Life cycle assessment of the production of an extruded dog food in Brazil

被引:3
作者
Costa, Jessyka L. G. [1 ]
Bankuti, Ferenc I. [1 ]
Oiko, Olivia T. [2 ]
Monti, Mariana [3 ]
Loureiro, Bruna A. [4 ]
Henriquez, Lucas B. F. [1 ]
Florindo, Thiago Jose [5 ]
Vasconcellos, Ricardo S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Estadual Maringa, Ctr Agr Sci, Dept Anim Sci, BR-87020900 Maringa, PR, Brazil
[2] Univ Estadual Maringa, Dept Prod Engn, BR-87020900 Maringa, PR, Brazil
[3] Special Dog Co, BR-18900000 Santa Cruz Do Rio Pardo, SP, Brazil
[4] Univ Fed Paraiba, Ctr Agr Sci, Dept Anim Sci, BR-58397000 Areia, PB, Brazil
[5] Univ Fed Mato Grosso do Sul, BR-79750000 Nova Andradina, MS, Brazil
关键词
Attributional LCA; Dogs; Dry pet foods; Environmental impacts; LAND-USE CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; COMPANION DOGS; PET FOOD; SUSTAINABILITY; CONSUMPTION; EMISSIONS; TRENDS; CATS; MEAT;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142505
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Sustainability is the current focus of the scientific community, governments, and companies in various market segments, such as pet food. Pet food production has increased rapidly in recent years, with a trend toward the development of environmentally friendly products and processes. The first step in creating strategies for mitigating environmental impacts is to assess key points in manufacturing processes. Given this, this study aimed to perform a life cycle assessment (LCA) to estimate the environmental impacts associated with the formulation, production, and distribution phases of an extruded dog food produced in Brazil. System boundaries were from cradle-to-gate, encompassing extraction of raw materials, transportation, processing, production, packaging, and distribution. Estimates were based on the amount of food required to meet the energy requirements for maintenance of a 10 kg dog (functional unit = 2.59 MJ day- 1, reference flow = 177.3 g day- 1). Environmental impacts were calculated by the environmental footprint method (EF 3.0 v. 1.00) using SimaPro software (v. 9.1.1.1). Product ingredients and packaging materials were modeled under Brazilian conditions using ecoinvent 3.7.1 and Agri-footprint 5.0 databases. Data regarding transportation, processing, distribution, electric and thermal power generation, water usage, and waste generation were obtained from the company's records (2019-2020). In this study, as expected, formulation was the most relevant factor, accounting for 70%-90% of the total environmental impacts. The main impact categories were terrestrial and marine eutrophication, acidification, particulate matter, and climate change (80% of total impacts). Production of the evaluated dog food was associated with the emission of 88.73 kg CO2 eq year- 1 or 1.37 kg CO2 eq kg- 1 distributed food. The use of animal meals (poultry by-product meal and meat and bone meal) and vegetable by-products (wheat bran and rice bran) contributed to reducing environmental impacts. Therefore, in this study, ingredient selection was considered the most important factor in mitigating the environmental impacts of pet foods. As the overall impact of the formulation depends on data on the use stage, such as nutrient excretion after consumption, future studies should adopt a cradle-to-grave approach for a better comprehension of the feasibility of applying animal and vegetable by-products in the eco-design of pet food products.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 60 条
[51]   A neglected predictor of environmental damage: The ecological paw print and carbon emissions of food consumption by companion dogs and cats in China [J].
Su, Bingtao ;
Martens, Pim ;
Enders-Slegers, Marie-Jose .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2018, 194 :1-11
[52]   Nutritional Sustainability of Pet Foods [J].
Swanson, Kelly S. ;
Carter, Rebecca A. ;
Yount, Tracy P. ;
Aretz, Jan ;
Buff, Preston R. .
ADVANCES IN NUTRITION, 2013, 4 (02) :141-150
[53]   Humanity's Best Friend: A Dog-Centric Approach to Addressing Global Challenges [J].
Sykes, Naomi ;
Beirne, Piers ;
Horowitz, Alexandra ;
Jones, Ione ;
Kalof, Linda ;
Karlsson, Elinor ;
King, Tammie ;
Litwak, Howard ;
McDonald, Robbie A. ;
Murphy, Luke John ;
Pemberton, Neil ;
Promislow, Daniel ;
Rowan, Andrew ;
Stahl, Peter W. ;
Tehrani, Jamshid ;
Tourigny, Eric ;
Wynne, Clive D. L. ;
Strauss, Eric ;
Larson, Greger .
ANIMALS, 2020, 10 (03)
[54]   The Cradle-to-Cradle Life Cycle Assessment of Polyethylene terephthalate: Environmental Perspective [J].
Tamoor, Muhammad ;
Samak, Nadia A. ;
Yang, Maohua ;
Xing, Jianmin .
MOLECULES, 2022, 27 (05)
[55]   An applicability assessment and sensitivity analysis of land use impact models: application of the LANCA model in site-specific conditions [J].
Terranova, D. ;
Balugani, E. ;
Righi, S. ;
Marazza, D. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2021, 26 (11) :2215-2231
[56]  
Thoma G., 2015, A life Cycle Analysis of Land Use in US Pork Production, 2015
[57]  
Vale B., 2009, Time to Eat Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living
[58]   Historical Trends in PM2.5-Related Premature Mortality during 1990-2010 across the Northern Hemisphere [J].
Wang, Jiandong ;
Xing, Jia ;
Mathur, Rohit ;
Pleim, Jonathan E. ;
Wang, Shuxiao ;
Hogrefe, Christian ;
Gan, Chuen-Meei ;
Wong, David C. ;
Hao, Jiming .
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, 2017, 125 (03) :400-408
[59]   Environmental Impacts of a Pet Dog: An LCA Case Study [J].
Yavor, Kim Maya ;
Lehmann, Annekatrin ;
Finkbeiner, Matthias .
SUSTAINABILITY, 2020, 12 (08)
[60]  
Zampori L, 2019, SUGGESTIONS UPDATING, DOI [10.2760/424613, DOI 10.2760/424613]