Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 112

European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?

Life Cycle Assessment of Pork, Chicken


Meat, Egg, and Milk Production
Grain Legumes Integrated Project (GLIP)
New Strategies to Improve Grain Legumes for Food
and Feed
Food Quality and Safety
WP2.2: Environmental Analysis of the Feed Chain,
Final Report, Deliverable 2.2.2a
Daniel U. Baumgartner, Laura de Baan and Thomas
Nemecek
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tnikon Research Station ART

February 2008

Summary
Changes in environmental impacts due to replacing soya bean meal from North and South
America with European grain legumes in animal feeding systems were studied within the
framework of the Grain Legumes Integrated Project (GLIP, grant no. FOOD-CT-2004506223), which is part of the European Unions 6th RDT framework programme. European
grain legumes could be an interesting alternative for animal feeds, as they need no mineral
fertiliser (symbiotic nitrogen fixation), act as a break crop in crop rotation, and need less
transport than overseas soya bean meal. Furthermore, Brazilian and Argentinean soya bean
cultivation leads to clear-cutting of rainforests and savannah being transformed into arable
land with severe effects on biodiversity and very large emissions of carbon into the
atmosphere.
Five case studies were conducted in four European regions: pork production in North RhineWestphalia (Germany) and Catalonia (Spain), chicken meat and egg production in Brittany
(France), and milk production in Devon and Cornwall (Great Britain). The main comparison
was between a feeding system where the protein need is mainly covered by imported soya
bean meal (SOY), which corresponds to current practice, and a feeding system where soya
bean meal is replaced with European grain legumes (GLEU), i.e. peas and faba beans. In
addition, a feed alternative where European grain legumes are supplemented with higher
levels of synthetic amino acids (SAA) was assessed for chicken meat and German pork. For
the latter, we also analysed a feed alternative consisting mainly of on-farm produced and
self-mixed feed ingredients (FARM).
Production data for arable crops were taken from the concerted action GL-Pro; for animal
production they were collected through the GLIP partners and reports. Information on origin
and transport of feed ingredients were supplied by extension services, the feed industry, and
statistics. Missing data were taken from the ecoinvent and SALCA life cycle inventory
databases. In this study the SALCA (Swiss Agricultural Life Cycle Assessment) life cycle
assessment method was applied. The functional units of these product life cycle
assessments are 1kg of pork, chicken meat, eggs and milk, respectively, delivered at the
farm gate.
The results from the five case studies showed that replacing soya bean meal in animal feed
with European grain legumes did not lead to an overall improvement in environmental
impacts. Generally, a reduction in environmental impacts was achieved for the impact
categories energy demand and global warming potential, both being influenced by
resource use. In all the studies, the impact of the GLEU alternative on ozone formation can
be considered as being rather similar to the impact of the standard feed SOY. This is also the

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

2/112

case for the two impact categories driven by nutrients, i.e. eutrophication and acidification, as
well as for human toxicity. The results for ecotoxicity are less uniform across the different
case studies. They range from similar to unfavourable for the comparison between the GLEU
alternative and the standard feeding system SOY. The results also differ according to the
ecotoxicity-calculation method used, due to the different impact factors each method assigns
to the active ingredients of the pesticides applied. Common to both SAA alternatives is that
they comprise higher contents of synthetic amino acids, but otherwise they differ
considerably in the ingredients. Hence, the results of the SAA alternatives compared to the
standard feed SOY are not the same in the pork and the broiler chicken studies. In the North
Rhine-Westphalian pork production study, the SAA alternative had, compared to the
standard SOY, similar impacts in most categories, e.g. energy demand and eutrophication,
but had lower global warming potentials and higher ecotoxicity potentials. The SAA
alternative for broiler chicken production proved to be an interesting feeding alternative
having favourable or even very favourable impacts compared to the standard SOY in most
categories, and similar impacts for eutrophication and acidification; only the energy demand
was higher. The FARM alternative showed clear advantages for the impact categories
energy demand and global warming potential, both being influenced by resource use, as
well as for the two impact categories driven by nutrients, i.e. eutrophication and acidification.
In contrast to this, there were comparatively unfavourable impacts on the use of the
resources P and K, as well as on ecotoxicity.
In conclusion, the introduction of European grain legumes did not have the expected overall
improvement on environmental impacts. Significant advantages could be found for the
resource use-driven impacts as a consequence of less transportation, reduced incorporation
of energy-rich feeds and absence of land transformation. However, for the nutrient-driven
impacts there was little effect, as the positive effects of reduced soya bean meal and energyrich feed use were frequently counteracted by the negative effects of cultivating the
replacement grain legumes and associated protein-rich feeds. In addition, it should be borne
in mind that a grain legume (soya bean) was replaced by other grain legumes; thus the
advantages due to symbiotic nitrogen fixation are present in both alternatives. Replacing
soya bean meal with European grain legumes tended to have a negative effect with regard to
ecotoxicity impacts. The reason for this was that cultivating the replacement feed ingredients
meant using pesticides that were unfavourably assessed by the methods employed.
Overall, the results show that it is difficult to draw general conclusions because replacing
soya bean meal with European grain legumes has consequences for the entire composition
of the feed formulas, which furthermore differ according to the feedstuff market in the
different regions assessed. Consequently, the results are determined more by the
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

3/112

composition of the whole feed formulas than by the replacement of soya bean meal with
grain legumes itself. This underlines the need for an integral approach to evaluating the
introduction of European grain legumes in animal feed.
Feedstuff production proved to contribute the most to environmental impacts. Thus, the focus
for improvements should be on this part of the life cycle. We suggest integrating
environmental criteria into feedstuff models, in order to optimise them for economic and
environmental aspects. Other important factors are: the transport of feed ingredients, where
we could show that local production has an important advantage; manure management on
the animal production farms, where there is considerable potential for reducing
environmental impacts; efficiency in animal production, striving for an improved feed
conversion rate; and the eco-efficiency of the feed ingredients, i.e. to target using ingredients
with an optimised ratio between environmental impacts and yield.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the European Commission (grant no. FOOD-CT-2004506223) and by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research SER, Berne,
Switzerland.
We would like to express our thanks to Frdric Pressenda (CEREOPA, Paris, France),
Katell Crpon (UNIP, Paris, France), Bruce Cottrill (ADAS, Wolverhampton, UK), Marta
Busquet, Mnica Montes, Ricardo Miguelaez, Ana Hurtado (CESFAC, Madrid, Spain),
Luk Chechura, Jan Hucko, Zdenek Tousek (CZU, Prague, Czech Republic) for providing
data, advice and other information as well as contributing to interesting discussions at
several meetings.
We gratefully acknowledge the collaboration with Ulf Sonesson and Jennifer Davis at SIK
The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (Gothenburg, Sweden), who gave their
advice and provided valuable comments on the report.
We also would like to thank Julia-Sophie von Richthofen (proPlant GmbH, Mnster,
Germany), Roger Fechler and Wolfgang Sommer (North Rhine-Westphalias Chamber of
Agriculture, Mnster, Germany), Hauke Jebsen (Agravis Raiffeisen AG, Mnster, Germany)
and Beate Dietz (Bundesanstalt fr Landwirtschaft und Ernhrung, Bonn, Germany) for
providing production data on the feed ingredients of a self-mixing farm as well as on the
origins and transport means for the pork production case study in North Rhine-Westphalia;
Isabelle Bouvarel (ITAVI, Nouzilly, France), Nathalie Gosselet (PROLEA, Paris, Fance) and
Dylan Chevalier (Pays de la Loires Chamber of Agriculture, Angers, France) for providing
data on production, feeding, and origin of feed ingredients for the chicken meat and the egg
production case studies in Brittany.
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

4/112

Table of Contents
Summary ..................................................................................................................................2
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................4
Table of Contents .....................................................................................................................5
Abbreviations ...........................................................................................................................8
1
Introduction.....................................................................................................................10
1.1
Context ...................................................................................................................10
1.2
Previous Studies.....................................................................................................10
1.2.1
Pork Production ..............................................................................................10
1.2.2
Milk Production ...............................................................................................12
1.2.3
Chicken Production.........................................................................................12
1.3
Mandate..................................................................................................................13
1.4
Target Groups for this Report .................................................................................13
2
Definition of Goal and Scope..........................................................................................14
2.1
Goal of the Study....................................................................................................14
2.2
System Definition and Boundary ............................................................................14
2.3
Feed Alternatives, Study Region, and Case Studies..............................................14
2.3.1
Choice of Feed Alternatives............................................................................14
2.3.2
Choice of Animal Products and of Regions ....................................................15
2.3.3
Choice of Case Studies ..................................................................................16
2.3.4
Description of the Production Systems of the Case Studies ..........................17
2.4
Function and Functional Unit ..................................................................................19
2.5
Allocation Procedures.............................................................................................20
2.5.1
Allocation for plant production ........................................................................20
2.5.2
Allocation for animal production......................................................................20
2.6
Data Quality Requirements ....................................................................................21
2.7
Review procedure...................................................................................................21
3
Life Cycle Inventory Analysis .........................................................................................22
3.1
Data Collection for LCA of Feed Chain ..................................................................22
3.1.1
Production Inventories ....................................................................................22
3.1.2
Life Cycle Inventories .....................................................................................23
3.1.3
Estimation of Direct Field and Farm Emissions ..............................................24
3.1.4
Estimation of carbon release due to land transformation ...............................25
3.2
Calculation Procedures / Tool.................................................................................26
4
Life Cycle Impact Assessment .......................................................................................27
4.1
Resources assessed at life cycle inventory stage ..................................................27
4.2
Resources and Environmental impacts assessed at life cycle assessment stage .27
Resources: .....................................................................................................................27
Environmental impacts: ..................................................................................................27
4.3
Impacts not considered ..........................................................................................29
5
Life Cycle Interpretation .................................................................................................30
5.1
Comparability of systems .......................................................................................31
6
Results ...........................................................................................................................32
6.1
Mode of result presentation ....................................................................................32
6.2
Pork Production in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) ...............................................34
6.2.1
Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives ................................................34
6.2.2
Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories ........................................34
Resource Use-driven Impacts ........................................................................................34
Nutrient-driven Impacts ..................................................................................................37
Pollutant-driven Impacts .................................................................................................39
6.2.3
Summary of the Results .................................................................................41
6.3
Pork Production in Catalonia (CAT)........................................................................43
6.3.1
Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives ................................................43
6.3.2
Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories ........................................43
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

5/112

Resource Use-driven Impacts ........................................................................................43


Nutrient-driven Impacts ..................................................................................................45
Pollutant-driven Impacts .................................................................................................46
6.3.3
Summary of the Results .................................................................................47
6.4
Chicken Meat Production in Brittany (BRI) .............................................................49
6.4.1
Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives ................................................49
6.4.2
Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories ........................................49
Resource Use-driven Impacts ........................................................................................49
Nutrient-driven Impacts ..................................................................................................52
Pollutant-driven Impacts .................................................................................................54
6.4.3
Summary of the Results .................................................................................55
Short-SOY compared to SOY.........................................................................................55
GLEU compared to SOY ................................................................................................56
SAA compared to SOY...................................................................................................56
6.5
Egg Production in Brittany (BRI).............................................................................58
6.5.1
Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives ................................................58
6.5.2
Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories ........................................58
Resource Use-driven Impacts ........................................................................................58
Nutrient-driven Impacts ..................................................................................................60
Pollutant-driven Impacts .................................................................................................61
6.5.3
Summary of the Results .................................................................................62
6.6
Milk Production in Devon and Cornwall (DAC) .......................................................64
6.6.1
Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives ................................................64
6.6.2
Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories ........................................65
Resource Use-driven Impacts ........................................................................................65
Nutrient-driven Impacts ..................................................................................................67
Pollutant-driven Impacts .................................................................................................69
6.6.3
Summary of the Results .................................................................................71
6.7
Overview of the Results for all Case Studies..........................................................73
6.8
Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................74
6.8.1
Land Transformation (CAT) ............................................................................75
6.8.2
Slurry Quantities (DAC) ..................................................................................75
6.8.3
Feed Formulas without Beet and Citrus Pulp (DAC) ......................................76
6.8.4
Allocation Factors for the Oil Extracting Process............................................78
6.8.5
Technical Measures to Reduce Ammonia Losses (CAT) ...............................78
7
Discussion ......................................................................................................................80
7.1
Introduction.............................................................................................................80
7.2
Feedstuff production and processing......................................................................80
7.3
Transport ................................................................................................................84
7.4
Land transformation a decisive factor on global warming potential .....................87
7.5
Manure management there is potential for optimisation......................................88
7.6
Productivity of Agricultural Goods...........................................................................89
7.7
Unconsidered Impacts ............................................................................................90
8
Conclusions, Recommendations, and Outlook ..............................................................92
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................92
Recommendations..........................................................................................................92
Outlook ...........................................................................................................................93
9
References .....................................................................................................................95
10
Appendices...............................................................................................................102
10.1 Appendix 1: Flow diagram of the LCA of pork production ....................................102
10.2 Appendix 2: Flow diagram of the LCA of chicken meat production ......................103
10.3 Appendix 3: Flow diagram of the LCA of egg production .....................................104
10.4 Appendix 4: Flow diagram of the LCA of milk production .....................................105
10.5 Appendix 5: Correction factors for feedstuff ingredients where no production or life
cycle inventories were available.......................................................................................106
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

6/112

10.6 Appendix 6: Used life cycle inventories for feedstuff ingredients..........................107


10.7 Appendix 7: GWP and energy-demand of different means of transport ..............108
10.8 Appendix 8: Origin of Feed Ingredients and Transport Distances for the Pig Feed
Study NRW.......................................................................................................................109
10.9 Appendix 9: Origin of Feed Ingredients and Transport Distances for the Pig Feed
Study CAT ........................................................................................................................110
10.10
Appendix 10: Origin of Feed Ingredients and Transport Distances for the Egg
and Chicken Study BRI ....................................................................................................111
10.11
Appendix 11: Origin of Feed Ingredients and Transport Distances for the Milk
Study DAC........................................................................................................................112

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

7/112

Abbreviations
ARG

Argentina

ART

Agroscope Reckenholz-Tnikon Research Station ART

BRA

Brazil

BRI

Brittany (France)

CAT

Catalonia (Spain)

CML

Life cycle assessment method by Leiden University, Institute of


Environmental Sciences (Guine et al., 2001)

CST

Life cycle assessment method by EPFL Lausanne, Institute of Soil and


Water Management (Jolliet & Crettaz, 1997; Margni et al., 2002)

DAC

Devon and Cornwall (Great Britain)

DCB-eq.

Dichlorobenzene-equivalents

DM

Dry matter

ECM

Energy corrected milk

EDIP Life cycle assessment method by the Technical University of Denmark,


Institute for Product Development (Hauschild & Wenzel, 1998)
eq.

Equivalents

FARM Feeding formulas with on-farm feed production


GLEU Feeding formulas with European grain legumes
GLIP Grain legumes integrated project; 6th RDT Framework Programme
(FOOD-CT-2004-506223)
GL-Pro

European extension network for the development of grain legume

production in the EU; 5th RDT Framework Programme


(QLK5-CT-2002-02418)
GWP Global warming potential
IPCC International panel on climate change
LCA

Life cycle assessment

LCI

Life cycle inventory

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

8/112

LW

Live weight

MJ

Mega Joule

MYA

Malaysia

NRW North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany)


PHOSBI

Di-calcium phosphate

RDT

Research and technological development

SAA

Feeding formulas with synthetic amino acids

SALCA

Swiss Agricultural Life Cycle Assessment

Short-SOY

Feeding formulas with short fattening period

SIK

Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology

SOY

Feeding formulas with soya bean meal from overseas

TEP

Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Points

UK

United Kingdom

WP

Work Package

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

9/112

1 Introduction
1.1 Context
In Europe, there is a need for high-quality protein for animal feed and human consumption.
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or mad cow disease) led to the ban on using
animal-derived protein in livestock feed which in turn raised the demand for vegetable protein
sources. The cultivation of grain legumes 1 , such as peas, beans and lupines that are rich in
protein, starch, fibre and essential nutrients, would be a suitable alternative to meeting this
need. Furthermore, grain legumes possess important agricultural features. In symbiosis with
bacteria, they can fix atmospheric nitrogen providing them with this important nutrient and
saving it for subsequent crops. These crops need no nitrogen fertiliser, and this has
beneficial environmental effects as a result of reduced nitrogen losses from fertiliser
manufacturing and application as well as a substantial reduction in energy demand (Charles
& Nemecek, 2005; Nemecek et al., 2008). Furthermore, grain legumes have an indirect
effect on crop rotation because they act as break crops slowing down the build-up of cereal
pests, diseases and weeds and resulting in a reduced need for pesticides (Nemecek et al.,
2008). Despite these advantages, only 2% of Europes arable land is currently cultivated with
grain legumes. As a result, 75% of Europes plant-derived protein demand is met by imports,
mostly as soya bean meal from North or South America (GLIP, 2004). This has adverse
environmental impacts, including long transportation distances and clear-cutting of
rainforests in Brazil due to increasing demand for arable land. Additionally, cultivating
genetically modified crops leads to problems with consumer acceptance.
This study assesses the environmental potential of introducing European grain legumes into
animal feed, using a life cycle approach. Five case studies on pork, chicken, egg, and milk
production were conducted in four European regions for this purpose.

1.2 Previous Studies


Numerous life cycle assessment (LCA) studies on agricultural products and systems have
been carried out to date. The following overview will focus mainly on product LCAs for milk,
pork, egg, and chicken and related production systems, e.g. the production of concentrated
feed.

1.2.1 Pork Production


The production of pork has been the subject of several LCA studies. Basset-Mens & van der
Werf (2005) have studied the environmental impacts of three contrasting pig production
1

Grain legumes belong to the botanical family of Fabaceae. They are cultivated for their seeds and are also
called pulses. The seeds are used for human and animal consumption or for producing oils for industrial uses.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

10/112

systems in France using LCA methodology. The scenarios they compared were i) good
agricultural practice according to French production rules, ii) a French quality-label scenario
called Red Label, iii) and a French organic scenario. They found that, when expressed per kg
of pig produced, good agricultural practice had the lowest environmental impacts for the
impact categories energy use, land use, climate change, and terrestrial toxicity.
However, the Red Label production system had the lowest impacts on eutrophication and
acidification. In comparison, per kg of pig produced, the French organic scenario only had
the lowest environmental impacts in the category pesticide use.
In a Swedish study by Eriksson et al. (2005) the impact of feed choice for pig production was
examined. The chosen scenarios related to feed formulations for pigs where a) is
extrapolation of the present trend of soya bean meal use, b) use of domestic feed (no soya
bean meal) with low crude protein level and added synthetic amino acids, and c) use of
organic feed ingredients. The results show that for all impact categories the production of 1
kg of soya bean meal had the highest impact among the assessed feed ingredients. Per kg
of soya bean meal, over 50% of the energy use and 75% of the acidification were due to
long- distance transportation. For the different impact categories the results of the three
scenarios for one kg of pig growth were as follows: the scenario with soya bean meal had the
lowest environmental impacts on land use, whereas for energy use and global warming
potential the scenario with organic pig feed had the lowest impacts. Regarding acidification
and eutrophication, the scenario using domestic feed enriched with synthetic amino acids
was the most favourable in terms of environmental impacts.
A similar study has been performed by van der Werf et al. (2005) regarding the
environmental impacts of producing concentrate feed for pigs in Brittany. The authors
defined six diets for pigs adapted to their development stage. The feed components were
either from local, national, or overseas sources. Most diets were cereal-based in combination
with soya, rapeseed, or sunflower meal or peas as protein sources. For the local crops, pig
slurry was assumed to be the main source of fertiliser. The results based on one ton of pig
feed show that for the impact categories energy use, climate change, and acidification the
contribution from transport processes was substantial. Compared with a feed consisting
mainly of non-processed crop-based ingredients, a feed containing mainly co-products had
higher environmental impacts in the category energy use and lower impacts in the category
terrestrial ecotoxicity. Comparing wheat-, maize- or co-product-based feeds per ton of
compound feed produced the wheat-based formulation was the most favourable for the
impact categories land use, energy use, and climate change. The co-product-based feed
had the lowest impacts for acidification and terrestrial ecotoxicity. Generally, the wheat-

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

11/112

based feed was more favourable than the maize-based one, the exception being for the
impact category eutrophication.

1.2.2 Milk Production


A number of LCA studies on milk production have been undertaken. Two areas of interest
have been analysed: a) comparative studies examining the differences between conventional
and organic milk production (Cederberg, 1998; De Boer, 2003) and b) milk production
studies, including dairy processing, packaging, the consumer phase, and waste management
(Eide, 2002, Hospido et al., 2003). The use of grain legumes as feed in milk production was
not a major consideration in these studies. An interesting aspect of LCA studies on milk
production is discussed in Cederberg & Stadig (2001). Two types of allocation procedures for
calves, i.e. economic allocation or system expansion are compared.

1.2.3 Chicken Production


There are a few LCA studies on chicken production. Katajajuuri (2007) performed a case
study on Finnish broiler production. He assessed the entire broiler chicken chain in Finland,
up to a marinated and sliced broiler fillet bought by consumers from retail shops. Regarding
energy demand, feed production, especially the crop cultivation phase, was the most
important process step followed by refrigeration in retail stores and broiler chicken housing.
The contribution of retail to the global warming potential was relatively small. However, feed
production and broiler housing were important contributors to global warming, not only
through CO2-emissions, but also N2O-emissions from fertiliser production and use, as well as
from broiler manure, and through the production of CH4. For the impact categories
acidification and eutrophication, feed production was the dominant process step (Katajajuuri,
2007).
Ellingsen and Aanondsen (2006) compared the environmental impacts of wild-caught cod
and farmed salmon with chicken. While fish production was the focus of this study, chicken
was used for bench-marking. The chicken production was situated in the southern part of
Norway, with feed ingredients originating from Norway, France, and Brazil. As a functional
unit they chose 0.2kg of fillets of the three products. Their results showed that the farming
phase dominated all the impact categories investigated. Chicken was most energy effective
using 11MJ per functional unit. Salmon and cod were at about the same level with 13MJ per
functional unit.
The LCA study by Ostermayer et al. (2002) investigated DL-methionine in poultry fattening.
The study focussed on the environmental impacts of two diets in which the methionine
content was increased compared to a standard wheat-soya-feed. In diet A the higher
methionine content was obtained by adding synthetic methionine, whereas in diet B this was
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

12/112

achieved by increasing the soya bean meal content. Per kg, the increased DL-methionine
diet (A) had less environmental impacts than diet B for the categories energy demand,
acidification, terrestrial eurtrophication and aquatic eutrophication. Equally, for climate
change the synthetic methionine diet had lower environmental impacts than the diet with
increased soya bean meal, unless the avoided impacts of nitrogen fertiliser, due to replacing
wheat with soya bean meal, were considered (Ostermayer et al., 2002). This study also
provides interesting data on soya cultivation overseas and the production of soya bean meal
as well as on the production of synthetic DL-methionine (Ostermayer et al., 2002).

1.3 Mandate
This report was commissioned by the European Union through the 6th RDT Framework
Programme (FOOD-CT-2004-506223).
This study, performed by Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research station ART,
investigates the environmental impact of the feed chain. By performing product LCAs for
pork, chicken, eggs, and milk, this study focuses on the differences in the environmental
impacts of using European grain legumes instead of imported soya bean meal from overseas
as a protein source in livestock diets. Production systems, transport distances and feed
composition are some of the important differences of the chosen scenarios.
SIK The Swedish Institute for Food and biotechnology, a partner institute in GLIP, has
analysed the environmental impact of an entire meal (Davis & Sonesson, 2008). In these
meals, European grain legumes are included in various proportions, either as feed for the
pigs or consumed directly as a replacement for pork. Data from this present study is used for
the study on meals, where two case study regions are analysed giving indications on
differences within Europe.

1.4 Target Groups for this Report


The target groups of this report are the scientific community, extension services, the food
industry, retailers, consumer organisations, authorities, and policy-makers. Farmers are not
primarily part of the target group for this report. They will be addressed mainly through
extension services.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

13/112

2 Definition of Goal and Scope


2.1 Goal of the Study
The main goals of this study are to assess the environmental impacts of grain legume use in
animal feed, to identify environmental constraints to increasing grain legume use in Europe
and to suggest new strategies to overcome them using Life Cycle Assessment methodology
(LCA).
The purpose of the LCA of the feed chain is to evaluate the environmental impacts of animal
production systems, including feed production, with different feeding strategies and different
origins of feed. The evaluation is carried out through case studies of different animal
products and in different European regions. The focus is on animal products (milk, meat,
eggs) which are produced on-farm.
Within the Grain Legumes Integrated Project there is a study by Davis & Sonesson (2008)
with a similar goal focussing on human nutrition and the LCA of the food chain.

2.2 System Definition and Boundary


A cradle-to-gate approach has been chosen. The system encompasses inputs into
agricultural production (i.e. seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, feed, fuels, etc.), infrastructures
(buildings, machinery, equipment), the agricultural production of raw materials, transport,
processing, and storage, and ends with the animal products (meat, eggs, milk). In the life
cycle approach all stages of the agricultural production are included: the preliminary stage
(i.e. the production of inputs and infrastructure), crop production (including land
transformation), and animal production.
For further details see the flow diagrams in appendices 1 to 4 of the four products studied (
Appendix 1, Appendix 2, Appendix 3, Appendix 4).
The system boundary is set at the farm gate. All activities beyond the farm gate (e.g.
transport to slaughterhouse, slaughtering, etc.) are part of the LCA of the food chain, where
these processes have been assessed for pork (Davis & Sonesson, 2008).

2.3 Feed Alternatives, Study Region, and Case Studies


2.3.1 Choice of Feed Alternatives
Two main feed alternatives are considered in this study: the standard feeding (current
practice), where pigs, chickens, and dairy cows are fed with soya bean meal from North or
South America, i.e. Argentina, Brazil, or USA (SOY) as the main protein source, and the

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

14/112

feeding alternative, where this soya bean meal is replaced by European grain legumes
(GLEU) in the feed formulas.
Additionally, a feed alternative, where European grain legumes are combined with higher
levels of synthetic amino acids (SAA) is used in two regions. The feed formulas are
optimised for a maximum N digestibility. Finally, a feed alternative, where all the feed is
produced on the farm itself, including the mixing of feed components (FARM), is assessed in
one of the regions (Germany).
All four feed formulas for animal production in France were calculated with the economic
feedstuff optimisation model ARIANE version 2005v2 (CEREOPA, 2005). The calculation for
feed formulas from countries other than France was done through economic optimisation
using the feedstuff model developed in WP 2.2 (Pressenda et al., 2006). For the alternatives,
restrictions on soya bean meal use or digestibility of amino acids were introduced in the
optimisation models in order to be able to substitute soya bean meal with European grain
legumes or with higher levels of synthetic amino acids. The ingredients for the FARM
alternative were determined by a pig feeding expert from the North Rhine-Westphalian
Chamber of Agriculture (W. Sommer, pers. communication, Apr. 2006) and reflect the
common local farming situation. Thus, besides the nutritional restrictions, market availability
and price (which of course also reflects availability) were the main criteria for the composition
of the formulas. The feed formulas obtained reflect common practice. All compound feeds
used in the presented case studies contain large amounts of cereals and maize (rich in
energy), significant amounts of feeds rich in proteins, and are completed with different
mineral feeds.

2.3.2 Choice of Animal Products and of Regions


One study objective is to assess different animal products which are at the starting point of
further processing in the food chain (see also Davis & Sonesson, 2008). Several criteria had
to be considered:
The assessed products should be of economic importance and occur throughout Europe.
In order to provide a good range of products we decided to assess products from different
animal species.
The current practice should include the use of soya bean meal.
The assessed animal production system should allow soya bean meal to be replaced with
European grain legumes.
Hence, we examine pork, chicken meat, eggs and milk, the reasons being explained below.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

15/112

Milk is economically the most important agricultural commodity in the EU (European Union,
2005). In the meat sector, pork and poultry meat are quantitatively the two most important
meat types both in production and consumption (European Union, 2005). In recent years, the
consumption of poultry meat has been higher than beef consumption (European Union,
2005).
Germany is the biggest producer of pork in Europe and in recent years has seen a new
growth in pig production, mainly in the Eastern part of the country (Crpon et al., 2005).
However, the North-West, i.e. North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony, accounts for more
than 50% of the national pig production (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2007). Another European
country where pig production is very important is Spain. Its animal production sector has
undergone a dynamic and steady growth. The industrial pig production is spread all over
Spain, though the most important producing regions are Catalonia and Aragon, with over
40% of the national production (Crpon et al., 2005). France is the leading country in Europe
for poultry meat production, and this is concentrated in the Western part of the country,
namely Brittany and Pays de la Loire. Western France is also the main egg producing area,
with Brittany accounting for 48% of the national market (Agreste Bretagne, 2005a). The
animal production sector in the United Kingdom is dominated by cattle products which
account for over 50% of the value generated by animal production, of which 34% stems from
milk production (Crpon et al., 2005). Over a third of the English dairy herds are located in
the South-West of the country (Defra, 2005).
In current practice soya bean meal is the main protein source for monogastric animals, such
as pigs and poultry. These species are usually fed with compound feeds, providing all their
nutritional needs. Unlike monogastric animals, ruminants, e.g. dairy cows, feed mainly on
roughage and can obtain a large part of their protein need through the intake of roughage. In
high-performing dairy cows, concentrate feeds are used to balance either the energy or
protein need of the animal. Hence, pulses are not important in their feed. Therefore chicken
meat production was chosen in preference to beef production.

2.3.3 Choice of Case Studies


Based on the presented reasoning we have selected the following case studies (Tab. 1):
Pork production in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), Germany, with the two main feed
alternatives and additionally a feed alternative where the feed formula with European grain
legumes is optimised by using higher levels of synthetic amino acids (SAA) as well as a feed
alternative where all the feed is produced on-farm (FARM; no transport).
Pork production in Catalonia (CAT), Spain, with the two main feed alternatives.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

16/112

Chicken meat production (broiler chicken) in Brittany (BRI), France, with the two main feed
alternatives. In addition, a feed alternative was examined where the feed formula with
European grain legumes is optimised by using higher levels of synthetic amino acids (SAA).
As the production system studied has a fattening period of 60 days and this system only
accounts for about 8% of the French national chicken production, the results were compared
with the standard short fattening period of 41 days (short-SOY), where inclusion of peas
instead of soya bean meal is not possible for nutritional reasons; and
Egg production in Brittany (BRI), France, with the two main feed alternatives.
Milk production Devon and Cornwall (DAC), UK, with the two main feed alternatives.
These regions can be considered as being reasonably homogenous for the purposes of this
study (Crpon et al., 2005).
Tab. 1: Overview of the different regions and case studies.
NRW: North Rhine-Westphalia; CAT: Catalonia; BRI: Brittany; DAC: Devon and Cornwall.
The four feeding strategies: SOY (soya bean meal from overseas), GLEU (European grain
legumes), SAA (synthetic amino acids), and FARM (on-farm feed production)

Product /
Scenario

SOY

GLEU

SAA

FARM

Pork (NRW)

Pork (CAT)

Egg (BRI)

Chicken (BRI)
(short fattening
length)
Chicken (BRI)
(medium fattening
length
Milk (DAC)

2.3.4 Description of the Production Systems of the Case Studies


Pork production in North Rhine-Westphalia and in Catalonia is highly specialised. We
assumed in both regions that piglets were produced on a piglet production farm and then
transported to a fattening farm, where they were fattened until they reach their slaughter
weight. In both pork production case studies, a three-phase feeding system was applied,
consisting of a weaner, a growing, and a finishing pig feed. The piglets suckle, but feed is
needed for the sows. Therefore feed is included for gestating and lactating sows. For the
FARM alternative in North Rhine-Westphalia we assumed that the piglets did not come from

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

17/112

a self-mixing farm and hence the feed for the gestating and lactating sows is the same as in
GLEU.
Broiler (chicken) production in Brittany is also highly specialised and normally consists of
three geographically-separated production units: a farm keeping the parent animals for
producing eggs, the hatchery (where the eggs are hatched for three weeks), and the chicken
meat production farm (where the freshly-hatched chicks are fattened until they reach their
slaughter-weight). For egg production there are normally up to four units: the farm with the
parent laying hens producing eggs; the hatchery; the young hen farm (where the freshly
hatched chicks are kept for 18 weeks), and the egg production farm (where the laying hens
produce eggs over approximately one year). In terms of life cycle assessment, the parent
animals can be disregarded, as their share in relation to the final product is very small. We
did not include the hatchery due to lack of data, namely regarding its energy demand. This
does not influence the conclusions of our study, as the hatchery would have been the same
for the different feeding strategies. Only the absolute values would have changed. Thus, for
chicken meat production we considered all resource use and emissions from the chicken
meat farm. For laying hens, we assessed the young hen and the egg production unit.
In the short fattening alternative (short-SOY), there is a two-phase feeding consisting of a
starter and a finishing feed for the broilers. There is a three-phase feeding, i.e. starter,
growing and finishing feed, for the broiler production of medium fattening period. Due to
formulation constraints, i.e. no soya and high levels of synthetic amino acids, it was not
possible to calculate a starter feed meeting the nutritional needs of young chicks for the SAA
alternative; therefore the GLEU starter feed was used in this alternative.
For egg production two feeds were used: a young hen feed and a laying hen feed.
For milk production in Devon and Cornwall we used one average feed formula for dairy cows
(with a high energy content) for all lactation phases. For the replacement animals (growing
cattle), which normally do not feed on soya bean meal nor on peas or beans, no economic
feed optimisation model was calculated and the composition of the feed (the same for both
feed alternatives) was provided by B. Cottrill (pers. communication, Aug. 2007). In addition to
the concentrate feed, the dairy cows were fed rations containing 70% roughage feed (35%
grass silage and 35% fresh grass). We assumed that the animals grazed on fresh grass for
half the year. For the replacement animals, we assumed that the calves were kept at the
same farm as the dairy cows.
More details are given in Tab. 2.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

18/112

Tab. 2: Production data for the main animal production systems assessed in the different
case studies.
Case study
Region

NRW
North-Rhine Westfalia

CAT
Catalonia

pig

pig

Breed

different breeds

Landrace x
Large
White

Housing system

fully slatted floor

fully slatted
floor
floor
management

Animal species

Concentrate feed intake [kg/feeding stage and animal]


starting
growing
finishing
Total:
Roughage feed

BRI
Brittany

BRI
Brittany

BRI
Brittany

DAC
Devon and Cornwall

laying hen

dairy cow

JA 957,
Hubbard-Isa

Isabrown

Holstein

floor
management

laying
battery

loose housing,
with 180 full and 46
half grazing days

0.3
0.9
3.5
4.7
-

40
-

2118
4700

broiler short broiler medium


fattening length fattening length
Ross

32.3
125.4
96.0
253.7
-

18.7
68.3
150.0
237.0
-

Total fattening/feeding length [d/animal]

175

165

41

60

365

365

Weight at slaughtering [kg live weight]

115

105

2.0

2.2

Eggs [kg with egg shell/year]

18.7

Milk [kg/year]

6850

2.4

2.6

6.0

4.5

100%

28%

Undiluted slurry per place and year [m3]

2.00

1.54

0.008

0.008

0.04

19

Slurry dilution before spreading

1:3

1:3

1:3

112.5

70.0

8.4

8.4

14.4

47.0

yes

no

no

no

no

no

Cycles per year


Replacement rate [%/year]

Slurry (diluted) spreading per ha and year [m3]


Covering slurry pit

0.5
3.6
4.1
-

2.4 Function and Functional Unit


Agriculture has different functions for society and environment. According to Nemecek et al.
(2004b) three functions can be distinguished for LCAs of agricultural systems:
1.

The function of land cultivation, i.e. agricultural use of the soil.

2.

The productive function, i.e. the production of food and feedstuff.

3.

The economic function, i.e. the income of the farmer.

Our study focuses on the productive function of agriculture. Four agricultural products are
assessed. The following functional units (FU) were chosen (Tab. 3):
Tab. 3: Overview of the functional units according to the different case studies. All products
are calculated as delivered at the farm gate.

1)

Case study

Functional unit (FU)

Pig production

kg pork (live weight)

Chicken production

kg chicken (live weight)

Egg production

kg eggs (with eggshell)

Milk production

kg ECM (energy and protein corrected milk) 1)

The formula to calculate ECM is taken from Reist et al. (2002).

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

19/112

2.5 Allocation Procedures


2.5.1 Allocation for plant production
Several feed ingredients are co-products (e.g. soya bean meal, rapeseed meal, sunflower
meal, etc) of processes producing more than one product:

Cultivation and transport of oilseeds: mass allocation.

Processing of oilseeds in the oil mill: economic allocation.

Mass allocation for the cultivation of oilseeds (e.g. soya beans, oilseed rape, sunflowers) was
chosen, because they do not necessarily need to be processed into oil and meal. Soya
beans are very suitable for human nutrition. Rapeseeds can be fed to animals. Furthermore,
the ISO-norm gives higher priority to physical than economic allocation (ISO, 2006). We
argue that transport (and therefore the associated emissions) is closely related to the mass
of the goods transported, whereas in the process of pressing seeds the inputs used and the
resulting outputs are linked to the economic interest of extracting oil (and obtaining their coproducts). Thus, an economic allocation is applied. An exception is hexane, a solvent which
is uniquely used to maximise the oil yield. Therefore it is an integral part of the oil-extracting
process and all the hexane is allocated to the oil.
All co-products with a value of less than 5% of the total product value are regarded as waste
and their resource use and emissions are completely allocated to the main product(s).

2.5.2 Allocation for animal production


In animal production, allocation procedures are also needed. For example, calves (meat) and
old cows (meat, incineration) are co-products of milk production; leather and bristles are
examples of co-products from pig production; and meat from old layers for stock cubes or pet
food may be co-products of egg production. As for feed ingredients, co-products with an
economic value of less than 5% of the sum of the products (of a particular production) are
disregarded.
As the system boundary is set at the farm gate, co-products of pork production such as
leather and bristles are not included in the LCA study of the feed chain. Neither is meat from
old layers, as this co-product from egg production accounts for 1.3%, thus, below 5% of the
total product value. However, meat from calves and old cows are included. For the milk case
study, 85.5% of the environmental burden is allocated to milk and to 14.5% meat.
The economic value is determined by calculating the product from the mass allocation and
the market price.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

20/112

2.6 Data Quality Requirements


To assess data quality requirements we distinguished between production inventories and
life cycle inventories.
Production inventories are technical, agricultural descriptions of the production systems.
They include specifications about the type and quantity of the inputs used, type and date of
the measurements taken, and the outputs of the different systems.
Data quality requirements are defined for time-related, geographical, and technology
coverage:

Time-related coverage: Data should not be older than five years and production data

should cover an entire year of production. Newest available data were used, mainly from the
years 2004 and 2005.

Geographical coverage: As a general rule, data were collected at the level where they

were applicable (i.e. local, regional, national, international). If they were not available at this
level, data from the next higher level were used. This means that some data, for example of
an average pork production farm in Catalonia, were collected at a regional level whereas
data on the origin of feed used for feed formula in the feed mill, e.g. feed mill in North RhineWestphalia, were taken on a regional or national level (e.g. national import statistics)
depending on their traceability.

Technology coverage: Generally, the aim was to use data that were as close as

possible to the system studied. Examples are housing system or building type. If no data was
available for the actual system or type, than data from the closest corresponding system or
type were used.
Life cycle inventories: The Life cycle inventories are taken from the ecoinvent database
version 1.2 (corrected version of ecoinvent data v1.1; ecoinvent Centre, 2004) as well as
from the SALCA database version 071 (updated version of SALCA database 031a; Nemecek
et al., 2003a).
Details on the properties of the life cycle inventories are given by Frischknecht et al. (2004)

2.7 Review procedure


We have opted for an internal review process, which means that the report on the LCA of the
food chain (Davis & Sonesson, 2008) and this report have been cross-read by Agroscope
Reckenholz-Tnikon (ART) and the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK),
respectively.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

21/112

3 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis


3.1 Data Collection for LCA of Feed Chain
As far as possible data for feed production were taken from the concerted action GL-Pro
(European extension network for the development of grain legumes production in the EU)
from the 5th Framework Programme of the European Union, as these data fulfilled the quality
requirements on time-related, geographical and technology coverage extremely well (see
chapter 2.6). Data which could not be covered by GL-Pro were collected by Agroscope
Reckenholz-Tnikon Research Station ART with the help of the GLIP WP 2.2 project team
members. Main sources were extension services and chambers of agriculture in the regions
studied, regional and national statistics on agricultural production and imports, as well as
reports and journal articles. In addition, the ecoinvent database version 1.2 (ecoinvent
Centre, 2004) and the SALCA database version 071 (updated and extended version of
SALCA database 031a; Nemecek et al., 2003a) were used.

3.1.1 Production Inventories


The production inventories, i.e. the agronomical-technical description of the animal
production systems, were taken from data collected through contacts of WP2.2 members in
the respective countries, and in the case of NRW through proPlant GmbH (J.-S. v.
Richthofen, pers. communication, Dec. 2005) and the North Rhine-Westphalia Chamber of
Agriculture (R. Fechler, pers. communication, Dec. 2005). An overview of the derivation of
the production inventories is given below.

Building and housing system: details on surfaces of barn (sty, hen-house, cowshed),

housing system, fodder silo, ventilation system, heating system, water, electricity, gas and oil
use, use of litter. As far as possible data were taken from extension services through the
WP2.2 partners.

Feeding system: details on feed composition and fodder, amounts of feed and fodder

used. The systems were designed with the assistance of animal feeding experts (K. Crpon,
pers. communication, Jun. 2006; B. Cottrill, pers. communication, Aug. 2007; W. Sommer;
pers. communication, Apr. 2006).

Manure storage and spreading systems: manure storage systems (liquid and solid)

and spreading techniques. Data were taken from extension services, experts or literature.

Animal production system: details on numbers of animal per annum, numbers of

offspring per annum, replacement rate, weight at beginning and end of growing/fattening
period, length of growing/fattening period, milk yield per annum, energy and protein content
of milk, feed consumed per animal (growing and productive animal), liquid and solid manure
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

22/112

output per animal and annum. Data were collected through the GLIP WP 2.2 project team
members, extension services, experts or literature (e.g. LBL, SRVA, & FIBL, 2003).

Production of concentrated feed: details on feed formulas and origin of feed

ingredients. Data were taken from the feedstuff models developed within WP 2.2 (Pressenda
et al., 2006) as well as from national and regional statistics (see Appendix 8, Appendix 9,
Appendix 10, Appendix 11).

Production of soya beans in Brazil and USA: details on tilling, sowing density, fertiliser

use, pesticide use, harvest date, tractor, seeder, manure distributor, sprayer, harvest
machine. Data were taken from the concerted action GL-Pro (Nemecek & Baumgartner,
2006) and the ecoinvent database v1.2 (ecoinvent Centre, 2004), respectively. Soya bean
production in Argentina was approximated with the data from Brazil.

Production of grain legumes (peas and faba beans) and other protein-rich feeds in

Europe: details on tilling, sowing density, fertiliser use, pesticide use, harvest date, tractor,
seeder, manure distributor, sprayer, harvest machine. Data were taken from the concerted
action GL-Pro (von Richthofen et al., 2006) wherever possible. For all other protein-rich feed
ingredients life cycle inventories from the ecoinvent database (ecoinvent Centre, 2004) were
used.

Production of non-protein feed ingredients in Europe: details on tilling, sowing density,

fertiliser use, pesticide use, harvest date, tractor, seeder, manure distributor, sprayer, harvest
machine. Data were taken from the concerted action GL-Pro (von Richthofen et al., 2006)
wherever possible. For all other protein-rich feed ingredients life cycle inventories from the
ecoinvent database v1.2 (ecoinvent Centre, 2004) were used.

3.1.2 Life Cycle Inventories


The life cycle inventories of infrastructures (e.g. buildings, manure pits), inputs (e.g. seeds,
fertilisers, pesticides), and processes (e.g. transport, oil and feed mill) were taken from the
ecoinvent database version 1.2 (corrected version of ecoinvent data v1.1; ecoinvent Centre,
2004) and the SALCA database version 071 (updated version of the SALCA database 031a;
Nemecek et al., 2003a).
The life cycle inventories for agriculture are described by Nemecek et al. (2003b) and
Nemecek & Erzinger (2005) and were completed using GL-Pro data. For some feed
ingredients there was no life cycle inventory. These ingredients were approximated with life
cycle inventories of similar feed ingredients by using correction factors (see Appendix 5).
An overview of the life cycle inventories used for feedstuff ingredients can be seen in
Appendix 6.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

23/112

3.1.3 Estimation of Direct Field and Farm Emissions


The direct field and farm emissions are included for the following processes: cultivation of
feed ingredients, emissions from animal husbandry (including pasture), as well as emissions
during storage and spreading of farmyard manure (Tab. 4). Different direct field emissions
were estimated by models according to the SALCA method (Nemecek et al., 2005b). The
emissions considered are: ammonia (NH3; Menzi et al., 1997), nitrous oxide (N2O; Schmid et
al., 2000), phosphorus (expressed as PO4; Prasuhn, 2006), nitrate (NO3; Richner et al.,
2006), heavy metal emissions (Freiermuth, 2006) and pesticide emissions. For a brief
overview of these emissions see Nemecek & Baumgartner (2006). Direct emissions of
methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), nitrous oxide (N2O), and phosphorus (PO4) occurring at
barn, on pasture, and during storage and spreading of manure were estimated for every
animal category. The estimations are based on slurry quantity, nitrogen and phosphorus
content of slurry, grazing period, and typical manure management in the given study regions.
Nitrogen and phosphorus contents of slurry were calculated based on the N and P content of
the different feed formulas, with Nintake minus Nretention equals Nexcretion, and Pintake minus Pretention
equals Pexcretion. N and P content of the diet (Nintake, Pintake) were obtained from the feed
optimisation models (Pressenda et al., 2006). N and P retention in the animal body were
provided by B. Cottrill (pers. communication, Aug. 2007). Thus, the values for Nexcretion and
Pexcretion resulted.
The emissions of NH3, NO3, N2O, PO4, and CH4 were calculated as follows:
Ammonia (NH3): NH3 losses from animal excretion at barn and on pasture, and during slurry
storage were estimated according to Menzi et al. (1997). NH3 losses from slurry spreading
were calculated according to Katz (1996), (from Menzi et al. 1997).
Nitrate (NO3) leaching: In addition to nitrate leaching from the cultivation of the feed
ingredients, it was calculated for pasture (according to Huguenin, 2002), where nitrate
leaching is increased due to high local nitrogen concentration. On the other hand, there is no
additional emission from the process step manure spreading, as we assumed that slurry
applications were done in correct quantities and at the appropriate time, resulting in optimal
uptake by the plants (Tab. 4).
Nitrous oxide (N2O): Emission factors were obtained from Schmid et al. (2000). Direct N2O
emissions and induced emissions (NH3 and NO3 reacting to N2O) were considered.
Phosphorus leaching (expressed as PO4): P losses were calculated according to Prasuhn
(2006). Only leaching to ground and surface water were considered; P losses from erosion
were not included, as erosion is happening independently of the fertilisation. Furthermore,
this process is exactly the same for all assessed feed alternatives.
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

24/112

Methane (CH4): CH4 emissions from animal husbandry and slurry storage were calculated
according to the IPCC-method 2 (Houghton et al., 1995), as they were used for the Swiss
inventory of agricultural methane emissions (Minonzio et al., 1998). For dairy cows, where
methane emissions are significant, the calculations were made using the formula of
Kirchgessner et al. (1993), which better considers the impact of diet on methane emissions.
Emissions not considered were heavy metals in the process steps manure spreading and
pasture (Tab. 4). We argue that there is a heavy metal cycle in which there is uptake of
heavy metals from the soil by plants in fields and pastures, the plants (or parts of them) being
fed to the animals, and the heavy metals return to the soil via the farmyard manure.
Tab. 4: Overview of the direct field and farm emissions considered according to the different
process steps. x = considered; - = not relevant; o = not considered
Process step /
Direct field or farm emission

CH4

Heavy
metals

Pesticides

-1)

x2)

NH3

N2O

PO4

NO3

Arable crop production

Animal husbandry / housing

Manure storage

Manure spreading

Pasture

1)
2)

was not calculated in the applied method


is included in Animal husbandry / housing

3.1.4 Estimation of carbon release due to land transformation


For soya bean meal and oil from Brazil and for palm oil and palm kernel meal from Malaysia,
CO2-release from land transformation was calculated according to Jungbluth et al. (2007).
Carbon released from biomass burning as well as from soil during cultivation is considered.
The values are presented in Tab. 5. No data for Argentinean soya cultivation was available.
Therefore, these values were estimated based on the values from Brazil. In Brazil, each year
3.2% of the soya cultivation area is transformed from rainforests, whereas in Argentina, 1.6%
of the soya cultivation area is transformed from savannah (SAGPyA, 2007 and Dros, 2004).
As there is less biomass in savannahs than in rainforests, only the carbon released from
soils and not from biomass burning was considered for Argentinean soya. The carbon
released from soils in Brazil was converted according to the relative soya cultivation area
transformed in Argentina:
0.283 kg CO2/kg soya / 3.2% * 1.6% = 0.140 kg CO2 / kg soya

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

25/112

Tab. 5: CO2-release from biomass and soil from land transformation in Brazil, Argentina, and
Malaysia ((1) Jungbluth et al., 2007; (2) SAGPyA, 2007; (3) own estimate).
Origin

Share of land
Commodity
transformed from
rain forest/
savannah

Brazil

3.2%

(1)

Argentina

1.6%

(2)

100%

(1)

Malaysia

Total CO2 released


[kg CO2 /
kg commodity]

CO2 from biomass CO2 released


[kg CO2 /
from soils
[kg CO2 /
kg commodity]
kg commodity]

Soya bean meal


Soya bean oil
Soya bean meal
Soya bean oil
Palm oil
Palm kernel meal

(1)

0.747
(1)
0.747
(3)
0
(3)
0

(1)

0.281
(1)
0.281
(3)
0.140
(3)
0.140

(1)

1.028
(1)
1.028
(3)
0.140
(3)
0.140
(1)

0.932
(1)
0.101

3.2 Calculation Procedures / Tool


We created different tools, i.e. SALCA-feed, SALCA-pork, SALCA-chicken and SALCA-cow
for

calculation

purposes

using

the

LCA

software

TEAM

(Version

4.0)

by

PricewaterhouseCooper-Ecobilan (Ecobilan, 2004).

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

26/112

4 Life Cycle Impact Assessment


In accordance with the LCA study on the food chain (Davis & Sonesson, 2008) a selection of
relevant impact categories and impact assessment methods has been made. The selection
is based on mid-point categories, mainly from the EDIP97 (Hauschild & Wenzel 1998) and
CML01 (Guine et al. 2001) methods.
The following environmental impacts are considered:

4.1 Resources assessed at life cycle inventory stage

Land use [m2*a], i.e. land occupation as a resource. It is a summation without

weighting and without distinction between different types of land occupation. The
interpretation is at the LCI stage.

Minerals: Phosphorus (P) [g P] and Potassium (K) [g K2O] are the most important

mineral resources for agriculture. The interpretation is done at the LCI stage.

4.2 Resources and Environmental impacts assessed at life cycle


assessment stage
The impact categories considered in this LCA study are:
Resources:

Energy demand [MJ-equivalents]: This is the demand of non-renewable energy


resources (crude oil, hard coal and lignite, natural gas, and uranium) according the ecoinvent
methodology (Frischknecht et al. 2003), i.e. gross calorific value. This category will be
referred to as energy demand.
Environmental impacts:
Global warming potential (GWP) for a time horizon of 100 years [CO2-equivalents]:
Methodology according to IPCC (2001) without biogenic CO2. For soya bean meal and oil
from Brazil and Argentina and for palm oil and palm kernel meal from Malaysia, CO2-release
from land transformation was also considered (see chapter 3.1.4).
Photooxidant formation potential (as precursors of ozone) [g ethylene-equivalents]:
Evaluation for high NOx areas using the EDIP97 method (Hauschild & Wenzel, 1998).
Eutrophication potential [g N-equivalents]: According to the EDIP97 methodology (Hauschild
& Wenzel, 1998). The eutrophication potential refers to sensitive ecosystems, e.g. extensive
(poor) meadows, bogs and water bodies and not on the nutrient enrichment of agricultural
soil. It consists of N- and P-compounds which enter the ecosystems by air and water.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

27/112

Acidification potential [g SO2-equivalents]: As for eutrophication, acidification relates to


sensitive ecosystems. Compounds enter the ecosystems by air (e.g. acid rain). The
methodology used is EDIP97 (Hauschild & Wenzel, 1998).
Toxicity [toxicity points]:
Ecotoxicity potential: This impact category is important for the LCA of feed because of the
input of organic and inorganic (e.g. heavy metals) substances due to the use of fertilisers and
pesticides. Because assessment of the impacts on ecotoxicity is highly dependent on the
choice of the impact assessment method, we show the results of three methods: EDIP97
(Hauschild & Wenzel, 1998), CML01 (Guine et al., 2001), and CST95 (Jolliet & Crettaz,
1997; Margni et al., 2002). As a standard we use EDIP97 and as the alternative CML01. The
third method, CST95, is used when the two main methods show diverging results. We
distinguish between organic and inorganic substances and focus on chronic effects. Missing
characterisation factors for pesticides were replaced by median values.
Human toxicity: Impacts of toxic pollutants on human health are shown according to the
CML01 method (Guine et al., 2001).
According to Nemecek et al. (2005b) ecotoxicity points were used instead of the original
units, to facilitate communication of the results. Note that the definition of ecotoxicity points
differs between the three methods (EDIP97, CML01 and CST95). Therefore the results are
not comparable in absolute terms. The following definitions apply to this study:
EDIP97:

1 aquatic ecotoxicity point [AEP] = 1000 m3 water

EDIP97:

1 terrestrial ecotoxicity point [TEP] = 1000 m3 soil

CML01:

1 aquatic ecotoxicity point [AEP] = 1 kg 1,4 DCB-eq

CML01:

1 terrestrial ecotoxicity point [TEP] = 1 kg 1,4 DCB-eq

CML01:

1 human toxicity point [HTP] = 1 kg 1,4 DCB-eq

CST95:

1 aquatic ecotoxicity point [AEP] = 1 g Zn-eq water

CST95:

1 terrestrial ecotoxicity point [TEP] = 1 g Zn-eq soil

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

28/112

For the detailed representation of the results, four impact categories were chosen:

Energy demand,

Global warming potential,

Eutrophication potential,

Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (according to EDIP97).

The choice is based on the correlation between the different impact categories. Nemecek et
al. (2005b) have shown that based on statistic correlations three groups of impact
categories could be distinguished (five including biodiversity and soil quality). The three
groups are: impacts driven by resource use, nutrients and pollutants, respectively. Energy
demand and global warming were chosen as representative of the first group, eutrophication
for the second and terrestrial ecotoxicity for the third group.

4.3 Impacts not considered


Water use: The inventory of the quantity of water used from water bodies (not rain) is
performed at the LCI stage. However, as there is no difference in water use at barn between
the assessed alternatives and as the cultivation of most of the assessed feed ingredients is
done without irrigation this impact was not considered in accordance to ISO 14044 (2006).
Stratospheric ozone depletion: This is important for the LCA of food, because of CFCs
(Chloro-Fluoro-Carbons) in the cold chain (Davis & Sonesson, 2008). But in the present
study it is negligible for agriculture and has therefore been discarded.
Biodiversity: To our knowledge there is no life cycle assessment method dealing with the loss
of biodiversity in tropical areas. Therefore this impact could not be included. It would,
however, have been of interest because land transformation is occurring due to the
expanding cultivation of soya beans in Argentina and Brazil and oil palms in Malaysia.
Soil quality: There is a fairly new life cycle assessment method for soil quality by Oberholzer
et al. (2006) for temperate, Central European soils. However, the impacts on soil quality have
not yet been calculated for the life cycle inventories used for different arable crops taken from
the ecoinvent and SALCA databases. In addition, all crops from non-temperate areas could
not have been assessed for soil quality, which would have resulted in a bias of the results.
Hence, this impact has been discarded.
Odour: Although it occurs in animal husbandry, odour is not relevant for comparing different
feeding strategies, as we do not expect any difference. Furthermore, a method is lacking for
assessing this impact.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

29/112

Noise: This is not considered because appropriate methods are lacking for agricultural
systems (for transport they do exist).
Animal welfare: This is, strictly speaking, not an environmental impact and is therefore not
included. Moreover, as only differences in feed composition are being investigated (except
for the short-SOY alternative in broiler chicken production) and the nutritional requirements of
the animal are covered in all systems, no differences are expected.
Landscape aesthetics: It has to be regarded more as a social function than an ecological
function. In addition it is more relevant for a study at farm or enterprise level, whereas this
study is a product LCA.

5 Life Cycle Interpretation


In order to decide whether differences in the production alternatives compared were
significant and relevant, we chose to perform the assessment by class. This helps to detect
relevant differences.
The LCA calculations are subject to various sources of uncertainties (see Nemecek et al.
2005b). A full analysis of statistical significance is not feasible, because the uncertainty of
many of the parameters is unknown. Consequently the differences between feed alternatives
were assessed by classes (see Tab. 6). We used the assessment classes given by Nemecek
& Baumgartner (2006) as this study is based on data from GL-Pro and replacing soya bean
meal with grain legumes in a feed formula is similar to replacing a crop in crop rotation. The
assessment classes are based on the statistical variance of environmental impact indicators
from a cropping system experiment and expert knowledge as described in Nemecek et al.
(2005b).
Tab. 6: Assessment of differences between the different feed / production alternatives by
class.
Impacts driven by
resource use

Impacts driven by
nutrients

Impacts driven by
pollutants

< 88.9%

< 80.0%

< 72.7%

favourable

88.9% - 96.0%

80.0% - 92.3%

72.7% - 88.9%

similar

96.0% - 104.2%

92.3% - 108.3%

88.9% - 112.5%

unfavourable

104.2% - 112.5%

108.3% - 125.0%

112.5% - 137.5%

> 112.5%

> 125.0%

> 137.5%

Class
very favourable

very unfavourable

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

30/112

5.1 Comparability of systems


Analyses were performed between the feed alternatives for the same product in the same
region. The main variations here were the origin of the protein source and the amount of it
used in the feed formulas, including the consequences on composition of the feed formulas.
Within each case study, the standard feeding system (SOY), containing soya bean meal from
overseas as the main protein source, was the reference system (100%).
Comparisons between the same feeding alternatives in different regions (e.g. for pork GLEU
in NRW and pork GLEU in CAT) are possible, but their relevance is limited due to the fact
that the production systems differed in several aspects. However, performing a more
general, relative comparison of the same product in different European regions is considered
acceptable.
Other general comparisons were made between the standard feeding systems for the
broilers fattened in the short fattening period and the medium fattening period.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

31/112

6 Results
6.1 Mode of result presentation
In the following section we present the results of the five case studies in detail for the impact
categories energy demand, global warming potential (100 years; GWP), eutrophication
potential, and terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (EDIP; see chapter 4.2). In the figures, the
results of the different feeding alternatives are split up into the following process steps: soya
bean meal, different protein-rich feeds, peas (and faba beans), energy-rich feeds, mineral
feeds, transport of feeds, feed processing, roughage feeds, piglet/ young hen/ calf
production, housing and manure management.
For some feed ingredients representing a co-product (e.g. maize gluten meal, palm kernel
meal, beet and citrus pulp), a synthesised product (e.g. methionine), or an extracted product
(e.g. CaCO3), the processing is already included in the life cycle inventory. Those products
are assessed at the factory gate. The protein-rich feeds - being a co-product of an oilseed,
e.g. soya bean meal, rapeseed meal or sunflower meal - are life cycle inventories at the farm
gate of the agricultural commodity and their processing is assessed in the process step
processing. Other main ingredients in the feed formulas, such as wheat, barley, maize and
peas are life cycle inventories at the farm gate and their processing in the feed mill is
assessed under the process step processing.
Below we explain what is considered in the different process steps:
Soya bean meal: includes crop production of the soya beans needed to produce the used
soya bean meal. Land transformation is not included, but is shown separately.
Different protein-rich feeds: includes production of the crops of oilseed rape and sunflowers
for the later processing in the oil mill (extraction of oil and co-product cake). For palm kernel
and maize gluten meal, the processing is already included.
Energy-rich feeds: includes crop production of wheat, barley, maize, rapeseeds and soya
beans (for soya oil). For the other ingredients in this category, i.e. citrus and beet pulp, beet
and cane molasses, palm oil, cassava, tallow, the processing is already included.
Mineral feeds: includes production of limestone (CaCO3), di-calcium phosphate (PHOSBI),
synthetic amino acids, vitamins and trace elements at the factory gate. In this case
processing is included.
Transport of feeds: all transport (distances and means) of unprocessed feed ingredients from
the farm gate to the feed mill gate (including those processed first at the oil mill) and then to

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

32/112

the animal production farm are included. For the processed feed ingredients all transport
from the factory gate via the feed mill to the animal production farm is included.
Feed processing: includes processing of wheat, barley, maize, peas and faba beans at the
feed mill and processing of soya beans, oilseed rape and sunflower at the oil mill.
Roughage feed: includes the production of roughage feeds (silage and grazing).
Piglet / Young hen/ Calf production: includes housing, manure management and transport for
the production of the young animals.
Housing: includes the building infrastructures, their maintenance and operation (heating,
light, cleaning) as well as direct emissions from animal excrements.
Manure management: includes buildings and machinery for storing and spreading manure as
well as direct emissions from these processes.
Land transformation: The process step land transformation is considered exclusively in the
impact category global warming potential. It includes CO2-release from reclaiming land in
the rainforest or savannah to produce soya beans in Brazil, palm oil in Malaysia or soya
beans in Argentina (see chapter 3.1.4).

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

33/112

6.2 Pork Production in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW)


6.2.1 Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives
The composition of the four feed alternatives in pork production in North Rhine-Westphalia is
presented in Tab. 7. The feed ingredients are grouped into Feedstuff groups. These groups
are displayed in the results table below.
Tab. 7: Composition of the four feed alternatives in the pork production case study in NRW:
Ingredients and their origins and nutritional values.
Feedstuff group
Soya bean meal

Ingredients
Soya bean meal

Different protein rich feeds

Rapeseed meal
Sunflower meal

Peas

Peas

Energy rich feeds

Wheat

Origin
Argentina,
Brazil
Germany

SOY
9.0%

GLEU
1.6%

SAA
1.4%

FARM
1.6%

0.0%

8.6%

8.7%

8.6%

France,
Germany
Germany

4.5%

2.2%

2.0%

0.4%

0.0%

10.3%

9.4%

9.6%

Germany,
Great Britain
Germany

34.9%

32.8%

33.8%

38.7%

8.2%

3.7%

4.0%

2.5%

26.3%

24.1%

24.0%

34.0%

13.3%

11.7%

12.2%

0.7%

Beet molasses

Germany,
Great Britain
France,
Germany
Germany

0.4%

0.5%

0.4%

0.1%

Beet pulp

Germany

0.0%

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

Citrus pulp

Brazil

0.2%

0.8%

0.7%

0.8%

Palm oil

Malaysia

0.7%

0.9%

0.7%

0.2%

Mineral feeds

CaCO3, PHOSBI, vitamins,


trace elements, synthetic
amino acids

Europe

2.5%

2.8%

2.6%

2.8%

Composition of the diet

Crude protein content (%)

15.45

15.35

15.28

15.13

5.26

5.30

5.32

5.11

12.68

12.68

12.68

12.52

Wheat bran
Barley
Maize

P content (in g/kg)


Energy content (in MJ/kg)

6.2.2 Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories


Resource Use-driven Impacts
Regarding consumption of non-renewable energy (hereinafter: energy demand) the most
important processes were the production and transport of feedstuffs (62-69%) and animal
housing (29-35%). Within the production of feedstuffs, production of the crops providing
mainly carbohydrates hereinafter referred to as energy-rich feeds (e.g. cereals, maize,
beet molasses, citrus pulp, or palm oil) - used most of the resources (Fig. 1). Transport of
feedstuffs (from the production site of the raw materials, via the feed mill, to the pig-fattening
farm) also contributed significantly to the energy demand of feedstuff production.
The alternative GLEU (where soya bean meal from overseas was replaced with European
peas, rapeseed, and sunflower meal) had a similar energy demand to the standard SOY.
This was also the case for the alternative SAA, which consisted of feed formulas based on
those of the GLEU alternative, but contained higher levels of synthetic amino acids. When
comparing GLEU and SAA with SOY we have to focus on two process steps: transport of
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

34/112

feedstuff ingredients and the production of protein-rich feeds. In both alternatives (GLEU and
SAA), transport energy demand was lower than the standard SOY. In particular, the energy
demand for lorry transport was significantly reduced. Unlike peas, rapeseed and sunflower
meal, soya bean meal from Argentina and Brazil (mainly in SOY) is transported over long
distances. Due to a lack of railway or waterway infrastructures, soya bean meal is hauled by
lorries over long distances to reach the ports, where it is shipped to Europe, travelling
another 10000 km (Brazil; Appendix 8). However, although using European ingredients
reduces the energy demand of lorry transport, this benefit is counteracted by the clearly
higher energy demand of the agricultural production of protein-rich feeds to replace the soya
bean meal. It has to be borne in mind that the protein content of soya bean meal and peas is
different. While soya bean meal has a crude protein level of about 46%, the crude protein
level of peas amounts to about 21%. Thus, replacing soya bean meal with peas cannot be
done on a one-to-one weight basis for this reason and also because the feed values of these
two ingredients differ in other aspects, e.g. energy value and amino acid composition.
Accordingly, there was a larger quantity of protein-rich feeds in the GLEU alternative than in
SOY, which explains the higher energy demand of this feedstuff group in the GLEU
alternative.
The FARM alternative consisted of simplified GLEU feed formulas with on-farm production of
most ingredients, as is the case for self-mixing pig fattening farms. It had an energy demand
which was very favourable in comparison with SOY (a 19% reduction). The main difference
resulted from reduced transport of feeds, as the feed ingredients used were produced onfarm. The energy demand of transport was reduced by 86% compared with transport for the
SOY alternative. The second reason for the reduced energy demand was due to the
production of energy-rich feeds. The composition of this group of feed ingredients was
altered according to the typical local farming situation. Some ingredients, e.g. maize, are not
common in the study region of NRW, and furthermore, a farm typically operates with fewer
ingredients than a feed mill, as they are grown on-farm (see Tab. 7). There was 20 times less
maize in the FARM-formulas, which was compensated for with higher quantities of barley
and wheat. Maize requires a lot of energy as its grains are harvested at a humidity of 39%
and have to be dried to 14% (Nemecek et al., 2005b). Overall, this change of composition led
to a higher energy demand for the energy-rich feeds.
For all assessed alternatives, there were no differences between the processes housing
and manure management in terms of energy demand, because the alternatives did not
differ either in the type of the pig sties for pig and piglet production and their operation, nor in
manure management.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

35/112

MJ-eq. / kg pig (live weight)

30
25

Soya bean meal


Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Piglet production
Housing
Manure management

20
15
10
5
0
SOY

GLEU

SAA

FARM

Fig. 1: Demand for non-renewable energy resources for producing one kg of pig (live weight)
in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) with the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal
from overseas), GLEU (European grain legumes), SAA (synthetic amino acids), and FARM
(on-farm feed production).
For global warming potential (GWP, see Fig. 2), feedstuff production was the most important
factor, accounting for about 2/3 of this impact category. The most important processes were
the production of energy-rich feeds and protein-rich feeds, housing, and manure
management. Compared with the results for energy demand, manure management and, to a
smaller extent, piglet production were more important for global warming potential due to the
emission of methane and nitrous oxide from these process steps. The most important
emissions were CO2 from combustion processes (ranging between 43% and 48% of the total
GWP), and N2O (between 40 and 46%) from induced emissions of N fertilisers or mineralised
N from the cultivation of feed ingredients as well as from animal keeping. CH4 accounted for
15% to 17% of the total GWP, depending on the feeding system, and stemmed
predominantly from the animal farm, mainly from the processes housing, manure
management, and piglet production.
The ranking of environmental performance of the feed alternatives for the impact category
global warming potential (GWP) was similar to the ranking for energy demand (Fig. 2). The
alternatives GLEU and SAA had a smaller impact on global warming potential compared to
SOY. The GWP of transporting feeds as well as for production of energy-rich feeds was
reduced for GLEU and SAA, but the impact resulting from production of the protein-rich feeds
to replace the soya bean meal (mainly rapeseed meal, but also sunflower meal) was higher
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

36/112

than for all the protein-rich feeds in SOY. Overall these effects balanced out. However, CO2release from land transformation for soya bean production in Brazil and Argentina as well as
oil palm production in Malaysia were considerably reduced in the GLEU and SAA
alternatives compared with SOY.
The GWP of the FARM alternative was reduced by 16%, which is considered to be very
favourable in comparison with SOY. As with the results for energy demand, the process
steps transport of feeds and energy-rich feeds were responsible for reducing the GWP.
Again, the fact that most of the feed ingredients are produced on-farm reduces the GWP
from transport considerably. The reduced GWP of the energy-rich feeds was predominantly
due to altering the composition of the energy-rich feeds, with much less maize and more
wheat and barley in the FARM alternative. In addition, due to the heavily reduced use of soya

kg CO2-eq. / kg pig (live weight)

bean meal, there was little CO2-release from land transformation in the FARM alternative.

Land transform. palm oil MYA


Land transform. soya BRA
Land transform. soya ARG
Soya bean meal
Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Piglet production
Housing
Manure management

0
SOY

GLEU

SAA

FARM

Fig. 2: Global warming potential (100a) for producing one kg of pig (live weight) in North
Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) with the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from
overseas), GLEU (European grain legumes), SAA (synthetic amino acids), and FARM (onfarm feed production). MYA: Malaysia; BRA: Brazil; ARG: Argentina.
Nutrient-driven Impacts
The impact category eutrophication potential reflects loss of the nutrients N and P to aquatic
and terrestrial ecosystems. The compounds assessed are ammonia (NH3), nitrate (NO3),
phosphate (PO4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Nitrate leaching was the
dominant process in this impact category followed by volatile emissions of ammonia. The

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

37/112

feedstuff production accounted for 62 to 69% of the total impact (Fig. 3). Almost all of it
stemmed from crop production of the feed ingredients. Thus, here crop production played an
even bigger role than for energy demand and global warming potential.
The major processes here were the production of energy-rich feeds as well as protein-rich
feeds, then manure management and housing. Comparing the alternatives GLEU and SAA
with SOY, there was a slight decrease in the eutrophication potential (minus 7% for each).
These results are considered to be similar to the standard SOY. The main reason for the
small decrease were the energy-rich feeds. Less energy-rich feeds were needed in the feed
formulas for GLEU and SAA, as peas provide not only proteins but also energy and thus
replaced part of the energy-rich feeds. The production of the protein-rich feeds in the SOY
alternative had a slightly higher eutrophication potential than the GLEU and SAA alternatives,
but the differences were small.
The FARM alternative had the lowest eutrophication potential of all assessed alternatives.
Compared to SOY its eutrophication potential was 19% lower, which is considered to be a
favourable effect. This reduction is due to the lower eutrophication potential of protein-rich
feeds i.e. a smaller share of sunflower meal than in the other alternatives and of energy-rich

g N-eq. / kg pig (live weight)

feeds because of the significant reduction of maize in the feed formulas.

45
Soya bean meal
Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Piglet production
Housing
Manure management

30

15

0
SOY

GLEU

SAA

FARM

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

38/112

Fig. 3: Eutrophication potential for producing one kg of pig (live weight) in North RhineWestphalia (NRW) with the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas),
GLEU (European grain legumes), SAA (synthetic amino acids), and FARM (on-farm feed
production).
Pollutant-driven Impacts
The terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (according to EDIP97, Fig. 4) was completely dominated
by crop production. Energy-rich feeds accounted for 92% to over 99% of the potential impact.
Cultivation of protein-rich feeds was responsible for less than 1% to 8%. The detailed
analysis showed that two active ingredients are responsible for the largest part of terrestrial
ecotoxicity according to EDIP97 i) the fungicide propiconazole, which was used for cereals
and ii) the insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin, which was used for peas, oilseed rape and cereal
cultivation.
When comparing the GLEU and SAA alternatives with SOY, the terrestrial ecotoxicity
potential was reduced by 4% and 2% respectively. Cereal production was a decisive factor in
the reduction and hence the alternatives where the feed formulas contained a smaller
quantity of cereals had a reduced impact on terrestrial ecotoxicity. There was less wheat and
barley in the GLEU alternative than in the SAA alternative and both contained less cereal
than SOY. Overall, GLEU and SAA are appraised as similar to SOY.
In comparison with SOY the FARM alternatives terrestrial ecotoxicity potential was 24%
higher. This negative result was solely due to the fact that in those feed formulas most of the
maize was replaced with higher quantities of wheat and barley, where most of the active
ingredients propiconazole and lambda-cyhalothrin was employed.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

39/112

TEP / kg pig (live weight)

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Soya bean meal


Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Piglet production
Housing
Manure management

SOY

GLEU

SAA

FARM

Fig. 4: Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (EDIP) producing one kg of pig (live weight) in North
Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) with the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from
overseas), GLEU (European grain legumes), SAA (synthetic amino acids), and FARM (onfarm feed production). TEP: Terrestrial ecotoxicity points.
When comparing the standard EDIP method with the alternative CML method (Guine et al.,
2001), the results were clearly different: the GLEU and SAA alternatives had an almost
fourfold higher impact on terrestrial ecotoxicity than the SOY alternative (Tab. 8). The
insecticide cypermethrin has a very high impact factor in the CML method and determined
the results. Cypermethrin was mainly used in oilseed rape and to lesser extent in wheat and
barley. As rapeseed meal was incorporated in GLEU and SAA, but not in SOY, the
alternative feeds were very unfavourable.
The FARM alternative had a threefold higher terrestrial ecotoxicity potential than SOY, but a
smaller potential than GLEU and SAA. At first this seems surprising because there was a
similar amount of rapeseed meal and higher amounts of wheat and barley incorporated in the
FARM alternative compared with the GLEU and SAA alternatives. However, the origin of the
feeds and hence the crop production differed between the alternatives. FARM only used
German wheat and barley (on-farm production), where cypermethrin was used in very small
quantities. On the other hand, the GLEU and SAA alternatives also contained British wheat
and barley (approximated with French production data, see Appendix 6), where more
cypermethrin was applied.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

40/112

In order to position these results a third method, CST95, was applied (Margni et al., 2002).
The results of the terrestrial ecotoxicity potential, as shown in Tab. 8, differed again from
those obtained using EDIP and CML. When comparing GLEU and SAA to the standard
alternative SOY, their impact is considered to be favourable, and for the FARM alternative
the comparative result is even very favourable. This was due to less impact from heavy
metals from soya bean meal, wheat, barley, and maize as well as less impact from heavy
metals from lorry transport. The heavy metal contributing most to terrestrial ecotoxicity was
cadmium. To a lesser extent important were chromium, zinc and nickel. The GLEU and SAA
alternatives had less soya bean meal and energy-rich feeds in their feed formulas and
transport of feeds was reduced. This also applies to the FARM alternative, where additionally
there was considerably less maize (having a higher terrestrial ecotoxicity potential than
barley which replaced it) and less transport, resulting in comparatively very favourable
impacts. Both the standard EDIP method and the alternative CML method apply high impact
factors to pesticides compared to heavy metals. In contrast, CST95 gives higher impact
factors to non-pesticides than to pesticides.
However, these results should be interpreted with care, because assessing toxicity is a
difficult matter, associated with a high degree of uncertainty (Nemecek & Baumgartner,
2006). Generally, ecotoxicity potential is dominated by a few active ingredients. The choice
of the products applied is decisive for the results. Replacing one product with another can
result in a completely different impact.
Note that terrestrial ecotoxicity points (TEP) do not have the same basis in EDIP, CML and
CST95 (see chapter 1) and hence one cannot compare the absolute results between the
methods, only within them.

6.2.3 Summary of the Results


A summary of the results of the different environmental impacts is given in Tab. 8. Generally,
the GLEU and SAA alternatives had similar impacts, as the feed formulas did not differ
much. Compared with the standard SOY, the impacts of the GLEU and SAA alternatives
were equal or slightly lower for most of the impacts driven by resource use and by nutrients.
When applying the assessment classes (see chapter 5, Tab. 6), the results for GLEU and
SAA regarding impacts driven by resource use and by nutrients were considered to be
similar. The exceptions were GWP with favourable results for GLEU and SAA, as well as
resource use of P and K with unfavourable and very unfavourable results, respectively. The
reason for the comparatively negative results for P and K is due to the higher application of
these nutrients per kg raw material in the cultivation of the feedstuff components in GLEU
and SAA, i.e. peas and rapeseed meal, replacing soya bean meal, sunflower meal and
cereals of the SOY alternative. The FARM alternative was, compared with the standard SOY,
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

41/112

very favourable for the impacts driven by resource use with exception of the resource use of
P and K with very unfavourable impacts, and land occupation being similar. Again, the
reason for the very unfavourable results for the use of P and K is due to the altered mix of
feed components in FARM having a higher use of these two nutrients in the cultivation of the
raw materials than the feed mix in the standard SOY. The FARM alternative was, compared
with the standard SOY, very favourable for the impacts driven by resource use. The impacts
driven by nutrients were mostly favourable, with a range from very favourable to similar for
the FARM alternative.
For the impacts driven by pollutants, the impacts of GLEU and SAA compared with SOY
differed depending on the method chosen and ranged from similar to very unfavourable. This
was also the case for the FARM alternative, though compared with the standard SOY it had
lower impacts than GLEU and SAA - with the exception of terrestrial ecotoxicity according to
EDIP.
Tab. 8: Overview of the environmental impacts of pig production in North Rhine-Westphalia.
Values are expressed for the functional unit kg of pork (live weight) or as a percentage of
SOY. Total and relative impact of the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from
overseas), GLEU (European grain legumes), SAA (synthetic amino acids), and FARM (onfarm feed production). Colours according to the assessment classes (see Tab. 6).

Pollutant-driven impacts

Nutrient-driven
impacts

Resource use-driven impacts

Feed alternatives
SOY

GLEU

GLEU
in %
SOY

SAA

SAA in
% SOY

FARM

FARM
in %
SOY

2.71E+01

2.67E+01

99%

2.68E+01

99%

2.20E+01

81%

3.00E+00

2.84E+00

95%

2.83E+00

94%

2.53E+00

84%

7.96E-01

7.81E-01

98%

7.77E-01

98%

5.97E-01

75%

Resource P [g P/ kg pork]

9.05E+00

1.01E+01

111%

1.00E+01

111%

1.03E+01

114%

Resource K [g K2O/ kg pork]

2.62E+01

4.80E+01

183%

4.70E+01

180%

4.92E+01

188%

Land occupation, total [m2a/ kg pork]

4.53E+00

4.60E+00

102%

4.56E+00

101%

4.37E+00

97%

4.00E+01

3.74E+01

93%

3.72E+01

93%

3.25E+01

81%

3.60E+01

3.33E+01

93%

3.32E+01

92%

2.87E+01

80%

5.54E-01

5.56E-01

100%

5.54E-01

100%

5.23E-01

94%

3.83E+01

3.73E+01

98%

3.73E+01

98%

3.43E+01

90%

1.26E+01

1.22E+01

96%

1.24E+01

98%

1.57E+01

124%

1.42E+00

1.57E+00

111%

1.55E+00

109%

1.47E+00

103%

2.11E-02

7.91E-02

376%

8.02E-02

381%

6.67E-02

317%

1.64E-01

2.89E-01

176%

2.92E-01

178%

2.14E-01

131%

5.45E-01

5.63E-01

103%

5.63E-01

103%

5.29E-01

97%

3.10E-02

2.57E-02

83%

2.70E-02

87%

1.73E-02

56%

2.09E+00

2.05E+00

98%

2.04E+00

98%

1.46E+00

70%

Environmental impacts
Energy demand
[MJ-eq/ kg pork]
Global warming potential 100a
[kg CO2-eq/ kg pork]
Ozone formation
[g ethylene-eq/ kg pork]

Eutrophication, combined potential N & P


[g N-eq/ kg pork]
Eutrophication, separate N potential
[g N-eq/ kg pork]
Eutrophication, separate P potential
[g P-eq/ kg pork]
Acidification
[g SO2-eq/ kg pork]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP
[points/ kg pork]
Aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP
[points/ kg pork]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity CML
[points/ kg pork]
Aquatic ecotoxicity CML
[points/ kg pork]
Human toxicity CML
[points/ kg pork]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity CST
[points/ kg pork]
Aquatic ecotoxicity CST
[points/ kg pork]

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

42/112

6.3 Pork Production in Catalonia (CAT)


6.3.1 Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives
The presentation of the results in this and the following chapters will focus on the differences
between the standard feed formulas (SOY) and the different alternatives. More details on the
selected impact categories have been given in chapter 6.2.2.
Tab. 9: Composition of the two feed alternatives in the pork production case study in
Catalonia (CAT): Ingredients, their origins and nutritional values.
Feedstuff group

Ingredients

Origin

SOY

Soya bean meal

Soya bean meal

Brazil, USA

18.7%

GLEU
7.4%

Different protein rich feeds

Rapeseed meal

Germany, Spain

0.6%

4.8%

Sunflower meal

Spain

1.6%

1.3%

Peas

Peas

France, Spain

1.1%

17.9%

Energy rich feeds

Wheat

France, Spain, USA

19.8%

24.2%

Barley

Great Britain, Spain

30.1%

33.1%

Maize

France, Spain

14.8%

8.1%

Cassava

Thailand

9.5%

0.0%

Soya oil

Brazil, USA

0.1%

0.2%

Tallow

Europe

1.9%

1.4%

Mineral feeds

CaCO3, PHOSBI, vitamins, trace


elements, synthetic amino acids

Europe

1.9%

1.7%

Composition of the diet

Crude protein content (%)

16.36

16.22

P content (in g/kg)


Energy content (in MJ/kg)

4.72

4.82

13.20

13.20

6.3.2 Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories


Resource Use-driven Impacts
The demand for non-renewable energy resources of the GLEU alternative was reduced by
6% compared with the standard alternative SOY (Fig. 5). This is considered to be a
favourable effect. The energy demand of GLEU for transport was reduced by 16% and even
more important was the 20% decrease in energy use in the production of energy-rich feeds.
This was due to the altered amounts of energy-rich feeds (Tab. 9): the GLEU alternative
contained less maize and no cassava. Both ingredients have a high energy demand,
because they require energy not only for their cultivation, but also for drying after harvesting
or processing. Furthermore, cassava is shipped over long distances to Europe. However, the
reduction in transport and energy-rich feeds was partly counteracted by the energy demand
of the higher proportion of peas in the GLEU alternative.
Overall, the energy demand in Catalonia was higher than in North Rhine-Westphalia,
because the feed-compounding industries in Spain rely more on imports than in Germany.
Hence there was more transportation. The resource use per kg of feed ingredient was higher
due to low yield levels in Spain. For instance, peas had a threefold lower yield in Spain (1.2
t/ha) compared to Germany (3.8 t/ha) (Nemecek & Baumgartner, 2006). Finally, the

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

43/112

production system was less efficient, as the food conversion rate in Catalonia was lower than
in North Rhine-Westphalia. This means that for 1 kg of pig (live weight) produced, more feed

MJ-eq. / kg pig (live weight)

raw materials were needed.

40
35
Soya bean meal
Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Piglet production
Housing
Manure management

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SOY

GLEU

Fig. 5: Demand for non-renewable energy resources for producing one kg of pig (live weight)
in Catalonia (CAT) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and
GLEU (European grain legumes).
The global warming potential (GWP) of the GLEU alternative was slightly lower (- 2%), but
still considered similar to the standard alternative SOY (Fig. 6). While reduced transport and
the change in composition of the energy-rich feeds (less maize, no cassava) reduced the
GWP, this was counteracted by the cultivation of peas. It was mainly N2O (induced emissions
from NO3 losses through mineralisation) and to a lesser extent CO2 (e.g. from combustion
processes of tractor use, production of infrastructure and machinery) that were responsible
for the relatively high GWP of peas. It also has to be taken into account that with 18% of the
feed formulas there was a high proportion of peas in the GLEU alternatives. In addition, as
mentioned above, the yield level of peas in Spain is rather low, so the impact on GWP per kg
of ingredients is relatively high. The SOY feed alternative, with its higher levels of soya bean
meal in the feed formulas, involved more CO2-release from land transformation for soya bean
cultivation (see chapter 3.1.4) than GLEU. Overall, this resulted in a slightly lower GWP for
GLEU compared to SOY.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

44/112

kg CO2-eq. / kg pig (live weight)

4
Land transformation soya BRA
Soya bean meal
Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Piglet production
Housing
Manure management

3
2
1
0
SOY

GLEU

Fig. 6: Global warming potential (100a) for producing one kg of pig (live weight) in Catalonia
(CAT) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU
(European grain legumes). BRA: Brazil.
Nutrient-driven Impacts
Incorporating peas in the pig diet in Catalonia had, compared with the standard feeding
(SOY), negative effects on the eutrophication potential, which was 17% higher (Fig. 7). The
eutrophication potential for energy-rich feeds was slightly lower, but the main difference
between the two alternatives was the increased nitrate loss related to the cultivation of peas.
Although the peas were not fertilised, nitrate leaching occurred prior to sowing the spring
peas and following mineralisation of organic matter in the soil after their cultivation period. In
terms of LCA this means that all nutrient losses, from harvesting the precedent crop to
harvesting the assessed crop (here spring peas), were attributed to pea cultivation. This
includes nutrient losses following harvest of the precedent crop as well as losses after
sowing the peas, when nutrient uptake by the crop is low. Again, the results were
accentuated by the high proportion of peas in the Catalonian feed formulas and by the
relatively low yield levels of peas in Spain.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

45/112

g N-eq. / kg pig (live weight)

90
75

Soya bean meal


Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Piglet production
Housing
Manure management

60
45
30
15
0
SOY

GLEU

Fig. 7: Eutrophication potential (EDIP) for producing one kg of pig (live weight) in Catalonia
(CAT) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU
(European grain legumes).
Pollutant-driven Impacts
In terms of terrestrial ecotoxicity (according to EDIP97), the potential was increased by 24%
in the GLEU alternative compared to the standard feed (SOY) (Fig. 8). This is considered to
be an unfavourable increase (Tab. 6). The reasons for this increase were threefold: i) the
significant increase in the amount of peas used in the GLEU formulas led to increases in the
use of lambda-cyhalothrin and pirimicarb; ii) the increase of rapeseed meal in the GLEU
formulas meant the impacts from lambda-cyhalothrin use were higher; and iii) there was
more wheat and barley in the GLEU feed formulas leading to higher impacts from the use of
propiconazol, MCPA, and lambda-cyhalothrin.
According to the alternative terrestrial ecotoxicity method (CML), the results of the GLEU
alternative were very unfavourable (+65%) compared to the standard SOY. The increased
use of rapeseed meal, peas, wheat, and barley were the reason for this. Use of
cypermethrin, an insecticide, in oilseed rape, wheat, and barley, the use of trifluralin, a
herbicide, mainly in peas, and the use of further pesticides in wheat, barley, and peas were
the cause of this increase. The above-mentioned active ingredients have high impact factors
in the CML method.
According to the third terrestrial ecotoxicity method (CST) used, the impacts of GLEU are
similar to SOY. This method focuses on impacts from heavy metals. The GLEU feed
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

46/112

formulas which consist of less soya bean meal, maize and cassava and therefore involve
less lorry transport, had lower impacts from heavy metals than the standard SOY.

TEP / kg pig (live weight)

1.4
1.2
Soya bean meal
Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Piglet production
Housing
Manure management

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
SOY

GLEU

Fig. 8: Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (EDIP) for producing one kg of pig (live weight) in
Catalonia (CAT) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and
GLEU (European grain legumes). TEP: Terrestrial ecotoxicity points.

6.3.3 Summary of the Results


In summary, producing pork in Catalonia with the GLEU alternative had a similar to very
unfavourable environmental impact compared to SOY, except for energy demand (Tab. 10),
which was considered to be favourable. For impacts driven by resource use, GLEU had an
unfavourable effect on ozone formation and a very unfavourable effect on the use of
potassium (K) and land occupation. The comparatively higher proportions of rapeseed meal
and peas in the GLEU alternative compared to the SOY alternative were the reason for the
unfavourable effect on ozone formation. Regarding potassium, the very unfavourable effect
of GLEU was due to the fact that peas had higher K2O inputs per kg of raw material than
soya bean meal, and because peas and soya bean meal were incorporated in larger
amounts in GLEU than they were in SOY. Peas were also the reason for the higher figures
for land occupation in GLEU compared to SOY: the low yield level of peas combined with the
higher proportion of peas used in the GLEU formulas led to more land occupation compared
to SOY.
The impacts driven by nutrients and by pollutants all showed a similar to very unfavourable
effect for GLEU compared to SOY, as presented above (see chapter 6.3.2).
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

47/112

Pollutant-driven impacts

Nutrient-driven
impacts

Resource use-driven impacts

Tab. 10: Overview of the environmental impacts of pig production in Catalonia. Values are
expressed for the functional unit kg of pork (live weight) or as a percentage of SOY. Total
and relative impact of the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and
GLEU (European grain legumes). Colours relate to the assessment classes (see Tab. 6).
Feed alternatives
GLEU in
SOY
GLEU
% SOY
Environmental impacts
Energy demand
3.36E+01
3.16E+01
94%
[MJ-eq/ kg pork]
Global warming potential 100a
3.85E+00
3.78E+00
98%
[kg CO2-eq/ kg pork]
Ozone formation
1.00E+00
1.06E+00
106%
[g ethylene-eq/ kg pork]
Resource P [g P/ kg pork]

1.63E+01

1.69E+01

104%

Resource K [g K2O/ kg pork]

7.74E+01

1.30E+02

168%

Land occupation, total [m2a/ kg pork]

8.02E+00

1.06E+01

132%

7.33E+01

8.56E+01

6.69E+01

7.90E+01

8.84E-01

9.17E-01

6.46E+01

6.33E+01

1.04E+00

1.32E+00

126%

1.97E+00

2.50E+00

127%

4.17E-02

6.87E-02

165%

2.59E-01

2.72E-01

105%

6.64E-01

7.15E-01

108%

Eutrophication, combined potential N & P


[g N-eq/ kg pork]
Eutrophication, separate N potential
[g N-eq/ kg pork]
Eutrophication, separate P potential
[g P-eq/ kg pork]
Acidification
[g SO2-eq/ kg pork]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP
[points/ kg pork]
Aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP
[points/ kg pork]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity CML
[points/ kg pork]
Aquatic ecotoxicity CML
[points/ kg pork]
Human toxicity CML
[points/ kg pork]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity CST
[points/ kg pork]
Aquatic ecotoxicity CST
[points/ kg pork]

117%
118%
104%
98%

7.85E-02

7.42E-02

94%

2.78E+00

3.00E+00

108%

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

48/112

6.4 Chicken Meat Production in Brittany (BRI)


6.4.1 Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives
The case study on broiler production consists of a comparison of four feeding alternatives:
short-SOY, SOY, GLEU, and SAA (see chapter 2.3). The short-SOY alternative represents
the standard technique for producing broilers in Brittany, consisting of feed formulas with
high contents of soya bean meal and a short fattening period (41 days). However, for
physiological reasons it is not possible to fatten broilers in the same period using formulas
which have peas as the main protein source. Therefore, a medium fattening period of 60
days had to be chosen for the GLEU alternative. SOY, the reference production technique, is
based on feed formulas containing soya bean meal as the main protein source and a
medium fattening period. Finally, SAA is a feeding alternative with a medium fattening period
and containing higher levels of synthetic amino acids and no soya bean meal. The
composition of the feed formulas is presented in Tab. 11.
Tab. 11: Composition of the four feed alternatives in the chicken meat production case study
in BRI: Ingredients and their origins and nutritional values.
Feedstuff group

Ingredients

Origin

Soya bean meal

Soya bean meal

Brazil, Argentina

Different protein rich


feeds

Rapeseed meal

France

Sunflower meal

France

short-SOY
27.3%

SOY

GLEU

SAA

13.9%

0.3%

0.3%

1.1%

7.5%

10.0%

0.8%

0.0%

0.5%

5.6%

5.9%

Maize gluten meal

Europe

0.0%

0.0%

2.3%

8.9%

Faba beans

France

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4.2%

Peas

France

0.0%

0.4%

21.1%

3.1%

Wheat

France

50.5%

59.1%

53.5%

46.2%

Maize

France

10.6%

13.2%

0.0%

25.2%

Rape seeds

France

2.2%

0.5%

0.0%

0.0%

Soya oil

Brazil

1.7%

0.9%

1.1%

0.7%

Palm oil

Malaysia

2.9%

0.1%

2.3%

0.0%

Mineral feeds

CaCO3, PHOSBI,
vitamins, trace
elements, synthetic
amino acids

Europe

3.7%

3.8%

3.8%

4.8%

Composition
of the diet

Crude protein content (%)

20.20

17.57

17.74

17.57

6.81

6.58

6.60

6.50

13.36

12.47

12.47

13.06

Peas & faba beans


Energy rich feeds

P content (in g/kg)


Energy content (in MJ/kg)

6.4.2 Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories


Resource Use-driven Impacts
The main process steps requiring non-renewable energy resources are housing, transport of
feeds, and energy-rich feeds (see Fig. 9).
Compared to SOY, the energy demand for short-SOY is reduced by 16%, a difference which
is considered to be very favourable. The higher energy demand for producing soya bean
meal and for transporting the feeds is more than offset by the lower energy demand of
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

49/112

energy-rich feeds and housing. This is due to the fact that in the short-SOY alternative there
is a higher meat output per year, which means that the demand of infrastructures per kg of
meat is reduced.
The energy demand of the GLEU alternative is 6% lower compared to SOY, which is
considered to be a favourable reduction of resource use (Fig. 9). The protein-rich feeds have
a higher energy demand than in the SOY alternative, but this is offset by the reduction in
feed transport (less soya bean meal from overseas) and the smaller quantities of energy-rich
feeds (mainly maize and wheat).
The SAA alternative has an energy demand which is 9% higher compared to SOY and this is
considered to be an unfavourable change for resource use (Fig. 9). There is less energy
demand from the transport of feeds due to the absence of soya bean meal. However, the
energy demand of mineral feeds, energy-rich feeds, and protein-rich feeds is clearly higher.
This is due to increased use of synthetic amino acids for the mineral feeds, the partial
replacement of wheat by maize in the feedstuff group energy-rich feeds and the introduction
of maize gluten as a protein-rich feed. Compared to wheat, maize has a higher energy
demand due to grain drying after harvesting. The production of maize gluten is also much
more energy intensive than soya bean meal production.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

50/112

MJ-eq. / kg chicken (LW)

40
Soya bean meal
Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas & faba beans
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Housing
Manure management

30
20
10
0
shortSOY

SOY

GLEU

SAA

Fig. 9: Demand for non-renewable energy for producing one kg of chicken (live weight: LW)
in Brittany (BRI) with the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas),
GLEU (European grain legumes), SAA (synthetic amino acids), and short-SOY (short
fattening period).
The results for global warming potential (GWP) differ from those of energy demand. Of the
four alternatives compared, GLEU had the lowest and short-SOY the highest GWP (Fig. 10).
The GWP of short-SOY is considered to be unfavourable, being 6% higher than SOY. The
GLEU and the SAA alternatives had a GWP reduced by 10% and 9% respectively, compared
to SOY. These reductions are considered to be favourable.
For the overall result on GWP, the decisive difference was only in the CO2-release from land
transformation, mainly from soya bean cultivation in Brazil. There is very little soya bean
meal and oil in the GLEU and SAA alternatives, whereas in the short-SOY alternative there is
about double the amount of soya bean meal compared with the reference SOY.
When comparing the four columns in Fig. 10 without taking the CO2-release from land
transformation into account, the GWP for SOY, GLEU and SAA were similar short-SOY
being comparatively slightly more favourable. However, the proportions contributed by
different process steps (except land transformation) differed between the alternatives: for
short-SOY there was a lower GWP from housing and energy-rich feeds, due to the higher
productivity of the system, but a higher GWP from the process steps transport of feeds and
soya bean meal due to the high proportion of soya bean meal. The GLEU alternative had a
lower GWP due to less transportation of feeds and the absence of maize in those formulas.
The increase of rapeseed meal and sunflower meal in protein-rich feeds as well as peas led

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

51/112

to a higher GWP for these process steps, resulting in a similar impact for GLEU and SOY.
Finally, the SAA alternative had a lower GWP for transport of feeds, but a higher GWP from
mineral feeds and the protein-feeds replacing the soya bean meal.

kg CO2-eq. / kg chicken (LW)

The reasons for this are the same as detailed for energy demand (see above).

3.5
Land transform. palm oil MYA
Land transform. soya BRA
Land transform. soya ARG
Soya bean meal
Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas & faba beans
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Housing
Manure management

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
shortSOY

SOY

GLEU

SAA

Fig. 10: Global warming potential (100a) for producing one kg of chicken (live weight: LW) in
Brittany (BRI) with the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas), GLEU
(European grain legumes), SAA (synthetic amino acids), and short-SOY (short fattening
period). MYA: Malaysia; BRA: Brazil; ARG: Argentina.
Nutrient-driven Impacts
Regarding the eutrophication potential of the four production alternatives, the difference
between the results was minimal: compared to SOY, short-SOY had a 1% higher impact,
GLEU had a 5% higher impact and SAA had 2% lower impact. These differences are
minimal and therefore considered to be similar results. The main emissions contributing to
the eutrophication potential were nitrate leached into groundwater and ammonia volatilised
into air. Nitrate emissions occurred mainly through cultivation of the feed ingredients. Most of
the ammonia losses stemmed from housing and manure management at the broiler farm,
where direct emissions came from the excrements and their management.
The short-SOY feed formulas contained higher levels of N per kg of feed, resulting in higher
N contents in the broiler excrements (see crude protein content in Tab. 11). Therefore,
ammonia and induced nitrous oxide losses for housing and manure management were
higher than for SOY. The difference for housing was greater than for manure management,
as the emission rate of NH3 is respectively 2.5 and 4 times higher in the chicken run
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

52/112

compared to manure spreading and storing. However, there was a lower eutrophication
potential from energy-rich feeds in short-SOY compared to SOY. This was primarily due to
the lower input of wheat and maize per kg of meat produced. This positive effect was
counteracted by the twofold higher amount of soya bean meal in short-SOY compared to
SOY, resulting in a twofold higher eutrophication potential.
The difference between GLEU and SOY stemmed from the cultivation of the feed
ingredients. French peas and Brazilian soya beans have a similar eutrophication potential
per kg. However, because the substitution of soya bean meal and peas was not done on a
one-to-one basis (see Tab. 11), there were more peas in the GLEU alternative. Hence, the
peas in GLEU alternative contributed more to eutrophication than the soya bean meal in
SOY. . There was also a larger amount of sunflower meal and rapeseed meal in the GLEU
alternative, both of which have, on a per kg ingredient basis, a higher eutrophication potential
than soya bean meal. The increase in peas and protein-rich feeds was mostly compensated
for by the lower eutrophication potential of energy-rich feeds, i.e. maize and wheat.
In comparison with standard SOY, the SAA alternative had a slightly lower eutrophication
potential for energy-rich feeds due to lower nutrient losses per kg of maize (raw material)
compared to wheat, and a similar eutrophication potential to the protein feeds replacing the
soya bean meal.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

53/112

g N-eq. / kg chicken (LW)

60
50

Soya bean meal


Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas & faba beans
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Housing
Manure management

40
30
20
10
0
shortSOY

SOY

GLEU

SAA

Fig. 11: Eutrophication potential for producing one kg of chicken (live weight: LW) in Brittany
(BRI) with the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas), GLEU
(European grain legumes), SAA (synthetic amino acids), and short-SOY (short fattening
period).

Pollutant-driven Impacts
Analysis of the results from terrestrial ecotoxicity (according to EDIP97) revealed that shortSOY had a favourable impact (-22%), GLEU had an unfavourable impact (+25%), and SAA
had a very favourable impact (-29%) compared to SOY (Fig. 12).
Since less wheat was used per kg of chicken meat in the short-SOY alternative compared to
SOY, less propiconazole and lambda-cyhalothrin were applied. For the protein-rich feeds,
the main difference was in the amount of rapeseed meal and the use of lambda-cyhalothrin,
which is connected with the cultivation of oilseed rape.
Regarding comparison of GLEU and SOY, it can be noted that the use of active ingredients
on peas and oilseed rape, namely lambda-cyhalothrin, was the main reason for the
increased terrestrial ecotoxicity potential of GLEU (Fig. 12). The reduction in terrestrial
ecotoxicity for the energy-rich feeds was due to a reduction of wheat in the GLEU formula
resulting in less propiconazole and lambda-cyhalothrin being used.
The SAA formulas contained a considerably smaller amount of wheat than the standard
SOY. Since wheat has the biggest impacts on terrestrial ecotoxicity, predominantly due to
use of propiconazole, lambda-cyhalothrin and glyphosate, this explains the positive results of
SAA. The former two compounds have very high impact factors according to EDIP97. The
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

54/112

second significant difference in favour of SAA compared to SOY was the significant reduction
of rapeseed meal in the SAA feed formulas. In SOY the cultivation of oilseed rape was the
main contributor to terrestrial ecotoxicity potential out of the different protein-rich feeds. The
active ingredients contributing the most to this were lambda-cyhalothrin, carbendazim and
cypermethrin.
However, the results for the short-SOY and GLEU alternatives were not confirmed by the
alternative terrestrial ecotoxicity method CML (Guine et al., 2001), according to which shortSOY had a very favourable impact compared to SOY, while GLEU had a similar impact
compared to SOY. The results of the third terrestrial ecotoxicity method (CST, Margni et al.,
2002) were again different, with short-SOY having an unfavourable impact compared to SOY
and GLEU having a very favourable impact compared to SOY. While the results of EDIP and
CML for terrestrial ecotoxicity of the SAA alternative agreed (very favourable impact
compared to SOY), the third method, CST, indicated similar impacts compared to SOY.

TEP / kg chicken (LW)

3.5
3
Soya bean meal
Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas & faba beans
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Housing
Manure management

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
shortSOY

SOY

GLEU

SAA

Fig. 12: Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (EDIP) for producing one kg of chicken (live weight:
LW) in Brittany (BRI) with the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas),
GLEU (European grain legumes), SAA (synthetic amino acids), and short-SOY (short
fattening period). TEP: Terrestrial ecotoxicity points.

6.4.3 Summary of the Results


Short-SOY compared to SOY
The results of impacts driven by resource use do not allow clear conclusions to be drawn: on
the one hand, short-SOY had very favourable and favourable impacts on energy demand
and resource use of P and K respectively. On the other hand, there were unfavourable
impacts for global warming potential, as well as similar impacts for ozone formation and land
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

55/112

occupation (Tab. 12). The same can be said for the impacts driven by nutrients: the results
ranged from favourable to unfavourable impacts. For the impacts driven by pollutants the
results showed a tendency towards favourable impacts.
GLEU compared to SOY
In the group of impacts driven by resource use, the results ranged from favourable to very
unfavourable (Tab. 12). The two impacts discussed above (energy demand and global
warming potential) had a favourable effect, ozone formation and land occupation had a
similar effect, while the resource use of P and K had an unfavourable and very unfavourable
impact, respectively.
For the group of impacts driven by nutrients, the results showed that the impacts were
similar. This was also the case for the impacts driven by pollutants, with the exception of
terrestrial ecotoxicity according to EDIP97 and CST, which gave contradictory results.
SAA compared to SOY
In the group of impacts driven by resource use, the results of the different impacts ranged
from unfavourable to very favourable, but leaned towards favourable (Tab. 12). The results of
nutrient-driven impacts were in the range of similar to favourable. Finally, the results of
pollutant-driven impacts were, with the exception of human toxicity, very favourable.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

56/112

Tab. 12: Overview of the environmental impacts of chicken production in Brittany. Values are
expressed for the functional unit kg of chicken meat or as a percentage of SOY. Total and
relative impact of the four feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas), GLEU
(European grain legumes), SAA (synthetic amino acids), and short-SOY (short fattening
period). Colours according to the assessment classes (see Tab. 6).

Pollutant-driven impacts

Nutrient-driven
impacts

Resource use-driven impacts

Feed alternatives

GLEU
in %
SOY

short-SOY

SOY

short-SOY
in % SOY

2.94E+01

3.48E+01

84%

3.28E+01

94%

3.78E+01

109%

3.31E+00

3.12E+00

106%

2.79E+00

90%

2.83E+00

91%

7.68E-01

7.93E-01

97%

7.74E-01

98%

7.68E-01

97%

Resource P [g P/ kg chicken]

1.09E+01

1.18E+01

92%

1.28E+01

109%

9.14E+00

78%

Resource K [g K2O/ kg chicken]

3.74E+01

4.10E+01

91%

6.78E+01

166%

2.42E+01

59%

Land occupation, total [m2a/ kg chicken]

5.12E+00

4.94E+00

104%

5.04E+00

102%

4.46E+00

90%

5.45E+01

5.38E+01

101%

5.66E+01

105%

5.26E+01

98%

4.92E+01

4.79E+01

103%

5.06E+01

106%

4.72E+01

99%

7.29E-01

8.19E-01

89%

8.40E-01

103%

7.48E-01

91%

6.26E+01

5.60E+01

112%

5.51E+01

98%

5.45E+01

97%

2.03E+00

2.59E+00

78%

3.23E+00

125%

1.85E+00

71%

2.03E+00

2.03E+00

100%

1.81E+00

89%

1.30E+00

64%

1.70E-01

2.75E-01

62%

2.98E-01

108%

1.21E-01

44%

4.93E-01

7.55E-01

65%

7.86E-01

104%

4.46E-01

59%

8.18E-01

1.04E+00

79%

1.04E+00

100%

1.02E+00

98%

4.00E-02

4.60E-02

115%

2.91E-02

63%

4.40E-02

96%

2.03E+00

2.16E+00

107%

2.18E+00

101%

1.96E+00

91%

Environmental impacts
Energy demand
[MJ-eq/ kg chicken]
Global warming potential 100a
[kg CO2-eq/ kg chicken]
Ozone formation
[g ethylene-eq/ kg chicken]

Eutrophication, combined potential N & P


[g N-eq/ kg chicken]
Eutrophication, separate N potential
[g N-eq/ kg chicken]
Eutrophication, separate P potential
[g P-eq/ kg chicken]
Acidification
[g SO2-eq/ kg chicken]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP
[points/ kg chicken]
Aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP
[points/ kg chicken]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity CML
[points/ kg chicken]
Aquatic ecotoxicity CML
[points/ kg chicken]
Human toxicity CML
[points/ kg chicken]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity CST
[points/ kg chicken]
Aquatic ecotoxicity CST
[points/ kg chicken]

GLEU

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

SAA

SAA in
% SOY

57/112

6.5 Egg Production in Brittany (BRI)


6.5.1 Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives
The feed formulas for the egg production case study in Brittany (BRI) can be seen in Tab. 13.
Tab. 13: Composition of the two feed alternatives in the egg production case study in BRI:
Ingredients and their origins and nutritional values.
Feedstuff group

Ingredients

Origin

Soya bean meal

Soya bean meal

Brazil, Argentina

SOY

GLEU

Different protein rich


feeds

Rapeseed meal

France

3.7%

3.7%

Sunflower meal

France

0.0%

7.5%

16.5%

3.3%

Maize gluten meal

Europe

0.1%

3.1%

Peas

Peas

France

0.2%

12.0%

Energy rich feeds

Wheat

France

46.8%

47.5%

Wheat middlings

France

1.0%

0.5%

Barley

France

0.2%

0.5%

Maize

France

20.6%

8.5%

Rape seeds

France

1.3%

2.9%

Soya oil

Brazil

0.4%

0.2%

Palm oil

Malaysia

0.4%

1.7%

Mineral feeds

CaCO3, PHOSBI,
vitamins, trace
elements, synthetic
amino acids

Europe

8.7%

8.7%

Composition
of the diet

Crude protein content (%)

16.95

17.00

5.81

5.81

11.70

11.70

P content (in g/kg)


Energy content (in MJ/kg)

6.5.2 Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories


Resource Use-driven Impacts
In terms of demand for non-renewable energy the main process steps were housing,
transport and energy-rich feeds (Fig. 13). Feedstuff production accounted for more than
55% of the total energy demand. The GLEU alternative had, compared with SOY, a
favourable impact on the demand for non-renewable energy, with a 4% reduction. The main
reasons for this were reduced transport (-30%) and the reduced energy demand of energyrich feeds (-23%). As with the previous case studies, reduced transport was due to replacing
soya bean meal from overseas with European peas. The reduced energy demand of energyrich feeds stemmed from the altered composition of this group of feeds: In the GLEU
alternative there was considerably less maize than in the SOY alternative. There were also
less wheat middlings (i.e. a milling co-product). Introducing peas into the feed formulas of
laying hens was accompanied by an increase in sunflower meal and maize gluten (from the
protein-rich feeds group). Both of these required use of more energy than the soya bean
meal they replaced.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

58/112

35
MJ-eq. / kg eggs

30
Soya bean meal
Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Young hen rearing
Housing
Manure management

25
20
15
10
5
0
SOY

GLEU

Fig. 13: Demand for non-renewable energy resources for producing one kg of eggs (with
egg-shells) in Brittany (BRI) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from
overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes).
For global warming potential (Fig. 14), the impacts of the GLEU alternative were reduced by
-10% compared to SOY, which is considered to be favourable. The main reductions occurred
in the process steps transport and energy-rich feeds, but were counteracted by the proteinrich feeds. The reasons for this were the same as for energy demand (see above). However,
the main difference was CO2-release from land transformation (see chapter 3.1.4). As there
was five times less Brazilian soya bean meal in the GLEU than in the SOY formulas, CO2release from land transformation of Brazilian rainforest was reduced to the same extent.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

59/112

kg CO2-eq. / kg eggs

4
3.5

Land transform. palm oil MYA


Land transform. soya BRA
Land transform. soya ARG
Soya bean meal
Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Young hen rearing
Housing
Manure management

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
SOY

GLEU

Fig. 14: Global warming potential (100a) for producing one kg of eggs (with egg-shells) in
Brittany (BRI) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and
GLEU (European grain legumes). MYA: Malaysia; BRA: Brazil; ARG: Argentina.
Nutrient-driven Impacts
The eutrophication potential per kg of eggs was 6% higher for the GLEU alternatives than for
the standard feed formulas SOY, which is considered to be in the range of similar results
(Fig. 15). Nitrate and ammonia were the most significant emissions, followed by phosphates
and nitrous oxide. Most of the nitrate loss occurred during cultivation of the feed ingredients,
while ammonia emissions mainly stemmed from poultry keeping. The contribution from
energy-rich feeds was reduced in the GLEU alternatives because of the reduction of maize in
these formulas. However, this was counteracted by the eutrophication potential of peas as
well as sunflower meal and maize gluten, where nitrate loss during cultivation was the
dominant emission.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

60/112

80
g N-eq. / kg eggs

70
Soya bean meal
Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Young hen rearing
Housing
Manure management

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
SOY

GLEU

Fig. 15: Eutrophication potential for producing one kg of eggs (with egg-shells) in Brittany
(BRI) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU
(European grain legumes).
Pollutant-driven Impacts
Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential was dominated by feedstuff production. According to EDIP97
the GLEU feeding alternative had, compared with the standard feed formulas SOY, an
unfavourable impact on terrestrial ecotoxicity (Fig. 16). Its potential was 23% higher than for
SOY. The main difference was the use of active ingredients, such as lambda-cyhalothrin, in
peas. For the energy-rich feeds there was a slight increase due to the fact that ingredients
with little impact on terrestrial ecotoxicity (e.g. maize) were reduced whereas some with
higher impacts (e.g. rapeseeds, barley) were increased.
The results for terrestrial ecotoxicity were confirmed by the alternative method CML (Tab.
14), where the GLEU formulas were also considered to have an unfavourable impact, being
19% higher than those of the standard formulas SOY.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

61/112

3.5

TEP / kg eggs

3
Soya bean meal
Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Young hen rearing
Housing
Manure management

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
SOY

GLEU

Fig. 16: Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (EDIP) for producing one kg of eggs (with egg-shells)
in Brittany (BRI) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and
GLEU (European grain legumes). TEP: Terrestrial ecotoxicity points.

6.5.3 Summary of the Results


The results of the impacts driven by resource use were mixed: on the one hand, the impacts
for GLEU on energy demand, global warming potential, and ozone formation were
favourable. On the other hand, resource use of phosphorus and potassium were
unfavourable and very unfavourable, respectively. Land use was similar between the two
alternatives. For the nutrient-driven impacts, the GLEU alternative showed similar results to
the standard formulas SOY. Finally, the GLEU alternative tended to have unfavourable
effects with regard to impacts driven by pollutants (Tab. 14).

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

62/112

Tab. 14: Overview of the environmental impacts of egg production in Brittany. Values are
expressed for the functional unit kg of eggs or as a percentage of SOY. Total and relative
impacts of the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU
(European grain legumes). Colours according to the assessment classes (see Tab. 6).

Pollutant-driven impacts

Nutrient-driven
impacts

Resource use-driven impacts

Feed alternatives
SOY

GLEU

GLEU in %
SOY

3.11E+01

2.98E+01

96%

3.19E+00

2.88E+00

90%

7.69E-01

7.32E-01

95%

Resource P [g P/ kg eggs]

1.17E+01

1.26E+01

107%

Resource K [g K2O/ kg eggs]

3.87E+01

5.53E+01

143%

Land occupation, total [m2a/ kg eggs]

5.22E+00

5.19E+00

100%

6.87E+01

7.31E+01

106%

5.95E+01

6.38E+01

107%

1.27E+00

1.29E+00

101%

7.92E+01

7.89E+01

100%

2.38E+00

2.94E+00

123%

4.64E+00

5.75E+00

124%

2.18E-01

2.60E-01

119%

6.41E-01

7.26E-01

113%

8.49E-01

8.68E-01

102%

4.90E-02

3.22E-02

66%

2.14E+00

2.09E+00

98%

Environmental impacts
Energy demand
[MJ-eq/ kg eggs]
Global warming potential 100a
[kg CO2-eq/ kg eggs]
Ozone formation
[g ethylene-eq/ kg eggs]

Eutrophication, combined potential N & P


[g N-eq/ kg eggs]
Eutrophication, separate N potential
[g N-eq/ kg eggs]
Eutrophication, separate P potential
[g P-eq/ kg eggs]
Acidification
[g SO2-eq/ kg eggs]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP
[points/ kg eggs]
Aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP
[points/ kg eggs]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity CML
[points/ kg eggs]
Aquatic ecotoxicity CML
[points/ kg eggs]
Human toxicity CML
[points/ kg eggs]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity CST
[points/ kg eggs]
Aquatic ecotoxicity CST
[points/ kg eggs]

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

63/112

6.6 Milk Production in Devon and Cornwall (DAC)


6.6.1 Main Characteristics of the Feed Alternatives
Dairy cows are ruminants and therefore have different dietary requirements to pigs and
poultry. In addition to the formulated concentrate feed, their feed typically consists of
approximately 70% roughage feeds (in dry matter), which over a year consists of
approximately equal proportions of fresh and conserved grass. While, due to current levels of
production, soya is needed in the previous animal categories to provide the necessary
essential amino acids (B. Cottrill, pers. communication Feb. 2008), this is not the case for
cows: As ruminants they can produce essential amino acids in their rumen making a supply
from feed less important (Kirchgessner, 2004). In an economically-optimised feed formula,
the main protein source was rapeseed meal and maize gluten rather than soya bean meal.
The feed composition and the origin of the feedstuffs are presented in Tab. 15 and Fig. 17.
Tab. 15: Composition of the two feed alternatives in the milk production case study in DAC:
Ingredients, their origins and nutritional values.
Feedstuff group

Ingredients

Origin

Soya bean meal

Soya bean meal

Argentina, Brazil

Different protein rich feeds

Rapeseed meal

Great Britain

Peas & faba beans


Energy rich feeds

SOY

GLEU

9.2%

13.9%

13.9%

Maize gluten

USA

7.5%

6.4%

Palm kernel meal

Malaysia

0.7%

0.7%

Faba beans

Great Britain

18.0%

Peas

Great Britain

5.7%

Wheat middlings

Great Britain

18.5%

18.5%

Wheat

Great Britain

12.8%

4.4%

Barley

Great Britain

9.6%

9.6%

Citrus pulp

Brazil

12.0%

12.9%

Beet pulp

Great Britain

8.5%

1.4%

Beet molasses

Great Britain

0.2%

0.2%

Cane molasses

Brazil

0.8%

1.2%

Palm oil

Malaysia

1.7%

1.9%

Soya oil

Argentina, Brazil

0.1%

0.6%

Mineral feeds

CaCO3, PHOSBI,
vitamins, trace
elements

Europe

4.5%

4.8%

Composition of the diet

Crude protein content (%)

18.15

18.15

P content (in g/kg)


Energy content (in MJ/kg)

5.74

5.80

11.48

11.48

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

64/112

in % of DM

100%

3%
7%

80%

20%

6%
7%

1%

15%
1%

70%

70%

SOY

GLEU

60%
40%
20%

Soya bean meal


Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas & fava beans
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Roughage feed

0%

Fig. 17: Overview of the composition of the total feed for dairy cows in Devon and Cornwall
(DAC) for the two feed alternatives SOY (overseas soya bean meal) and GLEU (European
grain legumes).

6.6.2 Detailed Results from Selected Impact Categories


Resource use-driven Impacts
The demand for non-renewable energy resources to produce 1 kg of energy corrected
milk (ECM) was dominated by concentrate feeds (Fig. 18). Crop production, transport, and
processing accounted for more than two-thirds of the energy demand. Crop production alone
used more than 50% of the energy resources. Housing was second in importance for this
impact category, accounting for one-fifth of the total energy demand. The low energy
demand for roughage feed is remarkable as it was the main feed for dairy cows and ensiling
grass uses energy.
With a 9% reduced energy demand, GLEU was favourable compared to SOY (Tab. 16:
Overview of the environmental impacts of milk production in Devon and Cornwall. Values are
expressed for the functional unit kg of energy corrected milk (ECM) or as a percentage of
SOY. Total and relative impacts of the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from
overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes). Colours according to the assessment
classes (see Tab. 6).). The lower energy demand of the GLEU alternative was mainly due to
replacing most of the wheat and beet pulp (energy-rich feeds) with faba beans, resulting in a
twofold reduction. In comparison with wheat, faba bean production consumes little energy, as
no mineral nitrogen fertilisers are applied, the manufacturing of which requires a lot of
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

65/112

energy. Drying faba beans requires little energy, whereas drying beet pulp, with its high
moisture content, is very energy-intensive. In addition, small reductions in transport energy
were achieved by replacing overseas soya bean meal with European grain legumes.

MJ-eq. / kg milk (ECM)

8
7
6

Soya bean meal

Peas & faba beans

Mineral feeds

Diff. protein rich feeds


Energy rich feeds
Transport of feeds

Feed processing

Roughage feed

Housing

Calf production
Manure management

0
SOY

GLEU

Fig. 18: Demand for non-renewable energy for producing one kg of milk in Devon and
Cornwall (DAC) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and
GLEU (European grain legumes). ECM: energy corrected milk.
The global warming potential (GWP) of milk production was dominated by housing
(including direct animal methane-emissions) (Fig. 19). Production, processing, and transport
of concentrate feeds contributed more than a third of the GWP of milk, of which two-thirds
were caused by CO2 emissions and one-third by N2O emissions. Transport was of minor
significance.
With only a 4% reduction in the GWP, GLEU was considered similar compared to SOY. The
lower GWP of the GLEU alternative resulted from replacing soya bean meal and beet pulp
(energy-rich feeds) with peas and faba beans. As mentioned above, drying beet pulp
requires a lot of energy (in form of natural gas), which consequently leads to large CO2
emissions. The GWP of soya bean meal from Brazil was due to cultivation and CO2--release
during and after transformation of rainforests into arable land.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

66/112

kg CO2-eq. / kg milk (ECM)

1.2
1

Land transform. palm oil/meal MYA


Land transform. soya BRA
Land transform. soya ARG
Soya bean meal
Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas & faba beans
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Roughage feed
Calf production
Housing
Manure management

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
SOY

GLEU

Fig. 19: Global warming potential (100a) for producing one kg of milk in Devon and Cornwall
(DAC) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU
(European grain legumes). ECM: energy corrected milk.
Nutrient-driven Impacts
Production of concentrate feeds accounted for about one-third of the eutrophication
(nutrient enrichment), with different protein-rich feeds and grain legumes having the biggest
impact

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

67/112

g N-eq. / kg milk (ECM)

16
14
12

Soya bean meal


Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas & faba beans
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Roughage feed
Calf production
Housing
Manure management

10
8
6
4
2
0
SOY

GLEU

Fig. 20). Housing accounted for 28%, manure management for 20%, and roughage feed for
12% of the eutrophication. The high eutrophication of manure management was mainly
caused by ammonia emissions during slurry spreading. Direct and indirect animal ammonia
emissions and nitrate leaching that occur during grazing (for half the year) contributed in
equal parts to eutrophication for the category housing. Transport was of minor significance
for this impact category.
For feedstuff production, nitrate leaching was the main eutrophying process, whereas volatile
ammonia was the most important emission released from manure management, housing,
calf production, and roughage feed.
GLEU was similar to SOY in terms of eutrophication potential, with a slight increase of 2%
(Fig. 20). This slightly higher eutrophication of GLEU was mainly due to replacing beet pulp
with peas and faba beans, which have a comparably high eutrophication potential. The
replacement of soya bean meal with peas and faba beans did not alter the overall result, as
these feedstuffs have a similar eutrophication potential.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

68/112

g N-eq. / kg milk (ECM)

16
14
12

Soya bean meal


Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas & faba beans
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Roughage feed
Calf production
Housing
Manure management

10
8
6
4
2
0
SOY

GLEU

Fig. 20: Eutrophication potential (EDIP) for producing one kg of milk in Devon and Cornwall
(DAC) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and GLEU
(European grain legumes). ECM: energy corrected milk.
Pollutant-driven Impacts
Terrestrial ecotoxicity of milk production was almost entirely caused by crop production
(Fig. 21). Energy-rich feeds and different protein-rich feeds dominated this impact category.
The detailed analysis shows that, as in the preceding case studies, the fungicide
propiconazole and the insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin were responsible for the largest part of
the terrestrial ecotoxicity according to EDIP97. The high terrestrial ecotoxicity of different
protein-rich feeds was due to the large amount of rapeseed meal included both in the SOY
and GLEU alternative, where the insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin was applied. The use of
propiconazole on wheat and barley was responsible for the high terrestrial ecotoxicity of
energy-rich feeds.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

69/112

TEP / kg milk (ECM)

350
300
Soya bean meal
Diff. protein rich feeds
Peas & faba beans
Energy rich feeds
Mineral feeds
Transport of feeds
Feed processing
Roughage feed
Calf production
Housing
Manure management

250
200
150
100
50
0
SOY

GLEU

Fig. 21: Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (EDIP) for producing one kg of milk in Devon and
Cornwall (DAC) with the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal from overseas) and
GLEU (European grain legumes). ECM: energy corrected milk. TEP: Terrestrial ecotoxicity
points.
GLEU was similar to SOY in terms of terrestrial ecotoxicity, with a slight reduction of 3%. The
partial replacement of wheat with peas and faba beans was responsible for this reduction,
although the increased use of peas, where lambda-cyhalothrin was also applied,
counteracted most of the reduction. The overall changes between the feeding alternatives
were small, since most ingredients that dominate terrestrial ecotoxicity (rapeseed meal,
wheat middlings, barley) were included in the same ratios in both feed formulas.
Assessing terrestrial ecotoxicity with an alternative method, CML (Guine et al., 2001), led to
similar results. In the CML method, the insecticide cypermethrin has a very high impact factor
and determines the results. Cypermethrin was mainly used in oilseed rape and to a lesser
extend in wheat and barley. The results for terrestrial ecotoxicity according to the CST95
method (Margni et al., 2002) were also similar. They are dominated by the fungicide
carbendazim, which was applied in rapeseed.
To summarise, there was a similar terrestrial ecotoxicity for the GLEU and SOY alternatives
according to all the ecotoxicity assessment methods used, although the weighting given to
active ingredients varies between methods. The fungicides and insecticides used on
rapeseed, wheat and barley had a major effect on terrestrial ecotoxicity. These ingredients

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

70/112

were incorporated in similar ratios in both feed formulas, and hence there were only minor
differences between the alternatives.

6.6.3 Summary of the Results


A summary of the results of the different environmental impacts is given in Tab. 16. For most
impact categories, the two feeding alternatives had a similar environmental impact. Only in
two categories (energy demand and aquatic ecotoxicity) was the GLEU alternative
favourable compared to the standard SOY. This favourable effect in the GLEU alternative is
due to using less pesticides and using active ingredients which are less harmful to aquatic
organisms on peas and especially on faba beans compared to soya beans. For the use of
phosphorus and potassium resources, the GLEU alternative was unfavourable and very
unfavourable, respectively. This is mainly due to replacing beet pulp (and soya bean meal)
with peas and faba beans in the GLEU alternative, which have a higher demand for P and K
resources.
In the standard dairy cow feed formula only a small amount of soya bean meal was included
(Tab. 15). It is therefore not surprising that replacing soya bean meal with grain legumes did
not lead to large reductions in the environmental impact of milk production. In addition, for all
impact categories peas and faba beans are not favourable compared to soya bean meal, and
the partial replacement of energy-rich feeds (beet pulp and wheat) had a strong influence on
the results in some impact categories.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

71/112

Tab. 16: Overview of the environmental impacts of milk production in Devon and Cornwall.
Values are expressed for the functional unit kg of energy corrected milk (ECM) or as a
percentage of SOY. Total and relative impacts of the two feeding strategies SOY (soya bean
meal from overseas) and GLEU (European grain legumes). Colours according to the
assessment classes (see Tab. 6).
Feed alternatives

Pollutant-driven impacts

Nutrient-driven
impacts

Resource use-driven impacts

SOY
Environmental impacts
Energy demand
[MJ-eq/ kg ECM]
Global warming potential 100a
[kg CO2-eq/ kg ECM]
Ozone formation
[g ethylene-eq/ kg ECM]

GLEU

GLEU in
% SOY

7.96E+00

7.25E+00

91%

1.23E+00

1.18E+00

96%

3.43E-01

3.34E-01

97%

Resource P [g P/ kg ECM]

2.11E+00

2.27E+00

108%

Resource K [g K2O/ kg ECM]

5.69E+00

6.99E+00

123%

Land occupation, total [m2a/ kg ECM]

1.29E+00

1.32E+00

103%

1.47E+01

1.50E+01

102%

1.38E+01

1.40E+01

101%

1.34E-01

1.41E-01

105%

1.94E+01

1.92E+01

99%

3.54E-01

3.43E-01

97%

2.85E-01

2.34E-01

82%

4.73E-02

4.50E-02

95%

1.34E-01

1.27E-01

95%

1.41E-01

1.37E-01

97%

6.66E-03

6.97E-03

105%

4.63E-01

4.53E-01

98%

Eutrophication, combined potential N & P


[g N-eq/ kg ECM]
Eutrophication, separate N potential
[g N-eq/ kg ECM]
Eutrophication, separate P potential
[g P-eq/ kg ECM]
Acidification
[g SO2-eq/ kg ECM]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP
[points/ kg ECM]
Aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP
[points/ kg ECM]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity CML
[points/ kg ECM]
Aquatic ecotoxicity CML
[points/ kg ECM]
Human toxicity CML
[points/ kg ECM]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity CST
[points/ kg ECM]
Aquatic ecotoxicity CST
[points/ kg ECM]

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

72/112

6.7 Overview of the Results for all Case Studies


As known from earlier studies, feedstuffs mainly contribute to the environmental impacts of
animal products. In nearly all case studies, feedstuff production (crop production, transport,
and processing) accounted for more than half of the energy demand and the eutrophication
potential (nutrient enrichment), for about two-thirds of the global warming potential, and for
most of the ecotoxicity.
Introducing grain legumes into animal feeds reduced the demand for non-renewable energy
in all case studies except in North Rhine-Westphalia, where the GLEU alternative is similar to
SOY (Tab. 17). The favourable effect of the GLEU alternative results from reduced transport
and from the fact that pea and faba bean production is less energy-intensive than the
combination of soya bean meal and energy-rich feeds that they are replacing.
Global warming potential was, with the exception of pork production in Catalonia, reduced in
all case studies, though for milk production in Devon and Cornwall it is on the verge of being
comparatively favourable. This was largely due to the high global warming potential of soya
beans. The transformation of Brazilian rainforest and Argentinean savannahs into soya bean
cultivation areas leads to a large release of CO2 from biomass and soils.
Replacing soya bean meal with grain legumes had little effect on eutrophication (nutrient
enrichment).
The overall trend for terrestrial and aquatic ecotoxicity ranged between similar to
unfavourable effects for GLEU compared with SOY. Only in the milk case study was the
ecotoxicity of GLEU slightly reduced.
For terrestrial ecotoxicity (according to EDIP97 methodology), cereals, rapeseed meal and
peas dominated the results, while soya bean meal contributed little to this impact category.
The reason for this was the use of active ingredients (pesticides) during cultivation of the
above-mentioned crops. The detailed analysis showed that two active ingredients are
responsible for the largest part of terrestrial ecotoxicity according to EDIP97, namely i) the
fungicide propiconazole, which was used in cereals and ii) the insecticide lambdacyhalothrin, which was used in pea, oilseed rape and cereal cultivation. Since the results for
ecotoxicity are very dependent on the active ingredients used and the method chosen to
assess them, a careful interpretation of the results is advisable.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

73/112

Tab. 17: Overview of the environmental impacts of all case studies (pork, chicken, egg and
milk production) of the two feeding alternatives SOY (overseas soya bean meal) and GLEU
(European grain legumes). Values are expressed for GLEU as a percentage of SOY. Colours
according to the assessment classes (see Tab. 6).
Case studies

Pollutant-driven impacts

Nutrient-driven
impacts

Resource use-driven impacts

Environmental impacts
Energy demand
[MJ-eq/ kg commodity]

pork

pork

broiler

laying hen milk

NRW

CAT

BRI

BRI

DAC

99%

94%

94%

96%

91%

95%

98%

90%

90%

96%

98%

106%

98%

95%

97%

Resource P [g P/ kg commodity]

111%

104%

109%

107%

108%

Resource K [g K2O/ kg commodity]

183%

168%

166%

143%

123%

Land occupation, total [m2a/ kg commodity]

102%

132%

102%

100%

103%

93%

117%

105%

106%

102%

93%

118%

106%

107%

101%

100%

104%

103%

101%

105%

98%

98%

98%

100%

99%

96%

126%

125%

123%

97%

111%

127%

89%

124%

82%

376%

165%

108%

119%

95%

176%

105%

104%

113%

95%

103%

108%

100%

102%

97%

83%

94%

63%

66%

105%

98%

108%

101%

98%

98%

Global warming potential 100a


[kg CO2-eq/ kg commodity]
Ozone formation
[g ethylene-eq/ kg commodity]

Eutrophication, combined potential N & P


[g N-eq/ kg commodity]
Eutrophication, separate N potential
[g N-eq/ kg commodity]
Eutrophication, separate P potential
[g P-eq/ kg commodity]
Acidification
[g SO2-eq/ kg commodity]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP
[points/ kg commodity]
Aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP
[points/ kg commodity]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity CML
[points/ kg commodity]
Aquatic ecotoxicity CML
[points/ kg commodity]
Human toxicity CML
[points/ kg commodity]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity CST
[points/ kg commodity]
Aquatic ecotoxicity CST
[points/ kg commodity]

6.8 Sensitivity Analysis


In a situation where some data might vary between sources or where the assumptions made
are uncertain, a sensitivity analysis is recommended, particularly when the differences or
assumption are thought to be critical for the results (ISO, 2006).
We performed sensitivity analyses on the effect of the following:
including the carbon released by slash (i.e. logging residues) due to land transformation in
the pork production study in Catalonia, because land transformation proved to be main
difference between the SOY and GLEU alternatives regarding GWP.
different slurry quantities according to different sources for milk production in Devon and
Cornwall, to check whether the choice of the source influenced the results.
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

74/112

altered feed formulas for dairy cows, where beet and citrus pulp were not used, in order to
verify the influence on the environmental impacts when these ingredients that were taken
by the economic optimisation model are replaced by ingredients with a lower energy
demand.
applying mass allocation for the oil extraction process, as an alternative allocation
procedure for oil extraction co-products which are commonly used feed ingredients in the
present case studies and test the impact of this choice.
introducing technical measures against ammonia losses for pork production in Catalonia,
checking the impact of an altered assumption on the use of technical measures.

6.8.1 Land Transformation (CAT)


The estimates used for CO2-release from land transformation are conservative. For the clearcutting of rainforests, only the carbon released during biomass burning (20% of the total
carbon) is considered, the carbon in the slash (70% of the carbon), is not included in the
estimate (according to Jungbluth et al. 2007). It could be argued that this carbon will also be
released to the atmosphere sooner or later. Therefore we calculated a sensitivity analysis for
the pork case study in CAT. In the Catalonian case study 50% of the soya bean meal
originates from Brazil, and 50% from the USA. In addition to the 20% carbon released from
biomass burning and the carbon released from the soil during soya bean cultivation, 70% of
the carbon left in the slash was added to the land transformation. In the standard SOY the
GWP was increased by 18% and in the GLEU alternative it was increased by 7% compared
with the calculations according to Jungbluth et al. (2007). The different proportions of soya
bean meal in the two feed alternatives resulted in an 11% reduced GWP for GLEU compared
to SOY, which is considered to be a favourable effect. In the original calculation, the GWP of
the GLEU alternative was, (with a 2% reduction), similar to the GWP of the standard SOY.

6.8.2 Slurry Quantities (DAC)


The data on slurry volumes for dairy cows varied between different sources (B. Cottrill, pers.
communication, Oct. 2007); DARDNI (2005); Walther et al. (2001); see Tab. 18, lower table).
Therefore, a sensitivity analysis was carried out for these three different slurry quantities. The
only slight difference that could be seen was a difference in acidification (Tab. 18). Ammonia
from housing and manure management dominated this impact category and changes in
slurry quantity also led to altered ammonia emissions. For all other impact categories, the
different assumptions for slurry quantities did not alter the results.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

75/112

Impacts driven by
pollutants

Impacts driven by
nutrients

Impacts driven by resources

Tab. 18: Environmental impact of milk production for the two feeding alternatives SOY
(overseas soya bean meal) and GLEU (European grain legumes) with different assumptions
for the slurry quantities of cows (see lower table). BC: B. Cottrill, pers. communication (Oct.
2007); DA: DARDNI (2005); WA: Walther et al. (2001).
Summary of the impacts:
Energy demand
[MJ-eq / kg ECM]
Global warming potential 100a
[kg CO2-eq / kg ECM]
Ozone formation
[g ethylene-eq / kg ECM]
Resource P
[g P / kg ECM]
Resource K
[g K2O / kg ECM]
Land occupation, total
[m2a/ kg ECM]
Eutrophication, combined potential N & P
[g N-eq / kg ECM]
Eutrophication, separate N potential
[g N-eq / kg ECM]
Eutrophication, separate P potential
[g P-eq / kg ECM]
Acidifaction
[g SO2-eq / kg ECM]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP
[points / kg ECM]
Aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP
[points/ kg ECM]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity CML
[points / kg ECM]
Aquatic ecotoxicity CML
[points / kg ECM]
Human toxicity CML
[points / kg ECM]

undiluted slurry per dairy cow per year [m3]


undiluted slurry per cattle from 0-24 month of age [m3]

DA in % of BC
SOY
GLEU

WA in % of BC
SOY
GLEU

99.9%

99.9%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

99.9%

99.9%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.7%

100.7%

99.7%

99.7%

100.8%

100.8%

99.7%

99.7%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

101.1%

101.1%

99.6%

99.6%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

99.9%

99.9%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

99.9%

99.9%

100.0%

100.0%

BC
19.3
21.1

DA
19.3
13.0

WA
22.0
13.5

6.8.3 Feed Formulas without Beet and Citrus Pulp (DAC)


As the energy demand of milk was, compared with other sources (Eide, 2002; Hospido et al.,
2003; Haas et al., 2001; Cederberg, 1998), very high in the present case study, two
alternative feed formulas were tested that contained no beet and citrus pulp and only a small
amount of maize gluten (all of which have a rather high energy demand due to drying or
processing). Two feed formulas were tested: one formula containing soya bean meal (newSOY) and one containing peas and faba beans (new-GLEU). As could be expected, the
energy demand of the new formulas was very favourable compared with the original formulas
(Tab. 19). The GWP of the new formulas was also favourable, because no beet and citrus
pulp were included and these have a high GWP due to the gas consumption for drying. This
positive effect was reduced a bit due to higher incorporation of soya bean meal in the newSOY alternative (including more CO2-emissions from land transformation and more
transport).

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

76/112

However, for the nutrient- and pollutant-driven impacts, the new feed formulas were (very)
unfavourable. The new feed formulas have higher N contents per kg of feed and thus higher
N emissions occur (manure management and housing). In addition, there is a greater
proportion of rapeseed meal, which has a comparably high eutrophication potential. For
ecotoxicity, rapeseed meal is the reason for the unfavourable to very unfavourable effect of
the new feed formulas. E.g. for terrestrial ecotoxicity the use of the active ingredients
lambda-cyhalothrin, carbendazim and cypermethrin for oilseed rape cultivation lead to higher
impacts of the new feed formulas.
Tab. 19: Overview of the environmental impacts of milk production in DAC with the four
feeding alternatives SOY (overseas soya bean meal) and GLEU (European grain legumes),
and new-SOY (overseas soya bean meal, no beet and citrus pulp) and new-GLEU
(European grain legumes, no beet and citrus pulp). Values are expressed per kg of energy
corrected milk (ECM) or as a percentage. Colours according to the assessment classes (see
Tab. 6).

Impacts driven by
pollutants

Impacts driven by
nutrients

Impacts driven by resources

Summary of the impacts:


Energy demand
[MJ-eq / kg ECM]
Global warming potential 100a
[kg CO2-eq / kg ECM]
Ozone formation
[g ethylene-eq / kg ECM]
Resource P
[g P / kg ECM]
Resource K
[g K2O / kg ECM]
Land occupation, total
[m2a/ kg ECM]
Eutrophication, combined potential N & P
[g N-eq / kg ECM]
Eutrophication, separate N potential
[g N-eq / kg ECM]
Eutrophication, separate P potential
[g P-eq / kg ECM]
Acidifaction
[g SO2-eq / kg ECM]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP
[points / kg ECM]
Aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP
[points/ kg ECM]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity CML
[points / kg ECM]
Aquatic ecotoxicity CML
[points / kg ECM]
Human toxicity CML
[points / kg ECM]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity CST
[TEP / kg ECM]
Aquatic ecotoxicity CST
[AEP / kg ECM]

new-GLEU
new-GLEU in new-SOY in new-GLEU in
in % new% SOY
% SOY
% GLEU
SOY

new-SOY

new-GLEU

5.76E+00

5.38E+00

93%

68%

72%

74%

1.19E+00

1.11E+00

93%

90%

96%

94%

3.36E-01

3.21E-01

96%

94%

98%

96%

2.65E+00

2.67E+00

101%

126%

125%

117%

9.05E+00

1.01E+01

112%

178%

159%

145%

1.48E+00

1.43E+00

97%

111%

115%

108%

1.54E+01

1.47E+01

95%

112%

118%

110%

1.43E+01

1.36E+01

95%

112%

118%

110%

1.57E-01

1.57E-01

99%

117%

118%

111%

2.21E+01

2.03E+01

92%

105%

114%

106%

4.48E-01

4.35E-01

97%

123%

126%

127%

3.77E-01

2.86E-01

76%

100%

132%

122%

7.61E-02

6.83E-02

90%

144%

161%

152%

2.01E-01

1.81E-01

90%

135%

150%

143%

1.49E-01

1.41E-01

95%

100%

106%

103%

1.18E-02

1.03E-02

87%

155%

177%

148%

5.13E-01

4.79E-01

93%

104%

111%

106%

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

77/112

6.8.4 Allocation Factors for the Oil Extracting Process


Co-products from oil extraction were commonly used in the feed formulas for the present
case studies. In Nemecek & Baumgartner (2006) a sensitivity analysis of the allocation
factors for the oil extracting process for soya and oilseed rape has been performed. Instead
of the standard allocation, where production of the commodities and their transportation was
mass allocated and the processing was economically allocated, the sensitivity analysis
tested the effect of allocating the oil extracting process solely by mass. In all the impact
categories, the difference from the standard allocation was no higher than 2%. Thus, these
minimal changes do not influence the overall results, interpretations and conclusions.

6.8.5 Technical Measures to Reduce Ammonia Losses (CAT)


There are different technical options to reduce ammonia losses from manure management.
Covering the slurry lagoon and the use of a spreader with tailed hoses are two possible
measures (Menzi et al., 1997). Both of them are quite common in North Rhine-Westphalian
pork production. They are less common in Catalonian pork production. One reason for the
different results in North Rhine-Westphalia and Catalonia is the difference in manure
management. Therefore, we performed a sensitivity analysis on pork production in Catalonia
assuming the same technical measures against ammonia losses as in North RhineWestphalia.
The introduction of the two technical measures reduced the impact of the SOY alternative
more than the impact of the GLEU alternative (see new-GLEU compared with new-SOY),
resulting in a less favourable ratio compared to manure management without NH3 reduction
measures. But the main point is that, on an absolute level, the impacts on eutrophication are
reduced by about 10% and on acidification by about 27%, respectively (Tab. 20).

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

78/112

Tab. 20: Overview of the effects of covering the slurry lagoon and spreading slurry with a
spreader with tailed hoses on the environmental impact of pork production in Catalonia.
Values are expressed as relative impact for the feeding strategies SOY (soya bean meal
from oversea) and GLEU (European grain legumes). Colours according to the assessment
classes (see Tab. 6). New-SOY and new-GLEU are the newly-calculated feeding strategies
(unaltered feed formulas) including the technical measures against ammonia losses.
newGLEU in
% newSOY

newGLEU in
% SOY

new-SOY
in % SOY

newGLEU in
% GLEU

94%

94%

100.0%

100.0%

98%

98%

99.8%

99.8%

106%

106%

100.0%

100.0%

Resource P [g P]

104%

104%

100.0%

100.0%

Resource K [g K2O]

168%

168%

100.0%

100.0%

Land occupation, total [m2a]

132%

132%

100.0%

100.0%

119%

107%

89.6%

91.2%

121%

107%

88.6%

90.5%

104%

104%

100.0%

100.0%

98%

71%

72.9%

72.8%

126%

126%

100.0%

100.0%

127%

127%

100.0%

100.0%

165%

165%

100.0%

100.0%

105%

105%

100.0%

100.0%

108%

108%

99.9%

99.9%

94%

94%

100.0%

100.0%

108%

108%

100.0%

100.0%

Pollutant-driven impacts

Nutrient-driven
impacts

Resource use-driven impacts

Summary of the impacts:

energy demand
[MJ-eq/ kg pork]
global warming potential 100a
[kg CO2-eq/ kg pork]
ozone formation
[g ethylene-eq/ kg pork]

eutrophication, combined potential N & P


[g N-eq/ kg pork]
eutrophication, separate N potential
[g N-eq/ kg pork]
eutrophication, separate P potential
[g P-eq/ kg pork]
acidifaction
[g SO2-eq/ kg pork]
terrestrial ecotoxicity EDIP
[points/ kg pork]
aquatic ecotoxicity EDIP
[points/ kg pork]
terrestrial ecotoxicity CML
[points/ kg pork]
aquatic ecotoxicity CML
[points/ kg pork]
human toxicity CML
[points/ kg pork]
terrestrial ecotoxicity CST
[TEP/ kg pork]
aquatic ecotoxicity CST
[AEP/ kg pork]

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

79/112

7 Discussion
7.1 Introduction
Replacing soya bean meal from overseas with European grain legumes in feedstuffs was
expected to improve the environmental performance of animal products for two reasons.
First, European grain legumes have agricultural advantages leading to reduced fertiliser and
pesticide inputs due to symbiotic nitrogen fixation and the break crop effect in crop rotations,
and second, they require less transportation. However, the results of this study revealed that
replacing soya bean meal with grain legumes in pig, chicken, and cow feed did not lead to an
overall environmental improvement in pork and chicken meat, egg, and milk production. In
some categories, the feeding alternatives with European grain legumes (GLEU) were
favourable compared to the standard feeds with overseas soya bean meal as the main
protein source (SOY), but in other categories this was reversed. The different mechanisms
leading to these contrasting results will be discussed in the following sections for the most
important process steps in the animal production systems. We will start with feedstuff
production and processing, which was of major importance to the environmental
performance of the animal products analysed, then transport will be discussed, which had
effects in all the alternatives. We will then continue by looking at land transformation, which
was a decisive factor for the impacts on global warming potential, and manure management,
which had a significant role in eutrophication. Finally, we will look at the productivity of the
animal production system, which also influences the environmental impacts of animal
products. The chapter will end with a discussion of further environmental impacts that have
not been analysed in these case studies.

7.2 Feedstuff production and processing


In the following section we will look at feedstuff production (including processing but not
transport and roughage production). The reason for treating the production of the feed
ingredients and their processing at the same time is that for data reasons they could not
strictly be separated in our results (see chapter 6.1).
Feedstuff production, including processing, accounted for 40% to 100% of the impacts,
depending on the impact category and the case study. It was therefore the dominant process
step in animal production (it would be even more dominant if transport of feeds had been
added). In general, the contribution of feedstuffs was lowest in the resource-driven impacts,
medium in nutrient-driven impacts and highest in pollutant-driven impacts.
These results are in line with other studies, showing that feedstuffs play a major role in the
environmental impact of animal products (e.g. Basset-Mens & van der Werf, 2005; Eriksson
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

80/112

et al., 2005, Katajajuuri, 2007). These results underline that measures targeting this part of
the life cycle could lead to significant environmental improvements.
In this study, feedstuff production makes a large contribution to the total environmental
burden of animal products for several reasons. First, the European animal production
systems assessed have high outputs per time unit. In order to be able to produce these
quantities of animal products large amounts of feedstuffs or supplementary feed (in the case
of dairy cows) are needed. Second, the production intensity of the feedstuffs incorporated in
the European regions assessed is high, with the exception of Spain (Nemecek &
Baumgartner, 2006), resulting in high yields of the raw materials (this will be discussed later
in this chapter). Third, the arable crops are fertilised with mineral fertiliser, (having an energyintensive production and also emitting greenhouse gases), because they stem from regions
specialised in arable farming, where farmyard manure from animal husbandry is not available
(see also chapter 7.3).
Against our expectations, no clear overall environmental improvement could be seen when
replacing soya bean meal with grain legumes in the present case studies on pork and
chicken meat, egg, and milk production. Here, it must be emphasised that replacing soya
bean meal with grain legumes alters the whole composition of the feed formulas, not only the
protein-rich feed part. Thus, the results were determined by the whole composition of the
feed formulas rather than by the replacement of soya bean meal with grain legumes. For the
feed formulas with grain legumes as the major protein source (GLEU), benefits could be
found in resource use-driven impacts due to reduced amounts of energy-rich feeds. There
was little effect on nutrient-driven impacts, as the positive effects of the reduced use of soya
bean meal and energy-rich feeds were often counteracted by the negative effects of
cultivating the grain legumes themselves or the accompanying protein-rich feeds, especially
sunflower and rapeseed meal. For the pollutant-driven impacts, the introduction of grain
legumes into feedstuffs tended to have negative impacts. This is due to the pesticides with
particularly high impact factors which are used on the feed ingredients replacing the soya
bean meal. However, in some case studies, improved ecotoxicity assessment methods
would be needed in order to draw conclusions, as results varied considerably depending on
the methodology used.
The results of this study, which range from very favourable to very unfavourable effects for
GLEU compared with SOY, underline the importance of holistic approaches in evaluating
environmental measures in order to prevent shifts from one environmental problem to
another, respectively from one process unit to another.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

81/112

As mentioned above, the results are determined by the composition of the whole feed
formulas. Two characteristics of the feed ingredients are important when assessing
environmental performance: the origin and the yield of the agricultural commodity. The origin
has implications on the biotic and abiotic conditions, the production techniques and inputs
used, which together influence the yield. Furthermore, it has consequences on the transport
distances, which are discussed under 7.3.
From an environmental point of view, the frequently low yield level of grain legumes is a
constraint to increasing their use, especially when their yield is comparatively low in relation
to the yields of other feed ingredients. This is exemplified in the Catalonian pork case study.
The high proportion of peas in the GLEU alternative in combination with the low yield level of
Spanish peas resulted in unfavourable impacts on eutrophication potential and terrestrial
ecotoxicity (according to EDIP) and in very unfavourable impacts on land occupation and use
of potassium. As the environmental impact of cultivating an arable crop is divided by its yield
to obtain its impact per kilogram, this ratio becomes less favourable when the impacts of
cultivation are similar, but the yield is diminished. Therefore, efforts should be made to
optimise eco-efficiency of the feed ingredients, which means having an optimal ratio between
environmental impact and yield (see chapter 7.6).
The applied feed formulas were calculated with an economic feedstuff optimisation model
(see chapter Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.). The feed formulas
obtained reflect common practice. However, the formulas are not optimised regarding their
impact on the environment. This is illustrated in the milk case study in DAC, where very
energy-consuming ingredients are incorporated in the feed formula, such as citrus and beet
pulp (energy-rich feeds) and rapeseed meal and maize gluten (different protein-rich feeds).
This is one of the reasons why the energy demand of producing 1 kg of milk, at nearly 8 MJ,
is much higher than in other case studies, where the energy demand ranges between 1.5 3.5 MJ/kg (Eide, 2002; Hospido et al., 2003; Haas et al., 2001; Cederberg, 1998) and 4 - 7
MJ/kg (Rossier & Gaillard, 2004, Erzinger et al., 2004, Nemecek et al., 2004), respectively.
Another reason is that the relative amount of concentrate feeds in the total feed (including
roughage) is relatively high. As concentrate feeds have a much higher energy demand than
roughage feed, this leads to an overall high energy demand of milk production. Another
factor influencing the total environmental burden of milk is the co-product allocation
procedure applied, as milk and meat are produced at the same time. In this case study,
economic allocation was chosen.
One can question the use of dried by-products, such as beet and citrus pulp, in feedstuffs.
The drying has a high energy-demand and is necessary in order to make them a global
tradable commodity. Either the drying could be done with renewable energy resources or
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

82/112

these by-products could be used in the vicinity of the plants, where they could be preserved
by ensilaging. To assess the impact of the energy-consuming feedstuffs, a sensitivity
analysis was calculated with alternative feed formulas not containing beet and citrus pulp and
only little maize gluten (see chapter 6.8.3). For energy demand, large reductions could be
achieved. However, in other impact categories, the new feed formulas had much higher
environmental impacts. This highlights the importance of a holistic approach, to avoid a shift
from one environmental problem to another.
The inclusion of higher levels of synthetic amino acids (SAA) in pork and broiler chicken feed
lead to different results in the two case studies. The SAA alternative for pork production in
North Rhine-Westphalia had similar results to the GLEU alternative, which means, compared
with SOY, similar and favourable effects for energy demand and global warming potential,
respectively, similar impacts for nutrient-driven impacts, and similar to very unfavourable
effects for ecotoxicity. The SAA alternative in the broiler chicken production had, compared
to SOY, mostly favourable to very favourable effects on the resource use-driven impacts
(except for energy demand and ozone formation), similar effects for nutrient-driven impacts,
and very favourable effects for ecotoxicity. In both case studies, SAA had a similar effect on
the nutrient-driven impacts compared with SOY, and there were only very small differences
for the process steps housing and manure management. This is contrary to our
expectations that increasing levels of synthetic amino acids would improve the digestibility of
the feed and hence lead to reduced emissions from manure and housing. The changes in the
composition of the feed formulas, as a consequence of the higher synthetic amino acid levels
is the reason why this effect could not be seen in our case studies. In the pork production
case study, the SAA alternative remained very similar to the GLEU alternative. However, in
the broiler chicken study the shift towards increased sunflower and gluten meal, as well as
maize (instead of peas, soya bean and rapeseed meal as well as wheat) had positive effects,
mainly on ecotoxicity impacts. This shows that, just as with introducing grain legumes into
feed formulas, the effects from introducing higher levels of synthetic amino acids
predominantly stem from the accompanying changes in the composition of the feed formulas.
Moreover, one has to bear in mind that the quantities of synthetic amino acids in feed
formulas are small. Hence, their impact on the environment from production and transport is
comparatively small.
When calculating feed formulas an environmental optimisation could be included by
attributing systematically environmental information to the raw materials. Optimised feeding,
especially with regards to N and P, would help reduce the environmental burden from animal
excrement in manure storing and spreading. We strongly suggest that feed optimisation
models should be extended with environmental optimisation criteria.
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

83/112

Altering the nutritional properties of grain legumes, especially their protein content and their
amino acid composition, through plant breeding would change their value in animal feeding.

7.3 Transport
One of the suggested advantages of replacing soya bean meal from North and South
America with European grain legumes were the positive environmental impacts due to less
transport. The results of the five presented case studies from four European regions showed
that transport of feeds is a key factor.
The four European Regions have different supply chains for animal feedstuffs. While feed
compounders in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) cover their need for the principal feed
ingredients (i.e. wheat, barley, maize, rapeseed meal and peas) mainly from the domestic
market with the exception of soya bean meal, the feed compounders in Catalonia (CAT) are
dependent on imports, e.g. wheat from France and the USA, barley from the UK and maize
from France. In Brittany (BRI) and in Devon and Cornwall (DAC), the feed compounders
purchase the feed ingredients predominantly from the domestic market. But we can also
identify differences with regard to their location in relation to the transport infrastructures.
Although the feed mills in North Rhine-Westphalia are a long way from a sea port, they are
well-connected to water transport by canals and consequently some ingredients are
delivered to the feed mill gate by barge (e.g. soya bean, rapeseed and sunflower meal as
well as foreign wheat, barley and maize). At the same time they are not far from the domestic
centres of arable crop production, due to their comparatively central geographic location. In
Catalonia the feed industry is served by the large ports of Barcelona and Tarragona which
are close by and this results in small transport distances not only from the port to the feed
mills but also from the oil mills to the feed mills, as the oil mills are located close to these
large ports. However, due to its geographical position in the northeast of Spain, distances
between production areas of the domestic feed ingredients and Catalonia are relatively large.
In Brittany both the ocean ports and the production areas of the main domestic feed
ingredients are in comparison a medium distance from the feed mills, and thus keep lorry
transport to a medium level. Devon and Cornwall are relatively far away from the British oil
and feed mill industries, as well as from the main ports for agricultural commodities. Thus,
domestic transport is comparatively high.
The three soya bean production areas considered, i.e. Cordoba for Argentina, Mato Grosso
for Brazil and Iowa for the USA, have different conditions for domestic transport. In
Argentina, the port of Rosario is relatively close to areas where many agricultural
commodities are grown, among them soya beans. So there is a 400km transportation
distance (by lorry) to the port, before the soya beans leave for Europe. In Iowa (USA),
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

84/112

haulage by lorry is 300km to the port of Dubuque. There the soya beans are loaded to a
barge transporting them over 1600km to New Orleans, from where a trans-oceanic freighter
takes them to Europe. Soya beans from Mato Grosso are transported for about 900km by
lorry to a fluvial port, from where it is 970km by barge to the ocean port. Thus, soya beans
from Brazil have a two disadvantages compared to US and Argentinean soya: higher impacts
on GWP due to land transformation and higher impacts from transport.
Regarding the environmental impacts, in addition to the distance, the means of transport are
also important. Per kilometre of transported ton, tractor has the highest energy demand and
global warming potential, followed by lorry, barge, rail, and trans-oceanic freight ship (see
Appendix 7). Tractor transport has a nearly twofold higher energy demand and impact on
GWP than transport by lorry. Transport by barge and rail are in the same range, having
approximately a quarter of the energy demand and of the impact on GWP of lorry transport.
Finally, transport by trans-oceanic freighter has an energy demand and impact on GWP
which is over sixteen times smaller than lorry transport. As transport by tractor is only done
over rather short distances, in this study a maximum of 20km, it is marginal for the impacts
from transport. Even though transport by trans-oceanic freighter has the least environmental
impacts per kilometre of the means of transport compared, the long distances add up to a
considerable impact for this form of transport. Energy demand and GWP of feedstuffs could
be reduced by choosing barge or rail transport instead of lorry.
Throughout the assessed case studies, transport of feeds accounts for 4% to 21% of the
total energy demand. For global warming potential (GWP) the range is between 2% and
11%. In all assessed case studies, the GLEU alternative had, compared with the standard
SOY, reduced energy demand and reduced global warming potential for transport. As for the
impact categories assessed (see chapter 4.2), the results are not solely due to replacing
soya bean meal with European grain legumes, but depend on the changes made as a
consequence of this replacement to the ingredients of which the feed formulas are
composed. This means, for example in egg production in Brittany, that due to replacing soya
bean meal with peas, there is an increase in sunflower meal and gluten meal, and also a
reduction in maize in the GLEU alternative. Thus, these changes have consequences for
transport and the impacts caused by it. As most of the European feed ingredients are
transported by lorry, these changes mainly affect the road transport. Even though ship
transport, i.e. either by barge or by trans-oceanic freight ship, are relatively efficient means of
transport, their impact on energy demand and global warming potential from transport is not
negligible. It should be borne in mind that the transatlantic transport of soya bean meal is in
the range of 10000km. Replacing soya bean meal in the GLEU alternative thus reduces
impacts from water transport. As mentioned above, the soya beans from Brazil include a long
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

85/112

inland transport distance by lorry to the fluvial port. Consequently, the effect on transport
from replacing the soya beans is particularly noticeable for the case studies using Brazilian
soya bean meal in comparatively large quantities, e.g. chicken meat and egg production in
Brittany. Regarding transport it can be said that the combination of European grain legumes
with other protein-rich feeds in the GLEU alternatives has a lower energy demand and has a
lower impact on global warming potential than soya bean meal, other protein-rich feeds and
the energy-rich feeds they are replacing.
The feed alternative SAA in the pork case study (NRW) only has small differences compared
to the GLEU alternative, hence the effects on transport are similar. In the chicken meat case
study (BRI) the feed formulas of the SAA and GLEU alternatives differ much more. However,
the effects of transport on energy demand and GWP are similar compared with SOY. The
short-SOY alternative for chicken meat production (BRI) has considerably higher impacts
from transport on energy demand and GWP than the standard SOY due to the high
proportions of soya bean meal from Brazil and Argentina (27.3% vs. 13.9%) in these feed
formulas.
The FARM alternative in pork production (NRW) was especially designed to address the
impacts of transport within Europe. All the main feed ingredients, i.e. wheat, barley, peas,
and oilseed rape were produced on-farm. As a result, impacts for transport are reduced
fivefold for energy demand and global warming potential, respectively. Even though transport
is not the dominant process step in these two categories, this important decrease is the main
reason for a very favourable reduction. In the FARM alternative, transport is 4% of the total
energy demand; in the standard SOY it accounts for 18%. This is a strong argument for local
feed production.
Two additional factors, which influence transport, are the relatively low costs of transporting
by road compared with storing feed ingredients and the specialisation of entire regions in a
branch of agricultural production. The former aspect leads to feed compounders trying to
have small stocks and warehouse capacities. As a consequence, they rely on punctual
delivery of those ingredients in the quantities their mills are able to process. This favours
lorry transport to rail or barge transport, although the former has higher environmental
impacts per tkm.
The specialisation of entire regions in a particular branch of agricultural production in many
European countries has, despite its economic advantages, several negative impacts on the
environment. In areas specialising in animal production the stocking capacities are high and
hence there is a problem with how to deal with manure. This results in negative
environmental impacts, e.g. for eutrophication, global warming potential and drinking water.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

86/112

In regions specialising in growing arable crops, nutrients, due to the absence of animal
husbandry, have to be brought in by using mineral fertilisers, which have high resource uses
(energy demand, phosphate and potassium ore) and hence also negative impacts on global
warming potential. By bringing animal and feed production geographically closer, impacts
from transport could be lessened along with other environmental impacts caused by this
segmentation.

7.4 Land transformation a decisive factor on global warming


potential
The high demand for animal feeds increases competition for cultivation area and puts
pressure on the Brazilian and Malaysian rainforests and Argentinean savannah. In this study,
the effects of reclaiming land for soya bean cultivation and oil palm plantations were only
considered as carbon release for the impact category GWP. For Brazil, the GWP of soya
bean meal production is twice as high when carbon release from land transformation is
included. Therefore, carbon release from land transformation is what tips the scale for GWP
in most of the case studies. In the chicken meat and egg production studies (BRI) and in the
pork production study (NRW), the favourable effect of GLEU compared to SOY only exists if
carbon release from land transformation is considered. In the milk case study, land
transformation increases the differences between GLEU and SOY, but the impacts are still
considered to be similar. However, there is only a little soya bean meal included in these
feed formulas, and 30% of it originates from Argentina, where cultivation area is mainly
reclaimed from savannah and not from rainforests, and not as much CO2 is released in this
process. In addition, results for GWP are dominated by methane emissions from animals. In
the pork case study in Catalonia, the results of GLEU and SOY are also similar, but the
slightly negative effect of GLEU changes to a slightly positive one, when land transformation
is taken into consideration. In this case study, half of the soya bean meal is from the USA,
where no additional land is reclaimed for soya cultivation, and hence, the differences
between the alternatives are smaller.
The estimates used for CO2-release from land transformation are conservative; differences
between the alternative feed formulas could therefore be even bigger. In Argentina, carbon
losses due to biomass-burning were not considered. In Brazil, only the carbon released
during biomass burning (20% of total carbon) and released from soil during cultivation is
considered, the carbon in the slash (70% of the carbon) is not included in the estimate, in
accordance with the original source used (Jungbluth et al. 2007). The effects of including
carbon release in the slash are exemplified in the sensitivity analysis for Catalonia, showing

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

87/112

that the global warming potential of SOY and the GLEU alternative would increase by 18%
and 7%, respectively.
Besides the effects on GWP, loss of biodiversity should be considered. Here, methodological
improvements need to be made in order to assess this impact properly for tropical rainforests
as well.

7.5 Manure management there is potential for optimisation


Manure management mainly has effects on eutrophication potential and also on global
warming potential (through induced N2O emissions).
In most case studies, the crude protein (N) content did not differ much between the
alternatives. Hence, the eutrophication potential of manure management and housing in the
alternatives was similar. Exceptions are the short-fattening feed formulas in the broiler study
in BRI and the new feed formulas for the milk study (DAC), that were calculated as a
sensitivity analysis (chapter 6.8.1). In the short-SOY alternative, the crude protein content is
15% higher than in the SOY alternative. This results in a higher eutrophication potential of
manure management (+8%) and especially of housing (+22%) in the short-SOY alternative.
The altered feed composition for dairy cows, (excluding beet and citrus pulp because of their
high energy demand), leads to a 28% higher crude protein content of the SOY alternative.
The consequence is a 16% higher eutrophication potential of manure management and a
13% higher one for housing. These results highlight the importance of considering the effects
of altered N and P content of the diets on animal emissions.
Other possibilities to reduce impacts from animal excrement are through improved housing
and manure management. Ammonia losses in housing can be reduced by keeping the
housing surface, which is covered with animal excrement, clean and as small as necessary.
For animal husbandry several measures, depending on the animal species, are described by
Menzi et al. (1997). At the same time induced N2O emissions are reduced. However, this has
two disadvantages: It requires new construction measures and might conflict with animal
welfare. Manure storage can be optimised by covering the slurry lagoon, a practice which in
the regions studied was found to be common only in North Rhine-Westphalia. There are
different measures and techniques to reduce emissions from manure spreading. Obviously
manure applications should coincide with the nutrient requirements (namely N) of the
fertilised plants. Avoiding manure spreading before heavy precipitation is essential, but light
rain after manure application reduces the saturation deficit of the air and thus ammonia
volatilisation. Ammonia losses can be reduced by diluting the slurry, soil loosening before the
slurry application, incorporation of the slurry and dung into the soil or using a spreader with
tailed hoses (Menzi et al., 1997).
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

88/112

The results of the sensitivity analysis on technical measures in manure management showed
that the impact on eutrophication potential and on acidification can be reduced by 10% and
27%, respectively, if simple, but more expensive measures, such as covering the slurry
lagoon and spreading the slurry with a spreader with tailed hoses, are introduced (see 6.8.5).

7.6 Productivity of Agricultural Goods


The productivity of agricultural production systems is an important aspect when aiming for
environmental optimisation. This is illustrated by the different feed conversion rates in the two
case studies on pork production. In North Rhine-Westphalia, it is 2.686kg of feed per kg
weight gain (live weight) compared with 2.804kg of feed per kg weight gain (live weight) in
Catalonia, which means there is 4% less feed needed for the pork production in North RhineWestphalia. In other words, using the reciprocal values, the productivity of the pork
production system in North Rhine-Westphalia is higher than in Catalonia. Another example is
the chicken meat production in Brittany: The short-SOY production system (41 days
fattening) yields 0.483kg of live weight per kg feed, while the SOY production system (60
days fattening) only produces 0.472kg of live weight per kg feed. Thus, productivity of the
short-SOY production system is higher than the medium fattening period of 60 days.
This not only has consequences on the economic performance of the production system, but
also on the environmental performance. A higher production system productivity lessens the
environmental burden per kg output. In this respect an improvement in productivity has to be
aimed for. In animal production systems, this could be achieved by breeding improvements
or by advances in animal health, allowing better animal performances. However, it might be
difficult to achieve further significant improvements in these fields. It is not only a matter of
improving the biological feed conversion rate, but also the economical feed conversion rate,
meaning the ratio between feed purchased and meat sold. This can be achieved through
good agricultural practice including less feed spoilage, more accurate feeding regimes and
skilful farmers. At the same time, we would like to stress that such productivity improvements
should not be done at the expenses of animal welfare.
Productivity is important not only at the production system output level, but also at the input
level of the same system. This is demonstrated by Spanish and German pea production.
While the yield per ha is 12dt for Spanish pea production, it is 38dt for German pea
production. However, the inputs into the two pea productions are not the same.
Nevertheless, some cropping activities, e.g. ploughing, harrowing, drilling and harvesting,
remain the same, whether the yield is high or low. Hence, the eco-efficiency, i.e. the ratio
between environmental impact and yield (Huppes & Ishikawa, 2006), will be improved when
the environmental impacts are divided by a higher yield. In general, this occurs until an
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

89/112

optimum eco-efficiency level is reached. Further improvement in the yield might cause
proportionally higher environmental impacts, thus reducing the eco-efficiency. In the case of
Spanish peas, the low eco-efficiency means that the peas have higher environmental
impacts per kg commodity in most impact categories, which proved to be one reason for the
unfavourable impacts of the GLEU alternative for eutrophication as well as for land
occupation and the potassium resource use (see chapter 6.3.3).
Therefore optimised eco-efficiency of feed ingredients has to be a target in order to improve
animal production systems.
To achieve an environmentally-friendly feed for dairy cows, not only the protein sources of
concentrate feeds, but the entire feed should be considered. In addition to the composition of
the concentrate feeds, the ratio between concentrate and roughage feeds and the kind of
roughage used (fresh grass, grass silage, maize silage, hay) should be analysed and
optimised. In all impact categories, roughage feed had only a minor environmental impact
compared to concentrate feeds, although it made up 70% of the feed ratio. However, the
feeding has to be carefully adapted, in order not to reduce the milk yield, which could
counteract any positive effect for the environment. Casey & Holden (2005) found a negative
linear relationship between greenhouse gas emissions per kg milk and milk output per cow.
Thus, the less milk a cow produces, the higher the greenhouse gas emissions per kg of milk.
However, greenhouse gas emissions may be an exception within the impact categories, as
the number of animals needed to supply milk is essential for this category. For other impact
categories, where concentrate feeds largely contribute to the environmental impact and
direct animal emissions are less signficiant, reducing the concentrate feed supply may
improve the environmental impact of milk production.

7.7 Unconsidered Impacts


Due to restricted data availability or missing methodological tools, some environmental
impact categories were not considered. Biodiversity, soil quality, water use, and animal
welfare are aspects that were not included in the life cycle assessment, but which are
affected by the production of meat, eggs, and milk. For the feed alternatives analysed, the
first three aspects could be of particular importance. The clear-cutting of rainforests for soya
bean cultivation has effects on biodiversity and soil quality, and these two impact categories
are also affected by the cultivation of grain legumes and other feedstuffs. Water use may be
important, if irrigated crops are incorporated in the feed formulas.
Stratospheric ozone depletion, odour, noise, landscape aesthetics (social function) and light
(unlimited resource) are other unconsidered impact categories, but should be of minor
importance for the present case studies.
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

90/112

Some unconsidered impacts, especially biodiversity and soil quality, might influence
assessment of the environmental performance of the different feeding alternatives. We
assume that the GLEU alternative might be favourable compared with SOY for these two
impact categories, especially in the studies where Brazilian soya bean meal is used (bearing
in mind the effects of the clear-cutting of rainforests).
Aspects of animal welfare, which are strictly speaking not environmental but rather ethical
questions and thus not part of the present study, should not be ignored for the broiler study in
Brittany, where two different animal production systems (short and medium fattening periods)
were compared.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

91/112

8 Conclusions, Recommendations, and Outlook


Conclusions
Introducing European grain legumes into feedstuffs for European animal production was
expected to improve the environmental performance of animal products. The results of the
five case studies on meat, egg, and milk production revealed that replacing soya bean meal
with grain legumes does not lead to an overall environmental improvement. Clear benefits
can only be found regarding the resource use-driven impacts due to less transport, reduced
incorporation of energy-rich feeds and absence of land transformation. There is little effect on
nutrient-driven impacts, as the positive effects of the reduced use of soya bean meal and
energy-rich feeds are often counteracted by the negative effects of cultivating the grain
legumes themselves or the accompanying protein-rich feeds, especially sunflower and
rapeseed meal. In addition, it has to be emphasised that the positive effects of symbiotic Nfixation occur for both the standard feeding system SOY and the alternative feeding system
GLEU, as one grain legume (soya beans) is replaced by another one (peas, faba beans).
Hence, the introduction of European grain legumes into animal feeds cannot be regarded as
an environmental improvement on the nutrient-driven impacts. For the pollutant-driven
impacts, the introduction of grain legumes into feedstuffs tends to be negative. Again the
reason lies in the crop production, where the feed ingredients replacing the soya bean meal
involve using particularly harmful pesticides. However, these results should be checked with
improved ecotoxicity assessment methods, as in some case studies they vary considerably
depending on the methodology chosen.
It must be highlighted that replacing soya bean meal with grain legumes changes the
composition of the whole feed formulas and not only the protein-rich feeds part.
Consequently, the results are more determined by the composition of the whole feed
formulas than by the replacement of soya bean meal with grain legumes itself. The same
applies to feed formulas containing higher levels of synthetic amino acids. The impact of this
feeding system is more influenced by the changes induced in the composition of the feed
formulas than by the increase of the synthetic amino acids.
Recommendations
The diverging results across the different environmental aspects highlight the importance of a
holistic approach to evaluating the integration of European grain legumes into animal feed, in
order to make it possible to detect shifts from one environmental problem to another. Efforts
for improvements should target feedstuff production, as it represents a significant share of
the environmental impacts of animal production. As a possible measure we propose
integrating environmental criteria into feedstuff models, allowing the optimisation of feed
formulas in terms of economic and environmental aspects.
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

92/112

Several factors have been identified that improve the environmental performance of animal
products:
Local feedstuff production is favourable.
Manure management has scope for improvement (e.g. by covering the slurry lagoon,
adjusting the timing of slurry spreading and use of appropriate spreading techniques).
Feedstuffs that need little inputs in crop production and processing are preferable. Here, it
is important to consider inputs in relation to yield levels, i.e. eco-efficiency, as lower yields
often lead to higher emissions per unit of the commodity.
Improved feed conversion efficiency reduces the consumption of feedstuffs by animals
and hence reduces the overall environmental impact of animal products.
Finally, the consumption of large amounts of animal products has to be questioned (see
also Davis & Sonesson, 2008).
Outlook
For comparison of the environmental performance of European grain legumes and overseas
soya bean meal as animal feed it would be important to assess the impacts on biodiversity
and soil quality. This is particularly important in cases where Brazilian and Argentinean soya
bean meal is used, as natural habitats are transformed into crop land for soya bean
cultivation. Here, methodological improvements need to be made.
The same applies for ecotoxicity assessment. Here, a more reliable methodology is needed,
to get better results which are not, unlike now, as dependent on the active ingredients used
for treating a crop.
As direct animal emissions play an important role in global warming potential as well as in
eutrophication, the links between feed ingredients and excretion and direct emissions,
respectively, are important. In this study, a simplified approach was used to estimate
emissions according to the energy-, nitrogen-, and phosphorus-content of the diet. Especially
for dairy cows, improved consideration of the effects that diet composition (including
roughage and concentrate feed) has on animal methane emissions would help give a better
understanding of the impact the feeding strategy has on global warming potential.
This study showed that a generalisation of the results is not possible. The environmental
impact of introducing European grain legumes into animal feeds of other animal production
systems or in other regions need to be analysed individually, as results are highly dependent
on composition of feed formula, origin of feeds, transport infrastructure, feed conversion rate
of animals, and farm management practices.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

93/112

To assess the overall environmental impact of pork, chicken meat, eggs, and milk, important
processes that also need to be considered are: processing, packaging, distribution, and
storage of the respective product. However, the agricultural phase is a major hot spot, as the
examples of milk (Eide, 2002) and pork production (Davis & Sonesson, 2008) show.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

94/112

9 References
AgDM, 2008. AG Decision Maker. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/homepage.html.
AgrarNet, 2008. AgrarNet. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at http://www.agranet.de/.
Agreste, 2008. La statistique agricole. En rgion. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at
http://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/region_5/index.html.
Agreste Bretagne, 2005a. Recensement avicole 2004-2005 - La filire oeufs de
consommation perd du terrain. Direction Rgionale de lAgriculture et de la Fort de
Bretagne. Service de Statistique Agricole. Accessed Jan. 2007. Available at
http://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/R5306A01.pdf.
Agreste Bretagne, 2005b. Recensement avicole 2004-2005 - La volaille de chair perd 1m2
sur 5. Direction Rgionale de lAgriculture et de la Fort de Bretagne. Service de
Statistique Agricole. Accessed Jan. 2007. Available at
http://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/R5306A02.pdf.
Alvarez L. & Hernndez E., 2005. Eficincia energtica en el sector de fabricaci de pinsos i
Situaci a Catalunya. Universitat Politncia de Catalunya. Accessed 12.1.08.
Available at http://www.gencat.cat/economia/doc/doc_51992949_1.pdf.
ArabBrazil, 2008. ArabBrazil Trade Consulting, The orange story. Accessed 12.1.08.
Available at http://www.arabbrazil.com/orgsto.htm.
Basset-Mens C. & van der Werf H.M.G., 2005. Scenario-Based Environmental Assessment
of Farming Systems: the Case of Pig Production in France. Agriculture Ecosystems &
Environment, 105: 127-144.
BMELV, 2006. Getreide- und Kartoffelernte 2006 nach Lndern. Accessed 12.1.08. Available
at http://www.bmelv-statistik.de/tabellen/f2960.1.xls.
BOCM-PAULS, 2008. BOCM PAULS. Accessed 12.01.08. Available at
http://www.bocmpauls.co.uk/.
Casey J.W. & Holden N.M., 2005. The relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and
the intensity of milk production in Ireland. Journal of Environmental Quality, 34: 429436.
Cederberg C., 1998. Life Cycle Assessment of Milk Production - A Comparison of
Conventional and Organic Farming. Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology
(SIK), Gteborg, SIK-Rapport 643. 86 p.
Cederberg C. & Stadig M., 2001. System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment
of milk and beef production. Geerken T. et al. (eds). In: Proceedings of the
International Conference on LCA in Foods, 26-27 April 2001, Gothenburg. SIK, VITO,
22-27.
CEREOPA, 2005. ARIANE version 2005v2, outil d'optimisation de formules d'aliments
composs.
Charles R. & Nemecek T., 2005. A standardised method to assess the environmental impact
of grain legumes. Grain Legumes, 36: 18-19.
CODESP, 2008. Companhia Docas do Estado de So Paulo. Porto de Santos. Santos and
its market. Easy ways and accesses. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at
http://www.portodesantos.com/negocios/mercado5-i.html.
Crpon K., Cottrill B., Cechura L., Hucko J., Miguelanez R. & Pressenda F., 2005. Animal
production sectors in seven european countries; Synthetic studies preceding the

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

95/112

building of models simulating the raw materials supply of feed compounders. GLIP
Deliverable D2.2.1, WP 2.2, Economic Analysis, UNIP, Paris. 80 p.
Dalby R., 2005. Choices: Fish, Crops, Electricity, Transportation. Washington Business
Magazine. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at http://www.awb.org/cgibin/absolutenm/templates/?a=1141&z=3.
DARDNI, 2005. Farm Nutrient Management Scheme (Northern Ireland) 2005, Farm Nutrient
Production and Storage Workbook, FNMS 4. Accessed 12.02.2008. Available at
http://www.ruralni.gov.uk/fnms-storage-workboo_cmb.pdf.
Davis J. & Sonesson U., 2008. Environmental potential of grain legumes in meals - Life cycle
assessment of meals with varying content of peas. Grain Legumes Integrated Project.
Final Report WP2.2, Environmental Analysis of the Food Chain. SIK report no 771,
SIK - The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gteborg 47 p.
De Boer I.J.M., 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment of Conventional and Organic Milk
Production. Livestock Production Science, 80: 69-77.
Defra, 2005. Economics and Statistics. Accessed 26.07.2005. Available at
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/datasets/dec_region04.xls.
DEFRA, 2008. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Economics and
Statistics. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/.
Dickerson M., 2005. Brazil's ethanol effort helping lead to oil self-sufficiency. The Seattle
Times. Accessed 11.01.08. Available at
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002339093_brazilfuel17.html.
Distances.com, 2008. World Ports Distances Calculator Accessed 12.1.08. Available at
http://www.distances.com/.
Dros J.M., 2004. Managing the soy boom: Two scenarios of soy production expansion in
South America. Accessed 13.02.2008. Available at
http://www.aidenvironment.org/soy/06_managing_the_soy_boom.pdf.
Ecobilan, 2004. TEAM Users Manual, Version 4.0. Tools for Environmental Analysis and
Management. . 224 p.
ecoinvent Centre, 2004. econinvent data v1.1. Final reports ecoinvent 2000 No. 1 - 15. Swiss
Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dbendorf, CD-ROM.
Eide M.H., 2002. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of industrial milk production. International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 7: 115-126.
Ellingsen H. & Aanondsen S.A., 2006. Environmental Impacts of Wild Caught Cod and
Farmed Salmon - A Comparison with Chicken. Int J LCA, 11: 60-65.
Eriksson I.S., Elmquist H., Stern S. & Nybrant T., 2005. Environmental Systems Analysis of
Pig Production - the Impact of Feed Choice. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 10: 143-154.
Erzinger S., Badertscher Fawaz R., Dux D. & Zimmermann A., 2004. kologie und
Wirtschaftlichkeit in der Milchproduktion. AGRARForschung, 11: 120-125.
European Union, 2005. Agriculture in the European Union statistical and economic
information 2004. . Accessed 13.02.2008. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/agrista/2004/table_en/2004enfinal.pdf.
EUROSTAT, 2008. General and regional statistics. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136162,0_45572076&_dad
=portal&_schema=PORTAL.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

96/112

FAO, 2004. FAO-Statistics. Key Statistics of Food and Agricultural External Trade. .
Accessed 12.1.08. Available at http://www.fao.org/es/ess/toptrade/trade.asp.
FEDIOL, 2008. EU Oil and Proteinmeal Industry. Search engine for the database of member
companies. Accessed 12.01.08. Available at http://www.fediol.be/4/index2.php.
Freiermuth R., 2006. Modell zur Berechnung der Schwermetallflsse in der
Landwirtschaftlichen kobilanz. Agroscope FAL Reckenholz 42 p.
Frischknecht R., Jungbluth N., Althaus H.-J., Doka G., Hellweg S., Hischier R., Nemecek T.,
Rebitzer G. & Spielmann M., 2003. Overview and Methodology - ecoinvent data
v1.01. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories (ecoinvent), Dbendorf, ecoinvent
report 1. 76 p.
GLIP, 2004. Grain Legumes Integrated Project: an overview. Accessed 13.02.2008.
Available at http://www.eugrainlegumes.org/summary/index.htm.
GNIS, 2008. La production du mais en France en 2002. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at
http://www.gnis-pedagogie.org/pages/mais/chap1/4.htm.
GO-East, 2008. Government Office for the East of England. Ports. Accessed 12.01.08.
Guine J.B., Gorre M., Heijungs R., Huppes G., Kleijn R., de Koning A., van Oers L.,
Wegener Sleeswijk A., Suh S., Udo de Haes H.A., de Bruijn H., van Duin R.,
Huijbregts M.A.J., Lindeijer E., Roorda A.A.H. & Weidema B.P., 2001. Life cycle
assessment - An operational guide to the ISO standards. Ministry of Housing, Spatial
Planning and Environment (VROM) and Centre of Environmental Science (CML),
Den Haag and Leiden, Netherlands.
Guthrie, 2005. Kumpulan Guthrie Berhad. Estates in Malaysia. Accessed 16.1.07. Available
at http://www.guthrie.com.my/files/statistic/estates_msia.pdf.
Guthrie, 2005. Kumpulan Guthrie Berhad. Mills, Factories and Installations in Malaysia.
Accessed 16.01.07. Available at
http://www.guthrie.com.my/files/statistic/mills_msia.pdf.
Haas G., Wetterich F. & Kpke U., 2001. Comparing intensive, extensified and organic
grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agriculture
Ecosystems & Environment, 83: 43-53.
Hauschild M. & Wenzel H., 1998. Environmental assessment of products. Vol. 2: Scientific
background. 2. Chapman & Hall, London. 565 p.
Hoskins T., 2005. Iowa Farmer Today. Hurricane undercuts grain prices, boosts input costs.
Available at
http://www.iowafarmer.com/articles/2005/09/13/top_stories/01hurricane.em.
Hospido A., Moreira M.T. & Feijoo G., 2003. Simplified Life Cycle Assessment of Galician
Milk Production. International Dairy Journal, 13: 783-796.
Houghton J.T., Meira Filho L.G., Callander B.A., Harris H., Kattenberg A. & Maskell A., 1995.
Climate Change 1995 - The science of climate change. Cambridge University Press,
United Kingdom.
Huguenin O., 2002. Extension of the Nitrate leaching potenial-model for the evaluation of
the nitrate leaching potential of grazed grassland in LCA.
Huppes G. & Ishikawa M., 2006. Note on E/E terminology. 2nd International Conference on
Quantified Eco-Efficiency Analysis for Sustainability, 28-30 June 2006. Accessed
04.02.2008. Available at http://www.eco-efficiencyconf.org/content/home.terminology.shtml.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

97/112

IBGE, 2003. Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, Produo Agrcola Municipal 2003. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at
http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/presidencia/noticias/25112004pam.shtm.
IMA, 2008. information.medien.agrar. Rapsanbau in Deutschland. Accessed 12.1.08.
Available at http://www.ima-agrar.de/Dateien/Rapsanbau_.pdf.
IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. In: Houghton J.T. et al. (eds). Third
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, The
Edinburgh Building Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, UK.
ISO, 2006. ISO 14040 - Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and
framework. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland. 46 p.
Itharattana K., 2003. Forecast of area, yield and production of Thai cassava roots. In:
Proceedings of the Expert Consultation on Root Crop Statistics - Volume II: Invited
Papers. FAO. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y9422E/y9422e05.htm.
Jolliet O. & Crettaz P., 1997. Critical Surface-Time 95: A life cycle impact assessment
methodology including fate and exposure. Swiss Federal Insitute of Technology,
Institute of Soil and Water Management, Lausanne 79 p.
Jungbluth N., Chudacoff M., Dauriat A., Dinkel F., Doka G., Faist Emmenegger M.,
Gnansounou E., Kljun N., Spielmann M., Stettler C. and Sutter J., 2007. Life Cycle
Inventories of Bioenergy. Final report ecoinvent data v2.0 No. 17. Swiss Centre for
Life Cycle Inventories, Dbendorf, CH.
Katajajuuri J.-M., Experiences and Improvemtent Possibilities - LCA Case Study of Broiler
Chicken Production. 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management, 27-29
August 2007, Zurich, Switzerland.
Katz P.E., 1996. Ammoniakemissionen nach der Glleanwendung auf Grnland. Ph.D.
Thesis. ETH, Zrich. 11382.
Kirchgessner M., Roth F.X. & Windisch W., 1993. Verminderung der Stickstoff- und
Methanausscheidung von Schwein und Rind durch die Ftterung. Tierernhrung, 21:
889-120.
Kirchgessner M., 2004. Tierernhrung. DLG-Verlags-GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany,
608 p.
LBL, SRVA & FiBL, 2003. Deckungsbeitrge, Ausgabe 2003. LBL, Lindau 150 p.
Lence S.H., 2000. A comparative marketing analysis of major agricultural products in the
United States and Argentina. MATRIC Research paper 00-MRP-2. Accessed 12.1.08.
Available at http://www.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_11420.pdf.
MAPA, 2008. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacin. Anuario de Estadstica
Agroalimentaria. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at
http://www.mapa.es/es/estadistica/pags/anuario/Anu_03/indice.asp.
MapCrow, 2008. Travel Distance Calculator. Accessed 12.01.08. Available at
http://www.mapcrow.info/.
Mappy S., 2008. Route planning. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at www.mappy.com.
Marathon N., VanWechel T. & Vachal K., 2006. Transportation of U.S. Grains. A Modal
Share Analysis, 1978-2004. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at
http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/TSB/Modal_Share.pdf.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

98/112

Margni M., Rossier D., Crettaz P. & Jolliet O., 2002. Life cycle impact assessment of
pesticides on human health and ecosystems. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment,
93: 379-392.
McVey M., Baumel P. & Wisner B., 2000. Brazilian soybeans -- Transportation problems.
Available at
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/AGDM/articles/others/McVeyNov00.html.
Menzi H., Frick R. & Kaufmann R., 1997. Ammoniak-Emissionen in der Schweiz: Ausmass
und technische Beurteilung des Reduktionspotentials. Eidgenssische
Forschungsanstalt fr Agrarkologie und Landbau, Zrich-Reckenholz, Schriftenreihe
der FAL 26. 107 p.
Meyers S., Sathaye J., Lehman B., Schumacher K. & Vliet O.v., 2000. Preliminary
Assessment of Potential CDM Early Start Projects in Brazil. Accessed 12.1.08.
Available at http://ies.lbl.gov/iespubs/46120.pdf.
Minonzio G., Grub A. & Fuhrer J., 1998. Methanemissionen der schweizerischen
Landwirtschaft. BUWAL, Schriftenreihe Umwelt 298. 130 p.
Muraro R.P., Spreen T.H. & Pozzan M., 2001. Comparative Costs of Growing Citrus in
Florida and Sao Paulo (Brazil) for the 2000-01 Season.
NASS, 2008. Data and Statistics. Accessed 12.01.08. Available at
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/.
Nationalatlas.gov, 2008. National Atlas of the United States. Accessed 12.01.08. Available at
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/natlas/Natlasstart.asp.
Nemecek T. & Baumgartner D., 2006. Environmental Impacts of Introducing Grain Legumes
into European Crop Rotations and Pig Feed Formulas. Agroscope ReckenholzTnikon Research Station ART, Zrich-Affoltern, Concerted Action GL-Pro WP4:
Environmental Analysis.
Nemecek T. & Erzinger S., 2005a. Modelling Representative Life Cycle Inventories for Swiss
Arable Crops. Int J LCA, 10: 68-76.
Nemecek T., Gaillard G. & Zimmermann A., 2004. Referenzwerte fr kobilanzen von
Landwirtschaftsbetrieben. AGRARForschung, 11: 324-329.
Nemecek T., Heil A., Erzinger S. & Zimmermann A., 2003a. SALCA - Swiss Agricultural Life
Cycle Assessment Database, Umweltinventare fr die Landwirtschaft, Version 031a,
Mai 2003. FAL, Bericht FAL und FAT 86 p.
Nemecek T., Heil A., Huguenin O., Meier S., Erzinger S., Blaser S., Dux D. & A. Z., 2003b.
Life cycle inventories of agricultural production systems - ecoinvent data v1.01. Swiss
Centre for Life Cycle Inventories (ecoinvent), Dbendorf, ecoinvent report 15. 285 p.
Nemecek T., Huguenin-Elie O., Dubois D., Gaillard G., 2005b. kobilanzierung von
Anbausystemen im Schweizerischen Acker- und Futterbau. Schriftenreihe der FAL
58, Agroscope FAL Reckenholz, Zrich, 156 p.
Nemecek T., von Richthofen J.-S., Dubois G., Casta P., Charles R. & Pahl H., 2008.
Environmental impacts of introducing grain legumes into European crop rotations.
European Journal of Agronomy 28: 380-393.
Oberholzer H.-R., Weisskopf P., Gaillard G., Weiss F. & Freiermuth R., 2006. Methode zur
Beurteilung der Wirkungen landwirtschaftlicher Bewirtschaftung auf die Bodenqualitt
in kobilanzen SALCA-SQ. Agroscope FAL Reckenholz, Online at
http://www.art.admin.ch/themen/00617/00622/index.html?lang=de 98 p.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

99/112

Ostermayer A., Berger J., Detzel A., Knappe F., Vogt R. & Giegrich J., 2002. kobilanz fr
DL-Methionin in der Geflgelmast. ifeu - Institut fr Energie- und Umweltforschung
Heidelberg GmbH, Heidelberg, 180 p.
Portsworld, 2008. Malaysian Ports. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at
http://www.portsworld.com/main/ports.htm.
Prasuhn V., 2006. Erfassung der PO4-Austrge fr die kobilanzierung - SALCA-Phosphor.
Online at http://www.art.admin.ch/themen/00617/00622/index.html?lang=de, Zrich
22 p.
Pressenda F., Busquet M., Chechura L., Cottrill B., Crpon K. & Hucko J., 2006. Economic
feedstuffs models adapted to different countries - Presentation and description of the
models. Grain Legumes Integrated Project. Deliverable D2.2.1a, WP2.2, Economic
Analysis. CEREOPA - Centre dEtude et de Recherche sur lEconomie et
lOrganisation des Productions Animales, Paris 21 p.
PROLEA, 2008. Olagineux France. Bilan 2005. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at
http://www.prolea.com/index.php?id=1830.
PROLEA, 2008. Protagineux France. Bilan 2005. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at
http://www.prolea.com/index.php?id=1828.
Reist M., Erdin D., von Euw D., Tschuemperlin K., Leuenberger H., Chilliard Y., Hammon
H.M., Morel C., Philipona C., Zbinden Y., Kuenzi N. & Blum J.W., 2002. Estimation of
energy balance at the individual and herd level using blood and milk traits in highyielding dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 85: 3314-3327.
Richner W., Oberholzer H.-R., Freiermuth R. & Walther U., 2006. Modell zur Beurteilung des
Nitratauswaschungspotenzials in kobilanzen - SALCA-NO3. Unter Bercksichtigung
der Bewirtschaftung (Fruchtfolge, Bodenbearbeitung, N-Dngung), der mikrobiellen
Nitratbildung im Boden, der Stickstoffaufnahme durch die Pflanzen und
verschiedener Bodeneigenschaften. Agroscope FAL Reckenholz, Online at
http://www.art.admin.ch/themen/00617/00622/index.html?lang=de 25 p.
Rossier D. & Gaillard G., 2004. kobilanzierung des Landwirtschaftsbetriebs - Methode und
Anwendung in 50 Landwirtschaftsbetrieben. Forschungsanstalt fr Agrarkologie und
Landbau (FAL), Zrich, FAL-Schriftenreihe 53. 142 p.
SAGPyA Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganaderia, Pesca y Alimentos, Repubilca Argentina,
2007. Estimaciones Agrcolas. Available at http://www.sagpya.mecon.gov.ar/.
Schmid M., Neftel A. & Fuhrer J., 2000. Lachgasemissionen aus der Schweizer
Landwirtschaft. FAL, Schriftenreihe der FAL 33. 131 p.
Statistik-Portal, 2008. Statistischen mter des Bundes und der Lnder. Landwirtschaft.
Accessed 12.1.08. Available at http://www.statistik-portal.de/StatistikPortal/de_inhalt11.asp.
Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland, 2007. Der Schweinebestand steigt weiter. Accessed
27.11.2007. Available at
http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Presse/pm/2007
/07/PD07__301__413.psml.
The Times, 1999. The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World. 10th Edition. London,
United Kingdom. 544 p.
ufop, 2008. Agrarstatistik, Ernten von Raps 2001-2006. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at
http://www.ufop.de/1630.php.
USDA, 2001. Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina / WRS-01-3. Soybeans, Agriculture, and
Policy in Argentina. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs013/wrs013e.pdf.
GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?
February 2008

100/112

USDA, 2006. Major World Crop Areas and Climatic Profiles, Argentina Soybean Production
Statistics. Accessed 12.1.08. Available at
http://www.usda.gov/oce/weather/pubs/Other/MWCACP/Graphs/Argentina/Argentina
Soybean.pdf.
van der Werf H.M.G., Petit J. & Sanders J., 2005. The Environmental Impacts of the
Production of Concentrated Feed: the Case of Pig Feed in Bretagne. Agricultural
Systems, 83: 153-177.
von Richthofen J.-S., Pahl H. & Nemecek T., 2006. Deliverable 3.2 - Economic interest of
grain legumes in European crop rotations. Muenster, Germany, European extension
network for the development of grain legumes production in the EU GL-Pro.
Walther U., Ryser J.-P. & Flisch R., 2001. Grundlagen fr die Dngung im Acker- und
Futterbau. Agrarforschung, 8: 1-80.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

101/112

10 Appendices
10.1 Appendix 1: Flow diagram of the LCA of pork production

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

102/112

10.2 Appendix 2: Flow diagram of the LCA of chicken meat


production
Elementary flows

System boundary

Preliminary stage
Production of energy (fuel,
electricity)

Production of agricultural inputs


(seeds, fertilisers, pesticides)

Production of infrastructure
(machinery, buildings, equipment)

Crop production
Oil seeds production
(e.g. oil seed rape,
sunflower, oil palm)

Co-products from processing


(e.g. soya oil, rape seed oil, sugar, orange juice,
bran)

Transport

Energy rich feeds


production (e.g.
wheat, barley, maize,
beet root, citrus fruits)

European grain
legumes
production (peas,
faba beans)

Soya bean production,


incl. land transformation
(ARG, BRA, USA)

Transport

Production of
synthetic amino
acids, vitamins,
PHOSBI, CaCO3

Transport

Processing
Maize gluten
production

Sugar refinery,
juice-press, etc.

Oil mill

Transport

Oil mill

European Feed mill


Transport

Production of
concentrated feed

Transport

Chicken meat production system


Broiler chicken
fattening

Building, operation
Manure storage
system

Manure spreading
system

Building,
infrastructure

Chicken meat
from broiler
chickens

Direct or indirect emissions, e.g.


NH3

NO3

PO4

Pesticides

CH4

N2O

CO2

Heavy metals

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

103/112

10.3 Appendix 3: Flow diagram of the LCA of egg production


Elementary flows

System boundary

Preliminary stage
Production of energy (fuel,
electricity)

Production of agricultural inputs


(seeds, fertilisers, pesticides)

Production of infrastructure
(machinery, buildings, equipment)

Crop production
Energy rich feeds
production (e.g.
wheat, barley, maize,
beet root, citrus fruits)

Oil seeds production


(e.g. oil seed rape,
sunflower, oil palm)

Co-products from processing


(e.g. soya oil, rape seed oil, sugar, orange juice,
bran)

Transport

European grain
legumes
production (peas,
faba beans)

Soya bean production,


incl. land transformation
(ARG, BRA, USA)

Transport

Production of
synthetic amino
acids, vitamins,
PHOSBI, CaCO3

Transport

Processing
Maize gluten
production

Sugar refinery,
juice-press, etc.

Oil mill

Transport

Oil mill

European Feed mill


Transport

Production of
concentrated feed

Transport

Egg production system


Young hen
production

Transport

Egg production
with laying hens

Building, operation
Manure storage
system

Manure spreading
system

Building,
infrastructure

Direct or indirect emissions, e.g.

Eggs
NH3

NO3

PO4

Pesticides

CH4

N2O

CO2

Heavy metals

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

104/112

10.4 Appendix 4: Flow diagram of the LCA of milk production


Elementary flows

System boundary

Preliminary stage
Production of energy (fuel,
electricity)

Production of agricultural inputs


(seeds, fertilisers, pesticides)

Production of infrastructure
(machinery, buildings, equipment)

Crop production
Oil seeds production
(e.g. oil seed rape,
sunflower, oil palm)

Energy rich feeds


production (e.g.
wheat, barley, maize,
beet root, citrus fruits)

Co-products from processing


(e.g. soya oil, rape seed oil, sugar, orange juice,
bran)

Transport

European grain
legumes
production (peas,
faba beans)

Soya bean production,


incl. land transformation
(ARG, BRA, USA)

Transport

Production of
synthetic amino
acids, vitamins,
PHOSBI, CaCO3

Transport

Processing
Maize gluten
production

Sugar refinery,
juice-press, etc.

Oil mill

Transport

Oil mill

European Feed mill


Transport

Production of
concentrated feed

Transport

Roughage feed

Pasture

Milk production system


Replacement
system with calves

Transport

Milk production
with dairy cows
Grass silage

Building, operation
Manure storage
system

Manure spreading
system

Building,
infrastructure

Meat from surplus


calves

Milk from dairy


cows

Direct or indirect emissions, e.g.


NH3

NO3

PO4

Pesticides

CH4

N2O

CO2

Heavy metals

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

105/112

10.5 Appendix 5: Correction factors for feedstuff ingredients where


no production or life cycle inventories were available.
Approximated feedstuff
ingredients
cassava
citrus pulp
maize gluten
palm kernel meal
sugar cane molasses
wheat bran
wheat middlings

Correction
factors
0.88
1.34
1.00
0.20
1.00
0.60
0.75

Similar life cycle


inventories
grain maize
dehydrated beet pulp
maize starch
palm kernel oil
sugar beet molasses
wheat grains
wheat grains

Basis of correction
energetic
energetic
economic
economic
energetic
energetic
energetic

Example given for cassava:


Cassava was used in pig feed formulas in Catalonia. It is used in feed formulas as an
energy-rich feed. Due to limited resources in the project, it was not possible to compile a life
cycle inventory of cassava. Therefore an approximation was needed. As the value of
cassava in animal feed is its energy content, this was used as a basis of correction. The
closest available life cycle inventory was grain maize (extensive production). The energy
content of maize is 3.37 MJ/kg commodity; for cassava it is 2.95 MJ/kg commodity. Dividing
2.95 MJ/kg by 3.37 MJ/kg results in the correction factor 0.88, i.e. due to its lower energy
content the use of 1kg of cassava approximated with grain maize has to be multiplied by
0.88. In other words, we would need 0.880kg of grain maize to obtain the energy value of
1kg of cassava.
A similar procedure applies for the other approximated feedstuff ingredients.

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

106/112

10.6 Appendix 6: Used life cycle inventories for feedstuff


ingredients
Feedstuff ingredients and their origin
pea DEU in feed (kg)
pea ESP in feed (kg)
pea FRA in feed (kg)
pea GBR in feed (kg)
faba bean FRA in feed (kg)
faba bean GBR in feed (kg)
rapeseed meal DEU in feed (kg)
rapeseed meal ESP in feed (kg)
rapeseed meal FRA in feed (kg)
rapeseed meal GBR in feed (kg)
sunflower meal ARG in feed (kg)
sunflower meal DEU in feed (kg)
sunflower meal ESP in feed (kg)
sunflower meal FRA 29% in feed (kg)
sunflower meal FRA 33% in feed (kg)
sunflower meal HUN in feed (kg)
palm kernel meal MYS in feed (kg)
maize gluten meal EUR in feed (kg)
maize gluten meal USA in feed (kg)
soya meal ARG in feed (kg)
soya meal BRA in feed (kg)
soya meal USA in feed (kg)
wheat DEU in feed (kg)
wheat ESP in feed (kg)
wheat FRA in feed (kg)
wheat GBR in feed (kg)
wheat USA in feed (kg)
wheat middlings DEU in feed (kg)
wheat middlings ESP in feed (kg)
wheat middlings FRA in feed (kg)
wheat middlings GBR in feed (kg)
wheat middlings USA in feed (kg)
barley DEU in feed (kg)
barley ESP in feed (kg)
barley FRA in feed (kg)
barley GBR in feed (kg)
maize DEU in feed (kg)
maize ESP in feed (kg)
maize FRA in feed (kg)
beet molasses DEU in feed (kg)
beet molasses GBR in feed (kg)
beet pulp DEU in feed (kg)
beet pulp GBR in feed (kg)
cassava THA in feed (kg)
citrus pulp BRA in feed (kg)
citrus pulp USA in feed (kg)
rape seeds FRA in feed (kg)
sugar cane molasses BRA in feed (kg)
wheat bran DEU in feed (kg)
soya oil ARG in feed (kg)
soya oil BRA in feed (kg)
soya oil USA in feed (kg)
palm oil MYS in feed (kg)
tallow EUR in feed (kg)
lysine CHN in feed (kg)
lysine EUR in feed (kg)
methionine EUR in feed (kg)
threonine EUR in feed (kg)
CaCO3 EUR in feed (kg)
calcined magnesite EUR in feed (kg)
PHOSBI EUR in feed (kg)
vitamins and trace elements EUR in feed (kg)

Used life cycle inventories from SALCA


protein peas conventional, at farm, D
protein peas conventional, at farm, E
protein peas conventional, at farm, F
protein peas conventional, at farm, F
fava beans IP, at farm, CH
fava beans IP, at farm, CH
rape seed conventional, at farm, D
rape seed extensive, at farm, CH
rape seed conventional, at farm, F
rape seed conventional, at farm, F
sunflowers conventional, at farm, E
sunflower IP, at farm, CH
sunflowers conventional, at farm, E
sunflower IP, at farm, CH
sunflower IP, at farm, CH
sunflowers conventional, at farm, E
crude palm kernel oil, at plant, MY
maize starch, at plant, DE
maize starch, at plant, DE
soya beans conventional, at farm, BR
soya beans conventional, at farm, BR
soya beans conventional, at farm, US
wheat grains conventional, at farm, D
wheat grains conventional, at farm, E
wheat grains conventional, at farm, F
wheat grains conventional, at farm, F
wheat grains conventional, at farm, E
wheat grains conventional, at farm, D
wheat grains conventional, at farm, E
wheat grains conventional, at farm, F
wheat grains conventional, at farm, F
wheat grains conventional, at farm, E
barley grains conventional, at farm, D
barley grains conventional, at farm, E
barley grains conventional, at farm, F
barley grains conventional, at farm, F
grain maize IP, at farm, CH
grain maize IP, at farm, CH
grain maize IP, at farm, CH
Melasse (Zuckerproduktion, Frischgewicht): Produktion
Melasse (Zuckerproduktion, Frischgewicht): Produktion
Trockenschnitzel (Zuckerproduktion, Frischgewicht): Produktion
Trockenschnitzel (Zuckerproduktion, Frischgewicht): Produktion
grain maize IP, at farm, CH
Trockenschnitzel (Zuckerproduktion, Frischgewicht): Produktion
Trockenschnitzel (Zuckerproduktion, Frischgewicht): Produktion
rape seed conventional, at farm, F
Melasse (Zuckerproduktion, Frischgewicht): Produktion
wheat grains conventional, at farm, D
soya beans conventional, at farm, BR
soya beans conventional, at farm, BR
soya beans conventional, at farm, US
crude palm oil, at plant, MY
tallow, at plant, CH
Methionin synthetisch: Produktion
Methionin synthetisch: Produktion
Methionin synthetisch: Produktion
Methionin synthetisch: Produktion
limestone, milled, loose, at plant, CH
magnesium oxide, at plant, RER
chemicals inorganic, at plant, GLO
chemicals inorganic, at plant, GLO

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

107/112

10.7 Appendix 7: GWP and energy-demand of different means of


transport
Means of transport

Geographical
coverage of data

Lorry (32t)
Tractor
Rail (freight)
Barge (freight)
Vessel (freight)

Europe
Switzerland
Europe
Europe
Overseas

GWP
[CO2-eq./tkm]
0.165
0.298
0.037
0.046
0.011

Non-renewable
energy
[MJ-eq./tkm]
2.782
4.856
0.711
0.649
0.167

Source: ecoinvent Centre (2004), updated version 1.2

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

108/112

10.8 Appendix 8: Origin of Feed Ingredients and Transport


Distances for the Pig Feed Study NRW
Feed ingredients

Origin

Transport sections

Origin of transported goods

Average
transport
distance
(km)

Means of
transport

farm - cooperative

Bayern (Kelheim 70%)


Lower-Saxony (Rotenburg 30%)

20

tractor

Germany (90%)

Sources for origin or transport distances

EUROSTAT (2008)

490

lorry

UK (10%)

farm - cooperative
cooperative - feed mill
farm - cooperative
cooperative - feed mill

Kelheim - Mnster
Rotenburg - Mnster
Norwich
Norwich - Lowestoft
Lowestoft - Brake
Brake - Mnster

20
50
540
250

tractor
lorry
ship
barge

Beet pulp and molasses

Germany (100%)

sugar refinery - feed mill

sugar refinery - Mnster

190

lorry

factory Brazil - port Brazil

Sao Paulo (Province)- Santos

300

lorry

Citrus pulp

Brazil (100%)
port Brazil - port NL
Port NL - feed mill
farm - cooperative

10000
300
20

ship
barge
tractor

cooperative - Port France

Santos - Rotterdam
Rotterdam - Mnster
50 % Bayern, 50 % NRW
Kelheim - Mnster
Hagen - Mnster
e.g. Charente Maritime
(Montguyon)
Montguyon - Bordeaux

Port France - port NL feed mill

Bordeaux - Rotterdam

1400

ship

port NL - feed mill


plant - distribution centre
distribution centre - feed mill
farm - oil mill
oil mill - ocean port MYS
ocean port MYS - port NL
port NL - feed mill

Rotterdam - Mnster

300
600
100
50
120
15000
300

barge
rail
lorry
lorry
lorry
ship
barge

Mappy SA (2008)
Frischknecht R. et al. (2004)
Frischknecht R. et al. (2004)
Guthrie (2005b), Guthrie (2005a)
Guthrie (2005a)
Portsworld (2008), Distances.com (2008)
Mappy SA (2008)
estimate

cooperative - feed mill

Barley

Germany (80%)

cooperative - feed mill


farm - cooperative

Maize
France (20%)

Mineral feed

Germany (100%)

Palm oil

Malaysia (100%)

Peas

Germany (100 %)

farm - cooperative
cooperative - feed mill
Rapeseed meal

Germany (100%)

Brazil (Mato Grosso) (50%)

Soya bean meal and oil

ARG (50%)

Germany (10%)

Sunflower meal 29%

Negeri Sembilan Province


Rantau - Port Kelang
Port Kelang - Rotterdam
Rotterdam - Mnster
Niedersachen (Verden 50%)
Sachsen-Anhalt (Magdeburg
50%)
Verden - Mnster
Magdeburg - Mnster

350

lorry

20

tractor

60

lorry

20

tractor

265

lorry
tractor
lorry
barge
tractor

Mappy SA (2008)
DEFRA (2008)
BOCM PAULS (2008), Mappy SA (2008)
EUROSTAT (2008)
Mappy SA (2008)
B. Dietz, BLE (pers. communication)
Bruce Cottrill, (pers. communication), IBGE (2003),
Arab Brazil (2008), Muraro et al. (2001)
A. Radlinsky (pers. communication)
CODESP (2008)
Mappy SA (2008)
EUROSTAT (2008), BMELV (2006)
Mappy SA (2008)
K. Crpon (pers. communication), GNIS (2008)
Mappy SA (2008)
Distances.com (2008)

Mappy SA (2008)

farm - cooperative
cooperative - oil mill
oil mill - feed mill
farm - cooperative

Freyburg - Salzgitter
Salzgitter - Mnster
area around Sapezal

20
150
320
20

cooperative - inland port BRA

Sapezal - Porto Velho

930

lorry

McVey et al. (2000)

inland port - ocean port BRA

Porto Velho - Itacoatiara

970

barge

McVey et al. (2000)

ocean port BRA - port NL


port NL - oil mill
oil mill - feed mill
farm - cooperative

Itacoatiara - Rotterdam
Rotterdam port- oil mill
Rotterdam - Mnster
Cordoba

9500
10
300
20

ship
lorry
barge
tractor

McVey et al. (2000), Distances.com (2008)


estimate
The Times (1999)
USDA (2006)

cooperative - ocean port ARG

Cordoba - Rosario

ocean port ARG - port UK

Rosario - Rotterdam

370

lorry

12100

ship

port UK - oil mill


oil mill - feed mill
farm - cooperative
cooperative - oil mill
oil mill - feed mill

Rotterdam port -oil mill


Rotterdam - Mnster
Brandenburg
Brandenburg - Salzgitter
Salzgitter - Mnster

10
300
20
400
320

lorry
Barge
tractor
barge
barge

farm - cooperative

Poitou-Charentes (50%) (Ruffec)


Midi-Pyrnes (50%) (Toulouse)

20

tractor

IMA (2008), Statistik-Portal (2008), AgrarNet (2008)


The Times (1999)
The Times (1999)
estimate

USDA (2001), p. 13
Distances.com (2008)
estimate
Mappy SA (2008)
EUROSTAT (2008), FAO (2004)
distance: rough estimate
The Times (1999)
K. Crpon (pers. communication); PROLEA (2008a);
Agreste (2008)

France (90%)
cooperative - oil mill

Wheat

UK (10%)

Wheat and wheat bran

Germany (wheat: 90%; wheat bran:


100%)

oil mill - feed mill


farm - cooperative
cooperative - Port UK
Port UK - Port DEU
Port DEU - feed-mill
farm - cooperative
cooperative - feed-mill

Formulated feed
Animal transport

feed mill - pig farm


feed mill - piglet farm
piglet farm - pig farm

Ruffec - Lezoux
Toulouse - Lezoux
Lezoux - Mnster
Norwich
Norwich - Lowestoft
Lowestoft - Brake
Brake - Mnster
Bayern (Kelheim 30%)
Northwest-Germany (Salzwedel
70%)
Kelheim - Mnster
Salzwedel - Mnster

380

lorry

1000
20
50
540
250

lorry
tractor
lorry
ship
barge

Mappy SA (2008)
DEFRA (2008)
Mappy SA (2008)
EUROSTAT (2008)
The Times (1999)

Mappy SA (2008)

EUROSTAT (2008)

20

tractor

410

lorry

The Times (1999)

100
100
100

lorry
lorry
lorry

estimate
estimate
estimate

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

109/112

10.9 Appendix 9: Origin of Feed Ingredients and Transport


Distances for the Pig Feed Study CAT
Feed
ingredients

Origin

Transport sections

farm - cooperative
Spain (85%)
cooperative - feed mill

Barley

UK (15%)

Cassava

Thailand (100%)

France (45%)

Maize

farm - cooperative
cooperative - port UK
Port UK - Port ESP
port ESP - feed mill
farm - cooperative
cooperative - port THA
Port THA - Port ESP
port ESP - feed mill

lorry

20

tractor

plant - distribution centre


distribution centre - feed mill

cooperative - feed mill


farm - cooperative

Spain (50 %)

USA (50%)

France (35%)

USA (25%)

Formulated feed
Animal transport

estimate
Go-East (2008)
Distances.com (2008)
Mappy SA (2008)
Itharattana (2003) FAO (2004)
MapCrow (2008)
Distances.com (2008)
Distances.com (2008)
K. Crpon (pers. communication), GNIS (2008)
Mappy SA (2008)
MAPA (2008)

615

lorry

Mappy SA (2008)

600
100

rail
lorry

Frischknecht R. et al., 2004


Frischknecht R. et al., 2004

20

tractor

747

lorry

20

tractor

945

lorry

20

tractor

MAPA (2008)

Feed mill: Alvarez (2005)


K. Crpon (pers. communication); PROLEA
(2008b); Agreste (2008)
K. Crpon (pers. communication)
estimate

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Wismar)

cooperative - port DEU


Port DEU - Port ESP
Port ESP - oil mill
oil mill - feed mill
farm - cooperative
cooperative - inland port BRA
inland port - ocean port BRA
ocean port BRA - port ESP
port ESP - oil mill
oil mill - feed mill
farm - cooperative
cooperative - inland port USA
inland port - ocean port USA
ocean port USA - port ESP
port ESP - oil mill
oil mill - feed mill

20

858

lorry

oil mill - feed mill


farm - cooperative
cooperative - feed mill
farm - cooperative
cooperative - feed mill
farm - cooperative
cooperative - inland port USA

Wismar cooperative - Wismar port


Wismar - Barcelona
Barcelona port - Barcelona
Barcelona - Cervera
area around Sapezal
Sapezal - Porto Velho
Porto Velho - Itacoatiara
Itacoatiara (Rio) - Barcelona
Barcelona port - oil mill
Barcelona - Cervera
Fort Dodge
Fort Dodge- Dubuque
Dubuque - New Orleans
New Orleans- Barcelona
Barcelona port - oil mill
Barcelona - Cervera
50 % Andalucia (Sevilla), 25 % CastillaLeon (Burgos), 25% Castilla-la Mancha
(Cuenca)
Sevilla - Barcelona (50%)
Burgos - Barcelona (25%)
Cuenca - Barcelona (25%)
Barcelona - Cervera
Burgos
Burgos - Cervera
Centre - Blois
Blois - Cervera
Wellington (Sumner, Kansas)
Wellington - St. Louis (Missouri)

100
20
520
20
860
20
770

lorry
tractor
lorry
tractor
train
tractor
rail

Mappy SA (2008)
MAPA (2008)
Mappy SA (2008)
K. Crpon (pers. communication)
Mappy SA (2008)
Nationalatlas.gov (2008)
Dalby (2005) Marathon et al. (2006)

inland port USA -ocean port USA

St. Louis - New Orleans

1100

barge

Mappy SA (2008)

ocean port USA - port ESP


port ESP - feed mill

New Orleans - Tarragona


Tarragona - Cervera

9350
90

ship
lorry

feed mill - pig farm


feed mill - piglet farm
piglet farm - pig farm

Cervera - Lleida
Cervera - Lleida
Lleida - Lleida

60
60
10

lorry
lorry
tractor

cooperative - oil mill

Wheat

Mappy SA (2008)

farm - cooperative

Spain (100%)

Spain (40%)

Catalunia (Lleida) (50%)


Castilla-La Mancha (Ciud. Real) (50%)

MAPA (2008)

Lleida - Barcelona (50%)


Ciudad Real -Barcelona (50%)
Barcelona - Cervera

farm - cooperative
Sunflower meal
29%

Valladolid
Ciudad Real
Badajoz
Valladolid - Cervera (33%)
Ciudad Real - Cervera (33%)
Badajoz - Cervera (33%)
Centre (50%) (Blois)
Normandie (50%) (Evreux)
Blois - Cervera (50%)
Evreux - Cervera (50%)

Sources for origin or transport


distances

oil mill - feed mill

cooperative - oil mill

Brazil (Mato Grosso) (50%)

tractor
lorry
ship
lorry
tractor
lorry
ship
lorry
tractor

farm - cooperative

Soya bean meal


and oil

lorry

20
90
3280
90
20
580
13810
90
20

cooperative - feed mill

Germany (50%)

529

620

farm - cooperative

Rape seed meal

tractor

e.g. Charente Maritime (Montguyon)

Spain (90%)

France (10%)

20

Montguyon - Cervera
25 % Castillla-Leon (Leon), 15 %
Aragon (Huesca), 15% Extremadura
(Badajoz)
Leon - Cervera 45%
Huesca- Cervera 27%
Badajoz-Cervera 27%

cooperative - feed mill

Peas

Means of
transport

cooperative - feed mill


farm - cooperative

Europe (100%)

Cuenca (47 %)
Burgos (29%)
Valladolid (24%)
Cuenca - Cervera
0.47
Burgos- Cervera
0.294
Valladolid- Cervera
0.235
Norwich , Eastern England
Norwich-Felixstowe
Felixstowe - Tarragona
Taragona - Cervera
north east, chiang mai
Chiang mai - Bangkok
Bangkok - Tarragona
Tarragona - Cervera

Average
transport
distance
(km)

farm - cooperative

Spain (55%)

Mineral feed

Origin of transported goods

440

lorry

Mappy SA (2008)

100

lorry

20

tractor

5
1930
5
100
20
930
970
8800
10
100
20
300
1600
9400
10
100

lorry
ship
lorry
lorry
tractor
lorry
barge
ship
lorry
lorry
tractor
lorry
barge
ship
lorry
lorry

Mappy SA (2008)
IMA (2008), ufop (2008), Statistik-Portal (2008),
AgrarNet (2008)
estimate
Distances.com (2008)
estimate
Mappy SA (2008)
estimate
McVey et al. (2000)
McVey et al. (2000)
McVey et al. (2000), MapCrow (2008)
estimate
Mappy SA (2008)
estimate
Hoskins (2005)
Hoskins (2005), Marathon et al. (2006)
Distances.com (2008)
estimate
Mappy SA (2008)

tractor

MAPA (2008)

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

Mappy SA (2008)

Distances.com (2008)
Mappy SA (2008)
Mappy SA (2008)
Mappy SA (2008)
estimate

110/112

10.10 Appendix 10: Origin of Feed Ingredients and Transport


Distances for the Egg and Chicken Study BRI
Feed
ingredients

Barley

CaCO3

Faba beans

Maize

Maize gluten
meal

Mineral feed

Palm oil

Peas

Rape seeds

Rapeseed meal

SAA + PHOSBI

Soya bean meal


and oil

Origin

farm - cooperative

Centre (50%)
Pays de la Loire (25%)
Bretagne (25%)

20

tractor

K. Crpon (pers. communication)

cooperative - feed mill

Blois - Saint-Grand
Angers - Saint-Grand

200
78

rail
lorry

K. Crpon (pers. communication)


K. Crpon (pers. communication)

France

Wheat

Formulated feed

Sources for origin or transport distances

plant - distribution centre

600

rail

Frischknecht R. et al. (2004)

distribution centre - feed mill

100

lorry

Frischknecht R. et al. (2004)

France
K. Crpon (pers. communication); PROLEA
(2008b); Agreste (2008)

farm - cooperative

Picardie (Beauvais)

20

tractor

cooperative - feed mill

Beauvais - Saint-Grand

500

lorry

farm - cooperative

Charente Maritime
(Montguyon)

20

tractor

cooperative - feed mill

Montguyon - Saint-Grand

500

lorry

plant - distribution centre

600

rail

Frischknecht R. et al. (2004)

distribution centre - feed mill

100

lorry

Frischknecht R. et al. (2004)

plant - distribution centre

600

rail

Frischknecht R. et al. (2004)

distribution centre - feed mill

100

lorry

Frischknecht R. et al. (2004)


Guthrie (2005a), Guthrie (2005b)

France

France

Mappy SA (2008)
K. Crpon (pers. communication), GNIS (2008)
Mappy SA (2008)

France

France

Malaysia

farm - oil mill

Negeri Sembilan Province

50

lorry

oil mill - ocean port MYS

Rantau - Port Kelang

120

lorry

Guthrie (2005a)

ocean port MYS - port FRA

Port Kelang - Brest

14200

ship

Portsworld (2008), Distances.com (2008)

port FRA - feed mill

Saint-Nazaire - SaintGrand

150

lorry

Mappy SA (2008)

farm - cooperative

Centre (50%) (Blois)


Normandie (50%) (Evreux)

20

tractor

cooperative - feed mill

Blois - Saint-Grand
Evreux - Saint-Grand

400

lorry

K. Crpon (pers. communication)

K. Crpon (pers. communication); PROLEA


(2008b); Agreste (2008)

France

France

France

France

Brazil
(Mato
Grosso)

cooperative - feed mill

Sens - Saint-Grand

535

lorry

farm - cooperative

Yonne (Sens)

20

tractor

cooperative - oil mill

Sens - Rouen

260

lorry

Mappy SA (2008)
K. Crpon (pers. communication); PROLEA
(2008a); Agreste (2008)
K. Crpon (pers. communication)

oil mill - feed mill

Rouen - Saint-Grand

410

lorry

K. Crpon (pers. communication)

plant - feed mill

Oise

550

lorry

K. Crpon (pers. communication)

farm - cooperative
cooperative - inland port
BRA
inland port - ocean port
BRA

area around Sapezal

20

tractor

Sapezal - Porto Velho

930

lorry

McVey et al. (2000)

Porto Velho - Itacoatiara

970

barge

McVey et al. (2000)

ocean port BRA - port FRA

Itacoatiara - Brest

8760

ship

McVey et al. (2000), Distances.com (2008)

port FRA - feed mill

Brest - feed mill


Poitou-Charentes (50%)
(Ruffec)
Midi-Pyrnes (50%)
(Toulouse)

150

lorry

The Times (1999)

20

tractor

475

lorry

K. Crpon (pers. communication)

150

lorry

Mappy SA (2008)

20

tractor

Lence (2000)

300

lorry

USDA (2001)

France
cooperative - oil mill

oil mill - feed mill

Sunflower oil
cake 33

Means of
transport

Transport sections

farm - cooperative
Sunflower oil
cake 29

Average
transport
distance
(km)

Origin of transported
goods

farm - cooperative
cooperative - ocean port
ARG
Argentina

Ruffec - Saint-Nazaire
Toulouse - Saint-Nazaire
Saint Nazaire - SaintGrand
Rufino area
Rufino area - Rosario

estimate, Nemecek & Baumgartner (2006)

K. Crpon (pers. communication); PROLEA


(2008a); Agreste (2008)

ocean port ARG - port FRA

Rosario - Saint-Nazaire

11400

ship

Distances.com (2008)

port FRA - feed mill

Saint-Nazaire - SaintGrand

150

lorry

Mappy SA (2008)

farm - cooperative

Centre (50%)
Pays de la Loire (25%)
Bretagne (25%)

20

tractor

K. Crpon (pers. communication)

cooperative - feed mill

Blois - Saint-Grand
Angers - Saint-Grand

200
78

rail
lorry

K. Crpon (pers. communication)


K. Crpon (pers. communication)

feed mill - broiler farm


feed mill - egg farm

Saint-Grand - Pontivy
Saint-Grand - Bourbriac

10
60

lorry
lorry

assumption
assumption

France

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

111/112

10.11 Appendix 11: Origin of Feed Ingredients and Transport


Distances for the Milk Study DAC
Feed
ingredients

Origin

Transport sections

farm - cooperative
Barley

UK (100%)
cooperative - feed mill

Beet pulp

UK (100%)

Citrus pulp

Brazil (100%)

Sugar refinery - feed mill

York (30%)
Norwich (35%)
Perth (35%)
York - Exeter
Norwich - Exeter
Perth - Exeter
Norfolk - Exeter

ship
lorry

20

tractor

Ethanol factory USA - port USA

USA (Illinois) Springfiled Chicago


Chicago - Bristol
Bristol - Exeter

ARG (30%)

Brazil (Mato
Grosso) (70%)

Wheat and
wheat middlings

400

lorry

100

lorry

Mappy SA (2008)
estimate

320

lorry

NASS (2008)

7600
130
100

ship
lorry
lorry

Distances.com (2008)
Mappy SA (2008)
ecoinvent Centre (2004)

600

rail

ecoinvent Centre (2004)

Meyers et al. (2000), p.16, FAO (2004),


IBGE (2003), Dickerson (2005)
CODESP (2008)
Mappy SA (2008)
Guthrie (2005a), Guthrie (2005b)
Guthrie (2005a)

ocean port MYS - port UK

Port Kelang - Bristol

14700

ship

Portsworld (2008), Distances.com (2008)

port UK - feed mill

130

lorry

20

tractor

Mappy SA (2008)
K. Crpon (pers. communication);
PROLEA (2008b); Agreste (2008)

430

lorry

Mappy SA (2008), DEFRA (2008)

farm - cooperative
cooperative - oil mill
oil mill - feed mill
farm - cooperative
cooperative - ocean port ARG
ocean port ARG - port UK
port UK - oil mill
oil mill - feed mill
farm - cooperative
cooperative - inland port BRA
inland port - ocean port BRA

Bristol - Exeter
Centre (50%) (Blois)
Normandie (50%) (Evreux)
Blois - Le Havre
Evreux - Le Havre
Le Havre - Southampton
Southampton - Exeter
Eastern (Cambridge) (60%),
Eastern Midlands (Lincoln)
(40%)
Cambridge - Exeter
Lincoln - Exeter
Lincoln (Eastern Midlands)
Lincoln - Liverpool
Liverpool - Exeter
Cordoba
Cordoba - Rosario
Rosario - Liverpool
Liverpool port -oil mill
Liverpool - Exeter
area around Sapezal
Sapezal - Porto Velho
Porto Velho - Itacoatiara

20
220
410
20
370
11800
10
410
20
930
970

tractor
lorry
lorry
tractor
lorry
ship
lorry
lorry
tractor
lorry
barge

ocean port BRA - port UK

Itacoatiara - Liverpool

9200

ship

port UK - oil mill


oil mill - feed mill

Liverpool port -oil mill


Liverpool - Exeter
Eastern (Cambridge) (50%),
Eastern Midlands (Lincoln)
(50%)
Cambridge - Exeter
Lincoln - Exeter

10
410

lorry
lorry

estimate
Mappy SA (2008), DEFRA (2008)
Mappy SA (2008), DEFRA (2008)
USDA (2006)
USDA (2001), p. 13
Distances.com (2008)
estimate
Mappy SA (2008)
Nemecek & Baumgartner (2006)
McVey et al. (2000)
McVey et al. (2000)
McVey et al. (2000)
Distances.com (2008)
estimate
Mappy SA (2008), FEDIOL (2008)

20

tractor

Mappy SA (2008), DEFRA (2008)

430

lorry

Mappy SA (2008), DEFRA (2008)

90

lorry

Mappy SA (2008), DEFRA (2008)

cooperative - port FRA

farm - cooperative
UK (100%)
cooperative - feed mill

Formulated feed

DEFRA (2008)

ship
lorry
lorry
lorry

cooperative - feed mill

Soya bean meal


and soya bean
oil

B. Cotrill (pers. communication),


EUROSTAT (2008), DEFRA (2008),
Mappy SA (2008)
Bruce Cottrill, (pers. communication), IBGE
(2003), Arab Brazil (2008), Muraro et al.
(2001)
CODESP (2008)
Mappy SA (2008)

lorry

farm - cooperative

UK (100%)

BOCM-PAULS (2008), Mappy SA (2008)

360

UK (80%)

Rape seed meal

Mappy SA (2008), DEFRA (2008)

9750
130
50
120

port FRA - port UK


port UK - feed mill

Peas

Sources for origin or transport


distances

North Sao Paulo (Ribeirao


Preto) - Santos
Santos - Bristol
Bristol - Exeter
Negeri Sembilan Province
Rantau - Port Kelang

port brazil - port UK


Port UK - feed mill
farm - oil mill
oil mill - ocean port MYS

farm - cooperative
France (20%)

lorry

lorry

mill brazil - port brazil

Malaysia
(100%)

520

300

Mineral feed
(CO3Ca, Calcined
magnesite,
Dicalcium
Europe (100%)
phosphate,
vitamins and trace
elements)

Palmkernel meal
and plam oil

lorry

9750
130

port USA - port UK


Port UK - feed mill

Brazil (100%)

610

Sao Paulo (Province)- Santos

cooperative - feed mill

Molasses cane

tractor

Santos - Bristol
Bristol - Exeter
Lincolnshire (30%),
Essex (70%)
Lincolnshire - Exeter
Essex - Exeter

UK (100%)

USA (100%)

20

factory Brazil - port Brazil

Field - Factory
Maize gluten

Average
Means of
transport
transport
distance (km)

port Brazil - port UK


Port UK - feed mill
farm - cooperative
Faba beans

Origin of transported
goods

feed mill - dairy farm

Exeter - Bideford

250

lorry

Mappy SA (2008)

30
200

barge
lorry

Mappy SA (2008)
Mappy SA (2008)

20

tractor

estimate

GLIP Report: European Grain Legumes Environment-Friendly Animal Feed?


February 2008

112/112

Вам также может понравиться