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
  • [41] Life cycle cost analysis of dairy production systems in Southern Brazil
    Ruviaro, Clandio Favarini
    de Leis, Cristiane Maria
    Florindo, Thiago Jose
    Florindo, Giovanna Isabelle Bom de Medeiros
    da Costa, Jaqueline Severino
    Tang, Walter Zhongzhong
    Pinto, Andrea Troller
    Soares, Sebastiao Roberto
    SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2020, 741 (741)
  • [42] Life cycle assessment of manure management and nutrient recycling from a Chinese pig farm
    Luo, Yiming
    Stichnothe, Heinz
    Schuchardt, Frank
    Li, Guoxue
    Huaitalla, Roxana Mendoza
    Xu, Wen
    WASTE MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH, 2014, 32 (01) : 4 - 12
  • [43] In the quest for sustainable management of liquid fraction of manure - Insights from a life cycle assessment
    Ravi, Rahul
    Beyers, Miriam
    Vingerhoets, Ruben
    Brienza, Claudio
    Luo, Hongzhen
    Bruun, Sander
    Meers, Erik
    SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION, 2023, 43 : 251 - 263
  • [44] Life Cycle Assessment of Fertilization of Corn and Corn-Soybean Rotations with Swine Manure and Synthetic Fertilizer in Iowa
    Griffing, Evan Michael
    Schauer, Richard Lynn
    Rice, Charles W.
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 2014, 43 (02) : 709 - 722
  • [45] Life cycle assessment comparison of industrial effluent management strategies
    O'Connor, Matthew
    Garnier, Gil
    Batchelor, Warren
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2014, 79 : 168 - 181
  • [46] Environmental Assessment of Pig Manure Treatment Systems through Life Cycle Assessment: A Mini-Review
    Ferreira, Jose
    Santos, Lenise
    Ferreira, Miguel
    Ferreira, Antonio
    Domingos, Idalina
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2024, 16 (09)
  • [47] Life cycle assessment of two palm oil production systems
    Stichnothe, Heinz
    Schuchardt, Frank
    BIOMASS & BIOENERGY, 2011, 35 (09): : 3976 - 3984
  • [48] Life cycle assessment of peanut production in sugarcane renovation areas in southeast Brazil
    Miyoshi, Simone C.
    Furlan, Felipe F.
    Giordano, Roberto C.
    ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY, 2024,
  • [49] Life cycle assessment and life cycle costs for pre-disaster waste management systems
    Wakabayashi, Yohei
    Peii, Tsai
    Tabata, Tomohiro
    Saeki, Takashi
    WASTE MANAGEMENT, 2017, 68 : 688 - 700
  • [50] A spatial life cycle cost assessment of stormwater management systems
    Bixler, Taler S.
    Houle, James
    Ballestero, Thomas P.
    Mo, Weiwei
    SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2020, 728