Microsoft Word - 11 Ghinea and Leahu_corectat 15 mai.doc 205 Journal homepage: www.fia.usv.ro/fiajournal Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania Volume XVIII, Issue 2- 2018, pag. 205 - 212 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF PORK MEAT CHAIN: A ROMANIAN CASE STUDY *Cristina GHINEA1, Ana LEAHU1 1Faculty of Food Engineering, Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania, cristina.ghinea@fia.usv.ro *Corresponding author Received 5th February 2018, accepted 25th June 2018 Abstract. The aim of this paper was to establish the environmental impacts of pork meat chain using life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. For this study the system boundaries included: pig farm, slaughterhouse, meat processing, transport and waste treatment, which represent the main and secondary activities of a Romanian pork meat producer. All inputs and outputs data necessary for the inventory analysis were collected from this producer, GaBi database and other sources. The impact assessment phase was performed with GaBi software which includes LCA methods like CML2001 - Jan. 2016, ReCiPe 1.08, UBP 2013 and EDIP 2003. The results showed that pork meat chain has negative impact on the environment mainly contributing to the Acidification Potential (AP), Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP), Eutrophication Potential (EP) and Global Warming Potential (GWP 100 years). According to the results obtained with CML2001 - Jan. 2016 method, the main activities that contribute to global warming potential are manure storage (67.10%), central heating system (13.56%) and intensive pigs growth (9.59%). Similar results were obtained by applying of UBP 2013 method which indicated also that the manure storage is the main contributor to GWP (66%) followed by central heating system (14.33%) and intensive pigs’ growth (9.43%). Wastewater treatment is obvious the main contributor to ‘water pollutants’ category, while water consumption has a significant impact on ‘water resources’ according to UBP 2013 method. Resources like water and energy are necessary in very large quantities in meat production from which solid waste and wastewater result, thus increasing the environmental impacts of this process. Keywords: food industry, global warming potential, life cycle assessment, waste 1. Introduction Food commodities such as meat and dairy products have significant impacts on the environment [1, 2]. From all activities included in the life cycle of meat products, starting from farming stage until final waste disposal, there result environmental emissions [1]. Pork meat is the most popular meat in the world according to [3], the larger producer is China followed by Europe [1]. Approximately 22.2 million tonnes of this meat was produced in Europe, in 2014 (Fig. 1). In the same year 13 million tonnes of poultry meat, 7.3 million tonnes of bovine meat and 0.8 million tonnes meat from sheep and goats were produced and processed [4]. Most slaughtered pigs in the EU in 2014 were in Poland, over 1000 tonnes, followed by Romania with 800 tonnes and Hungary with about 500 tonnes (Fig. 2). At global level the average pork meat consumption is of 15 kg/capita/year, while in Europe is of approximately 40 kg/capita/year [5]. In Romania, there was a continuing decline in the production of meat for consumption [6]. Between 2001 and 2013 the largest meat production in Romania was in 2003, namely 710 thousand tonnes, and the smallest production of 553 thousand tonnes in 2010. Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XVII, Issue 2 – 2018 Cristina GHINEA, Ana LEAHU, Environmental evaluation of pigmeat chain: a Romanian case study, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XVII, Issue 2 – 2018, pag. 205 – 212 206 Fig. 1. Meat production by species, EU-28, 2009-2014 (million tonnes) (according to [4]) Fig. 2. Pigs slaughtering in 2014, in Europe (adapted from [4]) Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a useful tool which can be applied in the determination of environmental impacts resulted from complex food systems. LCA was applied in various studies to evaluate agricultural and food processing activities (among them: production of rice, fruits, bread, milk, beef, pork meat etc.): - all life cycle from paddy field to the supermarket of rice production system were evaluated by [7]. They showed that the production of 1 kg of rice produces 2.9 kg of CO2; - Ghinea [10] evaluated the production, consumption and loss of apple fruits from the environmental point of view; Vinyes et al. [11] investigated the production, distribution and consumption of fruits like apple and peach in the Mediterranean area, while Longo et al. [12] compared the environmental impacts of organic and conventional apple production from Italy; - 0.97 to 1.24 kg CO2 eq. per loaf of bread (800 g) are the results obtained by [8] after evaluation of bread produced and consumed in the UK; - the environmental impacts of 1 kg of packaged ultra-high temperature (UHT) milk were determined by [9] and for the global warming potential, these authors obtained a value of 0.73 kg CO2eq; - Beauchemin et al. [13] investigated greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from beef production and estimated the intensity of GHG at 22 kg CO2 equivalent (kg carcass)-1; - Gonzalez-García et al. [1] calculated the environmental impacts of Portuguese pork meat production and reported a value of 3.3 kg CO2 eq kg-1 pig carcass weight; Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XVII, Issue 2 – 2018 Cristina GHINEA, Ana LEAHU, Environmental evaluation of pigmeat chain: a Romanian case study, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XVII, Issue 2 – 2018, pag. 205 – 212 207 - McAuliffe et al. [14] compared the environmental performances of intensive pig production units and estimated a value of 3.5 kg CO2-eq per kg carcass weight. In this study LCA was applied in order to establish the environmental impacts of pork meat chain considering the main activities of a Romanian pork meat producer: pig farm, slaughterhouse, meat processing, transport and waste treatment. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Goal, scope and functional unit The main aim of this study was to determine the environmental impacts resulting from a Romanian pork meat producer by applying LCA methodology. One tool namely GaBi software, which includes LCA methodology [15-17], was used for the modelling of the considered system. The system boundaries established for this evaluation are illustrated in fig 3. The functional unit considered was the amount of meat products obtained in one year by one Romanian pork meat producer. Table 1 presents the potential emissions which may result from the investigated activities. 2.2. Inventory analysis Activities included in the evaluated system were: growing and fattening of pigs, preparation of hot water, fresh water supply, meat products manufacturing, primary treatment of wastewater and manure management, organic waste incineration and other related activities. It is considered that for pigs growing from 25 kg up to 110 kg of live weight, about 260 kg of feed is consumed [18]. Also, from pig breeding and fattening are resulting 14000 kg/day of manure. The main raw materials used in the production of meat products are: pork, beef and poultry, organs and edible by-products of slaughterhouse, bacon and other animal fats. The auxiliary materials are composed of: spices and food additives, membranes and coating materials, packaging materials. It was considered a production level of 14,000 heads/year and 7700 maximum accommodation capacities (for pig breeding and fattening); 350 pigs (weighing between 95 and 105 kg each) slaughtered daily and 10,000 t/year meat products - processed under normal operating conditions of the target. The annual quantities of raw materials, auxiliaries and fuels used to obtain pork meat products are presented in Table 2. Within the outputs of the process besides the meat products can be mentioned: organic waste - 475 tonnes, plastic waste - 25 tonnes, wood waste - 100 tonnes, bones - 30 tonnes, paper and cardboard waste - 7 tonnes, ash from the incinerator – 16 tonnes and others. The utilities necessary for the technological process are: groundwater captured from the underground, electric energy taken from the national system, thermal energy obtained in its own plant, sawdust for the production of smoke in its own generators, ammonia and gas butane. Annual energy consumption is approximately 3600 MWh (2013-2014) and specific consumption is within the limits recommended by [18]. This consumption is represented by: slaughterhouse - approx. 1875 MWh; the food factory - approx. 1492 MWh; zoo- technical complex - approx. 250 MWh. Chemical substances used (annual consumption) or owned: NaOH - 8500 kg (for wastewater treatment), H2SO4 8 L; CH3COOH 2 L; HCl 1 L; (C2H5)2O 2L; petroleum ether 15 L; naphthylamine 25 g; K2CrO4 1 kg; acetone (C3H6O) 1L; NaNO2 1 kg. Other chemicals used for different purposes: detergents (280 L/month), descaler (230 L/month), disinfectants (115 L/month), degreasers (218 l/month), liquid soap (210 L/month), Fe2(SO4)3 (4 tonnes/month for wastewater treatment) polyacrylamide (125 kg/month for wastewater treatment). Emissions of Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XVII, Issue 2 – 2018 Cristina GHINEA, Ana LEAHU, Environmental evaluation of pigmeat chain: a Romanian case study, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XVII, Issue 2 – 2018, pag. 205 – 212 208 gaseous pollutants from the process and the heat and power plant are: CO2, CO, NO, NO2, NOx, SO2 and particulate matter. Ammonia (NH3) is emitted in air from animal housing, storage of manure and land spreading of manure. Methane (CH4) comes from animal housing, storage of manure and manure treatment. From animal housing, manure storage and land spreading is also emitted nitrous oxide (N2O) and odour (e.g. H2S) [18, 19]. The mass emissions of pollutants from the thermal plant registered in one year are: 1242 t of CO2, 46.2 kg of CO, 2712 kg of NOx, 1627 kg of SO2 and 172 kg of particulate matter. The determined and admitted values by the legislation are presented in the Table 3 [20]. From smoking cells are emitted approximately 76.25 mg/Nm3 CO. In the case of the incinerator the air emissions established were: NO2 (56 mg/Nm3), SO2 (47 mg/Nm3), CO (0.12 mg/Nm3). These values fall within the permissible limits [20]. The total average water requirement is 681.5 m3 and the maximum total water demand is 723 m3. The daily water consumption was 380 m3 and the specific consumption of water for pigs was calculated at 31 L/head/ day. The values of the emissions in the water are below the limits allowed by the Romanian legislation (Table 4, [21]). Also, the concentration of nitrate (N - NO3), ammonium (N-NH4), total nitrogen (N), total phosphorus (P), chlorides and synthetic detergents falls within the limits set by NTPA 001/2005 [21]. From land spreading and manure storage are emitted in soil in groundwater: nitrogenous compounds, phosphorus, K and Na, heavy metals and antibiotics [18]. Fig. 3. System boundaries Table 1. Potential emissions of activities included in the evaluated system [18, 19] Activities Potential emission Housing of animals Air emissions, odour, manure, dust, noise, wastewater Storage of feed and feed additives Dust Storage of manure Air and soil emissions, odour Storage of other residues Soil and groundwater emissions, odour Storage of carcases Odour Manure landspreading Emissions to air, soil, water and groundwater, odour, noise Incineration of residues Air emissions, odour Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XVII, Issue 2 – 2018 Cristina GHINEA, Ana LEAHU, Environmental evaluation of pigmeat chain: a Romanian case study, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XVII, Issue 2 – 2018, pag. 205 – 212 209 Table 2. Raw materials, auxiliaries and fuels used for producing of meat products Raw materials, auxiliaries and fuels Unit Annual quantity Pork, beef and poultry meat t 7000 Spices and additives t 500 Membrane m 7500 Flexible plastic packaging t 25 Wood sawdust t 20 Fuels t 450 Detergents and hygienic substances t 10 Table 3. Emissions from the thermal plant admitted and determined values Emissions concentration, mg/Nm3 CO NO2 SO2 Particulate matter Determined values 8.8 311 189 32.8 Admitted values, alert threshold according to the order MAPPM 462/93 [20] 119 315 1190 35 Admitted values, intervention threshold according to the order MAPPM 462/93 [20] 170 450 1700 50 Table 4. Wastewater emissions admitted and determined values Wastewater Cu2+ (mg/L) Ni2+ (mg/L) Zn2+ (mg/L) Cd2+ (mg/L) Pb2+ (mg/L) HG 352/2005- NTPA 001 [21] 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 Determined value 0.02 0.021 0.32 0.007 0.015 Soil analysis has shown that emissions fall within the limits imposed by current legislation (Order 756/1997): Cd (0.13 mg/kg determined – 3 mg/kg admitted), total Cr (7.52 mg/kg determined – 100 mg/kg admitted), Cu (13 mg/kg determined – 100 mg/kg admitted), Ni (26 mg/kg determined – 75 mg/kg admitted) [22]. For transportation stage of meat products were calculated the air emissions (CO2, CO, NOx, N2O, PM10, CH4, SO2 and hydrocarbons) considering the emissions resulted from burning 1 kg of diesel. Based on the values presented above (and others) were calculated, determined and estimated all the necessary inputs and outputs for each activity included in the system (Fig. 3). 2.3. Life cycle impact assessment, results and discussion In the impact assessment stage the data obtained in the inventory phase were modelled with GaBi software. The values for impact categories such as: acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), global warming potential (GWP), human toxicity potential (HTP), photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP), main air pollutants (MAP), aquatic eutrophication (AE), terrestrial eutrophication (TE), stratospheric ozone depletion (SOD), climate change - ecosystems (CchE), climate change - human health (CcHh) were determined by applying LCA methods like CML2001 - Jan. 2016, ReCiPe 1.08, UBP 2013, EDIP Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XVII, Issue 2 – 2018 Cristina GHINEA, Ana LEAHU, Environmental evaluation of pigmeat chain: a Romanian case study, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XVII, Issue 2 – 2018, pag. 205 – 212 210 2003. The emissions which contribute to these impact categories are presented in [15-17]. In Fig. 4 are illustrated the main contributors to the environmental impacts. It can be observed that the main activities that contribute to global warming potential are manure storage (67.10%), central heating system (13.56%), transport (%) and intensive pigs’ growth (9.59%). The environmental impacts of pork products obtained by applying CML 2001 - Jan. 2016 and EDIP 2003 LCA methods are presented in Fig. 5. The results obtained with CML method indicate that the manufacturing of pork products contribute mainly to AP (61%), followed by POCP (30%) and to a lesser extent to the other impact categories (Fig. 5a). The results obtained with the second method (EDIP 2003) indicate that production of pork products mainly influences photochemical ozone formation potential (impact on human health (POCP – hh) and impact on vegetation (POCP-v)) and terrestrial eutrophication (Fig. 5b). With ReCiPe method were obtained the normalised values (in PE = person equivalents) for climate change impact category (CchE, CcHh) (Fig. 6). Three cultural perspectives: egalitarian (E), hierarchist (H), individualist (I) were considered for the evaluation. It can be observed that the pork meat chain has negative impacts on the environment since all the values are positive. For the climate change impact on human health were registered the highest values. Also, Fig. 6 shows that the individualist perspective provides the higher values compared with the other two. a) b) Fig. 4. Contribution to the environmental impacts of central heating, manure storage, intensive pigs growth and transport a) CML 2001 - Jan. 2016 and b) UBP 2013 methods a) b) Fig. 5. Environmental impacts of manufacturing of pork products obtained by applying: a) CML 2001 - Jan. 2016 and b) EDIP 2003 LCA methods Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XVI, Issue 2 – 2018 Cristina GHINEA, Assessment of environmental impact of food loss: case study apple fruits, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XVII, Issue 2 – 2018, pag. 205 – 212 211 Fig. 6. Impact on climate change of pork meat supply chain (CchE- Climate change Ecosystems; CcHh- Climate change Human Health) According to [19] the greenhouse emissions for pig production in EU27 there were estimated at 7.55 kg CO2-eq./kg of pork meat produced (including CH4 – 0.74 kg CO2-eq./kg of pork meat produced, N2O – 1.71 kg CO2-eq./kg of pork meat produced, CO2 related to energy consumption – 2 kg CO2-eq./kg of pork meat produced, CO2 related to land use – 3.1 kg CO2-eq./kg of pork meat produced). 3. Conclusions The environmental impacts of the main and secondary activities of a Romanian pork meat producer (pig farm, slaughterhouse and meat processing, transport and wastewater treatment, incineration of organic waste) were investigated in this paper. Determination of these impacts was performed by applying LCA methodology. The results showed that the central heating is the main emitter of pollutants contributing to all impact categories. Manure storage, transport and intensive pig growth are the activities which contribute significantly to GWP. Also, intensive pig growth has a major contribution to EP. The main air pollutants come from central heating and manufacturing of pork products contributes mainly to AP and POCP. 4. Acknowledgments This paper was performed with the support of GaBi Life Cycle Assessment Software. 5. References [1]. GONALEZ-GARCÍA S., BELO S., DIAS AC., RODRIGUES J.V., DA COSTA R.R., FERREIRA A., DE ANDRADE L.P., ARROJA L., Life cycle assessment of pigmeat production: Portuguese case study and proposal of improvement options, Journal of Cleaner Production, 100:126- 139, (2015) [2]. NOTARNICOLA B., TASSIELLI G., RENZULLI P.A., CASTELLANI V., SALA S., Environmental impacts of food consumption in Europe, Journal of Cleaner Production, 140: 753- 765, (2017) [3]. FAO, FAO's Animal Production and Health Division: Meat & Meat Products, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, (2014), On line at: www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/meat/backgroun d.html [4]. EUROSTAT, Meat production statistics, (2015), On line at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/Meat_production_statistics [5]. AHDB, EU Per Capita Consumption, AHDB/AHDB Pork calculations using data from Eurostat, (2017), On line at: https://pork.ahdb.org.uk/prices- stats/consumption/eu-per-capita-consumption [6]. LUCA L., Evolution of the Localization of Pig and Poultry Meat Production in Romania after EU Accession, Impact of socio-economic and technological transformations at national, European and global level, 7:152-159, (2015) [7]. BLENGINI G.A., BUSTO M., The life cycle of rice: LCA of alternative agri-food chainmanagement systems in Vercelli (Italy), Journal of Environmental Management, 90: 1512– 1522 (2009) [8]. ESPINOZA-ORIAS N., STICHNOTHE H., AZAPAGIC A., The carbon footprint of bread, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16:351–365, (2011) [9]. GONZALEZ-GARCÍA S., CASTANHEIRA E.G., DIAS A.C., ARROJA L., Using life cycle assessment methodology to assess UHT milk production in Portugal, Science of the Total Environment, 442: 225-234 (2013) [10]. GHINEA C., Assessment of environmental impact of food waste: A case study apple fruits, Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XVII, Issue 2 – 2018 Cristina GHINEA, Ana LEAHU, Environmental evaluation of pigmeat chain: a Romanian case study, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XVII, Issue 2 – 2018, pag. 205 – 212 212 Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University – Suceava, XVI, (1):21 – 28, (2017) [11]. VINYES E., ASIN L., ALEGRE S., MUÑOZ P., BOSCHMONART J., GASOL C.M., Life Cycle Assessment of apple and peach production, distribution and consumption in Mediterranean fruit sector, Journal of Cleaner Production, 149: 313-320, (2017) [12]. LONGO S., MISTRETTA M., GUARINO F., CELLURA M., Life Cycle Assessment of organic and conventional apple supply chains in the North of Italy, Journal of Cleaner Production, 140: 654-663, (2017) [13]. BEAUCHEMIN K.A., JANZEN H.H., LITTLE S.M., MCALLISTER T.A., MCGINN S.M., Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada: A case study, Agricultural Systems, 103:371-379, (2010) [14]. MCAULIFFE G.A., TAKAHASHI T., MOGENSEN L., HERMANSEN J.E., SAGE C.L., CHAPMAN D.V., LEE M.R.F., Environmental trade-offs of pig production systems under varied operational efficiencies, Journal of Cleaner Production, 165:1163-1173, (2017) [15]. GHINEA C., GAVRILESCU M., Impact of food waste on climate change, Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University – Suceava, XIV, (4): 340 – 344, (2015) [16]. GHINEA C., PETRARU M., BRESSERS H.TH. A., GAVRILESCU M., Environmental Evaluation of Waste Management Scenarios – Significance of the Boundaries, Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 20(1): 76-85, (2012) [17]. PE INTERNATIONAL, Handbook for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Using the GaBi Education Software Package, Germany, (2009) [18]. EC, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs, European Commission, (2003) [19]. SANTONJA G.G., GEORGITZIKIS K., SCALET B.M., MONTOBBIO P., ROUDIER S., SANCHO L.D., Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Intensive Rearing of Poultry or Pigs; EUR 28674 EN; doi:10.2760/020485 [20]. MAPPM, Order no. 462 of 1 July 1993 for the approval of the Technical Conditions for Atmospheric Protection and the Methodological Norms for Determination of the Pollutants Emissions from Stationary Sources, Ministry of Waters, Forests and Environmental Protection, (1993) [21]. Decision no. 352/2005 regarding the modification and completion of the Government Decision no. 188/2002 approving some norms regarding the discharge conditions in the aquatic environment of the waste waters, Normative on the establishment of limits for pollutant loading of industrial and urban waste water to evacuation to natural receptors, NTPA-001/2005, (2005) [22]. Order 756/1997 for the approval of the Regulation on environmental pollution assessment, Ministry of Waters, Forests and Environmental Protection, (1997)