Loading…

Carbon and blue water footprints of California sheep production1

Abstract While the environmental impacts of livestock production, such as greenhouse gas emissions and water usage, have been studied for a variety of US livestock production systems, the environmental impact of US sheep production is still unknown. A cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessment (LCA)...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of animal science 2019-02, Vol.97 (2), p.945-961
Main Authors: Dougherty, Holland C, Oltjen, James W, Mitloehner, Frank M, DePeters, Edward J, Pettey, Lee Allen, Macon, Dan, Finzel, Julie, Rodrigues, Kimberly, Kebreab, Ermias
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1422-434b4138fc713aadebf32cc48d4b9368bcdeaed7404dd41106e3e087ad71366a3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1422-434b4138fc713aadebf32cc48d4b9368bcdeaed7404dd41106e3e087ad71366a3
container_end_page 961
container_issue 2
container_start_page 945
container_title Journal of animal science
container_volume 97
creator Dougherty, Holland C
Oltjen, James W
Mitloehner, Frank M
DePeters, Edward J
Pettey, Lee Allen
Macon, Dan
Finzel, Julie
Rodrigues, Kimberly
Kebreab, Ermias
description Abstract While the environmental impacts of livestock production, such as greenhouse gas emissions and water usage, have been studied for a variety of US livestock production systems, the environmental impact of US sheep production is still unknown. A cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted according to international standards (ISO 14040/44), analyzing the impacts of CS representing five different meat sheep production systems in California, and focusing on carbon footprint (carbon dioxide equivalents, CO2e) and irrigated water usage (metric ton, MT). This study is the first to look specifically at the carbon footprint of the California sheep industry and consider both wool and meat production across the diverse sheep production systems within California. This study also explicitly examined the carbon footprint of hair sheep as compared with wooled sheep production. Data were derived from producer interviews and literature values, and California-specific emission factors were used wherever possible. Flock outputs studied included market lamb meat, breeding stock, 2-d-old lambs, cull adult meat, and wool. Four different methane prediction models were examined, including the current IPCC tier 1 and 2 equations, and an additional sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the effect of a fixed vs. flexible coefficient of gain (kg) in mature ewes on carbon footprint per ewe. Mass, economic, and protein mass allocation were used to examine the impact of allocation method on carbon footprint and water usage, while sensitivity analyses were used to examine the impact of ewe replacement rate (% of ewe flock per year) and lamb crop (lambs born per ewe bred) on carbon footprint per kilogram market lamb. The carbon footprint of market lamb production ranged from 13.9 to 30.6 kg CO2e/kg market lamb production on a mass basis, 10.4 to 18.1 kg CO2e/kg market lamb on an economic basis, and 6.6 to 10.1 kg CO2e/kg market lamb on a protein mass basis. Enteric methane (CH4) production was the largest single source of emissions for all CS, averaging 72% of total emissions. Emissions from feed production averaged 22% in total, primarily from manure emissions credited to feed. Whole-ranch water usage ranged from 2.1 to 44.8 MT/kg market lamb, almost entirely from feed production. Overall results were in agreement with those from meat-focused sheep systems in the United Kingdom as well as beef raised under similar conditions in California.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/jas/sky442
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>oup_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_jas_sky442</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/jas/sky442</oup_id><sourcerecordid>10.1093/jas/sky442</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1422-434b4138fc713aadebf32cc48d4b9368bcdeaed7404dd41106e3e087ad71366a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9z81KxDAUhuEgCtbRjVeQjRuhTk6StulOKY4KA250XU7-sGNtStIic_dW6trV2TwcvpeQa2B3wGqxPWDaps-jlPyEZFDwIhdQilOSMcYhVwr4OblI6cAY8KIuMnLfYNRhoDhYqvvZ0W-cXKQ-hGmM3TAlGjxtsO98iEOHNH04N9IxBjubqQsDXJIzj31yV393Q953j2_Nc75_fXppHva5Acl5LoXUEoTypgKBaJ32ghsjlZW6FqXSxjp0tpJMWisBWOmEY6pCu_iyRLEht-tfE0NK0fl22feF8dgCa3_b26W9XdsXfLPiMI__uR8ge1rH</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Carbon and blue water footprints of California sheep production1</title><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Oxford University Press:Jisc Collections:OUP Read and Publish 2024-2025 (2024 collection) (Reading list)</source><creator>Dougherty, Holland C ; Oltjen, James W ; Mitloehner, Frank M ; DePeters, Edward J ; Pettey, Lee Allen ; Macon, Dan ; Finzel, Julie ; Rodrigues, Kimberly ; Kebreab, Ermias</creator><creatorcontrib>Dougherty, Holland C ; Oltjen, James W ; Mitloehner, Frank M ; DePeters, Edward J ; Pettey, Lee Allen ; Macon, Dan ; Finzel, Julie ; Rodrigues, Kimberly ; Kebreab, Ermias</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract While the environmental impacts of livestock production, such as greenhouse gas emissions and water usage, have been studied for a variety of US livestock production systems, the environmental impact of US sheep production is still unknown. A cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted according to international standards (ISO 14040/44), analyzing the impacts of CS representing five different meat sheep production systems in California, and focusing on carbon footprint (carbon dioxide equivalents, CO2e) and irrigated water usage (metric ton, MT). This study is the first to look specifically at the carbon footprint of the California sheep industry and consider both wool and meat production across the diverse sheep production systems within California. This study also explicitly examined the carbon footprint of hair sheep as compared with wooled sheep production. Data were derived from producer interviews and literature values, and California-specific emission factors were used wherever possible. Flock outputs studied included market lamb meat, breeding stock, 2-d-old lambs, cull adult meat, and wool. Four different methane prediction models were examined, including the current IPCC tier 1 and 2 equations, and an additional sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the effect of a fixed vs. flexible coefficient of gain (kg) in mature ewes on carbon footprint per ewe. Mass, economic, and protein mass allocation were used to examine the impact of allocation method on carbon footprint and water usage, while sensitivity analyses were used to examine the impact of ewe replacement rate (% of ewe flock per year) and lamb crop (lambs born per ewe bred) on carbon footprint per kilogram market lamb. The carbon footprint of market lamb production ranged from 13.9 to 30.6 kg CO2e/kg market lamb production on a mass basis, 10.4 to 18.1 kg CO2e/kg market lamb on an economic basis, and 6.6 to 10.1 kg CO2e/kg market lamb on a protein mass basis. Enteric methane (CH4) production was the largest single source of emissions for all CS, averaging 72% of total emissions. Emissions from feed production averaged 22% in total, primarily from manure emissions credited to feed. Whole-ranch water usage ranged from 2.1 to 44.8 MT/kg market lamb, almost entirely from feed production. Overall results were in agreement with those from meat-focused sheep systems in the United Kingdom as well as beef raised under similar conditions in California.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/jas/sky442</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2019-02, Vol.97 (2), p.945-961</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1422-434b4138fc713aadebf32cc48d4b9368bcdeaed7404dd41106e3e087ad71366a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1422-434b4138fc713aadebf32cc48d4b9368bcdeaed7404dd41106e3e087ad71366a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dougherty, Holland C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oltjen, James W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitloehner, Frank M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DePeters, Edward J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pettey, Lee Allen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macon, Dan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Finzel, Julie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodrigues, Kimberly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kebreab, Ermias</creatorcontrib><title>Carbon and blue water footprints of California sheep production1</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><description>Abstract While the environmental impacts of livestock production, such as greenhouse gas emissions and water usage, have been studied for a variety of US livestock production systems, the environmental impact of US sheep production is still unknown. A cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted according to international standards (ISO 14040/44), analyzing the impacts of CS representing five different meat sheep production systems in California, and focusing on carbon footprint (carbon dioxide equivalents, CO2e) and irrigated water usage (metric ton, MT). This study is the first to look specifically at the carbon footprint of the California sheep industry and consider both wool and meat production across the diverse sheep production systems within California. This study also explicitly examined the carbon footprint of hair sheep as compared with wooled sheep production. Data were derived from producer interviews and literature values, and California-specific emission factors were used wherever possible. Flock outputs studied included market lamb meat, breeding stock, 2-d-old lambs, cull adult meat, and wool. Four different methane prediction models were examined, including the current IPCC tier 1 and 2 equations, and an additional sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the effect of a fixed vs. flexible coefficient of gain (kg) in mature ewes on carbon footprint per ewe. Mass, economic, and protein mass allocation were used to examine the impact of allocation method on carbon footprint and water usage, while sensitivity analyses were used to examine the impact of ewe replacement rate (% of ewe flock per year) and lamb crop (lambs born per ewe bred) on carbon footprint per kilogram market lamb. The carbon footprint of market lamb production ranged from 13.9 to 30.6 kg CO2e/kg market lamb production on a mass basis, 10.4 to 18.1 kg CO2e/kg market lamb on an economic basis, and 6.6 to 10.1 kg CO2e/kg market lamb on a protein mass basis. Enteric methane (CH4) production was the largest single source of emissions for all CS, averaging 72% of total emissions. Emissions from feed production averaged 22% in total, primarily from manure emissions credited to feed. Whole-ranch water usage ranged from 2.1 to 44.8 MT/kg market lamb, almost entirely from feed production. Overall results were in agreement with those from meat-focused sheep systems in the United Kingdom as well as beef raised under similar conditions in California.</description><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9z81KxDAUhuEgCtbRjVeQjRuhTk6StulOKY4KA250XU7-sGNtStIic_dW6trV2TwcvpeQa2B3wGqxPWDaps-jlPyEZFDwIhdQilOSMcYhVwr4OblI6cAY8KIuMnLfYNRhoDhYqvvZ0W-cXKQ-hGmM3TAlGjxtsO98iEOHNH04N9IxBjubqQsDXJIzj31yV393Q953j2_Nc75_fXppHva5Acl5LoXUEoTypgKBaJ32ghsjlZW6FqXSxjp0tpJMWisBWOmEY6pCu_iyRLEht-tfE0NK0fl22feF8dgCa3_b26W9XdsXfLPiMI__uR8ge1rH</recordid><startdate>20190201</startdate><enddate>20190201</enddate><creator>Dougherty, Holland C</creator><creator>Oltjen, James W</creator><creator>Mitloehner, Frank M</creator><creator>DePeters, Edward J</creator><creator>Pettey, Lee Allen</creator><creator>Macon, Dan</creator><creator>Finzel, Julie</creator><creator>Rodrigues, Kimberly</creator><creator>Kebreab, Ermias</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190201</creationdate><title>Carbon and blue water footprints of California sheep production1</title><author>Dougherty, Holland C ; Oltjen, James W ; Mitloehner, Frank M ; DePeters, Edward J ; Pettey, Lee Allen ; Macon, Dan ; Finzel, Julie ; Rodrigues, Kimberly ; Kebreab, Ermias</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1422-434b4138fc713aadebf32cc48d4b9368bcdeaed7404dd41106e3e087ad71366a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dougherty, Holland C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oltjen, James W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitloehner, Frank M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DePeters, Edward J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pettey, Lee Allen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macon, Dan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Finzel, Julie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodrigues, Kimberly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kebreab, Ermias</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dougherty, Holland C</au><au>Oltjen, James W</au><au>Mitloehner, Frank M</au><au>DePeters, Edward J</au><au>Pettey, Lee Allen</au><au>Macon, Dan</au><au>Finzel, Julie</au><au>Rodrigues, Kimberly</au><au>Kebreab, Ermias</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Carbon and blue water footprints of California sheep production1</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><date>2019-02-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>97</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>945</spage><epage>961</epage><pages>945-961</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>Abstract While the environmental impacts of livestock production, such as greenhouse gas emissions and water usage, have been studied for a variety of US livestock production systems, the environmental impact of US sheep production is still unknown. A cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted according to international standards (ISO 14040/44), analyzing the impacts of CS representing five different meat sheep production systems in California, and focusing on carbon footprint (carbon dioxide equivalents, CO2e) and irrigated water usage (metric ton, MT). This study is the first to look specifically at the carbon footprint of the California sheep industry and consider both wool and meat production across the diverse sheep production systems within California. This study also explicitly examined the carbon footprint of hair sheep as compared with wooled sheep production. Data were derived from producer interviews and literature values, and California-specific emission factors were used wherever possible. Flock outputs studied included market lamb meat, breeding stock, 2-d-old lambs, cull adult meat, and wool. Four different methane prediction models were examined, including the current IPCC tier 1 and 2 equations, and an additional sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the effect of a fixed vs. flexible coefficient of gain (kg) in mature ewes on carbon footprint per ewe. Mass, economic, and protein mass allocation were used to examine the impact of allocation method on carbon footprint and water usage, while sensitivity analyses were used to examine the impact of ewe replacement rate (% of ewe flock per year) and lamb crop (lambs born per ewe bred) on carbon footprint per kilogram market lamb. The carbon footprint of market lamb production ranged from 13.9 to 30.6 kg CO2e/kg market lamb production on a mass basis, 10.4 to 18.1 kg CO2e/kg market lamb on an economic basis, and 6.6 to 10.1 kg CO2e/kg market lamb on a protein mass basis. Enteric methane (CH4) production was the largest single source of emissions for all CS, averaging 72% of total emissions. Emissions from feed production averaged 22% in total, primarily from manure emissions credited to feed. Whole-ranch water usage ranged from 2.1 to 44.8 MT/kg market lamb, almost entirely from feed production. Overall results were in agreement with those from meat-focused sheep systems in the United Kingdom as well as beef raised under similar conditions in California.</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/jas/sky442</doi><tpages>17</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8812
ispartof Journal of animal science, 2019-02, Vol.97 (2), p.945-961
issn 0021-8812
1525-3163
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_jas_sky442
source PubMed Central; Oxford University Press:Jisc Collections:OUP Read and Publish 2024-2025 (2024 collection) (Reading list)
title Carbon and blue water footprints of California sheep production1
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T21%3A26%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-oup_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Carbon%20and%20blue%20water%20footprints%20of%20California%20sheep%20production1&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Dougherty,%20Holland%20C&rft.date=2019-02-01&rft.volume=97&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=945&rft.epage=961&rft.pages=945-961&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/jas/sky442&rft_dat=%3Coup_cross%3E10.1093/jas/sky442%3C/oup_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1422-434b4138fc713aadebf32cc48d4b9368bcdeaed7404dd41106e3e087ad71366a3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_oup_id=10.1093/jas/sky442&rfr_iscdi=true