Life cycle assessment of swine production in Brazil: a comparison of four manure management systems

被引:117
|
作者
Cherubini, Edivan [1 ]
Zanghelini, Guilherme Marcelo [1 ]
Freitas Alvarenga, Rodrigo Augusto [2 ]
Franco, Davide [1 ]
Soares, Sebastiao Roberto [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Fed Santa Catarina, Dep Eng Sanitaria & Ambiental, BR-88040970 Florianopolis, SC, Brazil
[2] Univ Estado Santa Catarina UDESC, Ctr Ciencias Agrovet, BR-88520000 Lages, Brazil
关键词
Life cycle assessment; LCA; Swine production; Manure management systems; Uncertainty analysis; ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT; PORK PRODUCTION; PIG PRODUCTION; EMISSIONS; SLURRY; TECHNOLOGIES; STORAGE; REDUCE; CROP;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.035
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Population growth and the consequent increase in food demand will certainly intensify the threat to the environment. Brazil, the fourth largest producer and exporter of swine meat, has an important role to ensure the fulfillment of the goals of food security and climate change mitigation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the environmental impact of swine production in Brazil based on life cycle assessment, comparing four manure management systems: liquid manure storage in slurry tanks; the biodigestor by flare; the biodigestor for energy purposes; and composting. Additionally, we performed a Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate the uncertainty due to different emissions factors to estimate nitrogen-related emissions from the manure-handling stage. The functional unit considered was 1000 kg of swine carcass in the equalization chamber for cutting or further distribution. The results indicated an environmental profile of swine production in Brazil of 3503.29 kg of CO2 eq. for climate change, 76.13 kg of SO2 eq. for terrestrial acidification, 2.15 kg of P eq. for freshwater eutrophication, 12.33 kg of N eq. for marine eutrophication, 21,521.12 MJ for cumulative energy demand, 1.63 kg of 1.4-DB eq. for terrestrial ecotoxicity, 1706.26 BDP for biodiversity damage potential and 14.99 m(2) for natural land transformation. Feed production had a significant contribution with a range of 17.6-99.5% for all environmental impact categories. Deforestation represented 9.5 and 31.3% of the total impacts for cumulative energy demand and climate change, respectively. Therefore, avoiding the use of grain from deforested areas can significantly decrease the impacts for these impact categories. Regarding the uncertainty analysis, we observed greater variations for terrestrial acidification in slurry tanks, biodigestor by flare and for energy purposes, while for the case of composting, major uncertainties were observed for climate change. For manure management systems, efforts should be made to reduce the emissions of methane in the storage and ammonia in the field application. In this sense, the comparative life cycle assessment indicated that the biodigestor for energy purposes had the best environmental performance for almost all the environmental impacts, mainly due to the biogas capture and the potential of energy saves. Nevertheless, if the goal is to decrease the impacts for terrestrial acidification and marine eutrophication, the slurry tanks is the most preferable scenario compared to all alternative options. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:68 / 77
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Life cycle assessment of the production of an extruded dog food in Brazil
    Costa, Jessyka L. G.
    Bankuti, Ferenc I.
    Oiko, Olivia T.
    Monti, Mariana
    Loureiro, Bruna A.
    Henriquez, Lucas B. F.
    Florindo, Thiago Jose
    Vasconcellos, Ricardo S.
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2024, 458
  • [22] Life cycle assessment of butanol production in sugarcane biorefineries in Brazil
    Pereira, Lucas G.
    Chagas, Mateus F.
    Dias, Marina O. S.
    Cavalett, Otavio
    Bonomi, Antonio
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2015, 96 : 557 - 568
  • [23] Social life cycle assessment of feedstocks for biodiesel production in Brazil
    Costa, Marina Weyl
    Oliveira, Amir A. M.
    RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2022, 159
  • [24] Life cycle assessment of beef cattle production in two typical grassland systems of southern Brazil
    Dick, Milene
    da Silva, Marcelo Abreu
    Dewes, Homero
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2015, 96 : 426 - 434
  • [25] COMPARISON OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT TOOLS IN CEMENT PRODUCTION
    Olagunju, B. D.
    Olanrewaju, O. A.
    SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING, 2020, 31 (04) : 70 - 83
  • [26] Environmental benefits of livestock manure management practices and technology by life cycle assessment
    Sandars, DL
    Audsley, E
    Cañete, C
    Cumby, TR
    Scotford, IM
    Williams, AG
    BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING, 2003, 84 (03) : 267 - 281
  • [27] Life cycle assessment on the environmental impacts of different pig manure management techniques
    Dong, Baocheng
    Song, Chengjun
    Li, Huibin
    Lin, Aijun
    Wang, Jiuchen
    Li, Wei
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, 2022, 15 (03) : 78 - 84
  • [28] Life Cycle Assessment of Horse Manure Treatment
    Eriksson, Ola
    Hadin, Asa
    Hennessy, Jay
    Jonsson, Daniel
    ENERGIES, 2016, 9 (12)
  • [29] COMPARISON OF 3 SYSTEMS FOR TRANSPORT AND TREATMENT OF SWINE MANURE
    PERSON, HL
    MINER, JR
    HAZEN, TE
    MANN, AR
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE, 1974, 17 (03): : 536 - 541
  • [30] Comparison of scenarios for the integrated management of construction and demolition waste by life cycle assessment: A case study in Brazil
    Giordano Penteado, Carmenlucia Santos
    Rosado, Lais Peixoto
    WASTE MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH, 2016, 34 (10) : 1026 - 1035