Suppr超能文献

运用生命周期评估法评估不同养猪系统的环境影响。

Evaluating environmental impacts of contrasting pig farming systems with life cycle assessment.

作者信息

Dourmad J Y, Ryschawy J, Trousson T, Bonneau M, Gonzàlez J, Houwers H W J, Hviid M, Zimmer C, Nguyen T L T, Morgensen L

机构信息

1INRA,UMR1348 Pegase,35590 Saint-Gilles,France.

3IRTA,Finca Camps i Armet,17121 Monells,Girona,Spain.

出版信息

Animal. 2014 Dec;8(12):2027-37. doi: 10.1017/S1751731114002134. Epub 2014 Aug 29.

Abstract

Environmental impacts of 15 European pig farming systems were evaluated in the European Union Q-PorkChains project using life cycle assessment. One conventional and two non-conventional systems were evaluated from each of the five countries: Denmark, The Netherlands, Spain, France and Germany. The data needed for calculations were obtained from surveys of 5 to 10 farms from each system. The systems studied were categorised into conventional (C), adapted conventional (AC), traditional (T) and organic (O). Compared with C systems, AC systems differed little, with only minor changes to improve meat quality, animal welfare or environmental impacts, depending on the system. The difference was much larger for T systems, using very fat, slow-growing traditional breeds and generally outdoor raising of fattening pigs. Environmental impacts were calculated at the farm gate and expressed per kg of pig live weight and per ha of land used. For C systems, impacts per kg LW for climate change, acidification, eutrophication, energy use and land occupation were 2.3 kg CO2-eq, 44.0 g SO2-eq, 18.5 g PO4-eq, 16.2 MJ and 4.1 m2, respectively. Compared with C, differences in corresponding mean values were +13%, +5%, 0%, +2% and +16% higher for AC; +54%, +79%, +23%, +50% and +156% for T, and +4%, -16%, +29%, +11% and +121% for O. Conversely, when expressed per ha of land use, mean impacts were 10% to 60% lower for T and O systems, depending on the impact category. This was mainly because of higher land occupation per kg of pig produced, owing to feed production and the outdoor raising of sows and/or fattening pigs. The use of straw bedding tended to increase climate change impact per kg LW. The use of traditional local breeds, with reduced productivity and feed efficiency, resulted in higher impacts per kg LW for all impact categories. T systems with extensive outdoor raising of pigs resulted in markedly lower impact per ha of land used. Eutrophication potential per ha was substantially lower for O systems. Conventional systems had lower global impacts (global warming, energy use, land use), expressed per kg LW, whereas differentiated systems had lower local impacts (eutrophication, acidification), expressed per ha of land use.

摘要

在欧盟的Q - PorkChains项目中,运用生命周期评估法对15种欧洲养猪系统的环境影响进行了评估。从丹麦、荷兰、西班牙、法国和德国这五个国家中,各选取了一种传统系统和两种非传统系统进行评估。计算所需数据来自对每个系统中5至10个农场的调查。所研究的系统被分为传统型(C)、改良传统型(AC)、传统型(T)和有机型(O)。与C系统相比,AC系统差异不大,只是根据不同系统进行了一些小的改变,以改善肉质、动物福利或环境影响。T系统的差异则大得多,其使用非常肥、生长缓慢的传统品种,并且通常在户外饲养育肥猪。环境影响在农场门口进行计算,并以每千克生猪活重和每公顷土地使用量来表示。对于C系统,每千克活重的气候变化、酸化、富营养化、能源使用和土地占用的影响分别为2.3千克二氧化碳当量、44.0克二氧化硫当量、18.5克磷酸根当量、16.2兆焦和4.1平方米。与C系统相比,AC系统相应平均值的差异分别高出13%、5%、0%、2%和16%;T系统分别高出54%、79%、23%、50%和156%;O系统分别高出4%、 - 16%、29%、11%和121%。相反,当以每公顷土地使用量来表示时,T系统和O系统的平均影响根据影响类别不同,比C系统低10%至60%。这主要是因为每生产一千克生猪所需的土地占用量更高,这是由于饲料生产以及母猪和/或育肥猪户外饲养所致。使用秸秆垫料往往会增加每千克活重的气候变化影响。使用生产力和饲料效率较低的传统本地品种,导致所有影响类别下每千克活重的影响更高。广泛户外养猪的T系统每公顷土地使用量的影响明显更低。O系统每公顷的富营养化潜力显著更低。以每千克活重来表示,传统系统的全球影响(全球变暖、能源使用、土地使用)较低,而以每公顷土地使用量来表示,差异化系统的局部影响(富营养化、酸化)较低。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验