LUT University, School of Energy Systems, Sustainability Science, P.O. Box 20, 53851 Lappeenranta, Finland.
LUT University, School of Energy Systems, Sustainability Science, P.O. Box 20, 53851 Lappeenranta, Finland.
Sci Total Environ. 2021 Feb 20;756:143880. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143880. Epub 2020 Dec 3.
Beekeeping provides honey, protein-containing drone broods and pollen, and yield-increasing pollination services. This study tested the hypothesis that beekeeping can result in net-positive impacts, if pollination services and protein-containing by-products are utilised. As a case example, Finnish beekeeping practices were used. The study was performed using two different approaches. In both approaches, the evaluated impacts were related to climate change, land use, and freshwater use, and were scaled down to represent one beehive. The first approach considered honey production with pollination services and the replacement of alternative products with co-products. The impacts were normalised to correspond with planetary boundary criteria. The second approach evaluated the impacts of the different products and services of beekeeping separately. In the first approach the honey production system moved towards a safe operational space. Freshwater use was the impact category with the largest shift towards a safe operational space (39% shift). The second approach caused a global warming potential of honey production of 0.65 kg kg, when pollen and drone broods were considered as by-products and the influence of pollination services were not included. When honey, pollen, and drone broods were considered as co-products and pollination services were included, the impacts regarding land use and climate change were net-positive. The impact of freshwater use was relatively small. For honey, the impacts on the climate change, land use, and freshwater use were -0.33 kg kg, -7.89 m kg, and 14.01 kg kg, respectively. The impact allocation with co-products and pollination services was conclusive. A lack of consideration for the impact reduction of pollination led to beekeeping having a negative impact on the environment. Based on these results, beekeeping enhances food security within planetary boundaries, provided that pollination services and protein-containing by-/co-products are utilised.
养蜂提供了蜂蜜、含有蛋白质的雄蜂幼虫和花粉,以及增加产量的授粉服务。本研究检验了一个假设,即如果利用授粉服务和含有蛋白质的副产品,养蜂可以带来净积极影响。本研究以芬兰的养蜂实践为例,使用了两种不同的方法。在这两种方法中,评估的影响都与气候变化、土地利用和淡水资源利用有关,并被缩小到代表一个蜂箱的规模。第一种方法考虑了授粉服务下的蜂蜜生产和替代产品的副产品利用。影响被归一化为与行星边界标准相对应。第二种方法则分别评估了养蜂的不同产品和服务的影响。在第一种方法中,蜂蜜生产系统向安全操作空间转移。淡水资源的使用是向安全操作空间转移幅度最大的影响类别(转移幅度为 39%)。第二种方法导致了蜂蜜生产的全球变暖潜势为 0.65kgkg,当花粉和雄蜂幼虫被视为副产品且不包括授粉服务的影响时。当蜂蜜、花粉和雄蜂幼虫被视为副产品且包括授粉服务时,关于土地利用和气候变化的影响是净积极的。淡水资源使用的影响相对较小。对于蜂蜜,对气候变化、土地利用和淡水资源使用的影响分别为-0.33kgkg、-7.89mkg 和 14.01kgkg。与副产品和授粉服务的影响分配是结论性的。如果不考虑授粉减少的影响,养蜂可能会对环境产生负面影响。基于这些结果,只要利用授粉服务和含有蛋白质的副产品,养蜂就可以在行星边界内增强粮食安全。