & Andrew (2016); Basset-Mensand van der Werf (2005); Williams et al. (2006); Cederberg C et al. (2009); Kool et al. (2009); Zhu and van Ierland(2004); González-Garcia et al. (2015); Nielsen et al. (2003); Reckmann et al. (2013)
-
Potential GHG emission savings for pork by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.
-
Pork production land use Sources: Nijdam et al. (2012); Blonk et al. (2008); Basset-Mens and van der Werf (2005); Williams et al. (2006); Zhu and van Ierland (2004)
-
Potential land use savings for pork by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.
-
Pork production eutrophication potential Sources: Basset-Mens and van der Werf (2005); Williams et al. (2006); Zhu and van Ierland (2004); González-Garcia et al. (2015); Nielsen et al. (2003); Reckmann et al. (2013)
-
Potential eutrophication savings for pork by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.
-
Pork production acidification potentialSources: Basset-Mens and van der Werf (2005); Williams et al. (2006); Zhu and van Ierland (2004); Nielsen et al. (2003); Reckmann et al. (2013)
-
Potential acidification savings for pork by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.
-
Sheep production GHG emissionsSources: Nijdam et al. (2012); Blonk et al. (2008); van Oort & Andrew (2016); Williams et al. (2006); Edwards-Jones et al. (2009)
-
Potential GHG emission savings for sheep by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.
-
Sheep production land use
Sources: Nijdam et al. (2012); Blonk et al. (2008); Williams et al. (2006)
-
Potential land use savings for sheep by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.
-
Sheep production eutrophication and acidification potentialsSource: Williams et al. (2006)
-
Potential eutrophication and acidification savings for sheep by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.
-
Fish production environmental impactsSources: Ayer and Tyedmers (2009); Ellingsen and Aanondsen (2006); Hall et al. (2011); Iribarren et al. (2010); Nielsen et al. (2003); Ling et al. (1999); Pelletier et al. (2009); Driscoll and Tyedmers (2010); Driscoll et al. (2015); Farmery et al. (2015); Fréon et al. (2014); Hospido and Tyedmers(2005); Iribarren et al. (2011); Nielsen et al. (2003); Vázquez-Rowe et al. (2010,2011,2012); Ziegler and Valentinsson (2008)
-
Animal meat production water use.Source: MM Mekonnen and AY Hoekstra (2010)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Beef lamb pork Poultry
m3 /1
kg
mea
t
Water use for animal production
-
Potential water use savings by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Beef lamb pork Poultry
Envi
ronm
enta
l im
pact
Sav
ings
(m3 /
1 kg
non
-mea
t pro
duct
)
Water use reduction for animal non-meat (meat basis)
-
GHG emission savings comparison amongst different animals by using 1 kg non-meat instead of 1 kg muscle meat.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Beef Poultry Pork Sheep
kg C
O2-
eq/k
g no
n-m
eat u
sed
GHG emission savings comparison
1kg non-meat LW basis 1kg non-meat CW basis 1kg non-meat meat basis
-
Land use savings comparison amongst different animals by using 1 kg non-meat instead of 1 kg muscle meat.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Beef Poultry Pork Sheep
m2 /y
/ kg
non
-mea
t use
d
Land use saving comparison
1kg non-meat LW basis 1kg non-meat CW basis 1kg non-meat meat basis
-
Eutrophication potential savings comparison amongst different animals by using 1 kg non-meat instead of 1 kg muscle meat.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Beef Poultry Pork Sheep
g PO
4/ k
g no
n-m
eat u
sed
Eutrophication potential saving comparsion
1kg non-meat LW basis 1kg non-meat CW basis 1kg non-meat meat basis
-
Acidification potential savings comparison amongst different animals by using 1 kg non-meat instead of 1 kg muscle meat.
0
50
100
150
200
250
Beef Poultry Pork Sheep
g SO
2/ k
g no
n-m
eat u
sed
Acidification poteintial saving comparison
1kg non-meat LW basis 1kg non-meat CW basis 1kg non-meat meat basis
-
Key Takeaways• Most studies on environmental impacts (for livestock,
poultry, fish) have assessed only from cradle-to-farm gate – Very few have assessed off-farm activities or impacts
• Using mass allocation, use of animal by-products – Results in substantially lower environmental impacts than
use of meat/muscle• Impact reductions
– Vary according to species– Also feeding/rearing methods and geographical locations
-
Data Gaps• Production/processing factories
– Meat & rendered ingredients– Pet food operations
• Down the supply chain– Distribution, consumer use, end of life
• Time dependence – efficiency improvements• Geographic dependence – production practices
& energy supplies• Other competing proteins
-
Thank youAny questions?
Sustainability, Rendering, & Pet FoodAcknowledgementsOutlineNeedSlide Number 5SustainabilitySustainabilitySustainabilityObjectivesMethodologyMethodologySlide Number 12MethodologyMethodologyBeef production GHG emissions Potential GHG emission savings for beef by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Beef production land usePotential land use savings for beef by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Beef production eutrophication potential Potential eutrophication savings for beef by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Beef production acidification potential Potential acidification savings for beef by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat. Poultry production GHG emissions Potential GHG emission savings for poultry by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Poultry production land usePotential land use savings for poultry by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Poultry production eutrophication and acidification potentialsPotential eutrophication and acidification savings for poultry by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Pork production GHG emissionsPotential GHG emission savings for pork by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Pork production land use Potential land use savings for pork by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat. Pork production eutrophication potential Potential eutrophication savings for pork by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Pork production acidification potentialPotential acidification savings for pork by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Sheep production GHG emissionsPotential GHG emission savings for sheep by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Sheep production land usePotential land use savings for sheep by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Sheep production eutrophication and acidification potentialsPotential eutrophication and acidification savings for sheep by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Fish production environmental impactsAnimal meat production water use.Potential water use savings by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.GHG emission savings comparison amongst different animals by using 1 kg non-meat instead of 1 kg muscle meat.Land use savings comparison amongst different animals by using 1 kg non-meat instead of 1 kg muscle meat.Eutrophication potential savings comparison amongst different animals by using 1 kg non-meat instead of 1 kg muscle meat.Acidification potential savings comparison amongst different animals by using 1 kg non-meat instead of 1 kg muscle meat.Key TakeawaysData GapsThank you