Review: The challenge to integrate animal welfare indicators into the Life Cycle Assessment

被引:17
|
作者
Lanzoni, L. [1 ]
Whatford, L. [2 ]
Atzori, A. S. [3 ]
Chincarini, M. [1 ]
Giammarco, M. [1 ]
Fusaro, I [1 ]
Vignola, G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Teramo, Dept Vet Med, I-64100 Teramo, Italy
[2] Royal Vet Coll, Dept Pathobiol & Populat Sci, Vet Epidemiol Econ & Publ Hlth Grp, Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield AL97TA, England
[3] Univ Sassari, Dept Agr Sci, I-07100 Sassari, Italy
关键词
Animal production; Environmental impact; Holistic evaluation; Livestock welfare; Sustainability; SOCIETAL PERFORMANCE; PRODUCTION SYSTEMS; SUSTAINABILITY; EMISSIONS; FRAMEWORK;
D O I
10.1016/j.animal.2023.100794
中图分类号
S8 [畜牧、 动物医学、狩猎、蚕、蜂];
学科分类号
0905 ;
摘要
The transition to a more sustainable livestock sector represents one of the major challenges of our time. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is recognised as the gold standard methodology for assessing the environmental impact of farming systems. Simultaneously, animal welfare is a key component of livestock production and is intrinsically related to human and environmental well-being. To perform an overall onfarm sustainability assessment, it would be desirable to consider both the environmental impact and the welfare of the animals. The present work aimed to summarise and describe the methodologies adopted in peer-reviewed papers published to date, that combine animal welfare evaluation with LCA. Citations, retrieved from four bibliographical databases, were systematically evaluated in a multi-stage approach following the JBI and PRISMA scoping review guidelines. The searches identified 1 460 studies, of which only 24 were compliant with the inclusion criteria. The results highlighted how the environmental LCA was undertaken with a much more homogenous and standardised method than animal welfare assessment. When studies were grouped based on the type of animal welfare assessment performed: 16.7% used single welfare indicators, 45.8% multiple indicators, 8.3% applied existing validated protocols (i.e., TGI-200 and TGI-35L), 16.7% used non-validated protocols and 12.5% employed other methods. The papers were further classified with respect to the "5 Animal Welfare Domains Model": the most assessed domain was "environment" (90.5% of the papers%), followed by "health" (52.4%), "nutrition" (33.3%), "behavioural interactions" (28.6%) and "mental state" (9.5%). None of the studies assessed all the domains simultaneously. In addition, 66.7% of papers (n = 16) aggregated the animal welfare indicators into a final score. Within these, only four papers proposed to associate the animal welfare scores with the LCA functional unit. An overall sustainability score, calculated with several different approaches to summarise the information, was provided by 46% of the papers. In summary, despite the topic's relevance, to date, there is neither a consensus on the animal welfare assessment approach to be carried out (indicators selection and their aggregation) nor on the standardisation of an integrated animal welfare-LCA evaluation. The present review provides a basis for the development of common future guidelines to carry out a comprehensive, true-to-life and robust farm sustainability assessment. (c) 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Animal Consortium. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The challenge of incorporating animal welfare in a social life cycle assessment model of European chicken production
    Tallentire, Craig W.
    Edwards, Sandra A.
    Van Limbergen, Tommy
    Kyriazakis, Ilias
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2019, 24 (06): : 1093 - 1104
  • [2] The challenge of incorporating animal welfare in a social life cycle assessment model of European chicken production
    Craig W. Tallentire
    Sandra A. Edwards
    Tommy Van Limbergen
    Ilias Kyriazakis
    The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2019, 24 : 1093 - 1104
  • [3] Framework for integrating animal welfare into life cycle sustainability assessment
    Scherer, Laura
    Tomasik, Brian
    Rueda, Oscar
    Pfister, Stephan
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2018, 23 (07): : 1476 - 1490
  • [4] Framework for integrating animal welfare into life cycle sustainability assessment
    Laura Scherer
    Brian Tomasik
    Oscar Rueda
    Stephan Pfister
    The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2018, 23 : 1476 - 1490
  • [5] Assessment Methods and Indicators of Animal Welfare
    Sejian, Veerasamy
    Lakritz, Jeffrey
    Ezeji, Thaddeus
    Lal, Rattan
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL AND VETERINARY ADVANCES, 2011, 6 (04): : 301 - 315
  • [6] Equine on-farm welfare assessment: a review of animal-based indicators
    Costa, E. Dalla
    Murray, L.
    Dai, F.
    Canali, E.
    Minero, M.
    ANIMAL WELFARE, 2014, 23 (03) : 323 - 341
  • [7] Critical review and practical recommendations to integrate the spatial dimension into life cycle assessment
    Patouillard, Laure
    Bulle, Cecile
    Querleu, Cecile
    Maxime, Dominique
    Osset, Philippe
    Margni, Manuele
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2018, 177 : 398 - 412
  • [8] Interobserver Reliability of the Animal Welfare Indicators Welfare Assessment Protocol for Horses
    Czycholl, Irena
    Klingbeil, Philipp
    Krieter, Joachim
    JOURNAL OF EQUINE VETERINARY SCIENCE, 2019, 75 : 112 - 121
  • [9] Inter-observer reliability of animal-based welfare indicators included in the Animal Welfare Indicators welfare assessment protocol for dairy goats
    Vieira, A.
    Battini, M.
    Can, E.
    Mattiello, S.
    Stilwell, G.
    ANIMAL, 2018, 12 (09) : 1942 - 1949
  • [10] Development of a life cycle impact assessment methodology for animal welfare with an application in the poultry industry
    Turner, Ian
    Heidari, Davoud
    Widowski, Tina
    Pelletier, Nathan
    SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION, 2023, 40 : 30 - 47