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
  • [41] Assessment of slaughterhouse-based measures as animal welfare indicators in fattening pigs
    Hernandez, Rick Obrian
    Romero, Marlyn H.
    Sanchez, Jorge A.
    FRONTIERS IN ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2023, 4
  • [42] Evaluation of Animal-Based Indicators to Be Used in a Welfare Assessment Protocol for Sheep
    Richmond, Susan E.
    Wemelsfelder, Francoise
    Beltran de Heredia, Ina
    Ruiz, Roberto
    Canali, Elisabetta
    Dwyer, Cathy M.
    FRONTIERS IN VETERINARY SCIENCE, 2017, 4
  • [43] Indicators for the assessment of animal welfare in a dairy cattle herd with a cubicle housing system
    Rousing, T
    Bonde, M
    Sorensen, JT
    IMPROVING HEALTH AND WELFARE IN ANIMAL PRODUCTION, 2000, (102): : 37 - 44
  • [44] Life cycle impact assessment: A challenge for risk analysts
    Matthews, HS
    Lave, L
    MacLean, H
    RISK ANALYSIS, 2002, 22 (05) : 853 - 860
  • [45] Animal transport and welfare: a global challenge
    Harris, T
    REVUE SCIENTIFIQUE ET TECHNIQUE-OFFICE INTERNATIONAL DES EPIZOOTIES, 2005, 24 (02): : 647 - 653
  • [46] Farm Animal Welfare: A Systemic Challenge
    Bawden, Richard
    ETHICS OF INTENSIFICATION: AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND CULTURAL CHANGE, 2008, 16 : 199 - 204
  • [47] Life cycle sustainability assessment: A systematic literature review through the application perspective, indicators, and methodologies
    Visentin, Caroline
    da Silva Trentin, Adan William
    Braun, Adeli Beatriz
    Thome, Ant Onio
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2020, 270
  • [48] A systematic review of consequential life cycle assessment in whole building life cycle assessment
    Udisi, B.
    Gorgolewski, M.
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS, 2025, 7 (02):
  • [49] Drivers and indicators of dairy animal welfare in large-scale dairies (review)
    Zivanayi Matore
    Tropical Animal Health and Production, 2023, 55
  • [50] Affect-Driven Attention Biases as Animal Welfare Indicators: Review and Methods
    Crump, Andrew
    Arnott, Gareth
    Bethell, Emily J.
    ANIMALS, 2018, 8 (08):