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
  • [21] Indicators in Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Review of Frameworks, Theories, and Empirical Experience
    Kuehnen, Michael
    Hahn, Ruediger
    JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, 2017, 21 (06) : 1547 - 1565
  • [22] Animal-Based Indicators for On-Farm Welfare Assessment in Sheep
    Zufferey, Romane
    Minnig, Adrian
    Thomann, Beat
    Zwygart, Sibylle
    Keil, Nina
    Schupbach, Gertraud
    Miserez, Raymond
    Zanolari, Patrik
    Stucki, Dimitri
    ANIMALS, 2021, 11 (10):
  • [23] Animal-Based Indicators for On-Farm Welfare Assessment in Goats
    Minnig, Adrian
    Zufferey, Romane
    Thomann, Beat
    Zwygart, Sibylle
    Keil, Nina
    Schupbach-Regula, Gertraud
    Miserez, Raymond
    Stucki, Dimitri
    Zanolari, Patrik
    ANIMALS, 2021, 11 (11):
  • [24] A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings
    Chau, C. K.
    Leung, T. M.
    Ng, W. Y.
    APPLIED ENERGY, 2015, 143 : 395 - 413
  • [25] Consistency over time of animal-based welfare indicators as a further step for developing a welfare assessment monitoring scheme: The case of the Animal Welfare Indicators protocol for dairy goats
    Can, E.
    Vieira, A.
    Battini, M.
    Mattiello, S.
    Stilwell, G.
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2017, 100 (11) : 9194 - 9204
  • [26] Nexus Between Life Cycle Assessment, Circularity, and Sustainability Indicators—Part I: a Review
    Saidani M.
    Kim H.
    Circular Economy and Sustainability, 2022, 2 (3): : 1143 - 1156
  • [27] Glucocorticoids in relation to behavior, morphology, and physiology as proxy indicators for the assessment of animal welfare. A systematic mapping review
    Tiemann, Inga
    Fijn, Lisa B.
    Bagaria, Marc
    Langen, Esther M. A.
    van der Staay, F. Josef
    Arndt, Saskia S.
    Leenaars, Cathalijn
    Goerlich, Vivian C.
    FRONTIERS IN VETERINARY SCIENCE, 2023, 9
  • [28] Integrate life-cycle assessment and risk analysis results, not methods
    Linkov, Igor
    Trump, Benjamin D.
    Wender, Ben A.
    Seager, Thomas P.
    Kennedy, Alan J.
    Keisler, Jeffrey M.
    NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY, 2017, 12 (08) : 740 - 743
  • [29] Study on Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Buildings: A Review
    Basu, Manali
    Kaja, Nagaraju
    Rao, Prashanti
    Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series A, 2024, 105 (03) : 749 - 766
  • [30] Integrate life-cycle assessment and risk analysis results, not methods
    Linkov I.
    Trump B.D.
    Wender B.A.
    Seager T.P.
    Kennedy A.J.
    Keisler J.M.
    Nature Nanotechnology, 2017, 12 (8) : 740 - 743