0 avis
Greenhouse gas balance of livestock systems and carbon footprint of livestock products: two methodologies for assessing livestock contribution to climate change
Archive ouverte
Edité par CCSD -
Session 66 - Poster 14. International audience. A wide range of methods to assess the impact of livestock activities on Climate Change (CC) at plot, farm, supply-chain, landscape, country or global levels does exist. The terms used in the literature can be confusing and aresometimes not used appropriately because a clear terminology is missing. We propose to distinguish two types ofmethodology on the basis of the most common used terminology: the “greenhouse gas (GHG) balance” and the“carbon (C) footprint”. This paper is based on a literature review of 235 scientific papers. “GHG and C balances”are based on an (eco)system approach. This methodology focuses on direct GHG emissions and C storage withinthe studied system boundaries. GHG balances focus on GHG emissions (CH4, N2O and CO2) when C balancesconsider both GHG emissions and C storage in soil and trees. This methodology is generally applied at plot, farmor landscape levels and results are generally expressed per unit of surface area. The “C footprint”, also referredas the “emission intensity”, is based on a life-cycle assessment approach. This methodology considers both directand indirect GHG emissions and C storage, it encompasses emissions associated with i) raising animals, includingenteric fermentation, ii) upstream activities (feed, fertilizers, and other inputs production, processing andtransport) and iii) downstream processes (manure and waste management, post-farm transport, processing andpackaging of raw animal products). This methodology is applied at supply-chain level and results are generallyexpressed per unit of livestock product. Differences in goals, functional units, scopes, level of analysis, systemboundaries, sources of GHG emission measurements or calculation (simple emission factors or complex mechanisticsimulation models), taking account or not C storage and other modelling assumptions make it impossible tocompare assessment results of the two methodologies.
Consulter en ligne
Suggestions
Du même auteur
