ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Quick View

OR SEARCH CITATIONS

My Activity
Publications
CONTENT TYPES

Figure 1Loading Img
Download Hi-Res ImageDownload to MS-PowerPointCite This:Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 23, 8730-8736
RETURN TO ISSUEPREVPolicy AnalysisNEXT

Not All Salmon Are Created Equal: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Global Salmon Farming Systems

View Author Information
School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Sustainable Food Production, SIK - Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden, Knowledge Systems, Ecotrust, Portland, Oregon, and School of Food Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso, Valparaiso, Chile
* Corresponding author e-mail: [email protected]
†Dalhousie University.
‡Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology.
§Ecotrust.
⊥Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso.
Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 23, 8730–8736
Publication Date (Web):October 23, 2009
https://doi.org/10.1021/es9010114
Copyright © 2009 American Chemical Society
Request reuse permissions
  • Free to Read

Article Views

17652

Altmetric

-

Citations

203
LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
PDF (1 MB)
Get e-Alerts
Supporting Info (1)»
SUBJECTS:

Abstract

We present a global-scale life cycle assessment of a major food commodity, farmed salmon. Specifically, we report the cumulative energy use, biotic resource use, and greenhouse gas, acidifying, and eutrophying emissions associated with producing farmed salmon in Norway, the UK, British Columbia (Canada), and Chile, as well as a production-weighted global average. We found marked differences in the nature and quantity of material/energy resource use and associated emissions per unit production across regions. This suggests significant scope for improved environmental performance in the industry as a whole. We identify key leverage points for improving performance, most notably the critical importance of least-environmental cost feed sourcing patterns and continued improvements in feed conversion efficiency. Overall, impacts were lowest for Norwegian production in most impact categories, and highest for UK farmed salmon. Our results are of direct relevance to industry, policy makers, eco-labeling programs, and consumers seeking to further sustainability objectives in salmon aquaculture.

This publication is licensed for personal use by The American Chemical Society.

Synopsis

A global-scale life cycle assessment of resource use and emissions in Atlantic salmon aquaculture from four countries yields insights relevant to sustainability objectives in farmed salmon production.

Introduction

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To
Food provision is a key driver of anthropogenic environmental change (1, 2). Historically much research has focused on the proximate, ecological impacts of food production. Increasing awareness of the cumulative contributions made by food systems to macroscale environmental change through resource use and emissions is spurring a wealth of new research. This work contributes to the ongoing shift in thinking about environmental management in food systems from local through regional and global scales. It informs dialogues as diverse as the policy relevance of production- versus consumption-based regulation, product eco-labeling, and the identification of key leverage points for reducing food system emissions (3-5).
In recent decades, Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) farming has become a thriving component of the global finfish aquaculture sector. In its early years the industry supplied high-end markets, serving out-of-season demand for capture fisheries products. Farmed salmon has since become a global supercommodity, as evidenced by its year-round, almost universal availability, product consistency, and high production volume (6, 7).
Examining the macroscale environmental dimensions of producing farmed salmon requires consideration of the entirety of the interlinked series of industrial activities that comprise the salmon supply chain. This includes the production, processing, and transportation of diverse salmon feed inputs, as well as the production and on-farm use of material and energy resources (4).
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an ISO-standardized biophysical accounting framework used to (1) compile an inventory of material and energy inputs and outputs characteristic of each stage of a product life cycle and (2) quantify its contributions to a specified suite of resource use and emissions-related environmental impact categories (8, 9). The framework has been previously adapted and applied to evaluate crop agriculture, animal husbandry, fisheries, and aquaculture production systems (10-22).
Here, we report a subset of the cradle-to-farm-gate resource use and environmental impacts of salmon farming in each of the four major production regions as well as a weighted global average. Specifically, cumulative energy and biotic resource use, along with the greenhouse gas, acidifying, and eutrophying emissions associated with the production of one live-weight tonne of farmed salmon are reported. Drivers of environmental performance in each region are evaluated, and a suite of improvement recommendations is advanced. The level of resolution achieved represents a significant advance over previous analyses restricted to single regions and based on more limited data sets (12-14). The research outcomes are intended to inform the following: the optimization of supply chain environmental performance by salmon feed producers and salmon farming companies; environmental policy and regulation for the salmon farming industry; eco-labeling and consumer awareness campaigns promoting sustainable seafood production and consumption; and consumers of salmon products.

Methods

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To
ISO-compliant life cycle assessment methodology (8, 9) was used to evaluate the cumulative energy use (MJ), biotic resource use (net primary productivity as measured in C) (23), and greenhouse gas (CO2-e), acidifying (SO2-e), and eutrophying (PO4-e) emissions associated with the cradle-to-farm-gate production of Atlantic salmon in Norway, the UK, Chile, and British Columbia, Canada (hereafter simply Canada). The system boundaries of our analysis appear in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Figure 1. System boundaries for a cradle-to-farm-gate LCA of live-weight salmon production in Norway, the UK, Canada, and Chile (gray font denotes background system data derived from the EcoInvent database, modified as appropriate to conform to regional conditions).

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
Foreground data were collected directly from globally and regionally important salmon feed and farming companies. In each case, detailed questionnaires were distributed to head offices soliciting details of aggregate operational material/energy inputs and production associated with each company’s operations in each region in 2007. Follow-up correspondence with key personnel in each region was undertaken to ensure clarity and consistency in reported data. To protect confidentiality, resulting data were compiled into production-weighted average inputs to operations in each region. As prior analyses indicate that infrastructure contributes negligibly to the life cycle impacts of salmon culture systems (13), we focused exclusively on quantifying operational inputs (direct material/energy use) at all stages of the production process. Chemotherapeutant use on salmon farms was also excluded as our analysis did not consider toxicological effects. Our industry engagement efforts yielded data representing ∼70% and ∼24% of 2007 global farmed salmon feed and Atlantic salmon production volumes, respectively, with at least 15% of production volumes represented for each region.
Background inventory data (i.e., for the provision of energy carriers, transport modes, and fertilizers, etc.) were derived from the EcoInvent database (24), and modified where appropriate to reflect regional conditions (for example, energy mixes underpinning electricity production, type and source of fertilizer mixes for agriculture, etc.). All other (foreground) processes, including feed input raw material production, processing and transport, hatcheries and farm-level inputs were modeled using inventory data and standardized assumptions as described in Supporting Information.
Life cycle contributions to cumulative energy use were calculated following the Cumulative Energy Demand method (25), which accounts for conversion efficiencies of energy carriers. Global warming, acidifying, and eutrophying emissions were quantified using the CML 2 Baseline 2001 method (8) and SimaPro 7.1.8 software (26). Biotic resource use, in which the net primary productivity required to sustain production of feedstuffs while accounting for their trophic level, yield,and carbon content, was quantified separately following the method described by Pelletier and Tyedmers (12). Gross chemical energy content was used as the basis for all coproduct allocation for crop-, fish-, and livestock-derived feed inputs (27). A full description of our modeling methods, inputs, and assumptions appears in Supporting Information.
All impacts were calculated per live-weight tonne of salmon or salmon feed produced in each region and also scaled up to estimate a 2007 production-weighted global average. Supply chain impacts were assessed to identify impact hotspots and key leverage points for environmental performance improvements within and between production regions. Sensitivity analyses and scenario modeling were undertaken to test the importance of key methodological assumptions and strategies to reduce impacts (see Supporting Information).

Results

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Life Cycle Inventory Results

Detailed feed composition and inventory data sources for the production, processing, and transport of all feed inputs (including individual crop, fisheries, and livestock supply chains) are available in Supporting Information Tables S1−S4. Aggregate farm-level inputs and modeled nutrient emissions, inputs to feed milling, and coarse feed composition data for all four production regions appear in Table 1 (for details regarding energy use by type and transport distances by mode, see Supporting Information Tables S5 and S6).
Table 1. Aggregate Life Cycle Inventory Data for Salmon Farming and Salmon Feed Milling in Norway, the UK, Canada, and Chile in 2007
 NorwayUKCanadaChile
inputs per tonne of salmon    
feed (t)1.1031.3311.3131.493
feed transport (t-km)290.3321.7316.0298.7
smolts (kg)17.422.216.015.0
smolt transport (t-km)1.23.93.23.0
total on-farm energy use (MJ)646.8904.0933.71199.0
farm-level emissions (kg N/P)a41.1/5.258.7/8.551.4/13.671.3/12.6
     
inputs per tonne of feed
energy for feed milling (MJ)902.61090.11393.21118.7
     
feed compositionb (%)
crop-derived meals/oils35.3/6.132.3/1.143.4/5.136.9/5.8
animal-derived meals/oils−−16.8/3.115.1/0
fish-derived meals/oils33.1/25.540.5/26.120.9/10.725.1/17.1
a

Calculated using nutrient balances based on N and P content of feeds and live-weight salmon.

b

For detailed region-wide feed inputs modeled see Table S1.

On-farm material and energy use is markedly different among regions (Tables 1, S5). Gross feed conversion ratios (FCR), the amount of feed used to raise a tonne of salmon accounting for all forms of feed loss, vary from 1.1 tonnes of feed per tonne of fish produced in Norway to nearly 1.5:1 in Chile. Farm-level energy use is also highly varied, with Norwegian operations the most efficient. Relative to Norway, on-farm energy use per tonne of salmon raised is 40%, 44%, and 85% higher on UK, Canadian, and Chilean farms, respectively. Modeled farm-level nutrient emissions also vary, and are influenced by FCR and the nitrogen/phosphorus content of feed ingredients. For example, the inclusion of relatively P-rich poultry coproduct meals in Canada and Chile explains the higher farm-level phosphorus emissions in these regions. Overall, Norwegian operations have consistently lower on-farm material/energy use and emissions (Tables 1, S5).
Not surprisingly, inputs to feeds vary markedly between regions (Tables 1, S1). Interestingly, marked heterogeneity remains even when inputs are aggregated according to origin-type (Table 1). Crop-derived inputs account for only one-third of UK diets but almost 50% of those milled in Canada. In contrast, the proportion of fish-derived ingredients is the lowest in Canada (31.6%) and Chile (42.2%), and much higher in Norway (58.6%) and the UK (66.6%). Livestock coproducts make small but noteworthy contributions to feeds milled in both Canada (19.9%) and Chile (15.1%) (Tables 1, S1).
Both the amounts and sources of energy used for feed milling also vary considerably among regions (Tables 1, S6). Norwegian feed milling is the least energy-intensive, whereas Canadian milling operations modeled required 50% more energy inputs per tonne of feed produced (Tables 1, S6).

Life Cycle Impact Assessment Results

Feed production dominates cradle-to-farm-gate life cycle impacts of farmed salmon production in all impact categories other than eutrophying emissions (Table 2). For the production-weighted global average salmon, feed accounts for 93% of farm-gate cumulative energy use, 100% of biotic resource use, and 94% of global warming and acidifying emissions (Table 2). In contrast, farm-level nutrient emissions contribute 85% of eutrophying emissions with the balance coming from feed production. Farm-level energy use is the second greatest contributor to cumulative energy use (4%), greenhouse gas (3%), and acidifying (3%) emissions (Table 2). These patterns are very consistent across regions (for a detailed breakdown of values see Table S7).
Table 2. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (Both Total Impacts and Proportional Contributions) for the Production of One Live-Weight Tonne of Salmon in Norway, UK, Chile, and Canada in 2007, Including the Production-Weighted Global Average (For Breakdown of Values See Table S7)
1

Weighted average calculated using 2007 production volumes of 626, 386, 132, and 102 kilotonnes live weight for Norway, Chile, the UK, and Canada, respectively.

Despite these similar patterns, differences in the scale of life cycle impacts among regions are pronounced (Table 2, Figure 2). In all impact categories besides biotic resource use, Norway has the lowest impacts per unit production, whereas impacts are consistently highest in the UK (Table 2). Given the predominant influence of feeds on overall impacts, these differences reflect variation in both FCR and feed composition among regions. Importantly, despite differences in FCR, this pattern is markedly different for biotic resource use, which is lowest in Canada, followed by Chile, Norway, and the UK (Table 2, Figure 2). Greater BRU in Norway and the UK results from higher inclusion rates of fish inputs (Table 1) together with their greater reliance on fish meals and oils derived from higher trophic level species such as blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) (Table S1). Also of note is the degree of variation in eutrophying emissions, which are markedly higher in the UK and Canada (Table 2, Figure 2). For the UK, this is due to the high inclusion rate of relatively phosphorus-rich fish-derived inputs, eutrophying emissions from fish reduction, and a relatively high FCR, while in Canada the inclusion of phosphorus-rich poultry meal (15% by mass) contributes over 50% of phosphorus emissions. For detailed life cycle impact assessment results for each region see Tables S7−S11.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Comparative cumulative energy use (CEU), biotic resource use (BRU), greenhouse gas emissions (GHG. Em.), acidifying emissions (Acd. Em.), and eutrophying emissions (Eut. Em.) for the farm-gate production of farmed salmon in Norway, UK, Canada, and Chile in 2007 relative to the poorest performer (set to 100%) in each impact category.

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
In light of the critical role of feeds, it is worth considering the comparative life cycle impacts of feed production within and among regions, along with key drivers of environmental performance. In general, fish- and livestock-derived inputs contribute disproportionately on a per-unit mass basis when compared with crop-derived inputs. In Norway and the UK, fish-derived inputs contributed an average of 71% and 84%, respectively, across impact categories while only accounting for 58% and 66%, respectively, of the mass of the feeds milled. Similarly, in Canada and Chile, fish- plus livestock-derived inputs accounted for just over 50% of the mass of all feed inputs (Table 1) but an average of 75% of impacts up to the feed mill gate (Tables S8−S11).
There is, however, considerable variation in the impacts associated with specific ingredients (Tables S8−S11) with overlap between the most impact-intensive crop-derived ingredients (e.g., wheat gluten meal) and the least impact-intensive fisheries ingredients (e.g., fish meal made from menhaden (Brevoortia spp.)). Conversely, the production of meals and oils from mixed-whitefish trimmings in the UK are many times more impactful than soy meal largely because the fisheries that supply the raw material are fuel intensive and meal and oil yields from trimmings are low (Tables S8−S11). In general, raw material production and processing is much more important than transport of feed ingredients while feed milling contributes negligibly in all regions (Table 3).
Table 3. Cradle-to-Mill Gate Life Cycle Impact Assessment for the Production of One Tonne of Average Salmon Feeds Milled in Norway, UK, Canada, and Chile in 2007, Including Contributions from the Production, Processing, and Transport of Crop-, Livestock-, and Fish-Derived Ingredients
1

Weighted average calculated using 2007 production volumes of 626, 386, 132, and 102 kilotonnes live weight for Norway, Chile, the UK, and Canada, respectively.

2

Includes energy use for milling, and also packaging.

The impacts of feed production are similarly variable among regions (Table 3). With the exception of biotic resource use, impacts per tonne of feed are lowest in Chile and highest in the UK. Canada has the lowest biotic resource use due to the lower inclusion rates and trophic levels of fish inputs.

Sensitivity Analysis and Scenario Model Results

We tested the importance of the field-level nitrous oxide emission factor used in our agricultural systems models by substituting extremes of the range of values (0.3−3.0% of total N applied) provided by the IPCC (28) for the recommended default value of 1% used throughout our analysis in all crop systems underpinning Norwegian salmon production. At the low end of the range (0.3%), estimated salmon farm-gate GHG emissions were 3.5% lower than in our base case analysis. At the high end of the range, estimated emissions were 14% higher than the base case (Table S12A).
Since feed use is a pivotal driver of environmental performance, we modeled the effect of lowering the FCR across all regions to that obtained in Norway, the region with the lowest feed use in 2007. Results suggest that global average greenhouse gas emissions per tonne of farmed salmon produced would decrease by 10% (Table S12B), effectively reducing cumulative CO2-eq. emissions from salmon farming by over 260 kilotonnes per year based on 2007 production volumes. In such a situation, comparative impacts among regions would be much closer, with Chile emerging as the most efficient producer in all impact categories other than biotic resource use.
We also examined the impact of changes in feed composition over time within a region by substituting average inputs to feeds milled in Canada in 1997 and 2003 into our 2007 Canadian production model (Table S13). Interestingly, these older composite feed inputs resulted in modeled greenhouse gas emissions 16−21% lower per tonne of salmon produced than our year 2007 results (Table S12C) largely due to previously lower use of poultry products.
Finally, we explored potential greenhouse gas emission reductions through feed input substitution by modeling the replacement of all fish meals and oils used in 2007 Norwegian production with products with impacts equivalent to menhaden meal and oil (the least GHG-intensive fisheries ingredients evaluated) (Table S12D). Such a substitution would reduce farm-gate emissions by 57%.

Discussion

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To
Our global-scale life cycle assessment of this food supercommodity yields a rich suite of information and insights relevant to informing how we conceive of and seek to further sustainability objectives in farmed salmon production. Of first-order interest is the striking variability in the quantity and nature of resources underpinning the production of this seemingly uniform commodity. Despite the high degree of ownership concentration and vertical integration in the salmon farming sector (6), as well as the standardized nature of net-pen production, our inventory data indicates considerable differences across the four major farming regions. Obviously different is the feed conversion ratio, which varies as much as 35% among regions (we should note that outbreaks of infectious salmon anemia in Chile in late 2007 may partially explain the high FCR in this region). Notable too is the diversity of inputs to feeds, with each region drawing from a suite of regionally and globally available crop-, fish-, and (in the case of Canada and Chile) livestock-derived inputs. Similarly striking are the variable energy requirements for feed milling and salmon farming operations. Understanding this variability is essential to interpreting inter-regional differences in the environmental performance of farmed salmon production.

Feeding Farmed Salmon

Consistent with previous research (12-17), we found feed provision to be the single most important contributor to resource use and emissions associated with the farm-gate production of salmonids cultured in net-pen systems. Given the wide range of impacts characteristic of the production of various crop-, livestock-, and fish-derived feed ingredients (12), it would thus appear that significant opportunities exist for dramatically improving the overall environmental performance of salmon production through a focus on the development of least-environmental-cost (as opposed to least-economic-cost) feed formulations. Certainly, this is evidenced by the dramatic decrease in farm-gate greenhouse gas emissions (57%) that could result from a hypothetical substitution of all higher-impact fish meals and oils in Norwegian production with less GHG-intensive products such as menhaden meal and oil (although stock capacities must also be considered). Such large differences are to be anticipated given the wide range of meal and oil yield rates between species and the fuel use intensities of fisheries that target them (29).
Although it is essential to maintain a nutritional profile most conducive to fish performance, the substitutability of ingredients within and between ingredient types has already been widely investigated and evidences considerable flexibility and opportunity (12). Of particular interest is the possibility of replacing fish and animal protein meals and oils with vegetable-based equivalents, which, in many cases, will reduce associated impacts (12). However, this requires attention to the environmental performance of specific products. As a general rule, crop-derived ingredients are less resource and emissions intensive than fish- or livestock-derived ingredients, but there are clearly exceptions. For example, vegetable materials such as canola oil and wheat gluten meal are actually more resource and emissions intensive than the most efficient fisheries products considered (e.g., menhaden meal and oil).
The influence of feed composition on the environmental performance of salmon production is evident in the high degree of variability in the impacts of feeds produced in each region. It is also reflected in the marked differences in modeled GHG emissions associated with Canadian salmon production as a function of shifting inputs to feeds between 1997, 2003, and 2007, where emissions increased largely due to greater use of poultry products. Certainly, all regions would see marked improvements in environmental performance through the substitution of high-impact ingredients such as blue whiting meals/oils in Norway, mixed whitefish trimmings meals/oils in the UK, and poultry-derived meals and oils in Canada and Chile. However, the scale of potential substitution is ultimately constrained by alternative product availability on global markets (for example, menhaden stocks are insufficient to satisfy all fish meal demands). It is also influenced by certain (surmountable) cultural and regulatory factors. For example, the high rate of fish meal and oil use in UK production partially reflects the demands of some domestic retailers for salmon produced on a “natural” high fish diet and the dictates of product quality labels such as the French Label Rouge standard to which some UK fish are produced. A further example of a regulatory constraint is the ban on using animal processing coproduct meals in European production. This situation results in a number of seeming incongruities including that European salmon production is partially underpinned by Brazilian soy production, while Chilean salmon consume European poultry processing coproducts that were themselves produced using Brazilian soy.
It should also be noted that feed ingredient substitution may have environmental implications beyond the range of issues considered here. For example, increasing soy cultivation in Amazonia as a result of growing global demands for feed protein has been identified as a major driver of deforestation in the region as well as a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions associated with land-use change (not accounted for in our analysis) (30, 31). Substituting fish and poultry meals with soy meal in aquaculture may exacerbate these problems. The results of this analysis should therefore be used in concert with broader considerations of the proximate ecological and socioeconomic implications of alternative feed sourcing patterns.

Non-feed Composition Related Environmental Performance Drivers

Beyond feed composition, the importance of feed conversion ratio to cumulative impacts of farm-gate salmon production cannot be overstated. FCR’s in salmonid production are notably lower than those characteristic of most terrestrial animal husbandry systems, since poikilotherms need not divert a substantial fraction of feed energy to maintain body temperature as is the case with homeotherms. However, considerable margin for improvement remains. Interregional differences in FCR (1.1−1.5:1) is a key factor in the overall patterns of environmental impacts observed for all impact categories besides biotic resource use, where the trophic level and inclusion rates of fish products are more important. If all regions achieved an FCR similar to that of Norway, where feed conversion ratios are lowest, the cumulative impacts of global salmon production would be much reduced. Moreover, the relative ranking of environmental performance among regions would change, with Chile moving to the fore in all impact categories other than biotic resource use. Given the scale of production of this global supercommodity, such improvements may have nontrivial implications for cumulative anthropogenic resource use and emissions. As FCR is influenced by a combination of factors including feed composition, feeding technology and feed loss, fish size, fish growth, disease, escapes, and mortality, continued improvements in all of these areas will be pivotal to improving the overall environmental performance of farmed salmon production worldwide.
Although feed provision is a central driver of environmental performance according to the criteria considered in this analysis, other aspects of the salmon production life cycle bear consideration. For example, our inventory analysis suggests a high degree of variability in energy use and emissions associated with feed milling between regions. While perhaps somewhat influenced by regional feed composition, these differences are more likely the result of technological variables such as equipment age and efficiency along with operational differences that can result from the number of feeds milled and the duration of milling runs. Given the increasing costs of energy, one would anticipate that companies, in the long term, would reap both economic and environmental benefit from transitioning to best available technologies and lowest-impact milling practices. Another area of significant variability among regions is the level of on-farm energy use and associated emissions, which are lowest in Norway and highest in Chile. Attention is required to streamlining production toward the most efficient performance potential.

Comments on Methods and Assumptions

We should also make note of our assumptions and their influence on the research outcomes. We have endeavored to model the diverse range of crop, fisheries, and livestock systems providing inputs to salmon feeds in a rigorous, systematic, and broadly representative manner—for example, by applying IPCC (28) default emission factors for field-level nitrous oxide emissions in agriculture across systems and regions. As suggested by our sensitivity analysis, the apparent farm-gate greenhouse gas intensity of farmed salmon production is roughly 14% higher when field-level nitrous oxide emissions for agricultural inputs are at the high end of the uncertainty range provided by IPCC. Nonetheless, given that feed inputs are purchased on commodity markets and drawn from a large pool of production systems, we are confident that our use of default emission factors to represent average conditions is defensible.
Also important is our choice of allocation principle. In feed input production systems yielding coproduct outputs, we have partitioned resource use and emissions according to the gross chemical energy content of coproduct streams. We believe that this principle accurately reflects the flows of material and energy, and associated emissions, attributable to the functioning of the product system, which is at its root motivated by the basic human need for food energy. Allocation according to energy content allows apportioning of burdens according to an inherent biophysical property of the raw material which is distributed between coproducts in a quantifiable manner (27). As such, this approach speaks directly to the efficiency with which the product system produces food energy and is consistent with ISO (9) recommendations that the allocation criterion be based on the function of the coproducts. For a full discussion of this and alternative allocation principles, see Ayer et al. (27) and Pelletier and Tyedmers (12).

Farmed Salmon in Perspective

Although our analysis indicates the possibility of substantial reductions in the life cycle resource use and emissions characteristic of net-pen salmon aquaculture worldwide, it should be noted that, based on the subset of environmental performance criteria considered here, farmed salmon products compare favorably to certain livestock products in some respects. For example, our results suggest that, on average, GHG emissions from salmon farming are lower than has been reported for some competing meat sources. At a global average farm-gate GHG emission intensity of 2.15 t CO2-e/t, farmed salmon has markedly lower emissions than has been reported for either Swedish pork (3.3−4.4 t CO2-e/t) (19) or Belgian beef (14.5 t CO2-e/t) (20). In contrast, it is approximately 50% more GHG-intensive than U.S. poultry (1.4 t CO2-e/t) (22) and 27% higher than average global capture fisheries (1.7 t CO2-e/t) (29) (the latter estimate includes reduction fisheries and would hence be higher for fisheries for human consumption). This suggests that the application of carbon taxes might render farmed salmon more competitive than several alternative animal husbandry products. However, the environmental performance of farmed salmon may be relatively poor according to other measures. For example, biotic resource use will be substantially higher in salmon production due to the use of fish meals and oils—particularly those derived from high trophic level species. Haberl et al. (32) estimate that humans currently appropriate close to 23% of global net primary productivity and predict an increase to 50% by 2050. As pointed out by Imhoff et al. (33), this is a remarkable level of appropriation for a species representing only 0.5% of planetary heterotroph biomass, and has significant consequences for energy flows within food webs, the biodiversity that ecosystems can support, the composition of the atmosphere, and the provision of important ecosystem services. In this respect, producing farmed salmon (and other carnivorous species) may be considerably less eco-efficient than terrestrial livestock production.
It should also be noted that, given the diverse potential product forms and modes of distribution by which farmed salmon products may reach consumers (34), policies and regulations designed to further sustainability objectives in the salmon farming industry should take account of resource use and emissions associated with the full cradle-to-grave supply chain (publications forthcoming). Nonetheless, given the general importance of the production stage to food system supply chain environmental impacts, this global analysis of farm-gate salmon production provides information relevant to environmental supply chain management by producers and retailers of farmed salmon products, policy makers seeking to influence more sustainable practices, and consumer awareness campaigns designing and promoting sustainability assessments of salmon aquaculture.

Supporting Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Detailed discussion of model development and methods, results, and additional figures and tables. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To
  • Corresponding Author
    • Nathan Pelletier - School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Sustainable Food Production, SIK - Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden, Knowledge Systems, Ecotrust, Portland, Oregon, and School of Food Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso, Valparaiso, Chile;  Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Peter Tyedmers - School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Sustainable Food Production, SIK - Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden, Knowledge Systems, Ecotrust, Portland, Oregon, and School of Food Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso, Valparaiso, Chile
    • Ulf Sonesson - School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Sustainable Food Production, SIK - Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden, Knowledge Systems, Ecotrust, Portland, Oregon, and School of Food Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso, Valparaiso, Chile
    • Astrid Scholz - School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Sustainable Food Production, SIK - Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden, Knowledge Systems, Ecotrust, Portland, Oregon, and School of Food Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso, Valparaiso, Chile
    • Friederike Ziegler - School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Sustainable Food Production, SIK - Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden, Knowledge Systems, Ecotrust, Portland, Oregon, and School of Food Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso, Valparaiso, Chile
    • Anna Flysjo - School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Sustainable Food Production, SIK - Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden, Knowledge Systems, Ecotrust, Portland, Oregon, and School of Food Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso, Valparaiso, Chile
    • Sarah Kruse - School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Sustainable Food Production, SIK - Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden, Knowledge Systems, Ecotrust, Portland, Oregon, and School of Food Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso, Valparaiso, Chile
    • Beatriz Cancino - School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Sustainable Food Production, SIK - Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden, Knowledge Systems, Ecotrust, Portland, Oregon, and School of Food Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso, Valparaiso, Chile
    • Howard Silverman - School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Sustainable Food Production, SIK - Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden, Knowledge Systems, Ecotrust, Portland, Oregon, and School of Food Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso, Valparaiso, Chile

Acknowledgment

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This work was supported by the Lenfest Ocean Program of the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, the Oak Foundation; the Lighthouse Foundation, the Killam Trust, and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada. It was made possible by the generous cooperation of our industry collaborators worldwide, and facilitated by the data collection efforts of Peter Bridson and Stephany Gonzalez in the UK and Chile respectively.

References

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article references 34 other publications.

  1. 1
    Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, T.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M.; de Haan, C. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options; United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, 2006.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  2. 2
    Garnett, T.

    Cooking up a Storm. Food, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and our Changing Climate; Food Climate Research Network, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, 2008; available at http://www.fcrn.org.uk/frcnPubs/publications/PDFs/CuaS_web.pdf.

    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  3. 3
    Lebel, L.; Lorek, L. Enabling sustainable production-consumption systems Annu. Rev. Energy Env. 2008, 33, 241– 275
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  4. 4
    Pelletier, N.; Tyedmers, P. Life cycle considerations for improving sustainability assessments in seafood awareness campaigns Environ. Manage. 2008, 42 (5) 918– 931
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  5. 5
    Weber, C.; Mathews, H. Food-miles and relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 3508– 3513
    [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  6. 6
    Eagle, J.; Naylor, R.; Smith, W. Why farm salmon outcompete fishery salmon Mar. Policy 2004, 28 (3) 259– 270
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  7. 7
    Naylor, R.; Burke, M. Aquaculture and ocean resources: Raising tigers of the sea Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 185– 218
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  8. 8
    Guinee, J.; Gorree, M.; Heijungs, R.1; Huppes, G.; Kleijn, R.; de Koning, A.; van Oers, L.; Weneger, A.; Suh, S.; Udo de Haes, H.;

    et al. Life Cycle Assessment: An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards; Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, The Hague, Netherlands, 2001; available at http://cml.leiden.edu/research/industrialecology/researchprojects/finished/new-dutch-lca-guide.html.

    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  9. 9

    International Organization for Standardization. Life Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework 14040; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.

    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  10. 10
    Tukker, A.; Jansen, B. Environment impacts of products - a detailed review of studies J. Ind. Ecol. 2006, 10 (3) 159– 182
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  11. 11
    Roy, P.; Nei, D.; Orikasa, T.; Xu, Q.; Okadome, H.; Nakamura, N.; Shiina, T. A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products J. Food Eng. 2009, 90 (1) 1– 10
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  12. 12
    Pelletier, N.; Tyedmers, P. Feeding farmed salmon: Is organic better? Aquaculture 2007, 272, 399– 416
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  13. 13
    Ayer, N.; Tyedmers, P. Assessing alternative aquaculture technologies: life cycle assessment of salmonid culture systems in Canada J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 362– 373
    [Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar
    13
    Assessing alternative aquaculture technologies: life cycle assessment of salmonid culture systems in Canada
    Ayer, Nathan W.; Tyedmers, Peter H.
    Journal of Cleaner Production (2008), 17 (3), 362-373CODEN: JCROE8; ISSN:0959-6526. (Elsevier Ltd.)
    This study employed life cycle assessment (LCA) to quantify and compare the potential environmental impacts of culturing salmonids in a conventional marine net-pen system with those of three reportedly environmentally-friendly alternatives; a marine floating bag system; a land-based saltwater flow-through system; and a land-based freshwater recirculating system. Results of the study indicate that while the use of these closed-containment systems may reduce the local ecol. impacts typically assocd. with net-pen salmon farming, the increase in material and energy demands assocd. with their use may result in significantly increased contributions to several environmental impacts of global concern, including global warming, non-renewable resource depletion, and acidification. It is recommended that these unanticipated impacts be carefully considered in further assessments of the sustainability of closed-containment systems and in ongoing efforts to develop and employ these technologies on a larger scale.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3cXktlSkur4%253D&md5=172ea4328d6087f1faa460de22f3acc6
  14. 14
    Ellingsen, H.; Olaussen, J.; Utne, I. Environmental analysis of the Norwegian fishery and aquaculture industry - A preliminary study focusing on farmed salmon. Mar. Policy  2009, 33 ((3)) 479– 488.
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  15. 15
    Gronroos, J.; Seppala, J.; Silvenius, F.; Makinen, T. Life cycle assessment of Finnish cultivated rainbow trout Boreal Environ. Res. 2006, 11 (5) 401– 414
    [CAS], Google Scholar
    15
    Life cycle assessment of Finnish cultivated rainbow trout
    Gronroos, Juha; Seppala, Jyri; Silvenius, Frans; Makinen, Timo
    Boreal Environment Research (2006), 11 (5), 401-414CODEN: BEREF7; ISSN:1239-6095. (Finnish Environment Institute)
    Rainbow trout is economically the most important cultivated fish in Finland. In this study, new knowledge on the energy consumption, emissions and environmental impacts caused by the prodn. of rainbow trout in Finland was generated. Methodol. the work was based on life cycle assessment (LCA) beginning from the extn. of raw materials and ending with the delivery of gutted fish to the retailers or for further processing. The environmental performances of prodn. methods with different feeds, feed coeffs. and tech. emission redn. measures were assessed. The environmental impact assessment revealed that atm. emissions - originating mainly from the feed raw material prodn., feed manufg. and transportation, make only a minor contribution to the total environmental impacts caused by the prodn. of rainbow trout in Finland. Phosphorus and nitrogen emissions from fish farms to waters are the most significant emissions from the point of view of the total environmental impacts. By using new, environmentally friendly feeds with increased feed efficiency it is possible to decrease the nitrogen and phosphorus loads significantly. Tech. measures to decrease nutrient emissions to the waters reduce the phosphorus load but have only a minor effect on nitrogen. Energy consumption and the use of renewable energy sources proved to be one of the key indicators for developing more sustainable aquacultural practices in Finland, although the major share of energy consumption assocd. with the prodn. of rainbow trout takes place outside Finland.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD2sXitFeltw%253D%253D&md5=1c297522dbbae71f833f646d9e4b84f3
  16. 16
    Aubin, J.; Papatryphon, E.; van der Werf, H.; Chatzifotis, S. Assessment of the environmental impact of carnivorous finfish systems using life cycle assessment J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 354– 361
    [Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar
    16
    Assessment of the environmental impact of carnivorous finfish production systems using life cycle assessment
    Aubin, J.; Papatryphon, E.; van der Werf, H. M. G.; Chatzifotis, S.
    Journal of Cleaner Production (2008), 17 (3), 354-361CODEN: JCROE8; ISSN:0959-6526. (Elsevier Ltd.)
    When evaluating the environmental impacts of finfish prodn. systems, both regional impacts (e.g., eutrophication) and global impacts (e.g., climate change) should be taken into account. The life cycle assessment (LCA) method is well suited for this purpose. Three fish farms that represent contrasting intensive prodn. systems were investigated using LCA: rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in freshwater raceways in France, sea-bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in sea cages in Greece, and turbot (Scophtalmus maximus) in an inland re-circulating system close to the seashore in France. Two main characteristics differentiated the three farm systems: feed use and energy use. Emission of nitrogen and phosphorus accounted for more than 90% of each farm's potential eutrophication impact. In the trout and sea-bass systems, feed prodn. was the major contributor to potential climate change and acidification impacts and net primary prodn. use (NPPU). In these systems, the main source of variation for environmental impacts was the feed conversion ratio. Results from this study indicate that the sea-bass cage system was less efficient than the trout raceway system, with a higher level of potential eutrophication (65% greater) and NPPU (15% greater). The turbot re-circulating system was a high energy-consumer compared to the trout raceway system (four times higher) and the sea-bass cage system (five times higher). Potential climate change and acidification impacts were largely influenced by energy consumption in the turbot re-circulating system. In the turbot re-circulating system 86% of energy use was due to on-site consumption, while in the sea-bass cage farming system 72% of energy use was due to feed prodn. These results are discussed in relation to regional contexts of prodn. and focus attention on the sensitivity of each aquatic environment and the use of energy carriers.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3cXktlSktbc%253D&md5=05cd28bd37c7c1258baf98601eb61304
  17. 17
    Roque d’Orbcastel, E.; Blancheton, J.; Aubin, J. Towards environmentally sustainable aquaculture: Comparison between two trout farming systems using Life Cycle Assessment Aqua. Engin. 2009, 40 (3) 113– 119
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  18. 18
    Mungkung, R.; Udo de Haes, H.; Clift, R. Potentials and limitations of life cycle assessment in setting eco-labeling criteria: a case study of Thai shrimp aquaculture product Int. J. LCA 2006, 11 (1) 55– 59
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  19. 19
    Stern, S.; Sonesson, U.; Gunnarsson, S.; Oborn, I.; Kumm, K.; Nybrant, T. Sustainable development of food production: A case study on scenarios for pig production Ambio 2005, 34 (4−5) 402– 407
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  20. 20
    Nemry, F.; Theunis, J.; Brechet, T.; Lopez, P. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction and Material Flows; Institute Wallan, Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs: Brussels, Belgium, 2001.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  21. 21
    Pelletier, N.; Arsenault, A.; Tyedmers, P. Scenario modeling potential eco-efficiency gains from a transition to organic agriculture: Life cycle perspectives on Canadian canola, corn, soy, and wheat production Environ. Manage. 2008, 42 (6) 989– 1001
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  22. 22
    Pelletier, N. Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: Life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions Agric. Syst. 2008, 98, 67– 73
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  23. 23
    Pelletier, N.; Ayer, N.; Tyedmers, P.; Kruse, S.; Flysjo, A.; Robillard, G.; Ziegler, F.; Scholz, A.; Sonesson, U. Impact categories for life cycle assessment research of seafood production: Review and prospectus Int. J. LCA 2007, 12 (6) 414– 421
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  24. 24

    EcoInvent. 2008; available at http://www.ecoinvent.ch/.

    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  25. 25
    Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Hirschier, R.; Hellweg, S.; Humbert, S.; Margni, M.; Nemecek, T.; Spielmann, M.

    Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods; EcoInvent Report 3; Swiss Centre for LCI: Duebendorf, Switzerland, 2003; available at www.ecoinvent.ch.

    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  26. 26

    PRe. SimaPro 7.1; available at http://www.pre.nl/.

    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  27. 27
    Ayer, N.; Tyedmers, P.; Pelletier, N.; Sonesson, U.; Scholz, A. Allocation in life cycle assessments of seafood production systems: Review of problems and strategies Int. J. LCA 2007, 12 (7) 480– 487
    [Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar
    27
    Co-product allocation in life cycle assessments of seafood production systems: review of problems and strategies
    Ayer, Nathan W.; Tyedmers, Peter H.; Pelletier, Nathan L.; Sonesson, Ulf; Scholz, Astrid
    International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2007), 12 (7), 480-487CODEN: IJLCFF; ISSN:0948-3349. (Ecomed Publishers)
    A review is given. As life cycle assessment is being increasingly applied to study fisheries and aquaculture systems, the LCA methodol. must be adapted to address the unique aspects of these systems. The focus of this methodol. paper is the specific allocation problems faced in studying seafood prodn. systems and how they have been addressed to date. The paper begins with a literature review of existing LCA research of fishing and aquaculture systems with a specific focus on (1) identifying the key allocation problems; (2) describing the choice of allocation procedures; and (3) providing insight on the rationale for those choices where available. The allocation procedures are then discussed in the context of ISO recommendations and other published guidance on allocation, followed by a discussion of the key lessons to be learned from the reviewed studies and recommendations for future LCAs of seafood prodn. systems. The literature review suggests that allocation problems are most likely to arise when dealing with: landed by-catch within the context of capture fisheries, the use of co-product feed ingredients in aquaculture feeds, multiple outputs from fish farms, and the generation of byproducts when seafood is processed. System expansion and allocation according to phys. causality were not applied in most cases, while economic allocation was the most widely used approach. It was also obsd. that the level of detail and justification provided for allocation decisions in most published reports was inconsistent and incomplete. The results of this literature review are consistent with other reviews of allocation in LCA in that allocation according to economic value was found to be the most frequently applied approach. The application of economic allocation when system expansion is not feasible is consistent with ISO guidance. However, economic allocation is not the most appropriate method in seafood prodn. LCAs because it does not reflect the biophys. flows of material and energy between the inputs and outputs of the prodn. system. More effort needs to be invested in developing allocation procedures appropriate to seafood prodn. systems. Allocation based on gross energy content is proposed as one potential alternative means of allocating environmental burdens in some instances in seafood prodn. LCAs. A std. set of requirements for how to describe and justify allocation decisions in published reports is needed to make these studies more robust and transparent.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD2sXhsVCgur%252FP&md5=c92d866e1a9b85c0c3516f24bdcf0a08
  28. 28

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 2006; available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.htm.

    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  29. 29
    Tyedmers, P.; Watson, R.; Pauly, D. Fueling global fishing fleets Ambio 2005, 34 (8) 635– 638
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  30. 30
    Fearnside, P. Soybean cultivation as a threat to the environment in Brazil Environ. Conserv. 2001, 28 (1) 23– 28
    [Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar
    30
    Soybean cultivation as a threat to the environment in Brazil
    Fearnside, Philip M.
    Environmental Conservation (2001), 28 (1), 23-38CODEN: EVCNA4; ISSN:0376-8929. (Cambridge University Press)
    A review and discussion with many refs. Soybeans represent a recent and powerful threat to tropical biodiversity in Brazil. Developing effective strategies to contain and minimize the environmental impact of soybean cultivation requires understanding of both the forces that drive the soybean advance and the many ways that soybeans and their assocd. infrastructure catalyze destructive processes. The present paper presents an up-to-date review of the advance of soybeans in Brazil, its environmental and social costs and implications for development policy. Soybeans are driven by global market forces, making them different from many of the land-use changes that have dominated the scene in Brazil so far, particularly in Amazonia. Soybeans are much more damaging than other crops because they justify massive transportation infrastructure projects that unleash a chain of events leading to destruction of natural habitats over wide areas in addn. to what is directly cultivated for soybeans. The capacity of global markets to absorb addnl. prodn. represents the most likely limit to the spread of soybeans, although Brazil may someday come to see the need for discouraging rather than subsidizing this crop because many of its effects are unfavorable to national interests, including severe concn. of land tenure and income, expulsion of population to Amazonian frontier, and gold-mining, as well as urban areas, and the opportunity cost of substantial drains on government resources. The multiple impacts of soybean expansion on biodiversity and other development considerations have several implications for policy: (1) protected areas need to be created in advance of soybean frontiers, (2) elimination of the many subsidies that speed soybean expansion beyond what would occur otherwise from market forces is to be encouraged, (3) studies to assess the costs of social and environmental impacts assocd. with soybean expansion are urgently required, and (4) the environmental-impact regulatory system requires strengthening, including mechanisms for commitments not to implant specific infrastructure projects that are judged to have excessive impacts.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD3MXjvFCrtro%253D&md5=315d6b5e43c6f7234abbbcc54e2bc0cf
  31. 31
    Nepstad, D.; Stickler, C.; Almeida, O. Globalization of the Amazon soy and beef industries: Opportunities for conservation Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20 (6) 1595– 1603
    [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
    31
    Globalization of the Amazon soy and beef industries: opportunities for conservation
    Nepstad Daniel C; Stickler Claudia M; Almeida Oriana T
    Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology (2006), 20 (6), 1595-603 ISSN:0888-8892.
    Amazon beef and soybean industries, the primary drivers of Amazon deforestation, are increasingly responsive to economic signals emanating from around the world, such as those associated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, "mad cow disease") outbreaks and China's economic growth. The expanding role of these economic "teleconnections" (coupled phenomena that take place in distant places on the planet) led to a 3-year period (2002-2004) of historically high deforestation rates. But it also increases the potential for large-scale conservation in the region as markets and finance institutions demand better environmental and social performance of beef and soy producers. Cattle ranchers and soy farmers who have generally opposed ambitious government regulations that require forest reserves on private property are realizing that good land stewardship-including compliance with legislation-may increase their access to expanding domestic and international markets and to credit and lower the risk of "losing" their land to agrarian reform. The realization of this potential depends on the successful negotiation of social and environmental performance criteria and an associated system of certification that are acceptable to both the industries and civil society. The foot-and-mouth eradication system, in which geographic zones win permission to export beef, may provide an important model for the design of a low-cost, peer-enforced, socioenvironmental certification system that becomes the mechanism by which beef and soy industries gain access to markets outside the Amazon.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD28jktlGqtg%253D%253D&md5=a0db2d811614bea369e33d45b28fdaa6
  32. 32
    Haberl, H.; Erb, H.; Krausmann, F.; Gaube, V.; Bondeau, A.; Plutzar, C.; Gingrich, S.; Lucht, W.; Fischer-Kowalski, M. Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104 (31) 12942– 12945
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  33. 33
    Imhoff, M.; Bounoua, L.; Ricketts, T.; Louks, C.; Harris, R.; Lawrence, W. Global patterns in human consumption of net primary production Nature 2004, 429, 870– 73
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  34. 34
    Tlusty, M.; Lagueux, K. Isolines as a new tool to assess the energy costs of the production and distribution of multiple sources of seafood J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17 (3) 408– 415
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.

Cited By

This article is cited by 203 publications.

  1. Kristina Bergman, Patrik J. G. Henriksson, Sara Hornborg, Max Troell, Louisa Borthwick, Malin Jonell, Gaspard Philis, Friederike Ziegler. Recirculating Aquaculture Is Possible without Major Energy Tradeoff: Life Cycle Assessment of Warmwater Fish Farming in Sweden. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (24) , 16062-16070. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c01100
  2. Jessica L. Couture, Roland Geyer, Jon Øvrum Hansen, Brandon Kuczenski, Margareth Øverland, Joseph Palazzo, Christian Sahlmann, Hunter Lenihan. Environmental Benefits of Novel Nonhuman Food Inputs to Salmon Feeds. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (4) , 1967-1975. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b03832
  3. Nathan Pelletier, Dane H. Klinger, Neil A. Sims, Janice-Renee Yoshioka, John N. Kittinger. Nutritional Attributes, Substitutability, Scalability, and Environmental Intensity of an Illustrative Subset of Current and Future Protein Sources for Aquaculture Feeds: Joint Consideration of Potential Synergies and Trade-offs. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (10) , 5532-5544. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05468
  4. Patrik J. G. Henriksson, Andreu Rico, Wenbo Zhang, Sk. Ahmad-Al-Nahid, Richard Newton, Lam T. Phan, Zongfeng Zhang, Jintana Jaithiang, Hai M. Dao, Tran M. Phu, David C. Little, Francis J. Murray, Kriengkrai Satapornvanit, Liping Liu, Qigen Liu, M. Mahfujul Haque, Froukje Kruijssen, Geert R. de Snoo, Reinout Heijungs, Peter M. van Bodegom, and Jeroen B. Guinée . Comparison of Asian Aquaculture Products by Use of Statistically Supported Life Cycle Assessment. Environmental Science & Technology 2015, 49 (24) , 14176-14183. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04634
  5. Anh D. Luong, Thomas Schaubroeck, Jo Dewulf, and Frederik De Laender . Re-evaluating Primary Biotic Resource Use for Marine Biomass Production: A New Calculation Framework. Environmental Science & Technology 2015, 49 (19) , 11586-11593. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02515
  6. Keegan P. McGrath, Nathan L. Pelletier, and Peter H. Tyedmers . Life Cycle Assessment of a Novel Closed-Containment Salmon Aquaculture Technology. Environmental Science & Technology 2015, 49 (9) , 5628-5636. https://doi.org/10.1021/es5051138
  7. Zhen Hu, Jae Woo Lee, Kartik Chandran, Sungpyo Kim, and Samir Kumar Khanal . Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Emission from Aquaculture: A Review. Environmental Science & Technology 2012, 46 (12) , 6470-6480. https://doi.org/10.1021/es300110x
  8. Robert W. R. Parker and Peter H. Tyedmers . Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Three Products Derived from Wild-Caught Antarctic Krill (Euphausia superba). Environmental Science & Technology 2012, 46 (9) , 4958-4965. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2040703
  9. Ling Cao, James S. Diana, Gregory A. Keoleian, and Qiuming Lai . Life Cycle Assessment of Chinese Shrimp Farming Systems Targeted for Export and Domestic Sales. Environmental Science & Technology 2011, 45 (15) , 6531-6538. https://doi.org/10.1021/es104058z
  10. Christian Sigtryggsson, Hanna Karlsson Potter, Volkmar Passoth, Per-Anders Hansson. From straw to salmon: a technical design and energy balance for production of yeast oil for fish feed from wheat straw. Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts 2023, 16 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-023-02392-2
  11. Xin Liu, Huijun Wu, Yuan Wang, Yajie Liu, Hui Zhu, Zeru Li, Pengguang Shan, Zengwei Yuan. Comparative assessment of Chinese mitten crab aquaculture in China: Spatiotemporal changes and trade-offs. Environmental Pollution 2023, 337 , 122544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122544
  12. Daniela Dominguez Aldama, Florian Grassauer, Ying Zhu, Amir Ardestani-Jaafari, Nathan Pelletier. Allocation methods in life cycle assessments (LCAs) of agri-food co-products and food waste valorization systems: Systematic review and recommendations. Journal of Cleaner Production 2023, 421 , 138488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138488
  13. Gürkan Diken, Hayati Koknaroglu, Ergi Bahrioğlu. Would dependency on fossil fuels affect food security and sustainable production in aquaculture? Cultural energy use and energy use efficiency for earthen pond European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax L., 1758) production. Aquaculture International 2023, 39 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-023-01242-0
  14. Haochen Hou, Anqi Ren, Lixingbo Yu, Zhen Ma, Yun Zhang, Ying Liu. An Environmental Impact Assessment of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) Aquaculture in Hangzhou, China. Sustainability 2023, 15 (16) , 12368. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612368
  15. Mohsen Rasooli, Babak Beheshti, Mohammad Gholami Parashkoohi, Mohamad Ghahdarijani. Evaluation of energy-economic and environmental consequences in different fish production systems using a life cycle assessment approach. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 2023, 18 , 100231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2023.100231
  16. Stefanie M. Colombo, Koushik Roy, Jan Mraz, Alex H. L. Wan, Simon J. Davies, Sean M. Tibbetts, Margareth Øverland, David S. Francis, Melissa M. Rocker, Laura Gasco, Emma Spencer, Marc Metian, Jesse T. Trushenski, Giovanni M. Turchini. Towards achieving circularity and sustainability in feeds for farmed blue foods. Reviews in Aquaculture 2023, 15 (3) , 1115-1141. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12766
  17. Megan E. Rector, Ramon Filgueira, Jon Grant. Does eco-certification change public opinion of salmon aquaculture in Canada? A comparison of communities with and without salmon farms. Aquaculture Economics & Management 2023, 20 , 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2023.2196948
  18. Syed Monzur Morshed, Yu-Yi Chen, Chia-Hao Lin, Yen-Po Chen, Tsung-Han Lee. Freshwater transfer affected intestinal microbiota with correlation to cytokine gene expression in Asian sea bass. Frontiers in Microbiology 2023, 14 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1097954
  19. Gürkan Diken. Carbon footprint (kg CO2 e ) expended in the aquaculture: An assessment of concrete pond rainbow trout farming from Türkiye. Journal of Water and Climate Change 2023, 4 https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2023.458
  20. Richard W. Newton, Silvia Maiolo, Wesley Malcorps, David C. Little. Life Cycle Inventories of marine ingredients. Aquaculture 2023, 565 , 739096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.739096
  21. Mugahid Elnour, Henrik Haller, Michael Martin. Life cycle assessment of a retail store aquaponic system in a cold-weather region. Frontiers in Sustainability 2023, 3 https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.1051091
  22. Shuang-Lin Dong, Yun-Wei Dong. Sustainability of Aquaculture Production Systems. 2023, 491-530. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5486-3_15
  23. Friederike Ziegler, Ray Hilborn. Fished or farmed: Life cycle impacts of salmon consumer decisions and opportunities for reducing impacts. Science of The Total Environment 2023, 854 , 158591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158591
  24. CD Wang, Y Olsen. Quantifying regional feed utilization, production and nutrient waste emission of Norwegian salmon cage aquaculture. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 2023, https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00463
  25. Silvio Viglia, Mark T. Brown, David C. Love, Jillian P. Fry, Rachel Scroggins, Roni A. Neff. Analysis of energy and water use in USA farmed catfish: Toward a more resilient and sustainable production system. Journal of Cleaner Production 2022, 379 , 134796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134796
  26. Friederike Ziegler, Sepideh Jafarzadeh, Erik Skontorp Hognes, Ulf Winther. Greenhouse gas emissions of Norwegian seafoods: From comprehensive to simplified assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2022, 26 (6) , 1908-1919. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13150
  27. Gaspard Philis, Friederike Ziegler, Mona Dverdal Jansen, Lars Christian Gansel, Sara Hornborg, Grete Hansen Aas, Anne Stene. Quantifying environmental impacts of cleaner fish used as sea lice treatments in salmon aquaculture with life cycle assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2022, 26 (6) , 1992-2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13118
  28. Leticia Regueiro, Richard Newton, Mohamed Soula, Diego Méndez, Björn Kok, David C. Little, Roberto Pastres, Johan Johansen, Martiña Ferreira. Opportunities and limitations for the introduction of circular economy principles in EU aquaculture based on the regulatory framework. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2022, 26 (6) , 2033-2044. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13188
  29. Baharuddin Haslawati, Ibrahim Saadiah, Razman Pahri Siti-Dina, Murnira Othman, Mohd Talib Latif. Environmental Assessment of Giant Freshwater Prawn, Macrobrachium rosenbergii Farming through Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainability 2022, 14 (22) , 14776. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214776
  30. Elena Tamburini, Edoardo Turolla, Mattia Lanzoni, David Moore, Giuseppe Castaldelli. Manila clam and Mediterranean mussel aquaculture is sustainable and a net carbon sink. Science of The Total Environment 2022, 848 , 157508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157508
  31. Pietro Goglio, Sander Van Den Burg, Katerina Kousoulaki, Maggie Skirtun, Åsa Maria Espmark, Anne Helena Kettunen, Wout Abbink. The Environmental Impact of Partial Substitution of Fish-Based Feed with Algae- and Insect-Based Feed in Salmon Farming. Sustainability 2022, 14 (19) , 12650. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912650
  32. Turid Synnøve Aas, Torbjørn Åsgård, Trine Ytrestøyl. Utilization of feed resources in the production of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Norway in 2020. Aquaculture Reports 2022, 26 , 101317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2022.101317
  33. Turid Synnøve Aas, Torbjørn Åsgård, Trine Ytrestøyl. Utilization of feed resources in the production of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Norway: An update for 2020. Aquaculture Reports 2022, 26 , 101316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2022.101316
  34. Shuiqin Zhang, Xu Zhao, Kuishuang Feng, Yuanchao Hu, Martin R. Tillotson, Lin Yang. Do mariculture products offer better environment and nutritional choices compared to land-based protein products in China?. Journal of Cleaner Production 2022, 372 , 133697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133697
  35. Alienor Jue Hammer, Charles Millar, Sebastian John Hennige. Reducing carbon emissions in aquaculture: Using Carbon Disclosures to identify unbalanced mitigation strategies. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2022, 96 , 106816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106816
  36. Aurélie Wilfart, Florence Garcia-Launay, Frederic Terrier, Espoir Soudé, Pierre Aguirre, Sandrine Skiba-Cassy. A step towards sustainable aquaculture: Multiobjective feed formulation reduces environmental impacts at feed and farm levels for rainbow trout. Aquaculture 2022, 13 , 738826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738826
  37. Haochen Hou, Yun Zhang, Zhen Ma, Xiuli Wang, Peng Su, Haiheng Wang, Ying Liu. Life cycle assessment of tiger puffer (Takifugu rubripes) farming: A case study in Dalian, China. Science of The Total Environment 2022, 823 , 153522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153522
  38. Friederike Ziegler, Peter H. Tyedmers, Robert W.R. Parker. Methods matter: Improved practices for environmental evaluation of dietary patterns. Global Environmental Change 2022, 73 , 102482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102482
  39. Alice R Jones, Heidi K Alleway, Dominic McAfee, Patrick Reis-Santos, Seth J Theuerkauf, Robert C Jones. Climate-Friendly Seafood: The Potential for Emissions Reduction and Carbon Capture in Marine Aquaculture. BioScience 2022, 72 (2) , 123-143. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab126
  40. Paula Gabriela da Silva Pires, Ines Andretta, Maria Sara Cabrera Mendéz, Marcos Kipper, Naglezi de Menezes Lovatto, Bruno Bianchi Loureiro. Life Cycle Impact of Industrial Aquaculture Systems. 2022, 141-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824296-4.00011-6
  41. José Luis Vicente-Vicente, Annette Piorr. Can a shift to regional and organic diets reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the food system? A case study from Qatar. Carbon Balance and Management 2021, 16 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-020-00167-y
  42. Jim Philp. Biotechnologies to Bridge the Schism in the Bioeconomy. Energies 2021, 14 (24) , 8393. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14248393
  43. M.E. Rector, R. Filgueira, J. Grant. Ecosystem services in salmon aquaculture sustainability schemes. Ecosystem Services 2021, 52 , 101379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101379
  44. Ingunn Y. Gudbrandsdottir, Nína M. Saviolidis, Gudrun Olafsdottir, Gudmundur V. Oddsson, Hlynur Stefansson, Sigurdur G. Bogason. Transition Pathways for the Farmed Salmon Value Chain: Industry Perspectives and Sustainability Implications. Sustainability 2021, 13 (21) , 12106. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112106
  45. Christie Walker, Stephan Pfister, Stefanie Hellweg. Methodology and optimization tool for a personalized low environmental impact and healthful diet specific to country and season. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2021, 25 (5) , 1147-1160. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13131
  46. Jan Baer, J. Tyrell DeWeber, Roland Rösch, Alexander Brinker. Aquaculture of Coregonid Species — Quo vadis?. Annales Zoologici Fennici 2021, 58 (4-6) https://doi.org/10.5735/086.058.0414
  47. J. Brijs, M. Føre, A. Gräns, T. D. Clark, M. Axelsson, J. L. Johansen. Bio-sensing technologies in aquaculture: how remote monitoring can bring us closer to our farm animals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2021, 376 (1830) , 20200218. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0218
  48. Wenhao Chen, Sepideh Jafarzadeh, Maitri Thakur, Guðrún Ólafsdóttir, Shraddha Mehta, Sigurdur Bogason, Nicholas M. Holden. Environmental impacts of animal-based food supply chains with market characteristics. Science of The Total Environment 2021, 783 , 147077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147077
  49. CR Engle, G Kumar, J van Senten. Resource-use efficiency in US aquaculture: farm-level comparisons across fish species and production systems. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 2021, 13 , 259-275. https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00405
  50. Samuel Le Féon, Théo Dubois, Christophe Jaeger, Aurélie Wilfart, Nouraya Akkal-Corfini, Jacopo Bacenetti, Michele Costantini, Joël Aubin. DEXiAqua, a Model to Assess the Sustainability of Aquaculture Systems: Methodological Development and Application to a French Salmon Farm. Sustainability 2021, 13 (14) , 7779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147779
  51. Jani T. Pulkkinen, Anna-Kaisa Ronkanen, Antti Pasanen, Sepideh Kiani, Tapio Kiuru, Juha Koskela, Petra Lindholm-Lehto, Antti-Jussi Lindroos, Muhammad Muniruzzaman, Lauri Solismaa, Björn Klöve, Jouni Vielma. Start-up of a “zero-discharge” recirculating aquaculture system using woodchip denitrification, constructed wetland, and sand infiltration. Aquacultural Engineering 2021, 93 , 102161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2021.102161
  52. Siddharth Gadkari, Deepak Kumar, Zi-hao Qin, Carol Sze Ki Lin, Vinod Kumar. Life cycle analysis of fermentative production of succinic acid from bread waste. Waste Management 2021, 126 , 861-871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.04.013
  53. Sterenn Lucas, Louis-Georges Soler, Xavier Irz, Didier Gascuel, Joël Aubin, Thomas Cloâtre. The environmental impact of the consumption of fishery and aquaculture products in France. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021, 299 , 126718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126718
  54. Carlos Brais Carballeira Braña, Kristine Cerbule, Paula Senff, Insa Kristina Stolz. Towards Environmental Sustainability in Marine Finfish Aquaculture. Frontiers in Marine Science 2021, 8 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.666662
  55. Frances Sandison, Jon Hillier, Astley Hastings, Paul Macdonald, Beth Mouat, C. Tara Marshall. The environmental impacts of pelagic fish caught by Scottish vessels. Fisheries Research 2021, 236 , 105850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2020.105850
  56. Mohammad Davoud Heidari, Suryo Gandasasmita, Eric Li, Nathan Pelletier. Proposing a framework for sustainable feed formulation for laying hens: A systematic review of recent developments and future directions. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021, 288 , 125585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125585
  57. Silvia Maiolo, Andrea Alberto Forchino, Filippo Faccenda, Roberto Pastres. From feed to fork – Life Cycle Assessment on an Italian rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021, 289 , 125155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125155
  58. Jeleel Opeyemi Agboola, Margareth Øverland, Anders Skrede, Jon Øvrum Hansen. Yeast as major protein‐rich ingredient in aquafeeds: a review of the implications for aquaculture production. Reviews in Aquaculture 2021, 13 (2) , 949-970. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12507
  59. Favio Andrés Noguera-Muñoz, Benjamín García García, Jesús Trinidad Ponce-Palafox, Omar Wicab-Gutierrez, Sergio Gustavo Castillo-Vargasmachuca, José García García. Sustainability Assessment of White Shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) Production in Super-Intensive System in the Municipality of San Blas, Nayarit, Mexico. Water 2021, 13 (3) , 304. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13030304
  60. Eliza Northrop, Susan Ruffo, Gwynne Taraska, Lisa Schindler Murray, Emily Pidgeon, Emily Landis, Elizabeth Cerny-Chipman, Anna-Marie Laura, Dorothée Herr, Lisa Suatoni, Gerald Miles, Tim Fitzgerald, Joshua McBee, Tamara Thomas, Sarah Cooley, Anne Merwin, Ariane Steinsmeier, Doug Rader, Mario Finch. Enhancing Nationally Determined Contributions: Opportunities for Ocean-Based Climate Action. World Resources Institute 2021, 32 https://doi.org/10.46830/wriwp.20.00054
  61. Peng Chen, Gaotian Zhu, Hye-Ji Kim, Paul B. Brown, Jen-Yi Huang. Comparative life cycle assessment of aquaponics and hydroponics in the Midwestern United States. Journal of Cleaner Production 2020, 275 , 122888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122888
  62. Evangelos Konstantinidis, Costas Perdikaris, Evangelia Gouva, Cosmas Nathanalides, Thomas Bartzanas, Vasileios Anestis, Simo Ribaj, Athina Tzora, Ioannis Skoufos. Assessing Environmental Impacts of Sea Bass Cage Farms in Greece and Albania Using Life Cycle Assessment. International Journal of Environmental Research 2020, 14 (6) , 693-704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-020-00289-8
  63. S. Schade, G. I. Stangl, T. Meier. Distinct microalgae species for food—part 2: comparative life cycle assessment of microalgae and fish for eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and protein. Journal of Applied Phycology 2020, 32 (5) , 2997-3013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-020-02181-6
  64. Yanne Goossens, Thomas G. Schmidt, Manuela Kuntscher. Evaluation of Food Waste Prevention Measures—The Use of Fish Products in the Food Service Sector. Sustainability 2020, 12 (16) , 6613. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166613
  65. Silvia Maiolo, Giuliana Parisi, Natascia Biondi, Fernando Lunelli, Emilio Tibaldi, Roberto Pastres. Fishmeal partial substitution within aquafeed formulations: life cycle assessment of four alternative protein sources. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2020, 25 (8) , 1455-1471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01759-z
  66. Andreas Tsakiridis, Cathal O'Donoghue, Stephen Hynes, Kevin Kilcline. A comparison of environmental and economic sustainability across seafood and livestock product value chains. Marine Policy 2020, 117 , 103968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103968
  67. Anh D. Luong, Jo Dewulf, Frederik De Laender. Quantifying the primary biotic resource use by fisheries: A global assessment. Science of The Total Environment 2020, 719 , 137352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137352
  68. Hayana Dullah, M. A. Malek, Marlia M. Hanafiah. Life Cycle Assessment of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Farming in Kenyir Lake, Terengganu. Sustainability 2020, 12 (6) , 2268. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062268
  69. Killian Chary, Joël Aubin, Bastien Sadoul, Annie Fiandrino, Denis Covès, Myriam D. Callier. Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture of red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) and sea cucumber (Holothuria scabra): Assessing bioremediation and life-cycle impacts. Aquaculture 2020, 516 , 734621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.734621
  70. Mohd Abualtaher, Eirin Skjøndal Bar. Review of applying material flow analysis-based studies for a sustainable Norwegian Salmon aquaculture industry. Journal of Applied Aquaculture 2020, 32 (1) , 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454438.2019.1670769
  71. Sergiy Smetana, Bernadette Oehen, Shashank Goyal, Volker Heinz. Environmental sustainability issues for western food production. 2020, 173-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813171-8.00010-X
  72. Michael F. Tlusty. Animal health: the foundation for aquaculture sustainability. 2020, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813359-0.00001-4
  73. K.L. Boswarva, J.A. Howe, R. Obando, C. Fox, B.E. Narayanaswamy, V. Häussermann, C. Abernethy. Habitat mapping in the fjords of the Chilean Patagonia using an autonomous underwater vehicle. 2020, 337-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814960-7.00018-X
  74. A. Kereszturi, A. Petrik. Age determination for valley networks on Mars using tectonic-fluvial interaction. Planetary and Space Science 2020, 180 , 104754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2019.104754
  75. Niken Kusumowardani, Benny Tjahjono. Circular economy adoption in the aquafeed manufacturing industry. Procedia CIRP 2020, 90 , 43-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.01.088
  76. Tamburini, Fano, Castaldelli, Turolla. Life Cycle Assessment of Oyster Farming in the Po Delta, Northern Italy. Resources 2019, 8 (4) , 170. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8040170
  77. Natalia Sieti, Ximena C. Schmidt Rivera, Laurence Stamford, Adisa Azapagic. Environmental sustainability assessment of ready-made baby foods: Meals, menus and diets. Science of The Total Environment 2019, 689 , 899-911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.363
  78. Florence Alexia Bohnes, Michael Zwicky Hauschild, Jørgen Schlundt, Alexis Laurent. Life cycle assessments of aquaculture systems: a critical review of reported findings with recommendations for policy and system development. Reviews in Aquaculture 2019, 11 (4) , 1061-1079. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12280
  79. Fan Wu, Ramin Ghamkhar, Weslynne Ashton, Andrea L Hicks. Sustainable Seafood and Vegetable Production: Aquaponics as a Potential Opportunity in Urban Areas. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 2019, 15 (6) , 832-843. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4187
  80. Zdeněk Adámek, Marc Mössmer, Melanie Hauber. Current principles and issues affecting organic carp (Cyprinus carpio) pond farming. Aquaculture 2019, 512 , 734261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.734261
  81. Xingqiang Song, Ying Liu, Johan Berg Pettersen, Miguel Brandão, Xiaona Ma, Stian Røberg, Björn Frostell. Life cycle assessment of recirculating aquaculture systems: A case of Atlantic salmon farming in China. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2019, 23 (5) , 1077-1086. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12845
  82. Elinor Hallström, Kristina Bergman, Kathleen Mifflin, Robert Parker, Peter Tyedmers, Max Troell, Friederike Ziegler. Combined climate and nutritional performance of seafoods. Journal of Cleaner Production 2019, 230 , 402-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.229
  83. Yizhen Zhang, Alissa Kendall. Effects of system design and Co-product treatment strategies on the life cycle performance of biofuels from microalgae. Journal of Cleaner Production 2019, 230 , 536-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.137
  84. E. Crenna, T. Sinkko, S. Sala. Biodiversity impacts due to food consumption in Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production 2019, 227 , 378-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.054
  85. Jessica R. Bogard, Anna K. Farmery, Danielle L. Baird, Gilly A. Hendrie, Shijie Zhou. Linking Production and Consumption: The Role for Fish and Seafood in a Healthy and Sustainable Australian Diet. Nutrients 2019, 11 (8) , 1766. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11081766
  86. María Belén Salazar T, Hua Cai, Regan Bailey, Jen-Yi Huang. Defining nutritionally and environmentally healthy dietary choices of omega-3 fatty acids. Journal of Cleaner Production 2019, 228 , 1025-1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.359
  87. Vilde Steiro Amundsen, Asle Årthun Gauteplass, Jennifer Leigh Bailey. Level up or game over: the implications of levels of impact in certification schemes for salmon aquaculture. Aquaculture Economics & Management 2019, 23 (3) , 237-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2019.1632389
  88. Benjamín García García, Caridad Rosique Jiménez, Felipe Aguado-Giménez, José García García. Life Cycle Assessment of Seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) Produced in Offshore Fish Farms: Variability and Multiple Regression Analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11 (13) , 3523. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133523
  89. Gaspard Philis, Friederike Ziegler, Lars Christian Gansel, Mona Dverdal Jansen, Erik Olav Gracey, Anne Stene. Comparing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Salmonid Aquaculture Production Systems: Status and Perspectives. Sustainability 2019, 11 (9) , 2517. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092517
  90. Iona Campbell, Adrian Macleod, Christian Sahlmann, Luiza Neves, Jon Funderud, Margareth Øverland, Adam D. Hughes, Michele Stanley. The Environmental Risks Associated With the Development of Seaweed Farming in Europe - Prioritizing Key Knowledge Gaps. Frontiers in Marine Science 2019, 6 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00107
  91. Haochen Hou, Shuai Shao, Yun Zhang, Hong Kang, Chenglu Qin, Xiaoyang Sun, Shushen Zhang. Life cycle assessment of sea cucumber production: A case study, China. Journal of Cleaner Production 2019, 213 , 158-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.141
  92. Tomás Marín, Jing Wu, Xu Wu, Zimin Ying, Qiaoling Lu, Yiyuan Hong, Xiaoyan Wang, Wu Yang. Resource Use in Mariculture: A Case Study in Southeastern China. Sustainability 2019, 11 (5) , 1396. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051396
  93. Florence Alexia Bohnes, Alexis Laurent. LCA of aquaculture systems: methodological issues and potential improvements. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2019, 24 (2) , 324-337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1517-x
  94. Nathan Pelletier, Robert Parker, Patrik Henriksson. Environmental nutrition and LCA. 2019, 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811660-9.00009-6
  95. Taija Sinkko, Carla Caldeira, Sara Corrado, Serenella Sala. Food consumption and wasted food. 2019, 315-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815357-4.00011-0
  96. Koro de la Caba, Pedro Guerrero, Trang Si Trung, Malco Cruz-Romero, Joseph P. Kerry, Joachim Fluhr, Marcus Maurer, Froukje Kruijssen, Amaya Albalat, Stuart Bunting, Steve Burt, Dave Little, Richard Newton. From seafood waste to active seafood packaging: An emerging opportunity of the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production 2019, 208 , 86-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.164
  97. Gaspard Philis, Erik Olav Gracey, Lars Christian Gansel, Annik Magerholm Fet, Céline Rebours. Comparing the primary energy and phosphorus consumption of soybean and seaweed-based aquafeed proteins – A material and substance flow analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 2018, 200 , 1142-1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.247
  98. Suzannah-Lynn Billing. Using public comments to gauge social licence to operate for finfish aquaculture: Lessons from Scotland. Ocean & Coastal Management 2018, 165 , 401-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.09.011
  99. Michael Martin, Steve Harris. Prospecting the sustainability implications of an emerging industrial symbiosis network. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2018, 138 , 246-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.026
  100. David C. Little, James A. Young, Wenbo Zhang, Richard W. Newton, Abdullah Al Mamun, Francis J. Murray. Sustainable intensification of aquaculture value chains between Asia and Europe: A framework for understanding impacts and challenges. Aquaculture 2018, 493 , 338-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.12.033
Load more citations
Download PDF

  • Figure 1

    Figure 1. System boundaries for a cradle-to-farm-gate LCA of live-weight salmon production in Norway, the UK, Canada, and Chile (gray font denotes background system data derived from the EcoInvent database, modified as appropriate to conform to regional conditions).

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Comparative cumulative energy use (CEU), biotic resource use (BRU), greenhouse gas emissions (GHG. Em.), acidifying emissions (Acd. Em.), and eutrophying emissions (Eut. Em.) for the farm-gate production of farmed salmon in Norway, UK, Canada, and Chile in 2007 relative to the poorest performer (set to 100%) in each impact category.

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

  • References

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    This article references 34 other publications.

    1. 1
      Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, T.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M.; de Haan, C. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options; United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, 2006.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    2. 2
      Garnett, T.

      Cooking up a Storm. Food, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and our Changing Climate; Food Climate Research Network, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, 2008; available at http://www.fcrn.org.uk/frcnPubs/publications/PDFs/CuaS_web.pdf.

      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    3. 3
      Lebel, L.; Lorek, L. Enabling sustainable production-consumption systems Annu. Rev. Energy Env. 2008, 33, 241– 275
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    4. 4
      Pelletier, N.; Tyedmers, P. Life cycle considerations for improving sustainability assessments in seafood awareness campaigns Environ. Manage. 2008, 42 (5) 918– 931
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    5. 5
      Weber, C.; Mathews, H. Food-miles and relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 3508– 3513
      [ACS Full Text ACS Full Text], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    6. 6
      Eagle, J.; Naylor, R.; Smith, W. Why farm salmon outcompete fishery salmon Mar. Policy 2004, 28 (3) 259– 270
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    7. 7
      Naylor, R.; Burke, M. Aquaculture and ocean resources: Raising tigers of the sea Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 185– 218
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    8. 8
      Guinee, J.; Gorree, M.; Heijungs, R.1; Huppes, G.; Kleijn, R.; de Koning, A.; van Oers, L.; Weneger, A.; Suh, S.; Udo de Haes, H.;

      et al. Life Cycle Assessment: An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards; Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, The Hague, Netherlands, 2001; available at http://cml.leiden.edu/research/industrialecology/researchprojects/finished/new-dutch-lca-guide.html.

      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    9. 9

      International Organization for Standardization. Life Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework 14040; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.

      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    10. 10
      Tukker, A.; Jansen, B. Environment impacts of products - a detailed review of studies J. Ind. Ecol. 2006, 10 (3) 159– 182
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    11. 11
      Roy, P.; Nei, D.; Orikasa, T.; Xu, Q.; Okadome, H.; Nakamura, N.; Shiina, T. A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products J. Food Eng. 2009, 90 (1) 1– 10
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    12. 12
      Pelletier, N.; Tyedmers, P. Feeding farmed salmon: Is organic better? Aquaculture 2007, 272, 399– 416
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    13. 13
      Ayer, N.; Tyedmers, P. Assessing alternative aquaculture technologies: life cycle assessment of salmonid culture systems in Canada J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 362– 373
      [Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar
      13
      Assessing alternative aquaculture technologies: life cycle assessment of salmonid culture systems in Canada
      Ayer, Nathan W.; Tyedmers, Peter H.
      Journal of Cleaner Production (2008), 17 (3), 362-373CODEN: JCROE8; ISSN:0959-6526. (Elsevier Ltd.)
      This study employed life cycle assessment (LCA) to quantify and compare the potential environmental impacts of culturing salmonids in a conventional marine net-pen system with those of three reportedly environmentally-friendly alternatives; a marine floating bag system; a land-based saltwater flow-through system; and a land-based freshwater recirculating system. Results of the study indicate that while the use of these closed-containment systems may reduce the local ecol. impacts typically assocd. with net-pen salmon farming, the increase in material and energy demands assocd. with their use may result in significantly increased contributions to several environmental impacts of global concern, including global warming, non-renewable resource depletion, and acidification. It is recommended that these unanticipated impacts be carefully considered in further assessments of the sustainability of closed-containment systems and in ongoing efforts to develop and employ these technologies on a larger scale.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3cXktlSkur4%253D&md5=172ea4328d6087f1faa460de22f3acc6
    14. 14
      Ellingsen, H.; Olaussen, J.; Utne, I. Environmental analysis of the Norwegian fishery and aquaculture industry - A preliminary study focusing on farmed salmon. Mar. Policy  2009, 33 ((3)) 479– 488.
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    15. 15
      Gronroos, J.; Seppala, J.; Silvenius, F.; Makinen, T. Life cycle assessment of Finnish cultivated rainbow trout Boreal Environ. Res. 2006, 11 (5) 401– 414
      [CAS], Google Scholar
      15
      Life cycle assessment of Finnish cultivated rainbow trout
      Gronroos, Juha; Seppala, Jyri; Silvenius, Frans; Makinen, Timo
      Boreal Environment Research (2006), 11 (5), 401-414CODEN: BEREF7; ISSN:1239-6095. (Finnish Environment Institute)
      Rainbow trout is economically the most important cultivated fish in Finland. In this study, new knowledge on the energy consumption, emissions and environmental impacts caused by the prodn. of rainbow trout in Finland was generated. Methodol. the work was based on life cycle assessment (LCA) beginning from the extn. of raw materials and ending with the delivery of gutted fish to the retailers or for further processing. The environmental performances of prodn. methods with different feeds, feed coeffs. and tech. emission redn. measures were assessed. The environmental impact assessment revealed that atm. emissions - originating mainly from the feed raw material prodn., feed manufg. and transportation, make only a minor contribution to the total environmental impacts caused by the prodn. of rainbow trout in Finland. Phosphorus and nitrogen emissions from fish farms to waters are the most significant emissions from the point of view of the total environmental impacts. By using new, environmentally friendly feeds with increased feed efficiency it is possible to decrease the nitrogen and phosphorus loads significantly. Tech. measures to decrease nutrient emissions to the waters reduce the phosphorus load but have only a minor effect on nitrogen. Energy consumption and the use of renewable energy sources proved to be one of the key indicators for developing more sustainable aquacultural practices in Finland, although the major share of energy consumption assocd. with the prodn. of rainbow trout takes place outside Finland.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD2sXitFeltw%253D%253D&md5=1c297522dbbae71f833f646d9e4b84f3
    16. 16
      Aubin, J.; Papatryphon, E.; van der Werf, H.; Chatzifotis, S. Assessment of the environmental impact of carnivorous finfish systems using life cycle assessment J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 354– 361
      [Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar
      16
      Assessment of the environmental impact of carnivorous finfish production systems using life cycle assessment
      Aubin, J.; Papatryphon, E.; van der Werf, H. M. G.; Chatzifotis, S.
      Journal of Cleaner Production (2008), 17 (3), 354-361CODEN: JCROE8; ISSN:0959-6526. (Elsevier Ltd.)
      When evaluating the environmental impacts of finfish prodn. systems, both regional impacts (e.g., eutrophication) and global impacts (e.g., climate change) should be taken into account. The life cycle assessment (LCA) method is well suited for this purpose. Three fish farms that represent contrasting intensive prodn. systems were investigated using LCA: rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in freshwater raceways in France, sea-bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in sea cages in Greece, and turbot (Scophtalmus maximus) in an inland re-circulating system close to the seashore in France. Two main characteristics differentiated the three farm systems: feed use and energy use. Emission of nitrogen and phosphorus accounted for more than 90% of each farm's potential eutrophication impact. In the trout and sea-bass systems, feed prodn. was the major contributor to potential climate change and acidification impacts and net primary prodn. use (NPPU). In these systems, the main source of variation for environmental impacts was the feed conversion ratio. Results from this study indicate that the sea-bass cage system was less efficient than the trout raceway system, with a higher level of potential eutrophication (65% greater) and NPPU (15% greater). The turbot re-circulating system was a high energy-consumer compared to the trout raceway system (four times higher) and the sea-bass cage system (five times higher). Potential climate change and acidification impacts were largely influenced by energy consumption in the turbot re-circulating system. In the turbot re-circulating system 86% of energy use was due to on-site consumption, while in the sea-bass cage farming system 72% of energy use was due to feed prodn. These results are discussed in relation to regional contexts of prodn. and focus attention on the sensitivity of each aquatic environment and the use of energy carriers.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3cXktlSktbc%253D&md5=05cd28bd37c7c1258baf98601eb61304
    17. 17
      Roque d’Orbcastel, E.; Blancheton, J.; Aubin, J. Towards environmentally sustainable aquaculture: Comparison between two trout farming systems using Life Cycle Assessment Aqua. Engin. 2009, 40 (3) 113– 119
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    18. 18
      Mungkung, R.; Udo de Haes, H.; Clift, R. Potentials and limitations of life cycle assessment in setting eco-labeling criteria: a case study of Thai shrimp aquaculture product Int. J. LCA 2006, 11 (1) 55– 59
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    19. 19
      Stern, S.; Sonesson, U.; Gunnarsson, S.; Oborn, I.; Kumm, K.; Nybrant, T. Sustainable development of food production: A case study on scenarios for pig production Ambio 2005, 34 (4−5) 402– 407
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    20. 20
      Nemry, F.; Theunis, J.; Brechet, T.; Lopez, P. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction and Material Flows; Institute Wallan, Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs: Brussels, Belgium, 2001.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    21. 21
      Pelletier, N.; Arsenault, A.; Tyedmers, P. Scenario modeling potential eco-efficiency gains from a transition to organic agriculture: Life cycle perspectives on Canadian canola, corn, soy, and wheat production Environ. Manage. 2008, 42 (6) 989– 1001
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    22. 22
      Pelletier, N. Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: Life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions Agric. Syst. 2008, 98, 67– 73
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    23. 23
      Pelletier, N.; Ayer, N.; Tyedmers, P.; Kruse, S.; Flysjo, A.; Robillard, G.; Ziegler, F.; Scholz, A.; Sonesson, U. Impact categories for life cycle assessment research of seafood production: Review and prospectus Int. J. LCA 2007, 12 (6) 414– 421
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    24. 24

      EcoInvent. 2008; available at http://www.ecoinvent.ch/.

      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    25. 25
      Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Hirschier, R.; Hellweg, S.; Humbert, S.; Margni, M.; Nemecek, T.; Spielmann, M.

      Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods; EcoInvent Report 3; Swiss Centre for LCI: Duebendorf, Switzerland, 2003; available at www.ecoinvent.ch.

      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    26. 26

      PRe. SimaPro 7.1; available at http://www.pre.nl/.

      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    27. 27
      Ayer, N.; Tyedmers, P.; Pelletier, N.; Sonesson, U.; Scholz, A. Allocation in life cycle assessments of seafood production systems: Review of problems and strategies Int. J. LCA 2007, 12 (7) 480– 487
      [Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar
      27
      Co-product allocation in life cycle assessments of seafood production systems: review of problems and strategies
      Ayer, Nathan W.; Tyedmers, Peter H.; Pelletier, Nathan L.; Sonesson, Ulf; Scholz, Astrid
      International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2007), 12 (7), 480-487CODEN: IJLCFF; ISSN:0948-3349. (Ecomed Publishers)
      A review is given. As life cycle assessment is being increasingly applied to study fisheries and aquaculture systems, the LCA methodol. must be adapted to address the unique aspects of these systems. The focus of this methodol. paper is the specific allocation problems faced in studying seafood prodn. systems and how they have been addressed to date. The paper begins with a literature review of existing LCA research of fishing and aquaculture systems with a specific focus on (1) identifying the key allocation problems; (2) describing the choice of allocation procedures; and (3) providing insight on the rationale for those choices where available. The allocation procedures are then discussed in the context of ISO recommendations and other published guidance on allocation, followed by a discussion of the key lessons to be learned from the reviewed studies and recommendations for future LCAs of seafood prodn. systems. The literature review suggests that allocation problems are most likely to arise when dealing with: landed by-catch within the context of capture fisheries, the use of co-product feed ingredients in aquaculture feeds, multiple outputs from fish farms, and the generation of byproducts when seafood is processed. System expansion and allocation according to phys. causality were not applied in most cases, while economic allocation was the most widely used approach. It was also obsd. that the level of detail and justification provided for allocation decisions in most published reports was inconsistent and incomplete. The results of this literature review are consistent with other reviews of allocation in LCA in that allocation according to economic value was found to be the most frequently applied approach. The application of economic allocation when system expansion is not feasible is consistent with ISO guidance. However, economic allocation is not the most appropriate method in seafood prodn. LCAs because it does not reflect the biophys. flows of material and energy between the inputs and outputs of the prodn. system. More effort needs to be invested in developing allocation procedures appropriate to seafood prodn. systems. Allocation based on gross energy content is proposed as one potential alternative means of allocating environmental burdens in some instances in seafood prodn. LCAs. A std. set of requirements for how to describe and justify allocation decisions in published reports is needed to make these studies more robust and transparent.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD2sXhsVCgur%252FP&md5=c92d866e1a9b85c0c3516f24bdcf0a08
    28. 28

      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 2006; available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.htm.

      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    29. 29
      Tyedmers, P.; Watson, R.; Pauly, D. Fueling global fishing fleets Ambio 2005, 34 (8) 635– 638
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    30. 30
      Fearnside, P. Soybean cultivation as a threat to the environment in Brazil Environ. Conserv. 2001, 28 (1) 23– 28
      [Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar
      30
      Soybean cultivation as a threat to the environment in Brazil
      Fearnside, Philip M.
      Environmental Conservation (2001), 28 (1), 23-38CODEN: EVCNA4; ISSN:0376-8929. (Cambridge University Press)
      A review and discussion with many refs. Soybeans represent a recent and powerful threat to tropical biodiversity in Brazil. Developing effective strategies to contain and minimize the environmental impact of soybean cultivation requires understanding of both the forces that drive the soybean advance and the many ways that soybeans and their assocd. infrastructure catalyze destructive processes. The present paper presents an up-to-date review of the advance of soybeans in Brazil, its environmental and social costs and implications for development policy. Soybeans are driven by global market forces, making them different from many of the land-use changes that have dominated the scene in Brazil so far, particularly in Amazonia. Soybeans are much more damaging than other crops because they justify massive transportation infrastructure projects that unleash a chain of events leading to destruction of natural habitats over wide areas in addn. to what is directly cultivated for soybeans. The capacity of global markets to absorb addnl. prodn. represents the most likely limit to the spread of soybeans, although Brazil may someday come to see the need for discouraging rather than subsidizing this crop because many of its effects are unfavorable to national interests, including severe concn. of land tenure and income, expulsion of population to Amazonian frontier, and gold-mining, as well as urban areas, and the opportunity cost of substantial drains on government resources. The multiple impacts of soybean expansion on biodiversity and other development considerations have several implications for policy: (1) protected areas need to be created in advance of soybean frontiers, (2) elimination of the many subsidies that speed soybean expansion beyond what would occur otherwise from market forces is to be encouraged, (3) studies to assess the costs of social and environmental impacts assocd. with soybean expansion are urgently required, and (4) the environmental-impact regulatory system requires strengthening, including mechanisms for commitments not to implant specific infrastructure projects that are judged to have excessive impacts.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD3MXjvFCrtro%253D&md5=315d6b5e43c6f7234abbbcc54e2bc0cf
    31. 31
      Nepstad, D.; Stickler, C.; Almeida, O. Globalization of the Amazon soy and beef industries: Opportunities for conservation Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20 (6) 1595– 1603
      [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
      31
      Globalization of the Amazon soy and beef industries: opportunities for conservation
      Nepstad Daniel C; Stickler Claudia M; Almeida Oriana T
      Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology (2006), 20 (6), 1595-603 ISSN:0888-8892.
      Amazon beef and soybean industries, the primary drivers of Amazon deforestation, are increasingly responsive to economic signals emanating from around the world, such as those associated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, "mad cow disease") outbreaks and China's economic growth. The expanding role of these economic "teleconnections" (coupled phenomena that take place in distant places on the planet) led to a 3-year period (2002-2004) of historically high deforestation rates. But it also increases the potential for large-scale conservation in the region as markets and finance institutions demand better environmental and social performance of beef and soy producers. Cattle ranchers and soy farmers who have generally opposed ambitious government regulations that require forest reserves on private property are realizing that good land stewardship-including compliance with legislation-may increase their access to expanding domestic and international markets and to credit and lower the risk of "losing" their land to agrarian reform. The realization of this potential depends on the successful negotiation of social and environmental performance criteria and an associated system of certification that are acceptable to both the industries and civil society. The foot-and-mouth eradication system, in which geographic zones win permission to export beef, may provide an important model for the design of a low-cost, peer-enforced, socioenvironmental certification system that becomes the mechanism by which beef and soy industries gain access to markets outside the Amazon.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD28jktlGqtg%253D%253D&md5=a0db2d811614bea369e33d45b28fdaa6
    32. 32
      Haberl, H.; Erb, H.; Krausmann, F.; Gaube, V.; Bondeau, A.; Plutzar, C.; Gingrich, S.; Lucht, W.; Fischer-Kowalski, M. Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104 (31) 12942– 12945
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    33. 33
      Imhoff, M.; Bounoua, L.; Ricketts, T.; Louks, C.; Harris, R.; Lawrence, W. Global patterns in human consumption of net primary production Nature 2004, 429, 870– 73
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    34. 34
      Tlusty, M.; Lagueux, K. Isolines as a new tool to assess the energy costs of the production and distribution of multiple sources of seafood J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17 (3) 408– 415
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.

  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    Detailed discussion of model development and methods, results, and additional figures and tables. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

PDF [ 1MB]

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect