Literature DB >> 30452693

Carbon and blue water footprints of California sheep production.

Holland C Dougherty1, James W Oltjen1, Frank M Mitloehner1, Edward J DePeters1, Lee Allen Pettey1, Dan Macon2, Julie Finzel3, Kimberly Rodrigues4, Ermias Kebreab1.   

Abstract

While the environmental impacts of livestock production, such as greenhouse gas emissions and water usage, have been studied for a variety of US livestock production systems, the environmental impact of US sheep production is still unknown. A cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted according to international standards (ISO 14040/44), analyzing the impacts of CS representing five different meat sheep production systems in California, and focusing on carbon footprint (carbon dioxide equivalents, CO2e) and irrigated water usage (metric ton, MT). This study is the first to look specifically at the carbon footprint of the California sheep industry and consider both wool and meat production across the diverse sheep production systems within California. This study also explicitly examined the carbon footprint of hair sheep as compared with wooled sheep production. Data were derived from producer interviews and literature values, and California-specific emission factors were used wherever possible. Flock outputs studied included market lamb meat, breeding stock, 2-d-old lambs, cull adult meat, and wool. Four different methane prediction models were examined, including the current IPCC tier 1 and 2 equations, and an additional sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the effect of a fixed vs. flexible coefficient of gain (kg) in mature ewes on carbon footprint per ewe. Mass, economic, and protein mass allocation were used to examine the impact of allocation method on carbon footprint and water usage, while sensitivity analyses were used to examine the impact of ewe replacement rate (% of ewe flock per year) and lamb crop (lambs born per ewe bred) on carbon footprint per kilogram market lamb. The carbon footprint of market lamb production ranged from 13.9 to 30.6 kg CO2e/kg market lamb production on a mass basis, 10.4 to 18.1 kg CO2e/kg market lamb on an economic basis, and 6.6 to 10.1 kg CO2e/kg market lamb on a protein mass basis. Enteric methane (CH4) production was the largest single source of emissions for all CS, averaging 72% of total emissions. Emissions from feed production averaged 22% in total, primarily from manure emissions credited to feed. Whole-ranch water usage ranged from 2.1 to 44.8 MT/kg market lamb, almost entirely from feed production. Overall results were in agreement with those from meat-focused sheep systems in the United Kingdom as well as beef raised under similar conditions in California.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30452693      PMCID: PMC6358244          DOI: 10.1093/jas/sky442

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  5 in total

1.  The carbon footprint of dairy production systems through partial life cycle assessment.

Authors:  C A Rotz; F Montes; D S Chianese
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.034

2.  Relationships among ewe milk production and ewe and lamb forage intake in Suffolk and Targhee ewes nursing single or twin lambs.

Authors:  W S Ramsey; P G Hatfield; J D Wallace
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Carbon footprint and ammonia emissions of California beef production systems.

Authors:  K R Stackhouse-Lawson; C A Rotz; J W Oltjen; F M Mitloehner
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2012-09-05       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  Particulate and trace gas emissions from open burning of wheat straw and corn stover in China.

Authors:  Xinghua Li; Shuxiao Wang; Lei Duan; Jiming Hao; Chao Li; Yaosheng Chen; Liu Yang
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2007-09-01       Impact factor: 9.028

5.  Relationship of body composition of mature ewes with condition score and body weight.

Authors:  D W Sanson; T R West; W R Tatman; M L Riley; M B Judkins; G E Moss
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 3.159

  5 in total
  5 in total

1.  Estimation of carbon footprint and sources of emissions of an extensive alpaca production system.

Authors:  G Gómez Oquendo; K Salazar-Cubillas; V Alvarado; C A Gómez-Bravo
Journal:  Trop Anim Health Prod       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 1.893

Review 2.  Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010-2020) evidences.

Authors:  Neus González; Montse Marquès; Martí Nadal; José L Domingo
Journal:  Food Res Int       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 6.475

3.  Livestock water and land productivity in Kenya and their implications for future resource use.

Authors:  Caroline K Bosire; Nadhem Mtimet; Dolapo Enahoro; Joseph O Ogutu; Maarten S Krol; Jan de Leeuw; Nicholas Ndiwa; Arjen Y Hoekstra
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2022-02-25

4.  Organic Farming as a Strategy to Reduce Carbon Footprint in Dehesa Agroecosystems: A Case Study Comparing Different Livestock Products.

Authors:  Andrés Horrillo; Paula Gaspar; Miguel Escribano
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2020-01-17       Impact factor: 2.752

5.  Effect of Suckling Management and Ewe Concentrate Level on Methane-Related Carbon Footprint of Lamb Meat in Sardinian Dairy Sheep Farming.

Authors:  Gianni Battacone; Mondina Francesca Lunesu; Salvatore Pier Giacomo Rassu; Anna Nudda; Giuseppe Pulina
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 2.752

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.