- Email: [email protected]
Meat Production and Consumption: Environmental Consequences
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Procedia Food Science 5 (2015) 235 – 238
International 58th Meat Industry Conference “Meat Safety and Quality: Where it goes?”
Meat production and consumption: Environmental consequences Zoran Petrovica,*, Vesna Djordjevica, Dragan Milicevica, Ivan Nastasijevica, Nenad Parunovica a
Institute of Meat Hygiene and Technology, Kacanskog 13, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
Abstract Meat production is projected to double by 2020 due to increased, per capita global consumption of meat and population growth. The livestock sector is one of the most significant contributors to urgent environmental problems. In Europe, food consumption is responsible for approximately 30% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Meat generally has a considerably higher carbon footprint than plant-based food. This is especially true for beef, due to the emissions of methane (CH 4) from enteric fermentation in ruminants. © 2015The TheAuthors. Authors. Published by Elsevier © 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license Peer-review under responsibility of scientific committee of International 58th Meat Industry Conference “Meat Safety and (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Where goes?” (MeatCon2015)”. Quality: Peer-review underitresponsibility of scientific committee of The 58th International Meat Industry Conference (MeatCon2015) Keywords: meat production; gas emissions; environment; eco-efficiency; pollution; prevention
1. Introduction The environmental impact of meat production varies because of the wide variety of agricultural practices employed around the world. Some of the environmental effects that have been associated with meat production are pollution through fossil fuel usage, and water and land consumption. Pre-farm production and transport of inputs to the farm, are most importantly feed and fertilisers, but also fuels, pesticides, growth substrates, pharmaceuticals, machinery, buildings and other capital goods; On-farm processes: soil emissions, emissions from enteric
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +381-11-2650-655; fax: +381-11-2651-825. E-mail address: [email protected]
2211-601X © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of scientific committee of The 58th International Meat Industry Conference (MeatCon2015)
doi:10.1016/j.profoo.2015.09.041
236
Zoran Petrovic et al. / Procedia Food Science 5 (2015) 235 – 238
fermentation in animals, emissions from manure management, emissions from energy use on fields, in greenhouses, in animal houses; Post-farm processes: slaughtering, processing and packaging, storage and refrigeration, transport and distribution. 2. Global trends in overall meat consumption According to a report from the Worldwatch Institute (WI), global meat production and consumption continues to rise (Fig. 1a). Meat production has tripled over the last four decades and increased 20 percent in just the last 10 years. Industrial countries are consuming growing amounts of meat, nearly double the quantity in developing countries. World beef production is increasing at a rate of about 1 percent a year, in part because of population growth but also because of greater per capita demand in many countries (Fig. 1b). The largest fraction of the greenhouse effect from beef production comes from the loss of carbon-dioxide (CO2) absorbing trees, grasses and other year-round plant cover on land where the feed crops are grown and harvested. Second most important is the methane (CH 4) given off by animal waste and by the animals themselves as they digest their food 1. When considering the future of sustainability, the outline of the food system is a critical aspect. An understanding of the factors that influence meat and fish consumption is important for developing a sustainable food production and distribution system2. This is especially the case because the importance of the food system as a driver of global environmental change can be expected to increase3. National dietary patterns not only have ecological and economic development contexts, but also a regional/cultural context. Food consumption patterns, particularly meat and fish consumption, have serious consequences for environmental sustainability4,5. a b
Fig. 1. (a) World Meat Production 1961-2010
6
; (b) World Beef Production7.
3. Livestock and methane emissions Beef and dairy farming operations produce the greatest amount of CH 4 from human-related activities8, so methane generated by ruminant production systems and its effects on global climate change is a cause for concern worldwide9. In the United States, CH4 comprised 14% of the total greenhouse gas 6 emitted in 2007 and 7% of this methane was due to agriculture10. In an analysis of the EU-27countries, beef had by far the highest GHG emissions with 22.6kg CO2-eq/kg11. The consumption of meat, dairy and eggs is increasing worldwide12, and this will aggravate the environmental impact related to livestock production13. Human dietary changes could produce a cascade of effects, through reduced production of livestock and manure, lower feed demand, resulting in lower nitrogen (N) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and freeing up agricultural land for other purposes13. Cultured meat (i.e., meat produced in vitro using tissue engineering techniques) is being developed as a potentially healthier and more efficient alternative to conventional meat. In
Zoran Petrovic et al. / Procedia Food Science 5 (2015) 235 – 238
comparison to conventionally produced European meat, cultured meat involves approximately 7–45% lower energy use (only poultry has lower energy use), 78–96% lower GHG emissions, 99% lower land use, and 82–96% lower water use, depending on the product compared14. Despite high uncertainty, it is concluded that the overall environmental impacts of cultured meat production are substantially lower than those of conventionally produced meat15. 4. Eco-efficency and pollution prevention control in meat processing Eco-efficiency is a concept being adopted by industries world-wide as a means of improving environmental performance and reducing costs. Its objectives are the more efficient use of resources and the reduction of waste, with the two-fold benefits of reduced environmental burdens and reduced costs for resources and waste management16,17. The main resource inputs are water, energy, chemicals and packaging materials. These are typical of many food processing sectors. The main resources consumed and wastes generated at a meat plant and the approximate quantities for a typical plant are presented in Table 118. However, meat processing plants use very large quantities of water and energy. This is due to the highly perishable nature of the product, the need for high levels of sanitation and the need to keep the product cool. The main waste streams are wastewater and some solid waste. Much of the solid waste produced is organic and is suitable for land-based disposal. The wastewater from a slaughterhouse can contain blood, manure, hair, fat, feathers, and bones. Quantities of solid waste disposed to landfill are relatively small18. The wastewater may have a high temperature, and may contain organic material and nitrogen content. The meat industry has the potential for generating large quantities of solid waste and waste waters with a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) level of 600 mg/l (this can also be as high as 8,000 mg/l) or 10 to 20 kilograms per metric ton (kg/t) of slaughtered animal and suspended solids level of 800 mg/l and higher, as well as, in some cases, offensive odors19. Table 1. Resource use and waste generation data for a typical meat plant 18. Resources use
Daily quantity
Per unit of production
Water
1,000 kl/day
7 kl/tHSCW
Energy
Coal 8 t/day
53 kg/tHSCW
LPG
113 m3/day
0.8 m3/tHSCW
Electricity
60,000 kWh/day
400 kWh/tHSCW
Cleaning chemicals
200 l/day
1.3 l/tHSCW
Wastewater treatment chemicals
30 kg/day
0.2 kg/tHSCW
Oils and lubricants
30 l/day
0.2 l/tHSCW
Cardboard
5 t/day
31 kg/tHSCW
Plastic
150 kg/day
1 kg/tHSCW
Strapping tape
105 kg/day
0.7 kg/tHSCW
850 kl/day
6 kl/tHSCW
Organic matter (COD)
5,700 kg/day
38 kg/tHSCW
Suspended solids
2,055 kg/day
13.7 kg/tHSCW
Nitrogen
255 kg/day
1.7 kg/tHSCW
Chemicals
Packaging
Waste generation Daily quantity production Wastewater Volume Pollutant load
237
238
Zoran Petrovic et al. / Procedia Food Science 5 (2015) 235 – 238
Phosphorous
90 kg/day
0.6 kg/tHSCW
Paunch and yard manure
7 t/day
47 kg/tHSCW
Sludges and floats
6 t/day
40 kg/tHSCW
Boiler ash
0.7 t/day
5 kg/tHSCW
Cardboard
95 kg/day
0.6 kg/tHSCW
Solid waste
Plastic
10 kg/day
0.07 kg/tHSCW
Strapping tape
2 kg/day
0.01 kg/tHSCW
*Hot Standard Carcase Weight (HSCW) describes the weight of animal carcases after slaughter, dressing and evisceration and prior to chilling and boning. For beef it is generally 55% of live weight. This unit is useful because it takes into account the variations in live weight between different species and different plants.
5. Conclusion Current production of meat has been shown to have a significant impact on the environment and also on current GHG emissions. Meat consumption has been increasing at a significant rate and is likely to continue to do so into the future. This paper consisely reviewed how increased demand, leading to more economically efficient meat production systems, could potentially affect GHG production and local environment. In regard to prevention, pollution decisions should be made with regard to the proceses that generate waste. Process integration and installation of new equipment provide a framework for cost-effective pollution prevention. References 1. Jorgenson A, Birkholz R. Assessing the causes of anthropogenic methane emissions in comparative perspective, 1990–2005. Ecol Econ 2010;69:2634-43. 2. Yorka R, Gossard MH. Cross-national meat and fish consumption: exploring the effects of modernization and ecological context. Ecol Eco 2004;48:293-302. 3. Henchion M, McCarthy M, Resconi VC, Troy D. Meat consumption: Trends and quality matters. Meat Sci 2014;98:561-68. 4. Goodland R. Environmental sustainability in agriculture: diet matters. Ecol Econ 1997;23:189-200. 5. Gerbens-Leenes PW, Nonhebel S. Consumption patterns and their effects on land required for food. Ecol Econ 2002;42:185-99. 6. Worldwatch Institute. Global Meat Production and Consumption Continue to Rise; http://vitalsigns.worldwatch.org/vs-trend/meat-productionand-consumption-continue-grow-0; 2014; (accessed 01.05.2015). 7. UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme. Growing greenhouse gas emissions due to meat production; http://www.unep.org/pdf/unepgeas_oct_2012.pdf ; 2012; (accessed 28.04.2015). 8. Lassey KR. Livestock methane emission: From the individual grazing animal through national inventories to the global methane cycle. Agric For Meteorol 2007;142(2-4):120–32. 9. Martin C, Morgavi DP, Doreau M. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 2010;4(3):351–65. 10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2012 report. EPA 430-R-14-003. http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html ; 2013; (accessed 28 Apr. 2015). 11. Schwarzer S, Witta R, Zommer Z. Growing greenhouse gas emissions due to meat production. Environ Dev 2013;5:156–63. 12. Allievi F, Vinnari M, Luukkanen J. Meat consumption and production e analysis of efficiency, sufficiency and consistency of global trends. J Clean Prod 2015;92:142-51. 13. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, de Haan C. Livestock’s Long Shadow. Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, 2006. 14. Westhoek H, Lesschen JP, Rood T, Wagner S, De Marco A, Murphy-Bokern D, Leip A, Van Grinsven H, Sutton MA, Oenema O. Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe's meat and dairy intake. Global Environmental Change 2014;26:196–205. 15. Tuomisto HL and Joost Teixeira de Mattos MJ. Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat Production. Environ Sci Technol 2011;45:6117–23. 16. Pagan B, Prasad P. The Queensland food eco-efficiency project: reducing risk and improving competitiveness. J Clean Prod 2007;15:764-71. 17. MLA (Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd). Eco-Efficiency Manual for Meat Processing Published by Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd ABN 39 081 678 364, 2002. 18. UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme, Working Group for Cleaner Production. The Potential for Generating Energy from Wet Waste Streams in NSW. Brisbane, NSW Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA); 1999. 19. Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. Environmental Guidelines for Meat Processing and Rendering Industry: Description and Practices; www.fpeac.org/meat/EGuidelinesforMeatProcessing.pdf. (accessed 28 Apr. 2015).
ScienceDirect Procedia Food Science 5 (2015) 235 – 238
International 58th Meat Industry Conference “Meat Safety and Quality: Where it goes?”
Meat production and consumption: Environmental consequences Zoran Petrovica,*, Vesna Djordjevica, Dragan Milicevica, Ivan Nastasijevica, Nenad Parunovica a
Institute of Meat Hygiene and Technology, Kacanskog 13, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
Abstract Meat production is projected to double by 2020 due to increased, per capita global consumption of meat and population growth. The livestock sector is one of the most significant contributors to urgent environmental problems. In Europe, food consumption is responsible for approximately 30% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Meat generally has a considerably higher carbon footprint than plant-based food. This is especially true for beef, due to the emissions of methane (CH 4) from enteric fermentation in ruminants. © 2015The TheAuthors. Authors. Published by Elsevier © 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license Peer-review under responsibility of scientific committee of International 58th Meat Industry Conference “Meat Safety and (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Where goes?” (MeatCon2015)”. Quality: Peer-review underitresponsibility of scientific committee of The 58th International Meat Industry Conference (MeatCon2015) Keywords: meat production; gas emissions; environment; eco-efficiency; pollution; prevention
1. Introduction The environmental impact of meat production varies because of the wide variety of agricultural practices employed around the world. Some of the environmental effects that have been associated with meat production are pollution through fossil fuel usage, and water and land consumption. Pre-farm production and transport of inputs to the farm, are most importantly feed and fertilisers, but also fuels, pesticides, growth substrates, pharmaceuticals, machinery, buildings and other capital goods; On-farm processes: soil emissions, emissions from enteric
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +381-11-2650-655; fax: +381-11-2651-825. E-mail address: [email protected]
2211-601X © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of scientific committee of The 58th International Meat Industry Conference (MeatCon2015)
doi:10.1016/j.profoo.2015.09.041
236
Zoran Petrovic et al. / Procedia Food Science 5 (2015) 235 – 238
fermentation in animals, emissions from manure management, emissions from energy use on fields, in greenhouses, in animal houses; Post-farm processes: slaughtering, processing and packaging, storage and refrigeration, transport and distribution. 2. Global trends in overall meat consumption According to a report from the Worldwatch Institute (WI), global meat production and consumption continues to rise (Fig. 1a). Meat production has tripled over the last four decades and increased 20 percent in just the last 10 years. Industrial countries are consuming growing amounts of meat, nearly double the quantity in developing countries. World beef production is increasing at a rate of about 1 percent a year, in part because of population growth but also because of greater per capita demand in many countries (Fig. 1b). The largest fraction of the greenhouse effect from beef production comes from the loss of carbon-dioxide (CO2) absorbing trees, grasses and other year-round plant cover on land where the feed crops are grown and harvested. Second most important is the methane (CH 4) given off by animal waste and by the animals themselves as they digest their food 1. When considering the future of sustainability, the outline of the food system is a critical aspect. An understanding of the factors that influence meat and fish consumption is important for developing a sustainable food production and distribution system2. This is especially the case because the importance of the food system as a driver of global environmental change can be expected to increase3. National dietary patterns not only have ecological and economic development contexts, but also a regional/cultural context. Food consumption patterns, particularly meat and fish consumption, have serious consequences for environmental sustainability4,5. a b
Fig. 1. (a) World Meat Production 1961-2010
6
; (b) World Beef Production7.
3. Livestock and methane emissions Beef and dairy farming operations produce the greatest amount of CH 4 from human-related activities8, so methane generated by ruminant production systems and its effects on global climate change is a cause for concern worldwide9. In the United States, CH4 comprised 14% of the total greenhouse gas 6 emitted in 2007 and 7% of this methane was due to agriculture10. In an analysis of the EU-27countries, beef had by far the highest GHG emissions with 22.6kg CO2-eq/kg11. The consumption of meat, dairy and eggs is increasing worldwide12, and this will aggravate the environmental impact related to livestock production13. Human dietary changes could produce a cascade of effects, through reduced production of livestock and manure, lower feed demand, resulting in lower nitrogen (N) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and freeing up agricultural land for other purposes13. Cultured meat (i.e., meat produced in vitro using tissue engineering techniques) is being developed as a potentially healthier and more efficient alternative to conventional meat. In
Zoran Petrovic et al. / Procedia Food Science 5 (2015) 235 – 238
comparison to conventionally produced European meat, cultured meat involves approximately 7–45% lower energy use (only poultry has lower energy use), 78–96% lower GHG emissions, 99% lower land use, and 82–96% lower water use, depending on the product compared14. Despite high uncertainty, it is concluded that the overall environmental impacts of cultured meat production are substantially lower than those of conventionally produced meat15. 4. Eco-efficency and pollution prevention control in meat processing Eco-efficiency is a concept being adopted by industries world-wide as a means of improving environmental performance and reducing costs. Its objectives are the more efficient use of resources and the reduction of waste, with the two-fold benefits of reduced environmental burdens and reduced costs for resources and waste management16,17. The main resource inputs are water, energy, chemicals and packaging materials. These are typical of many food processing sectors. The main resources consumed and wastes generated at a meat plant and the approximate quantities for a typical plant are presented in Table 118. However, meat processing plants use very large quantities of water and energy. This is due to the highly perishable nature of the product, the need for high levels of sanitation and the need to keep the product cool. The main waste streams are wastewater and some solid waste. Much of the solid waste produced is organic and is suitable for land-based disposal. The wastewater from a slaughterhouse can contain blood, manure, hair, fat, feathers, and bones. Quantities of solid waste disposed to landfill are relatively small18. The wastewater may have a high temperature, and may contain organic material and nitrogen content. The meat industry has the potential for generating large quantities of solid waste and waste waters with a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) level of 600 mg/l (this can also be as high as 8,000 mg/l) or 10 to 20 kilograms per metric ton (kg/t) of slaughtered animal and suspended solids level of 800 mg/l and higher, as well as, in some cases, offensive odors19. Table 1. Resource use and waste generation data for a typical meat plant 18. Resources use
Daily quantity
Per unit of production
Water
1,000 kl/day
7 kl/tHSCW
Energy
Coal 8 t/day
53 kg/tHSCW
LPG
113 m3/day
0.8 m3/tHSCW
Electricity
60,000 kWh/day
400 kWh/tHSCW
Cleaning chemicals
200 l/day
1.3 l/tHSCW
Wastewater treatment chemicals
30 kg/day
0.2 kg/tHSCW
Oils and lubricants
30 l/day
0.2 l/tHSCW
Cardboard
5 t/day
31 kg/tHSCW
Plastic
150 kg/day
1 kg/tHSCW
Strapping tape
105 kg/day
0.7 kg/tHSCW
850 kl/day
6 kl/tHSCW
Organic matter (COD)
5,700 kg/day
38 kg/tHSCW
Suspended solids
2,055 kg/day
13.7 kg/tHSCW
Nitrogen
255 kg/day
1.7 kg/tHSCW
Chemicals
Packaging
Waste generation Daily quantity production Wastewater Volume Pollutant load
237
238
Zoran Petrovic et al. / Procedia Food Science 5 (2015) 235 – 238
Phosphorous
90 kg/day
0.6 kg/tHSCW
Paunch and yard manure
7 t/day
47 kg/tHSCW
Sludges and floats
6 t/day
40 kg/tHSCW
Boiler ash
0.7 t/day
5 kg/tHSCW
Cardboard
95 kg/day
0.6 kg/tHSCW
Solid waste
Plastic
10 kg/day
0.07 kg/tHSCW
Strapping tape
2 kg/day
0.01 kg/tHSCW
*Hot Standard Carcase Weight (HSCW) describes the weight of animal carcases after slaughter, dressing and evisceration and prior to chilling and boning. For beef it is generally 55% of live weight. This unit is useful because it takes into account the variations in live weight between different species and different plants.
5. Conclusion Current production of meat has been shown to have a significant impact on the environment and also on current GHG emissions. Meat consumption has been increasing at a significant rate and is likely to continue to do so into the future. This paper consisely reviewed how increased demand, leading to more economically efficient meat production systems, could potentially affect GHG production and local environment. In regard to prevention, pollution decisions should be made with regard to the proceses that generate waste. Process integration and installation of new equipment provide a framework for cost-effective pollution prevention. References 1. Jorgenson A, Birkholz R. Assessing the causes of anthropogenic methane emissions in comparative perspective, 1990–2005. Ecol Econ 2010;69:2634-43. 2. Yorka R, Gossard MH. Cross-national meat and fish consumption: exploring the effects of modernization and ecological context. Ecol Eco 2004;48:293-302. 3. Henchion M, McCarthy M, Resconi VC, Troy D. Meat consumption: Trends and quality matters. Meat Sci 2014;98:561-68. 4. Goodland R. Environmental sustainability in agriculture: diet matters. Ecol Econ 1997;23:189-200. 5. Gerbens-Leenes PW, Nonhebel S. Consumption patterns and their effects on land required for food. Ecol Econ 2002;42:185-99. 6. Worldwatch Institute. Global Meat Production and Consumption Continue to Rise; http://vitalsigns.worldwatch.org/vs-trend/meat-productionand-consumption-continue-grow-0; 2014; (accessed 01.05.2015). 7. UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme. Growing greenhouse gas emissions due to meat production; http://www.unep.org/pdf/unepgeas_oct_2012.pdf ; 2012; (accessed 28.04.2015). 8. Lassey KR. Livestock methane emission: From the individual grazing animal through national inventories to the global methane cycle. Agric For Meteorol 2007;142(2-4):120–32. 9. Martin C, Morgavi DP, Doreau M. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 2010;4(3):351–65. 10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2012 report. EPA 430-R-14-003. http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html ; 2013; (accessed 28 Apr. 2015). 11. Schwarzer S, Witta R, Zommer Z. Growing greenhouse gas emissions due to meat production. Environ Dev 2013;5:156–63. 12. Allievi F, Vinnari M, Luukkanen J. Meat consumption and production e analysis of efficiency, sufficiency and consistency of global trends. J Clean Prod 2015;92:142-51. 13. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, de Haan C. Livestock’s Long Shadow. Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, 2006. 14. Westhoek H, Lesschen JP, Rood T, Wagner S, De Marco A, Murphy-Bokern D, Leip A, Van Grinsven H, Sutton MA, Oenema O. Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe's meat and dairy intake. Global Environmental Change 2014;26:196–205. 15. Tuomisto HL and Joost Teixeira de Mattos MJ. Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat Production. Environ Sci Technol 2011;45:6117–23. 16. Pagan B, Prasad P. The Queensland food eco-efficiency project: reducing risk and improving competitiveness. J Clean Prod 2007;15:764-71. 17. MLA (Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd). Eco-Efficiency Manual for Meat Processing Published by Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd ABN 39 081 678 364, 2002. 18. UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme, Working Group for Cleaner Production. The Potential for Generating Energy from Wet Waste Streams in NSW. Brisbane, NSW Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA); 1999. 19. Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. Environmental Guidelines for Meat Processing and Rendering Industry: Description and Practices; www.fpeac.org/meat/EGuidelinesforMeatProcessing.pdf. (accessed 28 Apr. 2015).