Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/19126
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCottle, Daviden
dc.contributor.authorCowie, Annetteen
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-08T09:46:00Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(6), p. 820-830en
dc.identifier.issn1614-7502en
dc.identifier.issn0948-3349en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/19126-
dc.description.abstract'Purpose' Australia is the largest supplier of high-quality wool in the world. The environmental burden of sheep production must be shared between wool and meat. We examine different methods to handle these co-products and focus on proportional protein content as a basis for allocation, that is, protein mass allocation (PMA). This is the first comprehensive investigation applying PMA for calculating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for Australian sheep production, evaluating the variation in PMA across a large number of farms and locations over 20 years. 'Materials and methods' Inventory data for two superfine wool Merino farms were obtained from farmer records, interviews and site visits in study 1. Livestock GHG emissions were modelled using Australian National GHG Inventory methods. A comparison was made of mass, protein mass and economic allocation and system expansion methods for handling coproduction of wool and sheep meat. In study 2, typical crossbred ewe, Merino ewe and Merino wether flocks in each of the 28 locations in eight climate zones were modelled using the GrassGro/GRAZPLAN simulation model and historical climatic data to examine the variation in PMA values for different enterprise types. 'Results and discussion' Different methods for handling coproducts in study 1 changed allocated GHG emissions more than fourfold, highlighting the sensitivity to method choice. In study 2, enterprise, climate zone and year and their interactions had significant effects on PMA between wool and liveweight (LW) sold. The wool PMA (wool protein as proportion of total protein sold) least square means (LSM) were 0.61 ± 0.003 for wethers, 0.43 ± 0.003 for Merino ewes and 0.27 ± 0.003 for crossbred ewe enterprises. The wool PMA LSM for the main effect of Koppen climate zone varied from 0.39 to 0.46. Two zones (no dry season/warm summer and distinctively dry and hot) had significantly lower wool PMA LSM, of 0.39 and 0.41, respectively, than the four other climate zones. 'Conclusions' Effects of superfine wool production on GHG emissions differed between regions in response to differences in climate and productivity. Regarding methods for handling co-production, system expansion showed the greatest contrast between the two studied flocks and highlighted the importance of meat from wool production systems. However, we also propose PMA as a simple, easily applied allocation approach for use when attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) is undertaken.en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherSpringeren
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Life Cycle Assessmenten
dc.titleAllocation of greenhouse gas production between wool and meat in the life cycle assessment of Australian sheep productionen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11367-016-1054-4en
dc.subject.keywordsAnimal Productionen
local.contributor.firstnameDaviden
local.contributor.firstnameAnnetteen
local.subject.for2008070299 Animal Production not elsewhere classifieden
local.subject.seo2008960504 Ecosystem Assessment and Management of Farmland, Arable Cropland and Permanent Cropland Environmentsen
local.profile.schoolSchool of Environmental and Rural Scienceen
local.profile.schoolSchool of Environmental and Rural Scienceen
local.profile.emaildcottle2@une.edu.auen
local.profile.emailacowie4@une.edu.auen
local.output.categoryC1en
local.record.placeauen
local.record.institutionUniversity of New Englanden
local.identifier.epublicationsrecordune-20160311-172841en
local.publisher.placeGermanyen
local.format.startpage820en
local.format.endpage830en
local.identifier.scopusid84957592961en
local.peerreviewedYesen
local.identifier.volume21en
local.identifier.issue6en
local.contributor.lastnameCottleen
local.contributor.lastnameCowieen
dc.identifier.staffune-id:dcottle2en
dc.identifier.staffune-id:acowie4en
local.profile.orcid0000-0003-3875-3465en
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.identifier.unepublicationidune:19322en
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
local.title.maintitleAllocation of greenhouse gas production between wool and meat in the life cycle assessment of Australian sheep productionen
local.output.categorydescriptionC1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journalen
local.search.authorCottle, Daviden
local.search.authorCowie, Annetteen
local.uneassociationUnknownen
local.identifier.wosid000376036600003en
local.year.published2016en
local.fileurl.closedpublishedhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/04874afe-9d65-47ea-8240-4c4878965a40en
local.subject.for2020300307 Environmental studies in animal productionen
local.subject.seo2020180601 Assessment and management of terrestrial ecosystemsen
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

20
checked on Mar 23, 2024

Page view(s)

1,484
checked on Feb 25, 2024
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.