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
  • [31] Economic Indicators for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: Going beyond Life Cycle Costing
    Arulnathan, Vivek
    Heidari, Mohammad Davoud
    Doyon, Maurice
    Li, Eric P. H.
    Pelletier, Nathan
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2023, 15 (01)
  • [32] Life cycle sustainability assessment for sustainable energy future: A short review on opportunity and challenge
    Choe, Changgwon
    Moon, Jong Ah
    Gu, Jiwon
    Lee, Aejin
    Lim, Hankwon
    CURRENT OPINION IN GREEN AND SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY, 2024, 50
  • [33] Economic modelling and indicators in life cycle sustainability assessment
    Wood, Richard
    Hertwich, Edgar G.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2013, 18 (09): : 1710 - 1721
  • [34] Aquatic ecotoxicological indicators in life-cycle assessment
    Pennington, DW
    Payet, J
    Hauschild, M
    ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY, 2004, 23 (07) : 1796 - 1807
  • [35] Life-cycle assessment and sustainable development indicators
    Cooper, Joyce Smith
    Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2003, 7 (01) : 12 - 15
  • [36] Economic modelling and indicators in life cycle sustainability assessment
    Richard Wood
    Edgar G. Hertwich
    The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2013, 18 : 1710 - 1721
  • [37] Life-cycle assessment and the use of broad indicators
    de Haes, Helias A. Udo
    JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, 2006, 10 (03) : 5 - 7
  • [38] Animal Welfare Provide Concrete Indicators
    不详
    FLEISCHWIRTSCHAFT, 2014, 94 (08): : 22 - 22
  • [39] Validating Indicators of Subjective Animal Welfare
    Browning, Heather
    PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 2023, 90 (05) : 1255 - 1264
  • [40] Life Cycle Assessment (ISO 14040) Implementation in Foods of Animal and Plant Origin: Review
    Arvanitoyannis, Ioannis S.
    Kotsanopoulos, Konstantinos V.
    Veikou, Agapi
    CRITICAL REVIEWS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND NUTRITION, 2014, 54 (10) : 1253 - 1282