دوره 12، شماره 33 - ( پاییز 1400 1400 )
جلد 12 شماره 33 صفحات 196-186 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Motevali A, Adiby A, Chashnidel Y. (2021). Investigation of environmental impact of cattle beef production (Case study: Mazandaran province). Res Anim Prod. 12(33), 186-196. doi:10.52547/rap.12.33.186
URL: http://rap.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-1171-fa.html
URL: http://rap.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-1171-fa.html
متولی علی، ادیبی علی، چاشنی دل یداله. بررسی اثرات زیست محیطی پرورش گوساله های پرواری (مطالعه موردی: استان مازندران) پژوهشهاي توليدات دامي 1400; 12 (33) :196-186 10.52547/rap.12.33.186
علی متولی*1، علی ادیبی1، یداله چاشنی دل1
1- دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی ساری
چکیده: (2597 مشاهده)
گوشت از منابع مهم پروتئین و انرژی بوده که دارای مقادیر فراوان اسیدهای آمینه و چرب ضروری به همراه ویتامین ها و مواد معدنی می باشد. صنعت دامپروری به واسطه مصرف بالای انرژی، آب و همچنین تولید فضولات، یکی از منابع مهم انتشار آلاینده ها به حساب می آید. در پژوهش حاضر اثرات زیست محیطی پرواربندی گوساله ها در سه روش صنعتی، نیمه صنعتی و سنتی با استفاده از ارزیابی چرخه حیات در استان مازندران بررسی شد. اثرات زیست محیطی (واحد عملکردی: تولید یک تن وزن زنده) به روش IMPCAT 2002+ در قالب 15 شاخص میانی و 4 شاخص نهایی بررسی شد. نتایج نشان داد که در روش پرورش صنعتی و نیمه صنعتی آلاینده های مستقیم از سطح دامداری ها و در روش پرورش سنتی استفاده از کنسانتره بالاترین تاثیر را در ایجاد شاخص های میانی زیست محیطی دارد. در روش های مختلف پرورش، شاخص سلامتی انسان ها در بازه 1/72 تا Pt 1/92، شاخص کیفیت اکوسیستم در بازه 13/36 تا Pt 17/52، شاخص تغییرات اقلیم در بازه 1/41 تا Pt 1/62 و شاخص منابع در بازه 0/31 تا Pt 0/46 تغییر یافت. همچنین بالاترین و پایین ترین شاخص نهایی زیست محیطی در روش پرورش صنعتی و سنتی به ترتیب به میزان 21/58 و Pt 16/81 به ازای تولید یک تن دام پرواری زنده ایجاد شد.
فهرست منابع
1. Asem-Hiablie, S., T. Battagliese, K.R. Stackhouse-Lawson and C.A. Rotz. 2019. A life cycle assessment of the environmental impacts of a beef system in the USA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24: 441-455. [DOI:10.1007/s11367-018-1464-6]
2. Rotza, C.A., S. Asem-Hiablie, S. Place, and G. Thoma. 2019. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States. Agricultural Systems, 169: 1-13. [DOI:10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005]
3. Dick, M., M. Abreu da Silva, and H. Dewes. 2015. Life cycle assessment of beef cattle production in two typical grassland systems of southern Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96: 426-434. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.080]
4. Jafarnia, M., and A. Esmaeili. 2014. Investigating Linkage between Productivity and Environmental Pollution for Beef Cattle Farms in Shiraz. Agricultural science and sustainable production, 23 (4): 41-49. (In Persian)
5. Molaei, M., and F. Sani. 2017. Evaluating the Impact of Environmental Pollutants on Technical Efficiencies of Dairy Farms Using Stochastic Frontier Analysis. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research, 48 (1): 35-42. (In Persian)
6. Arrieta, E.M., D.A. Cabrol, A. Cuchietti, and A.D. González. 2020. Biomass consumption and environmental footprints of beef cattle production in Argentina. Agricultural Systems, 185: 102944. [DOI:10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102944]
7. José Florindo, T., G.I.B. Medeiros Florindo, E. Talamini, J. Severinoda Costa, and C. Favarini Ruviaro. 2017. Carbon footprint and Life Cycle Costing of beef cattle in the Brazilian Midwest. Journal of Cleaner Production 147: 119-129. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.021]
8. Ridoutt B.G., P. Sanguansri, and G.S. Harper. 2011. Comparing Carbon and Water Footprints for Beef Cattle Production in Southern Australia. Sustainability, 2011: 2443-2455. [DOI:10.3390/su3122443]
9. Rotz, C.A., S. Asem-Hiablie, J. Dillon, H. Bonifacio. 2015. Cradle-to-farm gate environmental footprints of beef cattle production in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Journal of Animal Science, 93: 2509-2519 [DOI:10.2527/jas.2014-8809]
10. Costantini, M., I. Vázquez-Rowe, A. Manzardo, and J. Bacenetti. 2021. Environmental impact assessment of beef cattle production in semi-intensive systems in Paraguay. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27; 269-281 [DOI:10.1016/j.spc.2020.11.003]
11. Tsutsumi, M., Y. Ono, H. Ogasawara, M. Hojito. 2018. Life-cycle impact assessment of organic and non-organic grass-fed beef production in Japan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172: 2513-2520. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.159]
12. Huerta, A.R., L.P. Güereca, and M.S. Rubio Lozano. 2016. Environmental impact of beef production in Mexico through life cycle assessment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 109: 44-53 [DOI:10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.01.020]
13. ISO 14040: International Organization for Standardization. 2006. Environmental management-Life Cycle.
14. Georgiopoulou, M., and G. Lyberatos, 2018. Life cycle assessment of the use of alternative fuels in cement kilns: a case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 216: 224-234. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.017]
15. Soheili-Fard, F., H. Kouchaki-Penchah, M. Ghasemi Nejad, and C. Guangnan. 2018. Cradle to grave environmental-economic analysis of tea life cycle in Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196: 953-960. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.083]
16. Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., S. Rafiee, S.S. Mohtasebi, H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, and K. Chau. 2019. Comprehensive model of energy, environmental impacts and economic in rice milling factories by coupling adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 217: 742-56. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.228]
17. Khoshnevisan, B., S. Rafiee, M. Omid, H. Mousazadeh, and Clark, S. 2013. Environmental impact assessment of tomato and cucumber cultivation in greenhouses using life cycle assessment and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73(15): 1-10. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.057]
18. Hosseini-Fashami, F., A. Motevali, A. Nabavi-Pelesaraei, S.J. Hashemi, and K. Chau. 2019. Energy-Life cycle assessment on applying solar technologies for greenhouse strawberry production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 109411: 1-18. [DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109411]
19. Liu W.R., D. Zeng, L. She, W.X. Su, D.C. He, G.Y. Wu, X.R. Ma, S. Jiang, C.H. Jiang, and G.G. Ying. 2020. Comparisons of pollution characteristics, emission situations, and mass loads for heavy metals in the manures of different livestock and poultry in China, Science of the Total Environment 734, 139023. [DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139023]
20. Hischier, R., B. Nowack, and F. Gottschalk. 2015. Life cycle assessment of façade coating systems containing manufactured nanomaterials. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 17: 68-79. [DOI:10.1007/s11051-015-2881-0]
21. Jolliet, O., M. Margni, R. Charles, S. Humbert, J. Payet, and G. Rebitzer. 2003. IMPACT 2002: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 8: 324-337. [DOI:10.1007/BF02978505]
22. Motevali, A., S.J. Hashemi, and R. Tabatabaeekoloor. 2019. Environmental footprint study of white rice production chain-case study: Northern of Iran. Journal of Environmental Management 241: 305-318. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.033]
23. Loomis, D., Y. Grosse, B. Lauby-Secretan, F. Ghissassi, and Bouvard, V. 2013. The carcinogenicity of outdoor air pollution. Lancent oncology, 14 (13): 1262-1263. [DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70487-X]
24. Lim, S., M. Lee, G. Lee, S. Yoon, and K. Kang. 2012. Ionic and carbonaceous compositions of PM10, PM2.5and PM1.0atGosan ABC Superstation and their ratios as source signature. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 12: 2024, 2012. [DOI:10.5194/acp-12-2007-2012]
25. Simpson, J.C., A.C. Fletcher, and A. Andersen. 1998. Prevalence and predictors of work related respiratory symptoms in workers exposed to organic dusts. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 55: 668-672. [DOI:10.1136/oem.55.10.668]
26. Bai, L., Zeng b. X, L. Li, P. Chang, and S. Li. 2010. Effects of land use on heavy metal accumulation in soils and sources analysis. Agricultural Sciences in China, 9 (11):1650-58. [DOI:10.1016/S1671-2927(09)60262-5]
27. Chibuike, G.U., and S.C. Obiora. 2014. Heavy Metal Polluted Soils: Effect on Plants and Bioremediation Methods. Applied and Environmental Soil Science, 2014:12. [DOI:10.1155/2014/752708]
28. Tchounwou, P.B., C.G. Yedjou, A.K. Patlolla, and D.J. Sutton. 2012. Heavy metal toxicity and the environment. Experientia supplementum, 101:133-64. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-7643-8340-4_6]
29. Dincer, I., and A. Abu-Rayash. 2020. Energy Sustainability. Academic Press. 266 pp. [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-819556-7.00006-1]
30. Engström, R., A. Wadeskog, and G. Finnveden. 2009. Environmental assessment of Swedish agriculture. Ecological Economics, 60: 550-563. [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.12.013]
31. Mogensen, L., J.E. Hermansen, N. Halberg, R. Dalgaard, J. Vis, and B.G. Smith. 2009. Life cycle assessment across the food supply chain. Sustainability in the Food Industry. 115-144. [DOI:10.1002/9781118467589.ch5]
32. Niknahad Gharmakher, H., and M. Maramaei. 2011. Effects of land use changes on soil properties (Case Study: the Kechik catchment), Journal of Soil Management and Sustainable Production, 1: 81-96. (In Persian)
33. Bragaglio, A., F. Napolitano, C. Pacelli, G. Pirlo, E. Sabia, F. Serrapica, M. Serrapica, and A. Braghieri. 2018. Environmental impacts of Italian beef production: A comparison between different systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 172, 4033-43. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.078]
34. Brentrup, F., J. Küsters, H. Kuhlmann, and J. Lammel. 2004. Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment methodology: I. Theoretical concept of a LCA method tailored to crop production. European Journal of Agronomy, 20: 247-264. [DOI:10.1016/S1161-0301(03)00024-8]
35. Bitton, G. Wastewater Microbiology, 3rd Edition, Wiley press. 772 Pages. ISBN:978-0-471-71791-1.
36. Presumido, P.H., F. Sousa, A. Gonçalves, T.C. Dal Bosco, M. Feliciano. 2018. Environmental Impacts of the Beef Production Chain in the Northeast of Portugal Using Life Cycle Assessment. Agriculture, 8 (10): 165. [DOI:10.3390/agriculture8100165]
37. Pelletier, N., R. Pirog, R. Rasmussen. 2010. Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States. Agricultural Systems, 103, 380-89. [DOI:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.009]
38. World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 2006. The state of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere using global observations. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Annual greenhouse gas index (AGGI). http://www.wmo.int/weather/climate/water.
ارسال پیام به نویسنده مسئول
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |
