Environmental assessment of the entire pork value chain in Catalonia – A strategy to work towards Circular Economy

Science of the Total Environment 589 (2017) 122–129

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Environmental assessment of the entire pork value chain in Catalonia – A strategy to work towards Circular Economy Isabel Noya a,⁎, Xavier Aldea b, Sara González-García a, Carles M. Gasol c,d, María Teresa Moreira a, Maria José Amores b, Desirée Marín b, Jesús Boschmonart-Rives c,d a

Departament of Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain Cetaqua, Centro Tecnológico del Agua, Cornellà de Llobregat, 08940 Barcelona, Spain Inèdit Innovació SL, Research Park of the Autonomous University of Barcelona (PRUAB), Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), 08193 Barcelona, Spain d Sostenipra (ICTA-IRTA-Inèdit), Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) & Department of Chemical Engineering, Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), 08193 Barcelona, Spain b c

H I G H L I G H T S

G R A P H I C A L

A B S T R A C T

• Representative primary data from the Catalan pork sector was provided by collaborating stakeholders. • Environmental impacts of traditional linear pork chain in Catalonia were evaluated through a LCA approach. • Alternative schemes based on the Circular Economy philosophy were defined according to environmental hotspots. • Potential environmental benefits were evidenced with the implementation of the Circular Economy perspective.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 9 January 2017 Accepted 23 February 2017

Editor: D. Barcelo Keywords: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Pork sector Sustainability Resources efficiency Supply chain

a b s t r a c t Pork industry in Catalonia plays a foremost and representative role in the Spanish pork sector. Beyond the economic benefits, conventional practices in the pork industry also imply a number of environmental impacts that need to be dealt with. In this context, the environmental performance of traditional linear pork chain in Catalonia was evaluated through a LCA approach. The outcomes of the analysis showed that both fodder production and transport activities were identified as the critical stages of the system. Accordingly, alternative schemes based on circular economy principles were proposed and potential environmental credits were estimated. Within this framework, comparative results highlighted the advantages of moving towards a closing loop production system, where resource efficiency and waste valorisation were prioritised over final disposal options. © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (I. Noya).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.186 0048-9697/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Circular Economy (CE) concept is receiving increasing attention worldwide as a means of overcoming the conventional production and consumption pattern focused both on continuous growth and

I. Noya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 589 (2017) 122–129

increasing resource performance (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013a, 2013b; Ghisellini et al., 2015). Opposing unsustainable traditional economy (linear economy), which is based on unlimited resources consumption and waste disposal, CE uses theory and principles from industrial ecology (Jurgilevich et al., 2016). Accordingly, CE promotes the adoption of the closing-the-loop production model to increase the efficiency of resource use and reduce pollution levels (Ghisellini et al., 2015; Jun and Xiang, 2011; Jurgilevich et al., 2016; Scheepens et al., 2015). Thus, it is characterised with low consumption of materials and resources in the production scheme as well as limited discharges into the environment, enabling resources to be put to full use to increase global efficiency (Jun and Xiang, 2011). In this way, CE achieves better balance and harmony between economy, environment and society (Ghisellini et al., 2015; Jun and Xiang, 2011). With the aim of endorsing the paradigm of sustainable development, CE is emerging main development strategy in more and more regions and countries within the European community (European Commission, 2015). The transition to a more circular economy provides the opportunity for a sustainable, efficient and competitive economy for Europe (European Commission, 2015). However, despite the increasing interest about CE model, a limited number of studies focused on the European free market economy are available to date in literature (Ghisellini et al., 2015; Jurgilevich et al., 2016; Pagotto and Halog, 2015; Scheepens et al., 2015; Strazza et al., 2015). Although general guidelines have been published on the development of circular productive model (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013a, 2013b), existing gaps in design and implementation have to be solved (Jurgilevich et al., 2016; Scheepens et al., 2015). Therefore, substantial changes regarding design, production, consumption, use, waste and reuse practices are required throughout the productive chain (Hobson, 2015). Meat consumption is consistently growing worldwide (63% in the last 40 years) as a result of the high demand as the primary dietary source of protein and micronutrients in emerging countries (Ciolos, 2012; Davis et al., 2010). Pork is the main meat variety produced in Europe as well as the most widely consumed in the world, with 115.5 million tons in 2014 (FAO, 2014). Moreover, an increase by almost 40% in its production is expected by 2050 (FAO, 2011). Spain ranks second (after Germany) within the European pork sector, with 13% of the total production (FAOSTAT, 2013). Catalan pork production is one of the largest industries in terms of economic revenue of the Spanish pork sector. Specifically, it holds about 40% of the national pork industry and 50% of pork processing activities (Observatori del Porcí, 2013). Moreover, Spain exported 1,402,407 tons of pork products in 2012, being Catalonia responsible for 61% of the total exported volume (Observatori del Porcí, 2013). However, in parallel with its relevance in the Spanish economy, the pork industry also demands large requirements of natural resources (water and energy) and generates remarkable waste flows (PRTR, 2014). Thus, conventional practices in the pork production chain are responsible for significant stress on the Catalan ecosystems carrying capacity, so that stakeholders and consumers are demanding a change towards more environmental friendly pork products (Notarnicola et al., 2012; PRTR, 2014). In this context, the main aim of this study was to shed light on the concept of CE within the Catalan pork industry. Thus, a cradle-togate environmental assessment was carried out, taking into account all the life cycle stages involved in the pork production chain, from feed production to pork cutting stage (LCA perspective). The most critical processes (hotspots) were identified and alternative strategies were defined based on the CE model (cradle-to-cradle approach) in order to demonstrate the potential benefits on the environmental profile of the pork sector in Catalonia. In this way, major findings are expected to support Catalan pork industries to increase their sustainability and enhance their competitiveness in the international market.

123

2. Materials and methods LCA tool was implemented in accordance with the principles and guidelines established by ISO standards (ISO, 2006a, 2006b). Overall, the CE goal is to keep valuable materials in circulation through a series of feedback loops between life-cycle stages, powered through resource-efficient industrial processes (Hobson, 2015). In this sense, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a suitable approach to analise the environmental aspects of complex food systems (McAuliffe, 2016), including recycling and circular schemes (Scheepens et al., 2015). LCA evaluates the environmental performance of a product or service by identifying critical stages in a supply chain where emissions should be reduced (McAuliffe, 2016). Thus, through LCA the feasible tradeoffs among diverse impact categories can be documented when analysing different solutions for more environmentally friendly systems (Aubin et al., 2009). 2.1. Goal and scope 2.1.1. Purpose In this study, the environmental profile related to pork production chain in Catalonia region was evaluated through a LCA approach (Fig. 1). Accordingly, the main hotspots were identified as basis for the proposal of alternative strategies susceptible of reducing the environmental impacts of Catalan pork sector as well as improving its eco-efficiency performance from a CE perspective. 2.1.2. Description of pork production system and system boundaries High quality data should be used when an environmental study is to be exposed for dissemination to the public (ISO, 2006b). For this reason, close collaborative work between the research team and different stakeholders, either companies or industries of the pork sector, was the key factor in the development of the present study. Thus, several representative companies collaborated in the project, including feed factories, pig farms, slaughterhouses and cutting facilities. The integration of individual data of each company for the different stages of the production chain allowed to develop a global inventory, which were representative of the average results for the Catalan pork sector. These outcomes set the benchmark value of production, so that companies can compare and evaluate their environmental profile in relation to the reference one. A cradle-to-gate environmental assessment was conducted. Accordingly, all the processes involved in the pork production chain up to the cutting room stage were considered while the final stages of pork processing fell out of the system boundaries (Fig. 2). Thus, all activities related to feed production, breeding and fattening pigs at farm, slaughterhouse and cutting stage (where fresh/frozen pork is obtained as output) were encompassed in this study. This perspective goes beyond those defined in most of previous LCA studies involving pork production, where the prevailing scope comprises from feed production to pig farm gate (McAuliffe,

Fig. 1. Pork production system location (Catalonia, Spain).

124

I. Noya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 589 (2017) 122–129

Fig. 2. Scheme of the system boundaries for the pork production system under evaluation. Four main subsystems can be distinguished: fodder production (S1), husbandry farm (S2), slaughterhouse (S3) and pork cutting (S4). Black box (pig slurry management) represents activities excluded for assessment. Dotted box included background processes.

2016). Moreover, emissions to soil, air and water derived from the entire system were included within the scope of the system. The whole system was comprised of four main subsystems (Fig. 2): fodder production (S1), husbandry farm (S2), slaughterhouse (S3) and pork cutting (S4). All the environmental burdens related to the consumption of electricity and fossil fuels, water supply, raw materials and additives as well as the use of auxiliary materials (packaging, chemicals…), transport activities, management of solid waste and wastewater treatment processes were considered for each life cycle stage of the pork chain. Summarised information on the input/output flows considered throughout the life cycle production chain is displayed in Table 1. The production of machinery and other material goods were also excluded from the scope of the study because their influence on the overall results was not decisive (Dourmad et al., 2014; Pelletier et al., 2010; Reckmann et al., 2013). Similarly, other flows were not accounted mainly due to the absence of reliable information: (i) complex food and veterinary medicaments; (ii) defoamers, flocculants, disinfectants and coagulants; (iii) specific raw materials for sausage production such as

spices, antioxidants and additives; and (iv) manufacturing materials for artificial casings (collagen, cellulose and plastics). However, minor influence on the final results would be expected since the requirements of these inputs can be considered negligible in comparison with the contribution of other flows that were included within the system boundaries (Dourmad et al., 2014; Reckmann et al., 2013). 2.1.3. Functional unit The functional unit (FU) is defined as a quantified performance of a product system to be used as a reference unit in a LCA study (ISO, 2006a). Different options for the selection on the FU for pork sector can be found in literature. However, mass-based FUs prevail over other choices in most LCA reviewed, especially in terms of kg live weight (Dolman et al., 2012; Dourmad et al., 2014; Halberg et al., 2010; Pelletier et al., 2010) and kg carcass weight (Devers et al., 2012; Jacobsen et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2011, 2010; Reckmann et al., 2013; Wiedemann et al., 2010). Accordingly, “1 kg of cut pork (fresh or frozen)” was selected as FU for evaluation.

Table 1 Input and output flows and cut-off criteria considered for the assessment of the pork production chain. Subsystem

System boundaries

Cut-off criteria

S1 – Fodder production

Ingredients consumption Water and energy requirements Transport activities Solid waste production and management Wastewater treatment Activities related to piglets rearing and fattening stage at farm Raw materials consumption (included fodder requirements) Transport activities Raw materials consumption Transport activities Solid waste production and management Wastewater treatment Raw materials consumption Transport activities Solid waste production and management Wastewater treatment

Infrastructure construction and maintenance Production of machinery and other material goods Pig slurry management: pig slurry valorisation as organic fertiliser (excluded) Production (and use) of: Veterinary medicaments Defoamers, flocculants, disinfectants, coagulants Spices, antioxidants and additives

S2 – Husbandry farm

S3 – Slaughterhouse

S4 – Pork cutting

I. Noya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 589 (2017) 122–129

2.1.4. Allocation Allocation can be defined as the assignment of the environmental burdens to each functional input or output of a multiple-function system (Suh et al., 2010). However, in principle, avoiding allocation is recommended by the ISO standard, giving priority either to the division of the unit process into sub-processes or the expansion of system boundaries to include additional functions of the co-products (ISO, 2006a). In livestock systems it is common that more than one product is produced, so it can be necessary to allocate the global environmental burdens among the different co-products (Nguyen et al., 2011, 2010). In this study, allocation was not considered, so that no emission factors were assigned to pork co-products and main products (fodder, liveweight pork, carcass weight pork, cut pork) were assumed as the unique responsible for the impacts of each life cycle stage. The rationale behind that is the lower production of most of these co-products in comparison with the other main outputs as well as their unprofitable commercial value on the market. Consequently, the evaluation of the management practices and the further disposal of these co-products and wastes were excluded from the scope of the study.

2.2. Life Cycle Inventory The relevance of an LCA study is directly linked to the quality of the inventory data (Basset-Mens et al., 2007). In this sense, in order to ensure data quality and reduce uncertainties, the use of real data were

125

prioritised, minimising information from databases and other bibliographic references that do not share similar operation conditions. Fodder production was evaluated and inventoried in detail (Noya et al., 2016). Thus, questionnaires answered by Catalan fodder factories provided primary data about fodder composition and other input (water and energy) requirements. Accordingly, wheat, maize and barley were considered as the main ingredients. All of them are produced in Catalonia and average transport distances of 1100 km, 840 km and 285 km were assumed, respectively. For imported ingredients such as rapeseed meal and rye, average distances of 3800 km (Russia) and 2450 km (Poland) were considered, respectively. Background inventory data related to agricultural activities for ingredients cultivation, agrochemicals inputs, electricity consumption, fuel use, packaging and waste management were obtained from ecoinvent® database (Althaus et al., 2007; Doka, 2007; Dones et al., 2007; Hischier, 2007; Nemecek and Käggi, 2007; Spielmann et al., 2007). Primary data for the other life cycle stages were also obtained from questionnaires fulfilled by collaborating partners. In the case of farming activities, the questionnaires compiled information about herd features and composition, fodder ratios and other inputs supply, outputs production, resources consumption (water, energy, chemicals) and waste management. For the stages of slaughterhouse and cutting room, information about packaging materials requirements was also included. Analogous to fodder production stage, secondary data taken from ecoinvent® database were used to complete the background inventory. Global inventory data per FU is summarised in Table 2.

Table 2 Inputs and outputs from the different subsystems and data sources (primary and secondary information) considered in the inventory stage per FU (1 kg of cut pork). Inputs/Outputs

Amount

Unit

Subsystem

Data sources

Inputs from nature Water

0.59

L

S3/S4

Primary data: Questionnaires fulfilled by Catalan companies

15.7 4.45 1.46 1.17 29.4

L kg kg kg g

S1/S2/S3/S4 S1 S2 S3 S4

Primary data: Questionnaires fulfilled by Catalan growers Secondary data: ecoinvent database ® Noya et al. (2016)

0.45 106

g g

S2/S3/S4 S1/S2

Secondary data: ecoinvent database ® Althaus et al. (2007)

1.02 1.87 9.96 1.46

g g g g

S1 S4 S1/S3/S4 S1/S4

Secondary data: ecoinvent database ® Hischier (2007)

0.63 73.5 7.26 0.03

kWh L mL kg

S1/S2/S3/S4 S1/S2/S3/S4 S2/S3 S2/S3

Primary data: Questionnaires fulfilled by Catalan companies Secondary data: ecoinvent database ® Dones et al. (2007)

9.28

t·km

S1/S2/S3/S4

Secondary data: ecoinvent database ® Spielmann et al. (2007)

1

kg

17.2 14.1 7.19 0.57 0.46 0.28 42.2 45.9 11.1

L L g g g g g g g

Inputs from technosphere Materials Raw materials Water Fodder Live-weight pork Carcass weight pork Others Cleaning agents Soap Chemicals Packaging Paper Cardboard Plastic Wood Energy use Electricity Natural gas Diesel fuel Others Transport Lorry

Outputs to technosphere Products Cut pork Waste to treatment Pig slurry Wastewater Cardboard (recycling) Plastic (recycling) Aluminium (recycling) Wood (recycling) Organic waste (composting) Organic waste (incineration) Sewage sludge (landfill)

S2 S1/S2/S3/S4 S1/S3/S4 S3/S4 S3/S4 S4 S3/S4 S3/S4 S3/S4

Secondary data: ecoinvent database ® Doka (2007)

126

I. Noya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 589 (2017) 122–129

Table 3 Characterisation results per FU (1 kg of cut pork) and percentual values of the different subsystems to the impact categories.

Impact categories

Units

Environmental results (FU)

S2 S1 Husbandry Fodder production farm S3 Slaughterhouse Relative contribution to total environmental impacts (%)

Climate change (CC) Ozone depletion (OD)

kg CO2 eq mg CFC11 eq g SO2 eq g P eq g N eq kg 1,4-DB eq g NMVOC g PM10 eq g 1,4-DB eq g 1,4-DB eq kg 1,4-DB eq kBq U235 eq m2 a m2 a m2 m3 kg Fe eq kg oil eq

4.96 0.66

87.73 81.18

7.73 10.21

1.84 6.30

2.70 2.31

94.0 1.37 80.1 49.1 21.2 17.4 96.9 76.6 60.4 0.63 9.37 0.21 1.23·10−3 0.18 0.33 1.51

96.82 93.01 98.50 87.44 90.81 93.99 98.21 78.79 61.60 75.51 99.63 92.85 83.58 90.08 93.12 80.10

1.91 4.28 0.89 6.43 5.24 3.82 1.16 6.56 5.89 16.39 0.13 5.13 9.60 6.83 4.43 9.57

0.59 0.94 0.17 2.72 1.44 1.02 0.31 2.15 3.05 3.18 0.04 0.91 5.15 1.10 1.05 6.28

0.68 1.77 0.44 3.41 2.51 1.17 0.32 12.50 29.46 4.92 0.20 1.11 1.67 1.99 1.40 4.05

Terrestrial acidification (TA) Freshwater eutrophication (FE) Marine eutrophication (ME) Human toxicity (HT) Photochemical oxidant formation (POF) Particulate matter formation (PMF) Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TEC) Freshwater ecotoxicity (FEC) Marine ecotoxicity (MEC) Ionising radiation (IR) Agricultural land occupation (ALO) Urban land occupation (ULO) Natural land transformation (NLT) Water depletion (WD) Metal depletion (MD) Fossil depletion (FD)

2.3. Life cycle impact assessment The characterisation factors reported by the ReCiPe Midpoint (H) 1.12 method were considered for all the impact categories proposed (Goedkoop et al., 2013a). However, among them, climate change (CC), terrestrial acidification (TA), freshwater eutrophication (FE), marine eutrophication (ME), water depletion (WD) and fossil depletion (FD) were identified as the most representative as well as those of primary interest for pork sector in agreement with previous related studies (Reckmann et al., 2012). The software SimaPro v8.2 was used for the computational implementation of the inventories (Goedkoop et al., 2013b).

3. Results and discussion 3.1. Global environmental results The global environmental results per FU (1 kg of cut pork) together with the relative influence from the different subsystems are reported in Table 3 for all the impact categories under evaluation. In this way, it is possible to know the contribution of each preceding stage

Fig. 3. Relative contributions from the most relevant processes involved in the entire life cycle. Disaggregating environmental results are displayed in percentage ratios for the most relevant contributing factors: raw materials production, transport activities, energy use and cleaning agents. Impact category acronyms: CC = climate change; TA = terrestrial acidification; FE = freshwater eutrophication; ME = marine eutrophication; WD = water depletion; FD = fossil depletion.

S4 Pork cutting

(subsystem) over the final product. According to the results, fodder production subsystem (S1) shows major influence with contributions ranging from 61.6% (MEC) to 99.6% (ALO), followed by husbandry farm (S2), pork cutting (S4) and slaughterhouse (S3) subsystems, with average contributions of 5.90%, 4.03% and 2.12%, respectively. Moreover, disaggregating environmental results in percentage ratios are also displayed in Fig. 3 for the most relevant categories (CC, TA, FE, ME, WD, FD). In this case, contributions from the different processes and activities involved throughout the entire life cycle were determined in relation to global results. In order to facilitate the analysis, processes and activities were grouped in different contributing factors: raw materials, cleaning agents, packaging, energy use, transport activities and waste management. As packaging and waste management showed a minor contribution (below 1%) in all the impact categories, these stages were not depicted in Fig. 3. ▪ Raw materials production includes the environmental impacts related to the production of the final product from the different material inputs (such as main ingredients, water and chemicals). In the case of fodder production, all the ingredients for feed mixtures were considered, not only locally cultivated ingredients (wheat, maize, barley) but also imported ones. Thus, all the agricultural activities and combustion emissions associated with the machinery use and diesel consumption and diffuse emissions from agrochemicals application were taken into account. ▪ Cleaning agents factor comprises all the impacts associated with the production of the different chemicals required during cleaning activities throughout the entire life cycle. ▪ Energy use includes the burdens derived from the production of both the electricity consumed (taken from the national grid) as well as the diesel and other fossil fuels used for the operation and maintenance of pork production processes. ▪ Transport activities comprise the environmental impacts related to the transport of both inputs supply and waste delivery to management entities. According to Fig. 3, the environmental impacts related to raw materials (fodder and other nutritional components) production have a critical role, with contributions higher than 46.9% regardless the impact category considered. More specifically, fodder produced in previous stage (S1) and used for feeding purposes at farm (S2) stands as the most damaging process (hotspot) in the environmental profile of the

I. Noya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 589 (2017) 122–129 Table 4 Economic allocation factors for the main products and co-products calculated on the basis of production yields and market prices. Subsystem

Yield (kg/FU)

Price (€/kg)

Allocation factors (%)

S3

1.17 0.08 1.00 3.50a

1.19 1.35 1.18 2.15

93.1 6.90 99.4 0.60

S4 a

Carcass weight pork Blood Cut pork Butter

Units: g/FU.

global system, in agreement with other LCA studies involving pork production in literature. This is mainly due to the emissions associated with the production and application of mineral fertilisers for crops cultivation (especially wheat and rape meal) together with combustion emissions derived from the use of agricultural machinery. Transport activities factor has also an important influence, especially in terms of CC and FD (with contributions up to 38.3%). This can be mainly attributed to the long distances required for most of the inputs (especially fodder ingredients). Finally, energy use shows a relevant contribution in CC and FD, especially due to the high energy demand within farm facilities during husbandry stage (around 45.0%), while minor influence can be observed from the impacts of cleaning agents production (below 2%). 3.2. Improvement actions: moving towards CE The productive system evaluated in the present study responds to the traditional linear economy approach, summarised as “take-makedispose”, in which connection between raw materials and wastes is missing (Gregson et al., 2015; Jurgilevich et al., 2016; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013a, 2013b). In contrast, CE concept has recently emerged as a potential tool for moving towards more sustainable productive systems, where wastes become resources to be valorised through recycling and reuse (Gregson et al., 2015; Jurgilevich et al., 2016; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013a, 2013b). In this context, a detailed assessment was carried out to estimate to which extent certain alternative proposals based on the implementation of CE perspective could benefit the environmental profile of the entire system in relation to the current situation. Thus, two main scenarios were considered for evaluation: (i) the economic valorisation of main co-products and (ii) the optimisation of fodder production by the use of both local ingredients and pig slurry (from farm) as organic fertiliser during the cultivation of fodder ingredients. 3.2.1. Valorisation of the main co-products: blood and butter The economic valorisation of co-products from the different subsystems was initially excluded from the system boundaries. However, resource efficiency can be enhanced when co-products are converted

127

into raw materials for new products and applications, becoming the basis for the recent CE approach (Mirabella et al., 2014; Strazza et al., 2015). In this sense, the economic value of two co-products (blood and butter) of the system makes interesting to evaluate the influence of their possible valorisation over the global environmental results. Economic criteria were selected for the allocation of environmental burdens since co-products have also economic value and they are not a residue. Market prices were obtained from PORCAT (2016). The resulting allocation percentages for products and co-products for each subsystem are displayed in Table 4. Table 5 reports the comparative characterisation results, in percentage ratios, between the Base Scenario (BS) and the alternative scenarios proposed for assessment in relation to the valorisation of the main coproducts: Scenario A – where the commercialisation of blood is considered (S3) – and Scenario B – taking into account the economic rewards of butter (S4). According to Table 5, more favorable environmental profile would be found for Scenario A in comparison with the base case (BS), whereas differences with Scenario B would be almost negligible, with close results in terms of TA and ME and minor reductions in the rest of categories (CC, FE, WD, FD). Environmental credits in Scenario A would be due to the higher influence of blood production in slaughterhouse subsystem (6.90%) in contrast with the trace amounts of butter from cutting activities (0.60%). Finally, slight environmental benefits relative to BS from integration of both alternatives (Scenario C) were proved, mainly due to contribution of blood utilisation. 3.2.2. Optimization of fodder production According to the results reported above, transport activities were found as one of the most critical contributing factors, together with raw materials production. More specifically, fodder ingredients imported from foreign countries increase significantly the impacts relative to transportation; this is the case of rapeseed meal (Russia), rye (Poland) and peas (France). However, Catalonia can be considered as a suitable region for the production of these ingredients (MARM, 2010), so that an alternative scenario (Scenario D) based on the use of local ingredients in fodder formulations was proposed for comparison. An average distance of 225 km was considered in all cases as basis for calculations. Moreover, the use of pig slurry as source of nutrients (N, P) in the cultivation of fodder ingredients was also considered as additional hypothesis (Scenario E). Therefore, as opposed to BS, system expansion was applied for accounting both environmental credits and impacts associated with the valorisation of pig slurry as organic fertiliser. However, since multiple nitrogen vulnerable zones can be found in Catalonia (Directive 91/676/EEC, 1991), the usage of pig slurry on agricultural purposes must be encompassed carefully. Within this framework, Decree 139/2009 (Catalunya, 2009) was recently developed in order to

Table 5 Comparative environmental results (in %) between Base Scenario (BS) and alternative scenarios based on the CE perspective. Negative values imply reductions in the environmental impacts (environmental credits) compared to the base case.

Impact categories

Units

BS

Climate change (CC) 4.962 Terrestrial acidification (TA)

4.955 g SO2 eq

Freshwater eutrophication (FE)

g P eq

Marine eutrophication (ME)

g N eq

Water depletion (WD)

m3

Fossil depletion (FD)

kg oil eq

4.961 100.00 94.03 100.00 1.374 100.00 80.10 100.00 0.179 100.00 1.506

Scenario A % Relative to BS

Scenario B

Scenario C

Scenario D

Scenario E

Scenario F

kg CO2 eq

100.00 −1.22 4.423 0.00 94.02 −0.01 1.374 0.00 80.10 −0.01 0.179 −0.03 1.506

−0.13 −12.2 4.901 −0.05 93.98 −0.08 1.373 −0.01 80.10 −0.09 0.179 −0.46 1.499

−0.02

−0.14

−10.7

4.355 −1.86 92.28 −2.13 1.345 −0.39 79.78 −0.76 0.178 −13.4 1.304

−0.27 93.77 −0.35 1.370 −0.07 80.04 −0.11 0.179 −1.44 1.484

−2.18 91.98 −2.56 1.339 −0.48 79.72 −0.96 0.177 −15.3 1.275

4.955 −0.04 93.99 −0.06 1.373 −0.01 80.10 −0.08 0.179 −0.43 1.500

128

I. Noya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 589 (2017) 122–129

prevent and reduce pollution related to nitrates from agricultural activities in this region. In this sense, a summary of nitrogen balance in Spain is published periodically by MARM (2010) in which the availability of organic nitrogen (from various organic sources) is compared to the fertilisation requirements for each region. According to this report, it is proposed that the slurry can only be entirely applied in the region of origin, whereas manure can be exported or imported from other regions in order to balance the final nitrogen surplus or deficiency. Taking into account these principles, the pig slurry obtained as residue from the farm was assumed to be applied on regional land, either in agricultural soil (fertilisation) or herbaceous and woody areas (whenever it is in excess). Direct (N2O) and indirect nitrogen emissions (NH3, NOx) as well as nitrate (NO− 3 ) leaching rates from pig slurry storage and later field application were calculated according to the Intergovernmental Panel −1 of on Climate Change (IPCC, 2006). The ratio of 0.01 kg P-PO3− 4 ·kg applied P proposed by Rossier (1998) was also considered to estimate phosphate (PO3− 4 ) emissions to water. Table 5 shows that the selection of local ingredients (Scenario D) would entail significant environmental credits in comparison with base situation (BS), especially in terms of CC and FD, with reductions around 10.7% and 13.4%, respectively. The rationale behind this can be explained on the high GHGs emissions rates associated to fuel use in transport activities as well as to fossil fuels depletion. Favorable findings were also reported in relation to Scenario E, responsible for environmental credits in all impact categories although with a less significant role (lower than 1.5%) than Scenario D. This is in agreement with the disaggregating results displayed in Fig. 3 for BS, under which waste management has a negligible effect in comparison with transportation activities. 3.2.3. Integrative scenario: CE perspective Finally, the integration of all aforementioned strategies was carried out in this section. In this way, the life cycle would be totally closed (Scenario F): both products and main co-products would be economically exploited whereas animal waste (pig slurry) would be applied as organic fertiliser in the cultivation of the ingredients that later will be integrated in the fodder supplied to pigs at farm. According to Scenario F, the environmental performance of the system considerably improves when the new global approach is applied (Table 5). Thus, in all the impact categories the environmental burdens would decrease, with reductions ranging from 0.48% (ME) to 15.3% (FD) regarding base case (BS), mainly due to the favorable effect from the decrease of transport distances. These results demonstrate how the closing-the-loop strategy proposed by CE perspective not only leads to higher economic efficiency but also to an improved environmental scheme. 4. Conclusions The main purpose on the present study was to evaluate to which extent the implementation of emerging CE approach could be environmentally favorable for the Catalan pork sector. To this end, traditional linear pork production chain was firstly evaluated from a LCA perspective. By analysing the environmental profile of conventional practices, fodder production subsystem (S1) showed major influence over the environmental burdens of the entire chain, whereas fodder production and transport activities were identified as the main hotspots of the system. Alternative scenarios based on the CE perspective were then proposed to explore the potential benefits of this new approach in relation to the base case. Comparative results evidenced the environmental advantages of moving towards closing loop productive systems in relation to the base situation (traditional linear system). Improvement actions focused on transportation activities were demonstrated to have the greatest advantageous influence (up to 13.4%), followed by the efficient valorisation of both co-products and wastes (around 2%). However, further studies have to be carried out to advance

knowledge on the implementation of circular economy as a potential solution for harmonising sustainability from both economic and environmental perspectives within Catalan pork sector.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the Departament d'Agricultura, Ramaderia, Pescia, Alimentació i Medi Natural from the Generalitat de Catalunya for funding and supporting the project (Expedient: 5670116_2013). Also, the authors would like to thank INNOVACC and all the companies to supply valuable information to develop the project. The authors (I. Noya, S. González-García and M.T. Moreira) would like to thank ManureEcoMine project (Reference number: 603744) and belong to CRETUS (AGRUP2015/02) and the Galician Competitive Research Group GRC 2013-032, programme co-funded by Xunta de Galicia and FEDER. Dr. Sara González-García would like to express her gratitude to the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity (Grant reference RYC-2014-14984) for financial support. References Althaus, H.J., Chudacoff, M., Hischier, R., Jungbluth, N., Osses, M., Primas, A., 2007. Life Cycle Inventories of Chemicals. Ecoinvent Report No. 8, v2.0 EMPA. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. Aubin, J., Papatryphon, E., van der Werf, H.M.G., Chatzifotis, S., 2009. Assessment of the environmental impact of carnivorous finfish production systems using life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 17:354–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.08.008. Basset-Mens, C., van der Werf, H.M.G., Robin, P., Morvan, Th, Hassouna, M., Paillat, J.M., Vertès, F., 2007. Methods and data for the environmental inventory of contrasting pig production systems. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 1395–1405. Catalunya, 2009. Decreto 136/2009, de 1 de septiembre, de aprobación del programa de actuación aplicable a las zonas vulnerables en relación con la contaminación de nitratos que proceden de fuentes agrarias y de gestión de las deyecciones ganaderas (Diari Oficial de la Generalitat de Catalunya, Núm. 5457, 03/09/2009, 65858–65902). Ciolos, D., 2012. European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development. European Union Available at:. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-480_en. htm. European Commission, 2015. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions, of Brussels on 2nd of December of 2015: Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy (COM(2015) 614 final). Davis, J., Sonesson, U., Baumgarthner, D.U., Nemecek, T., 2010. Environmental impact of four meals with different protein sources: case studies in Spain and Sweden. Food Res. Int. 43:1874–1884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2009.08.017. Devers, L., Kleynhans, T.E., Mathijs, E., 2012. Comparative life cycle assessment of Flemish and Western Cape pork production. Agrekon 51:105–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 03031853.2012.741208. Directive 91/676/EEC, 1991. Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 Concerning the Protection of Waters Against Pollution Caused by Nitrates From Agricultural Sources (Official Journal of the European Communities, No L 375, 31/12/ 1991, 1–8). Doka, G., 2007. Life Cycle Inventories of Waste Treatment Services. Ecoinvent Report No. 13. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. Dolman, M.A., Vrolijk, H.C.J., de Boer, I.J.M., 2012. Exploring variation in economic, environmental and societal performance among Dutch fattening pig farms. Livest. Sci. 149 (1–2):143–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.07.008. Dones, R., Bauer, C., Bolliger, R., Burger, B., Faist Emmenegger, M., Frischknecht, R., Heck, T., Jungbluth, N., Röder, A., Tuchschmid, M., 2007. Life Cycle Inventories of Energy Systems: Results for Current Systems in Switzerland and other UCTE Countries. Ecoinvent Report No. 5. Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. Dourmad, J.Y., Ryschawy, J., Trousson, T., Bonneau, M., González, J., Houwers, H.W.J., Hviid, M., Zimmer, C., Nguyen, T.L.T., Morgensen, L., 2014. Evaluating environmental impacts of contrasting pig farming systems with the life cycle assessment. Animal 8: 2027–2037. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114002134. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013a. Towards the Circular Economy. Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition. vol. 1 Available at:. www. ellenmacarthurfoundation.org (accessed January 2016). Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013b. Towards the Circular Economy. Opportunities for the Consumer Goods Sector. Vol. 2 Available at:. www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org (accessed January 2016). FAO, 2011. World Livestock 2011. Livestock in Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, p. 2011. FAO, 2014. FAO's Animal Production and Health Division: Meat & Meat Products (online). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome Available at:. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/meat/background.html (accessed January 2016). FAOSTAT, 2013. FAOSTAT Database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Available at:. http://faostat.fao.org.

I. Noya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 589 (2017) 122–129 Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2015. A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean. Prod. 114:11–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007. Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., Van Zelm, R., 2013a. ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterisation. first ed. (May 2013; http://www.lcia-recipe.net). Goedkoop, M., Oele, M., Leijting, J., Ponsioen, T., Meijer, E., 2013b. Introduction to LCA With SimaPro 8. PRé Consultants, the Netherlands. Gregson, N., Crang, M., Fuller, S., Holmes, H., 2015. Interrogating the circular economy: the moral economy of resource recovery in the EU. Econ. Soc. 44 (2):218–243. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2015.1013353. Halberg, N., Hermansen, J.E., Kristensen, I.S., Eriksen, J., Tvedegaard, N., Petersen, B.M., 2010. Impact of organic pig production systems on CO2 emission, C sequestration and nitrate pollution. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 30 (4):721–731. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1051/agro/2010006. Hischier, R., 2007. Life Cycle Inventories of Packagings and Graphical Papers. Ecoinvent Report No. 11. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. Hobson, K., 2015. Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the circular economy. Prog. Hum. Geogr.:1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0309132514566342. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In: Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K. (Eds.), National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Program. IGES, Japan (ISBN: 4-88788-032-4). ISO, 2006a. ISO 14040, Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. International Organization of Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. ISO, 2006b. ISO 14044, Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization of Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. Jacobsen, R., Vandermeulen, V., Van Huylenbroeck, G., Gellynck, X., 2013. Carbon footprint of pig meat in Flanders. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 12:54–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978981-4560-41-2_7. Jun, H., Xiang, H., 2011. Development of Circular Economy is a fundamental way to achieve agriculture sustainable development in China. Energy Procedia 5: 1530–1534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.03.262. Jurgilevich, A., Birge, T., Kentala-Lehtonen, J., Korhonen-Kurki, K., Pietikäinen, J., Saikku, L., Schösler, H., 2016. Transition towards circular economy in the food system. Sustain. 8 (1):69. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8010069. MARM, 2010. Balance del nitrógeno en la agricultura española. Resumen de resultados y criterios utilizados (Cataluña). Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino (Mayo 2010). McAuliffe, G.A., 2016. A thematic review of life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to pig production. Review. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 56:12–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. eiar.2015.08.008. Mirabella, N., Castellani, V., Sala, S., 2014. Current options for the valorization of food manufacturing waste: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 65:28–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2013.10.051. Nemecek, T., Käggi, T., 2007. Life Cycle Inventories of Agricultural Production Systems. Final Report Ecoinvent v2.0 No. 15a. Agroscope FAL Reckenholz and FAT Taenikon. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich and Dübendorf, Switzerland. Nguyen, T.L.T., Hermansen, J.E., Mogensen, L., 2010. Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU. Energ Policy 38:2561–2571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. enpol.2009.12.051.

129

Nguyen, T.L.T., Hermansen, J.E., Mogensen, L., 2011. Environmental Assessment of Danish Pork. Internal Report. Faculty of Agricultural Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus Available at:. http://web.agrsci.dk/djfpdf/ir_103_54761_indhold_internet.pdf. Notarnicola, B., Hyashi, K., Curran, M.A., Huisingh, D., 2012. Progress in working towards a more sustainable agri-food industry. J. Clean. Prod. 28:1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2012.02.007. Noya, I., Aldea, X., Gasol, C.M., González-García, S., Amores, M.J., Colón, J., Ponsá, S., Roman, I., Rubio, M.A., Casas, E., Moreira, M.T., Boschmonart-Rives, J., 2016. Carbon and water footprint of pork supply chain in Catalonia: from feed to final products. J. Environ. Manag. 171:133–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.01.039. Observatori del Porcí, 2013. Informe anual de l'observatori del porcí. Department d'Agricultura, Ramadería, Pesta, Alimentació i Medi Natural (DAAM). Generalitat de Catalunya ISBN: 978-84-697-1467-6. Pagotto, M., Halog, A., 2015. Towards a Circular Economy in Australian Agri-food Industry. An application of input-output oriented approaches for analyzing resource efficiency and competitiveness potential. J. Ind. Ecol.:1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jiec. 12373. Pelletier, N., Lammers, P., Stender, D., Pirog, R., 2010. Life cycle assessment of high- and low-profitability commodity and deep-bedded niche swine production systems in the upper Midwestern United States. Agric. Syst. 103 (9):599–608. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.07.001. PORCAT, 2016. Associació Catalana de Productors de Porcí. Precios y Mercados.Available at:. www.porcat.org.es (accessed 9 June 2016). PRTR, 2014. Registro Estatal de Emisiones y Fuentes Contaminantes. Ministerios de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente, Spain. Reckmann, K., Traulsen, I., Krieter, J., 2012. Environmental Impact Assessment – methodology with special emphasis on European pork production. Review. J. Environ. Manag. 107:102–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.015. Reckmann, K., Traulsen, I., Krieter, J., 2013. Life cycle assessment of pork production: a data inventory for the case of Germany. Livest. Sci. 157:586–596. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.livsci.2013.09.001. Rossier, D., 1998. Adaptation de la method ecobilan pour la gestion environnementale de l'exploitation agricole. Service Romand de Vulgarisation Agricole, Lausanne, Switzerland, p. 49. Scheepens, A.E., Vogtländer, J.G., Brezet, J.C., 2015. Two life cycle assessment (LCA) based methods to analyse and design complex (regional) circular economy systems. Case: making water tourism more sustainable. J. Clean. Prod. 114:257–268. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.075. Spielmann, M., Bauer, C., Dones, R., Tuchschmind, M., 2007. Transport Services. Ecoinvent Report No. 14. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. Strazza, C., Magrassi, F., Gallo, M., Del Borghi, A., 2015. Life Cycle Assessment from food to food: a case study of circular economy from cruise ships to aquaculture. Sustainable Production and Consumption 2:40–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2015.06.004. Suh, S., Weidema, B., Hoejrup Schmidt, J., Heijungs, R., 2010. Generalized make and use framework for allocation in life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 14 (2):335–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00235. Wiedemann, S., McGahan, E., Grist, S., Grant, T., 2010. Environmental Assessment of Two Pork Supply Chains Using Life Cycle Assessment. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. Australian Government, Australia.