About Us | Help Videos | Contact Us | Subscriptions



This article in JEQ

  1. Vol. 36 No. 4, p. 1061-1068
    Received: Aug 20, 2006

    * Corresponding author(s): aogino@affrc.go.jp
Request Permissions


Environmental Impact Evaluation of Feeds Prepared from Food Residues Using Life Cycle Assessment

  1. Akifumi Ogino *a,
  2. Hiroyuki Hirookab,
  3. Atsuo Ikeguchia,
  4. Yasuo Tanakaa,
  5. Miyoko Wakia,
  6. Hiroshi Yokoyamaa and
  7. Tomoyuki Kawashimaa
  1. a National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science, 2 Ikenodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0901, Japan
    b Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto Univ., Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan


There is increasing concern about feeds prepared from food residues (FFR) from an environmental viewpoint; however, various forms of energy are consumed in the production of FFR. Environmental impacts of three scenarios were therefore investigated and compared using life cycle assessment (LCA): production of liquid FFR by sterilization with heat (LQ), production of dehydrated FFR by dehydration (DH), and disposal of food residues by incineration (IC). The functional unit was defined as 1 kg dry matter of produced feed standardized to a fixed energy content. The system boundaries included collection of food residues and production of feed from food residues. In IC, food residues are incinerated as waste, and thus the impacts of production and transportation of commercial concentrate feeds equivalent to the FFR in the other scenarios are included in the analysis. Our results suggested that the average amounts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from LQ, DH, and IC were 268, 1073, and 1066 g of CO2 equivalent, respectively. The amount of GHG emissions from LQ was remarkably small, indicating that LQ was effective for reducing the environmental impact of animal production. Although the average amount of GHG emissions from DH was nearly equal to that from IC, a large variation of GHG emissions was observed among the DH units. The energy consumption of the three scenarios followed a pattern similar to that of GHG emissions. The water consumption of the FFR-producing units was remarkably smaller than that of IC due to the large volumes of water consumed in forage crop production.

  Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left.

Copyright © 2007. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science SocietyASA, CSSA, SSSA