Next Article in Journal
Bridging Borders and Brains: ESG Sustainability, Integration, Education and Energy Choices in Developed Economies
Previous Article in Journal
Emission Characteristics During the Co-Firing of Fine Coal and Refuse-Derived Fuel from Municipal Waste
Previous Article in Special Issue
Renewable Energy Storage in a Poly-Generative System Fuel Cell/Electrolyzer, Supporting Green Mobility in a Residential Building
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 18
Issue 20
10.3390/en18205411
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Technical, Technological, Environmental and Energetical Aspects in Livestock Building Construction Using Structural Timber

by
Jan Barwicki
1,
Witold Jan Wardal
2,*,
Kamila Ewelina Mazur
3,* and
Mikhail Tseyko
4
1
Agency for Restructurization and Modernization of Agriculture (ARMA), Poleczki 33, 02-822 Warsaw, Poland
2
Department of Technology and Entrepreneurship in Wood Industry, Institute of Wood Sciences and Furniture, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW, 159 Nowoursynowska St., 02-787 Warsaw, Poland
3
Institute of Technology and Life Sciences—National Research Institute, Falenty, Hrabska Avenue 3, 05-090 Raszyn, Poland
4
Polish Biomass Society POLBIOM, 01-839 Warsaw, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2025, 18(20), 5411; https://doi.org/10.3390/en18205411 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 2 September 2025 / Revised: 8 October 2025 / Accepted: 9 October 2025 / Published: 14 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Energy Efficiency of the Buildings: 4th Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The demand for energy-efficient construction in agriculture calls for a reassessment of materials used in livestock buildings. This study evaluated the use of timber as an alternative to traditional materials, with a focus on embodied energy (EE) and carbon footprint (CFP) Eight EU countries (Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy, Denmark, France, Sweden, and Finland), were analyzed considering both forest resources and livestock populations. The forest area varied from more than 310,000 km2 in Sweden to just 6464 km2 in Denmark. Meanwhile, livestock populations varied significantly, with Germany reporting over 8.2 million LSU (livestock unit, 500 kg) in cattle alone. The number of livestock buildings was estimated assuming 100 LSU per building, allowing for a comparison between timber and conventional designs. Timber-based cowsheds were found to lower embodied carbon by up to 10,433 kg CO2e per barn compared with 17,450 kg CO2e for conventional structures. Embodied energy for a single wooden cowshed was around 151 GJ versus more than 246 GJ for a traditional counterpart. Scaled up to the national level, this represents a 35–40% reduction in total embodied energy. In addition to environmental outcomes, the analysis considered economic, technical, and regulatory aspects influencing adoption. The results suggest that substituting conventional materials with timber can contribute to emission reductions in agricultural construction, while further research is needed on fire safety, prefabrication, and policy harmonizations.

1. Introduction

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in ecological solutions in agriculture, which has translated into the increased popularity of wood as a building material on livestock farms.
The biomass of both forest and agricultural origin is used in construction as well as for energy production [1,2,3], and methods for the most advantageous use of these resources are constantly being sought to meet the Green Deal objectives [4,5,6]. One method of improving the energy balance in sustainable, environmentally friendly animal production is the installation of renewable energy systems (RESs) such as photovoltaics on the roofs of livestock buildings [7], heat recovery from livestock air [8,9], and the use of animal fertilizers as substrates for energy production, which reduces the energy intensity of the production process [10,11]. A second approach to improving the energy balance in livestock buildings is to use biomass as a structural element.
Such biomass for construction purposes is used worldwide [12]. In Europe, solid wood is commonly used, while in other regions of the world, different types of biomass—mainly for roofing—are popular [13]. North America and Europe remain key players in the international wood industry [14].
Technical obstacles have been overcome, and technological progress has led to significant developments in wooden structures in construction. In seismically active regions, modern technologies such as self-tapping screw connections, glued rods, and wood–concrete–steel composites dynamically increase the load-bearing capacity and resistance to seismic vibrations [15,16,17]. Wooden constructions are mainly used for administrative, business [18,19], and individual home buildings [20,21].
In Europe, Scandinavian countries with large biomass resources are investing in wooden construction. This situation is facilitated not only by the long tradition of building wooden structures, but also by the legal regulations in force in northern European countries, which promote and even financially support wood-based construction [18]. Two examples of buildings made of wood are shown in Figure 1.
Wooden structures of barns for beef and dairy cattle, although not widely used for this purpose, offer several advantages such as reduced carbon dioxide emissions [22,23], recognition as popular climate-resilient materials [24], better insulation properties, and proper thermal conditions [25]. They also offer potential benefits for human well-being and animal welfare [26,27] instead of posing health and safety risks [28]. Their use can contribute to the more sustainable development of animal husbandry by reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions compared with buildings made of concrete or steel, while also allowing for more open spaces, which helps reduce costs [29]. Despite these advantages, the implementation of wooden livestock buildings has encountered numerous difficulties. Problems related to the durability of the material, its fire resistance, regulatory requirements, and economic aspects have limited the widespread adoption of this type of construction.
Additional barriers include entrenched beliefs about the limited functionality of wood in large farm buildings and their perceived high operating costs. Therefore, it is crucial to analyze both the opportunities and obstacles associated with the use of wood in livestock construction in the context of contemporary agricultural trends.
One of the important factors influencing the development of wooden livestock buildings is the financial consideration. Construction costs can be both an advantage and an obstacle. In regions rich in wood, this raw material is often cheaper than traditional building materials, but its price depends on the local supply, transport costs, and market regulations.
The use of such buildings can yield long-term savings. Wood has excellent thermal insulation properties, which help reduce heating and ventilation costs [30], and it also supports natural ventilation through the gaps and holes between the boards that form the walls. In addition, modern methods of wood protection and impregnation can significantly extend the structure’s lifespan, reducing maintenance and repair costs.
Available forms of financial support—such as subsidies, tax breaks, and preferential loans for ecological construction—can also increase the profitability of such investments. Many countries and organizations promote sustainable construction in agriculture by offering various financing mechanisms for projects based on renewable raw materials.
On the other hand, concerns about the durability of wood under challenging livestock conditions can lead to additional expenses related to protection against moisture, pests, or fire. In addition, some building regulations (e.g., European norms like EN 1995-1-2 [31], together with EN 13501-2 [32] and national regulations like this in Poland [33]) may require the use of costly protective systems, which increases the initial outlay. The above-mentioned provisions are related to Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 [34] A rising demand for eco-friendly and sustainable construction materials has also been observed [35].
In the literature, research by Lithourgidis et al. [8] as well as Bartkowiak et al. [36] addressed energy-saving and low-emission solutions for livestock buildings, but did not sufficiently outline the technical and environmental aspects of construction materials, focusing instead on equipment, lighting, technological processes, and heat recovery [37,38,39]. Projects like this have also been realized by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, dedicated to improving the indoor air quality in livestock buildings [40]. On the other hand, past work by Liu et al. analyzed LCA carbon emissions [41].
Going further, scientific works in the field of wood construction most often concern residential and/or public buildings, or private companies [21,42,43]. The novelty of this article lies in the review and assessment of both the barriers and opportunities for investing in wooden buildings specifically intended for livestock farming.
This article analyzed the main advantages and limitations of wooden livestock buildings for cattle, focusing on the technological, economic, environmental, and regulatory aspects. By reviewing available research and case studies, we aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment of the feasibility of implementing this type of construction and to identify strategies for overcoming current barriers.

2. Materials and Methods

The research methodology followed the scheme presented in Figure 2.
The following countries were selected for the analysis: Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Sweden. These countries have a larger land area than the EU average, span different climate zones, and have ruminant and pig herds significantly larger than the EU average. In addition, they are characterized by a high availability of wood biomass. Sources of literature data included Scopus, Web of Science, baztech.pl as well as websites of the European Commission and the Horizon Europe program. These were reviewed for scientific articles, industry reports, and implemented Horizon research and development projects. EUROSTAT databases and national databases such as GUS (Poland) were used as sources of information on animal populations and afforestation in individual countries. The results are presented in graphs and tables.
The next stage involved grouping the factors into the following areas: economic, market, environmental and social, technological, and technical. The above-mentioned aspects were studied in terms of the characteristics of problems encountered in the use of wood for the construction of livestock buildings as well as the advantages and potential applications. In addition, indicators of wood availability (as a potential source of building material for livestock buildings) and the structure of agricultural production were taken into account. All claims were gathered in tabular form (in the Results section) and supported by relevant literature sources to ensure that readers can verify the results.
Next, the number of livestock buildings was calculated, assuming an average herd size of 100 LSU for cows, 100 LSU for pigs (fattening pigs), and 100 goats.
Model values for the technical parameters characterizing model buildings for these three types of animals were adopted, and the results are presented in the table.
The final stage was to determine the embodied energy (Equations (1) and (2)) for the wooden building variants using foundation walls as well as for the traditional technology variant (reinforced concrete walls, layered roof with mineral wool and cement boards), according to the following formula:
CFPtotal = ∑ CFPcoeff − Carbon sequestration 1
EE = CFPcoeff V
where:
  • EE—embodied energy;
  • CFPcoeff—carbon foot print coefficient, (measured in kg CO2 equivalent) according to the IPCC;
  • V—volume of material used in particular technological variant.
  • 1 for biomaterials.
The following stages were used in the study, in accordance with ISO 14040 [44] and ISO 14044 [45]: 1—Goal and scope definition, 2—Life Cycle Inventory (using the EcoInvent database), 3—Impact assessment, and 4—Interpretation.
The life cycle of the building material included the following phases: 1—extraction of raw materials, production, 2—transport, assembly, 3—operation, and 4—disposal. The carbon footprint was calculated for two selected construction variants for a typical livestock building using traditional and wood technologies. CO2 emission factors were adopted according to the EcoInvent database.
For structural timber, the density was assumed to be 500 kg/m3. In phases 1 and 2 (production and transport), the emissions were approximately 100 kg CO2e/m3. The ISO 14040 methodology provides for the inclusion of the phenomenon of sequestration (i.e., the accumulation (absorption) of CO2 during tree growth), which is why the associated CO2 emissions are negative and range from −850 to −900 kg CO2e/m3. At the end of its life cycle, the sequestered carbon is “released” (through disposal, combustion, or decomposition) in amounts ranging from 850 to 900 kg CO2e/m3—thus, over its entire life cycle, the net emissions for structural timber amount to 100 kg CO2e/m3.
For reinforced concrete, an emission factor of 0.25 t CO2/m3 was assumed, resulting from all stages of the life cycle: phase 1 production approx. 200 kg CO2e/m3 (cement, reinforcing steel, aggregate, energy); transport and construction (phase 2) approx. +30 kg CO2e/m; and operation (phase 3) from zero to <5 kg CO2e/m3; and phase 4 (crushing, recycling) +20 kg CO2e/m3.

3. Results

The graphs (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6) present data on the animal population and farm structure in selected EU countries. Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 present the main factors influencing investments in livestock buildings including those constructed using wood. This applies in particular to Table 1, which shows afforestation (in thousands of hectares) in Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Sweden in the context of the potential use of wood raw materials for the construction of agricultural buildings.
Eurostat data on animal buildings is not directly available. However, Eurostat does track the livestock populations within the EU. In 2023, the EU recorded 133 million pigs, 74 million bovine animals, 58 million sheep, and 11 million goats. These figures reflect a general decline in livestock populations over the past decade. While Eurostat does not provide specific data on the number of buildings, livestock data can still offer insights into the scale of animal agriculture within the EU.

3.1. Intensification of Farming

In 2023, livestock numbers across the European Union declined compared with the previous year. The populations of pigs and cattle each dropped by around 1%, while the number of sheep fell by 3% and goats by 5%. By the end of the year, the EU was home to approximately 133 million pigs, 74 million cattle, 58 million sheep, and 11 million goats [48].
When it comes to cattle numbers in 2023, Latvia saw the most significant decline, with a 6% drop compared with the previous year. Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, and Portugal also recorded decreases of around 3%. Cyprus was the only country to register a modest increase (+1%) in its bovine population. Meanwhile, cattle numbers in Ireland, Malta, and Poland remained virtually unchanged from 2022.
Figure 3a,b presents farms by type of specialization in EU countries.
Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the distribution and share of livestock population in the countries under study.
The national statistical offices of the countries included in this study do not directly publish the number of livestock buildings in the EU. However, they do provide information on the number of farms, which indirectly offers some insight into the scale of construction related to agriculture. According to data from 2021, there were 1.3 million farms in Poland. The following numbers of farm animals were recorded in Poland at the end of 2023: the cattle population was 6,435,500, pigs 9,769,000, and poultry 195,143,000. These figures highlight the significance of animal production in Polish agriculture and the potential for using wooden biomass in farm building construction in agricultural regions. Such data could help build a broader picture of agricultural buildings across European countries and assess the potential for wooden construction.
Figure 6 presents the exemplary number of bovine herds (including cows) in Poland in December 2023.
In the structure of the total cattle herd in Poland, the share of individual age and utility groups in December 2023 was as follows:
-
Calves under 1 year of age—29.8%;
-
Young breeding and slaughter cattle aged 1–2 years—25.9%;
-
Cows—34.2%;
-
Other breeding and slaughter cattle aged 2 years and over—10%.
In other countries, this distribution was similar.

3.2. Afforestation

According to the FAO and Eurostat data, forests and wooded areas accounted for nearly 40% of the European Union’s land territory. Among the Member States, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia, and Sweden stand out for their levels of forest coverage.
In Finland, Sweden, and Slovenia, forests cover more than 60% of the national territory [53].
Latvia and Estonia also have substantial woodland areas, with forests occupying about half of their total land. In Poland, forested land comprises around 30% of the country’s area, representing approximately 6% of the EU’s total forest area. Most Member States, including Poland, have experienced a slight increase in forest coverage since 2004, on average, about one percentage point across the EU.
Table 1 shows the afforestation in the individual countries analyzed in the article, combined with the number of livestock. The number of physical animals was converted into the number of livestock units = 500 kg (LSU).

3.3. Carbon Footprint and Embodied Energy Analyses for Model Number of Buildings

Table 2 presents the projected dimensions for livestock buildings constructed using typical glued laminated and solid wood technology, with standard sizes for dairy cows (100 LSU), pigs (fatteners) (100 LSU), and goats (100 head). The following assumptions for building floor areas were adopted:
-
Area for dairy cows: 8 m2 per LSU;
-
Area for pigs (fatteners): 1 m2 per LSU;
-
Area for goats: 1.5 m2 per head;
-
Thickness of boards for exterior walls: 0.025 m;
-
Buildings include a reinforced concrete foundation wall (plinth) 1 m high.
Table 3 presents the carbon footprint (CFP) for three types of livestock buildings including both wooden components and concrete foundation walls as well as for a traditional technology variant (T) with concrete walls and a layered roof structure consisting of mineral wool and corrugated fiber cement sheets.
Table 4 presents the calculated embodied energy values for model livestock buildings (dairy cattle for 100 LSU, pigs—fatteners for 100 LSU, and goats for 100 pcs). Then, the total number of buildings in particular countries was calculated based on these data (Table 5).
Table 6 presents the calculated embodied energy in all livestock buildings in the chosen countries using our calculation results from Table 4, divided for wooden variant (W) compared with the traditional (T).
Table 7 presents the embodied energy in all livestock buildings in the chosen countries divided into livestock animal types.
The comparative analysis of embodied energy (EE) and associated CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions for traditional (T) and wood-based (W) livestock housing across eight European countries revealed substantial environmental benefits of integrating timber in agricultural infrastructure. Germany, Spain, and Poland, with their extensive livestock sectors, represent priority regions for implementing sustainable building practices. In contrast, Nordic countries such as Sweden and Finland, despite smaller absolute values, also benefit considerably from timber use, demonstrating the broad applicability of this strategy across diverse livestock production systems.
First, the results demonstrated a consistent reduction in embodied energy and carbon emissions of approximately 35–40% when wood-based construction materials were employed instead of traditional variants. This reduction is significant given the scale of livestock farming in countries such as Germany, Poland, and Spain, which collectively exhibit the highest total embodied energy due to their large livestock populations. The use of timber notably decreases the environmental footprint of livestock buildings, supporting the decarbonization objectives of the agricultural sector.
Second, cattle housing dominated the embodied energy and CO2e profile across all countries due to the larger structural requirements and higher livestock units (LSUs). Consequently, focusing on timber construction for cattle barns offers the greatest potential for emissions mitigation. However, pig and goat housing, while contributing less to the total embodied energy, also showed meaningful reductions in the wood-based variant, particularly in countries with substantial pig populations such as Spain and Denmark.
The reductions obtained in this study (35–40%) are consistent with previous LCA analyses of CO2 emissions in wooden buildings. As shown in Table 8, comparative studies for different building types indicate reductions ranging from 25% to over 65%, depending on the system boundaries and degree of substitution adopted.
Furthermore, Schenk D. et al. (2022) found 28–47% lower embodied energy for wooden buildings compared with concrete ones [60]. These findings align with current EU climate goals and circular economy principles by emphasizing biomass utilization and low-impact construction materials. Promoting wood-based livestock buildings could therefore be an effective pathway toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture while supporting sustainable rural development.

3.4. Factors Influencing Investments in Wood Constructions

Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12 present the main barriers, challenges, and advantages as well as chances for investments in the wood construction section, also taking into account agriculture and its circumstances.
The governments of the countries under review have implemented programs supporting timber construction, for example, in Finland and Sweden [62,65]. Policy strategies have also been developed and introduced such as in Finland [61,62], France [63], and Poland [64]. In France, the most recent policy document related to the forest-based sector is The French Forest Code and the French National Forest and Wood Program [63]. In 2006, the Swedish government appointed a National Wood Construction Strategy Committee [65], tasked primarily with promoting the use of wood in apartment buildings and public structures [67].
Wood construction market development [Table 10] was analyzed in the following works [68,69]. Investments in agricultural construction—particularly those with a high share of wood as a construction material—depend primarily on the economic situation of the agricultural sector, and only secondarily on factors related to the construction sector itself.
New construction projects of buildings and infrastructure have been driving the market for several years, with an increase of 3.9% [70], while renovations have been growing steadily by around 2% per year. Total construction output reached EUR 1700 billion in the EC-19 area in 2019. Several estimates of wood construction market development have been published, and the state of the construction market has been described in numerous publications over the past 15 years [35,69,71,72].
Table 10. Overview of the economic and market factors influencing the development of investments in wood constructions compared with traditional buildings.
Table 10. Overview of the economic and market factors influencing the development of investments in wood constructions compared with traditional buildings.
Economic Factors
Characteristic features of the problem groupAdvantages/Chances
  • High initial costs of investments
  • Low economic competitiveness [70]
  • The diffusion of wooden multistory construction is most likely to take place in regions with established forest industries [73]
  • Using domestic forest resources in Nordic countries and parts of Central Europe
  • Reduce labor costs, especially through the use of prefabrication [74]
Market factors
  • Promotion of technologies is needed, especially in countries where wooden structures are less popular (PL,GE, ES)
  • Increase in animal population in individual countries
  • Unawareness of the various definitions related to wood construction [70]
  • In the last decades, significant growth of the engineered wood product (EWP) market in Europe [68,75]
  • Lack of consistency in naming, functioning in the market offers
  • Positive perception of wooden construction products by stakeholders [76,77]
Source: Own elaboration.
There is less wood in Sweden than in Finland, but it is still cheaper than in the other countries included in the analysis. It was found that the biggest challenges Finland faces in realizing its planned vision for the development of the wooden construction sector are: (1) open digital platforms; (2) methods for calculating carbon storage/sequestration in wood buildings; and (3) harmonized building regulations—at least among the Nordic countries, and ideally across the EU [78].
More than one-third of the wood in Finland is used in construction, and it is predicted that the share of wooden buildings in the public sector will increase to 45% in the current year (2025). Over the past 10 years, about 25% of farm buildings in Finland have been made from wood [70]. New construction projects of buildings and infrastructure have been driving the market for several years, with an increase of 3.9%.
Societal and economic factors influencing the development of investments in wood and traditional constructions, including livestock buildings, are presented in Table 11.
Table 11. Overview of the environmental and social factors influencing the development of investments in wood constructions compared with traditional buildings.
Table 11. Overview of the environmental and social factors influencing the development of investments in wood constructions compared with traditional buildings.
Environmental and Social Factors
Characteristic features of the problem groupAdvantages/Chances
  • Main reasons for the corrosion of traditional materials in connection with metallic pillars are related to high changing factors like internal temperature and humidity
  • Reduced negative impact on the environment in comparison with traditional building with cement [30]
  • Different types of materials often contain toxic chemicals, heavy metals, rare substances which can be released to the environment, for example, formaldehyde [79]
  • Recovering process with high potential to re-use
  • Some solutions are formaldehyde-free [80]
  • Potentially harmful substances will be contained
  • 100% bio-based adhesives can replace traditional ones [81]
  • Some partitions in pigsties are made of wood-based materials that may be hazardous to the environment
  • Possibility to produce panel constructions for climate-effective architecture
  • The construction sector uses half of the extracted materials and one-third of the water demand
  • CO2 emissions reduction in the construction sector [70,82]
  • Construction sector generates one-third of waste in the EU28 (including demolition, packaging, and bulky wastes) [83]
  • A large impact of traditional solutions on the economy and the environment: large amounts of metal, a long transport route to the construction site
  • Only about 1/3 of wood waste is recycled and reused as material [84]
  • Wood contributes to physiological and mental well-being [85,86,87]
  • Esthetic values
  • Forests in northern Europe often regenerate naturally after being cut down [43].
Source: Own elaboration.
About 40% of the total energy consumption in European Union countries comes from the use and operation of buildings [88], and buildings account for 36% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the energy sector [89]. In Finland, rapid population growth, industrialization, export of wood products, increased demand for heating, and a rise in construction activity have contributed to the depletion of the country’s timber resources.
Table 12 presents an overview of the technological and technical factors that influence the wood-based construction industry, with a focus on agriculture.
In addition to standard timber frame structures, there are three main types of timber systems: wood-panel, timber-frame, and cross-laminated timber (CLT) [74,83,89,90,91,92,93].
The biggest potential technical challenge for large-area wooden structures—such as those required for livestock buildings—is the method of connecting elements positioned in different planes [94]. Additionally, the density of the selected wood species is critical, as it must ensure the necessary static strength.
New technical possibilities have emerged in wooden construction [70]. Innovations and improvements are now available to enhance the strength parameters and improve the quality of engineered wood products (EWPs) [95]. Some solutions combine traditional and wooden technologies [96].
Table 12. Overview of technological and technical factors influencing on development of investments in wood constructions compared to traditional buildings.
Table 12. Overview of technological and technical factors influencing on development of investments in wood constructions compared to traditional buildings.
Characteristic Features of the Problem GroupAdvantages/Chances
Technological and Technical Factors
  • Sensitivity to different factors like fire hazards; pathogens penetrate wood more easily
  • Difficulties in determining which technologies are more popular: typically wooden or traditional [96] wood-based and engineered wood products as well as wood products with treatments (e.g., heat-treated wood) have received less attention because their chemical composition and physical properties differ from solid wood products [97]
  • Wide applicability of wood
  • Ease of production and installation of wood construction, versatility, and ease of installation on-site [98]
  • Lightweight constructions
  • Modular and panel constructions made of wood
  • Applications of off-site manufacturing systems [99]
  • Multi-level construction is no longer a problem thanks to computer-aided design and manufacturing processes (CAD, CAM, and CNC) [100]
  • Very good thermal properties of wood, insulation [101]
  • Wood is suitable for equipment elements inside livestock buildings (pens, partitions, tethers, feed ladders)
  • Location of investment is not a problem
  • Long lifespan of construction
  • Traditional structures can also be susceptible to corrosion
Source: Own elaboration.
The biggest potential technical problem for large-area wooden structures—such as those required for livestock buildings—is the method of connecting elements located in different planes [94]. Moreover, the required density of the selected wood species is crucial, as it guarantees appropriate static strength.

4. Discussion

By 2050, global consumption—largely related to animal production—is expected to be three times greater than it is today [102,103,104]. During this period, the global consumption of materials such as biomass, fossil fuels, metals, and minerals is projected to double, while the amount of waste generated annually may increase by up to 70% [105]. As a result, the demand for the rapid development of livestock buildings in rural areas will rise significantly [106,107].
To avoid the use of energy-intensive materials in such constructions and prevent future issues regarding the management of the resulting waste, new technological solutions should be developed.
A review of the literature and current technologies in livestock construction, along with an assessment of the socio-technical challenges faced by rural residents, was conducted. The authors propose the use of wood biomass for the construction of livestock buildings in rural areas. New technical possibilities have emerged in wooden construction [70]. Innovations and improvements are available to enhance the strength parameters and improve the quality of EWPs [95]. There are also hybrid solutions that combine traditional and wooden technologies [96]. Employing local labor in rural areas—where unemployment is often high—could help reduce the energy demand at every stage of meeting the growing need for specialized livestock buildings [108].
Wood biomass is not limited to forest resources such as tree stands; it also includes all wood waste from green areas, which traditionally has no clear use. When crushed, this material becomes an excellent filler for the production of structural elements needed in livestock construction. This approach to solving rural challenges could reduce the transport costs, as the biomass material will be produced and used within the same region for livestock construction.
Future research should incorporate full life cycle assessments and operational considerations to comprehensively evaluate the economic benefits. Nevertheless, this study provides a solid foundation for further efforts to promote sustainable livestock building design based on timber.
About 40% of the total energy consumption in EU countries comes from the use and operation of buildings. In Scandinavia, extensive biomass resources and many businesses are investing in wooden construction facilities. This trend is supported by long-standing traditions of wooden building practices and by legal regulations that promote and financially support biomass-based structures. Their use can contribute to the more sustainable development of animal husbandry by reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions compared with buildings made of concrete or steel.
As building construction continues to expand, numerous energy and climate-related challenges are expected This study focused on developing a more environmentally friendly material for building construction, namely wood.
If, in the future, the production of artificial meat were to gain significance, it can be expected that the pace of livestock building development would decrease. However, the facilities established for synthetic meat production might not be entirely climate-neutral.

5. Conclusions

This study reviewed scientific articles from major academic databases, focusing on publications in journals with an established impact factor. The findings highlight a broad range of factors—technical, technological, market-related, political, and social—that influence the adoption of timber-based livestock buildings. Understanding these interrelated aspects is essential for developing targeted strategies to address adoption barriers and support the implementation of wood-based construction in the agricultural sector.
The analysis of embodied energy and associated CO2 emissions highlights the environmental characteristics of timber-based solutions. Comparative assessments conducted across eight European countries showed that the proposed timber design consistently reduced the embodied energy and carbon footprint by approximately 35–40% compared with conventional materials.
The largest reductions were observed in cattle housing due to its scale and structural demands. Pig and goat housing also demonstrated measurable reductions, particularly in countries with large pig populations such as Spain and Denmark.
Among the countries studied, Germany, Spain, and Poland exhibited the highest total embodied energy in livestock buildings, representing the substantial potential for impact through the substitution of traditional materials. Meanwhile, Nordic countries like Sweden and Finland also benefit significantly in relative terms, indicating that timber construction can be applied across diverse livestock production systems.
Integrating wood-based materials in livestock housing aligns with the EU climate targets and circular economy strategies, representing a practical approach to decarbonize the agricultural sector.
To advance the adoption of timber livestock buildings—especially in countries where such solutions are less established—several key challenges must be addressed:
  • Research on fire resistance, system certification, and updating regulations;
  • Developing durable, cost-efficient protection systems against high humidity, ammonia, fermentation gases, and microorganisms;
  • Promoting prefabricated components tailored for agricultural construction, alongside measures to increase the public awareness and acceptance of these technologies.
Addressing these challenges may support the adaptation of national strategies and the development of financing mechanisms for wider adoption. Policymakers and stakeholders can consider these aspects to facilitate the transition toward lower-carbon livestock infrastructure.
The population of livestock and forest cover in the selected EU countries were summarized. Among the shaping factors, both the most significant barriers and favorable conditions were identified.
Technical considerations such as the connection of structural elements in different planes and component density are critical for ensuring structural performance. The local sourcing of biomass also has the potential to generate energy savings and support rural employment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.B., K.E.M., W.J.W. and M.T.; Methodology, J.B., K.E.M. and W.J.W.; Software, W.J.W. and M.T.; Validation, J.B., K.E.M., W.J.W. and M.T.; Formal analysis, J.B., K.E.M. and W.J.W.; Investigation, J.B., K.E.M., W.J.W. and M.T.; Resources, K.E.M. and W.J.W.; Data curation, J.B., K.E.M., W.J.W. and M.T.; Writing—original draft preparation, J.B., K.E.M., W.J.W. and M.T.; Writing—review and editing, J.B., K.E.M., W.J.W. and M.T.; Visualization, K.E.M., W.J.W. and M.T.; Supervision, W.J.W., K.E.M. and J.B.; Funding acquisition, J.B., K.E.M., W.J.W. and M.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by The National Center for Research and Development, grant number BIOSTRATEG1/269056/5/NCBR/2015, dated 11 August 2015, project acronym: BIOGAS&EE, titled “Interdisciplinary research on improving energy efficiency and increasing the share of renewable energy sources in the energy balance of Polish agriculture”.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study (with the exception of public databases like Web of Science and Eurostat) are available on request from the corresponding author due to privacy reasons.

Acknowledgments

The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Konieczna, A.; Mazur, K.; Koniuszy, A.; Gawlik, A.; Sikorski, I. Thermal Energy and Exhaust Emissions of a Gasifier Stove Feeding Pine and Hemp Pellets. Energies 2022, 15, 9458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wróbel, B.; Hryniewicz, M.; Kulkova, I.; Mazur, K.; Jakubowska, Z.; Borek, K.; Dobrzyński, J.; Konieczna, A.; Miecznikowski, A.; Piasecka-Jóźwiak, K.; et al. Fermentation Quality and Chemical Composition of Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) Silage Inoculated with Bacterial Starter Cultures—A Pilot Study. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Roman, K.; Grzegorzewska, E.; Zatoń, P.; Konieczna, A.; Oleńska, S.; Borek, K.; Świętochowski, A. Dispersed Power Production in Terms of the Potential of Briquettes Made from Straw and Willow as Renewable Sources of Energy. Materials 2022, 15, 5235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Konieczna, A.; Koniuszy, A. Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions in modelled cereal crop production under Polish agricultural conditions: An example spring barley. J. Water Land. Dev. 2024, 61, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Angili, P.; Grzesik, K. Unlocking the circular economy potential: Techno-economic analysis of rapeseed meal valorization through pyrolysis. J. Water Land Dev. 2025, 65, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. RESILENT, Project. Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/818187/results (accessed on 3 July 2025).
  7. Wardal, W.J.; Mazur, K.; Barwicki, J.; Tseyko, M. Fundamental Barriers to Green Energy Production in Selected EU Countries. Energies 2024, 17, 3664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lithourgidis, A.A.; Firfiris, V.K.; Kalamaras, S.D.; Tzenos, C.A.; Brozos, C.N.; Kotsopoulos, T.A. Energy Conservation in a Livestock Building Combined with a Renewable Energy Heating System towards CO2 Emission Reduction: The Case Study of a Sheep Barn in North Greece. Energies 2023, 16, 1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Benni, S.; Garcia, C.A.P.; Bovo, M.; Barbaresi, A.; Tinti, F.; Loris, A.; Acosta-Pazmiño, I.P.; Bakalis, P.; Tassinari, P.; Torreggiani, D. A Smart Heating System Based on Integrated Renewable Energy Sources for Swine Nursery Buildings. Energies 2025, 18, 1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hołaj-Krzak, J.T.; Konieczna, A.; Borek, K.; Gryszkiewicz-Zalega, D.; Sitko, E.; Urbaniak, M.; Dybek, B.; Anders, D.; Szymenderski, J.; Koniuszy, A.; et al. Goat Manure Potential as a Substrate for Biomethane Production—An Experiment for Photofermentation. Energies 2024, 17, 3967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Konieczna, A.; Borek, K.; Hołaj-Krzak, J.T.; Dybek, B.; Anders, D.; Szymenderski, J.; Klimek, K.; Kapłan, M.; Jarosz, Z.; Syrotyuk, S.; et al. The Potential of Utilizing Cattle (Cow) Manure for Biomethane Production—An Experiment for Photofermentation. Energies 2024, 17, 6119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wear, D.N.; Prestemon, J.P.; Foster, M.O. US Forest Products in the Global Economy. J. For. 2016, 114, 483–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. González-Retamal, M.; Forcael, E.; Saelzer-Fuica, G.; Vargas-Mosqueda, M. From Trees to Skyscrapers: Holistic Review of the Advances and Limitations of Multi-Storey Timber Buildings. Buildings 2022, 12, 1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mensah, P.; Pimenta, A.S.; de Melo, R.R.; Amponsah, J.; Tuo, G.; Chakurah, I.; Ampadu, S.D.; Buckman, I.; Nikoi, M.; Minkah, E.; et al. The Global Supply Chain of Wood Products: A Literature Review. Forests 2025, 16, 1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Asyraf, M.R.M.; Rafidah, M.; Madenci, E.; Özkılıç, Y.O.; Aksoylu, C.; Razman, M.R.; Ramli, Z.; Zakaria, S.Z.S.; Khan, T.; Stepinac, M.; et al. Creep Properties and Analysis of Cross Arms’ Materials and Structures in Latticed Transmission Towers: Current Progress and Future Perspectives. Materials 2023, 16, 1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Padalu, P.K.V.R.; Surana, M.; Rajput, A.S. Seismic Behaviour of Timber-Reinforced Masonry Housing Typologies in the Himalayan Region: A State-of-the-Art Survey. Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. 2025, 49, 4375–4461. [Google Scholar]
  17. Stepinac, M.; Gašparović, M. A review of emerging technologies for an assessment of safety and seismic vulnerability and damage detection of existing masonry structures. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ilgın, H.E.; Aslantamer, Ö.N. High-Rise Timber Offices: Main Architectural and Structural Design Parameters. Buildings 2024, 14, 1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lakshmanan, R. Benefits of Glulam Timber Roof Structure for Airport Passenger Terminal Building. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A 2022, 103, 689–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wenzel, A.; Guindos, P.; Carpio, M. Using Timber in Mid-Rise and Tall Buildings to Construct Our Cities: A Science Mapping Study. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cabral, M.R.; Blanchet, P. A State of the Art of the Overall Energy Efficiency of Wood Buildings—An Overview and Future Possibilities. Materials 2021, 14, 1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gonzalez-Torres, M.; Pérez-Lombard, L.; Coronel, J.F.; Maestre, I.R.; Yan, D. A review on buildings energy information: Trends, end-uses, fuels and drivers. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 626–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, S.; Zhou, J.; Chui, Y.H. Deflection criteria for controlling timber floor vibrations: A 200-year evolution. Eng. Struct. 2025, 326, 119370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Materials 2050. Available online: https://2050-materials.com/blog/climate-resilient-materials-for-the-built-environment-a-data-centred-prime/ (accessed on 1 July 2025).
  25. Perez Garcia, C.A.; Bovo, M.; Torreggiani, D.; Tassinari, P.; Benni, S. Indoor Temperature Forecasting in Livestock Buildings: A Data-Driven Approach. Agriculture 2024, 14, 316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Alapieti, T.; Mikkola, R.; Pasanen, P.; Salonen, H. The influence of wooden interior materials on indoor environment: A review. Eur.J. Wood Wood Prod. 2020, 78, 617–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mamić, D.; Domljan, D. Positive Aspects of Using Solid Wood in Interiors on Human Wellbeing: A Review. Drv. Ind. 2023, 74, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Seo, H.-J.; Oh, B.-W.; Seo, I.-H. Environmental Monitoring and Thermal Data Analysis Related to Mortality Rates in a Commercial Pig House. Agriculture 2025, 15, 635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Laurindo, G.M.; Ferraz, G.A.e.S.; Damasceno, F.A.; Nascimento, J.A.C.d.; Santos, G.H.R.d.; Ferraz, P.F.P. Thermal Environment and Behavior Analysis of Confined Cows in a Compost Barn. Animals 2022, 12, 2214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mazur, K.E.; Wardal, W.J.; Barwicki, J.; Tseyko, M. Thermal Insulation of Agricultural Buildings Using Different Biomass Materials. Energies 2025, 18, 636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. EN 1995-1-2:2008; Eurocode 5: Design of Timber Structures—Part 1-2: General—Structural Fire Design. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
  32. EN 13501-2:2016; Fire Classification of Construction Products and Building Elements. Part 2: Classification Using Data From Fire Resistance and/or Smoke Control Tests, Excluding Ventilation Services. European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2025.
  33. Regulation of the Minister of Development and Technology of May 9, 2024, Amending the Regulation on Technical Conditions to be Met by Buildings and Their Location. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20240000726/O/D20240726.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2025).
  34. Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 Laying Down a Procedure for the Provision of Information in the Field of Technical Regulations and of Rules on Information Society Services. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2015/1535/oj (accessed on 22 July 2025).
  35. Grand View Research. Wood Based Panel Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report by Product (Plywood, MDF, HDF, Particleboard, OSB, Softboard, Hardboard), by Application (Furniture, Construction, Packaging), by Region, and Segment Forecasts, 2025–2030; Grand View Research: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2024; Available online: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/wood-based-panel-market (accessed on 10 June 2025).
  36. Bartkowiak, A. Energy-saving and low-emission livestock buildings in the concept of a smart farming. J. Water Land Dev. 2021, 51, 272–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mazur, K.E.; Barwicki, J.; Tseiko, V. Comparison of Mechanized and Automated Technologies in the Scope of Cumulative Energy in Sustainable Milk Production. Sustainability 2024, 16, 906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bhoj, S.; Tarafdar, A.; Singh, M.; Gaur, G.K. Smart and Automatic Milking Systems: Benefits and Prospects. In Smart and Sustainable Food Technologies; Sehgal, S., Singh, B., Sharma, V., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Martin, T.; Gasselin, P.; Hostiou, N.; Feron, G.; Laurens, L.; Purseigle, F.; Ollivier, G. Robots and transformations of work in farm: A systematic review of the literature and a research agenda. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 42, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Project: Improving-Energy-Efficiency-and-Indoor-Climate-of-Livestock-Buildings-Through-Passive-and-Active-Adaptation-Measures. Available online: https://www.slu.se/en/research/research-catalogue/projekt/f/improving-energy-efficiency-and-indoor-climate-of-livestock-buildings-through-passive-and-active-adaptation-measures/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 1 July 2025).
  41. Liu, H.; Wang, Z.; Du, X.; Qi, F.; Wang, C.; Shi, Z. Decarbonizing Agricultural Buildings: A Life-Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment of Dairy Barns. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shmuelly-Kagami, T.; Matsumura, S. Progress of Timber Multi-Storey Apartment Building in Europe and Japan. In Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Timber Engineering, Miyazaki, Japan, 2–5 June 2008; Curran Associates Inc.: Red Hook, NY, USA, 2008; Volume 1–4, pp. 21–28, ISBN 978-1-61567-088-8. Available online: https://www.proceedings.com/content/005/005408webtoc.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 7 October 2025).
  43. Myllyntaus, T.; Mattila, T. Decline or increase? The standing timber stock in Finland 1800–1997, Special Section: European Environmental History and Ecological Economics. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 271–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. ISO 14040:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  45. ISO 14044:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  46. EUROSTAT. Farm Specialisations. 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Agri-environmental_indicator_-_specialisation&oldid=597612 (accessed on 11 June 2025).
  47. EUROSTAT. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ef_lsk_bovine/default/bar?lang=en&category=agr.ef.ef_livestock (accessed on 11 June 2025).
  48. EUROSTAT. Decline in EU Livestock Population in 2023. 2023. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20240521-2 (accessed on 11 June 2025).
  49. EUROSTAT. 2023. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ef_lsk_sheep/default/table?lang=en&category=agr.ef.ef_livestock (accessed on 20 June 2025).
  50. EUROSTAT. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ef_lsk_pigs/default/table?lang=en&category=agr.ef.ef_livestock (accessed on 20 June 2025).
  51. EUROSTAT. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ef_lsk_goats/default/table?lang=en&category=agr.ef.ef_livestock (accessed on 20 June 2025).
  52. GUS. 2023. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/download/gfx/portalinformacyjny/pl/defaultaktualnosci/5508/5/25/1/poglowie_bydla_wedlug_stanu_w_grudniu_2023_r.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2025).
  53. EUROSTAT. Forests, Forestry and Logging. 2022. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Forests,_forestry_and_logging (accessed on 20 June 2025).
  54. EUROSTAT. Area of Wooded Land (EFA Questionnaire). Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/for_area_efa/default/table?lang=en&category=for.for_sfm (accessed on 20 June 2025).
  55. Eslami, H.; Yaghma, A.; Jayasinghe, B.; Wald, D. Comparative life cycle assessment of light frame timber and reinforced concrete masonry structural systems for single-family houses in Luxembourg. Heliyon 2024, 10, e26083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chen, C.X.; Pierobon, F.; Jones, S.; Maples, I.; Gong, Y.; Ganguly, I. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Mass Timber and Concrete Residential Buildings: A Case Study in China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Andersen, C.E.; Rasmussen, F.N.; Habert, G.; Birgisdóttir, H. Embodied GHG Emissions of Wooden Buildings—Challenges of Biogenic Carbon Accounting in Current LCA Methods. Front. Built Environ. 2021, 7, 729096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Alam, A.; Goto, Y.; Hagy, S.; Tuomasjukka, D.; Hughes, M. Sustainability Assessment of a Wooden Multi-Storey Building with an Equivalent Reinforced Concrete Alternative Using ToSIA: Finnish Perspective. J. Sustain. Res. 2022, 4, e220014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rinne, R.; Ilgın, H.E.; Karjalainen, M. Comparative Study on Life-Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint of Hybrid, Concrete and Timber Apartment Buildings in Finland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Schenk, D.; Amiri, A. Life cycle energy analysis of residential wooden buildings versus concrete and steel buildings: A review. Front. Built Environ 2022, 8, 975071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Programme of Prime Minister Sanna Marin’s Government 10 December 2019, Inclusive and Competent Finland—A Socially, Economically and Ecologically Sustainable Society. Available online: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-287-811-3 (accessed on 3 July 2025).
  62. National Objectives for Public Wood Construction in Finland, Ministry of the Environment. 2020. Available online: https://ym.fi/documents/1410903/38439968/Julkisen-puurakentamisen-kansalliset-tavoitteet-45F5028E_8436_408A_8CD7_510C6C1AD000-161609.pdf/1fc95a52-5c50-4c9b-1f5d-325395658d72/Julkisen-puurakentamisen-kansalliset-tavoitteet-45F5028E_8436_408A_8CD7_510C6C1AD000-161609.pdf?t=1603259868530 (accessed on 5 July 2025).
  63. The National Forest and Wood Programme PNFB 2016–2026, Ministere de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation. 2016. Available online: https://agriculture.gouv.fr/le-programme-national-de-la-foret-et-du-bois-2016-2026 (accessed on 15 July 2025).
  64. Ministry of Climate and Environment. Wooden Construction—Research Report. 2020. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/web/climate/wooden-buildings (accessed on 15 July 2025).
  65. National Wood Construction Strategy Committee. Ds 2004: 1. Mer trä i Byggandet. Underlag för en Nationell Strategi Att Främja Användning av trä i Byggandet. Regeringskansliet: Näringsdepartementet [Support Material Related to the National Strategy Supporting the Increased Use of Wood in Construction. Department of Commerce]. Available online: http://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/622a4cddc02a4026a3bc3c4f5d5b94aa/mer-tra-i-byggandet---underlag-for-en-nationell-strategi-for-att-framja-tra-i-byggandet-ds-20041 (accessed on 18 July 2025).
  66. Bowyer, J.; Fernholz, K.; Kacprzak, A. Circularity concepts in wood construction. In ECE/TIM/DP/95 Forestry and Timber Section; United Nations (UNECE) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; Available online: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2023-05/ECE_TIM_DP95E_web.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2025).
  67. Kitek Kuzman, M.; Sandberg, D. Comparison of timber-house technologies and initiatives supporting use of timber in Slovenia and in Sweden—The state of the art. iForest 2017, 10, 930–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Petruch, M.; Walcher, D. Timber for future? Attitudes towards timber construction by young millennials in Austria—Marketing implications from a representative study. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mahapatra, K.; Gustavsson, L.; Hemström, K. Multi-storey wood-frame buildings in Germany, Sweden and the UK. Constr. Innov. Inf. Process Manag. 2012, 12, 62–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Leszczyszyn, E.; Heräjärvi, H.; Verkasalo, E.; Garcia-Jaca, J.; Araya-Letelier, G.; Lanvin, J.-D.; Bidzińska, G.; Augustyniak-Wysocka, D.; Kies, U.; Calvillo, A.; et al. The Future of Wood Construction: Opportunities and Barriers Based on Surveys in Europe and Chile. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Johansson, M. Structural properties of sawn timber and engineered wood products. In Design of Timber Structures. Structural Aspects of Timber Construction; Swedish Wood: Stockholm, Sweden, 2022; pp. 1–256. Available online: https://www.swedishwood.com/siteassets/5-publikationer/pdfer/sw-design-of-timber-structures-vol1-2022.pdf (accessed on 7 October 2025).
  72. Nord, T. Prefabrication Strategies in the Timber Housing Industry: A Comparison of Swedish and Austrian Markets; Technical Report; Luleå University of Technology: Luleå, Sweden, 2008; p. 51. [Google Scholar]
  73. Vihemäki, H.; Toppinen, A.; Toivonen, R. Intermediaries to accelerate the diffusion of wooden multi-storey construction in Finland. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2020, 36, 433–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Alsayegh, G.; Mukhopadhyaya, P.; Wang, J.; Zalok, E.; van Reenen, D. Preliminary Characterization of Physical Properties of Cross-Laminated-Timber (CLT) Panels for Hygrothermal Modelling. ASTM Int. Adv. Civ. Eng. Matls. 2013, 2, 472–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Jussila, J.; Nagy, E.; Lahtinen, K.; Hurmekoski, E.; Hayrinen, L.; Mark-Herbert, C.; Roos, A.; Toivonen, R.; Toppinen, A. Wooden multi-storey construction market development—Systematic literature review within a global scope with insights on the Nordic region. Silva Fenn. 2022, 56, 10609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Manninen, H. Long-term Outlook for Engineered Wood Products in Europe. 2014. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Long-term-outlook-for-engineered-wood-products-in-Manninen/078edf2d7bc9a807dca32fb22181d6b6dbe978d0 (accessed on 1 August 2025).
  77. Shang, G.; Pheng, L.S.; Fai, B.P.K. Receptiveness of mass-engineered timber (MET) residential buildings among young stakeholders. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2025, 14, 696–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gold, S.; Rubik, F. Consumer attitudes towards timber as a construction material and towards timber frame houses—Selected findings of a representative survey among the German population. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 303–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Toivonen, R.; Lilja, A.; Vihemäki, H.; Toppinen, A. Future export markets of industrial wood construction—A qualitative backcasting study. For. Policy Econ. 2021, 128, 102480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Mastrucci, A.; Guo, F.; Zhong, X.; Maczek, F.; van Ruijven, B. Circular strategies for building sector decarbonization in China: A scenario analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 2024, 28, 1089–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Shirmohammadli, Y.; Pizzi, A.; Raftery, G.M.; Hashemi, A. One-component polyurethane adhesives in timber engineering applications: A review. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2023, 123, 103358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. CBE JU, European Commission. Project: SUSBOARD. Biobased Adhesives for Sustainable Wood-Based Boards. Available online: https://www.cbe.europa.eu/projects/susboard (accessed on 25 August 2025).
  83. Larivière-Lajoie, R.; Blanchet, P.; Amor, B. Evaluating the importance of the embodied impacts of wall assemblies in the context of a low environmental impact energy mix. Build. Environ. 2022, 207, 108534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Norouzi, M.; Chàfer, M.; Cabeza, L.F.; Jiménez, L.; Boer, D. Circular economy in the building and construction sector: A scientific evolution analysis. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 102704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Project: STARGATE, Resilient Farming By Adaptive Microclimate Management. Available online: https://www.stargate-h2020.eu/ (accessed on 25 August 2025).
  86. Simonson, C.J.; Salonvaara, M.; Ojanen, T. Improving Indoor Climate and Comfort with Wooden Structures; Technical Research Centre of Finland, VTT Publications: Espoo, Finland, 2001; Available online: https://cris.vtt.fi/en/publications/improving-indoor-climate-and-comfort-with-wooden-structures (accessed on 25 August 2025).
  87. Nyrud, A.Q.; Bringslimark, T. Is interior wood use psychologically beneficial? A review of psychological responses toward wood. Wood Fiber Sci. 2010, 42, 202–218. Available online: https://wfs.swst.org/index.php/wfs/article/view/1365/1365 (accessed on 25 August 2025).
  88. Cao, X.; Dai, X.; Liu, J. Building energy-consumption status worldwide and the state-of-the-art technologies for zero-energy buildings during the past decade. Energy Build. 2016, 128, 198–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Communications from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Renovation Wave for Europe–Greening out Buildings, Creating Jobs, Improving Lives. European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/eu_renovation_wave_strategy.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2025).
  90. Alia Syahirah, Y.; Anwar, U.M.K.; Sh, L.; Ong, C.B.; Asniza, M.; Paridah, M.T. The properties of Cross Laminated Timber (CLT): A review. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2025, 138, 103924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wieruszewski, M.; Wdowiak-Postulak, A.; Brol, J.; Krzosek, S.; Trociński, A.; Gocál, J.; Bahleda, F.; Prokop, J.; Nowak, T. Qualitative and Strength Analysis of Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) Wood Mater—Study Pallet Elements. Drewno. Pr. Naukowe. Doniesienia. Komun. 2025, 68, 00042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Lobos Calquin, D.; Mata, R.; Correa, C.; Nuñez, E.; Bustamante, G.; Caicedo, N.; Blanco Fernandez, D.; Díaz, M.; Pulgar-Rubilar, P.; Roa, L. Implementation of Building Information Modeling Technologies in Wood Construction: A Review of the State of the Art from a Multidisciplinary Approach. Buildings 2024, 14, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. De Araujo, V.; Aguiar, F.; Jardim, P.; Mascarenhas, F.; Marini, L.; Aquino, V.; Santos, H.; Panzera, T.; Lahr, F.; Christoforo, A. Is Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) a Wood Panel, a Building, or a Construction System? A Systematic Review on Its Functions, Characteristics, Performances, and Applications. Forests 2023, 14, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hanna, D.; Tanner, T. Glulam connections assembled with screws in different installation angles. Maderas. Cienc. Y Tecnol. 2021, 23. Available online: https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-221X2021000100454 (accessed on 27 August 2025). [CrossRef]
  95. Rebeggiani, S.; Reddy, V.; Olofsson, L.; Fredriksson, M. Towards In-Line Measurements of Sawn Wood Surfaces. In Advances in Transdisciplinary Engineering; Andersson, J., Joshi, S., Malmsköld, L., Hanning, F., Eds.; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; Available online: https://ebooks.iospress.nl/doi/10.3233/ATDE240150 (accessed on 27 August 2025).
  96. Yehia, A. Zaher Ali, Flexural behavior of FRP strengthened concrete-wood composite beams. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2018, 9, 3419–3424. [Google Scholar]
  97. Van Niekerk, P.B.; Brischke, C.; Niklewski, J. Estimating the Service Life of Timber Structures Concerning Risk and Influence of Fungal Decay—A Review of Existing Theory and Modelling Approaches. Forests 2021, 12, 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Li, J.; Chen, H.; Wang, L.; Ou, Y.; Yin, T.; Zhang, J.; Qin, D.; Du, Y. The Application of Intelligent Construction Technology to Modern Wood Structures in China: A Critical Review. Buildings 2025, 15, 535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Barkokebas, R.D.; Chen, X.; Yu, H.; Al-Hussein, M. Achieving housing energy-efficiency requirements: Methodologies and impacts on housing construction cost and energy performance. J. Build. Engin. 2019, 26, 100874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kitek, K.M.; Sandberg, D. A new Era for Multi-Storey Timber Buildings in Europe. In New Horizons for the Forest Products Industry, Proceedings of the 70th Forest Products Society International Convention, Portland, OR, USA, 26–29 June 2016; Forest Products Society: Ruston, LA, USA; Available online: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1004338/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 23 May 2025).
  101. Zhang, X.; Ai, M.; Song, X.; Gao, S.; Li, J. Insights into precise thermal conductivity evaluation of wood in construction applications: Temperature-coupled dielectric-based approach. Constr. Build. Mater. 2025, 479, 141408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. 11thWorld Sustainability Forum. Available online: https://sciforum.net/event/WSF-11?utm_source=mdpi_web&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=wsf11&utm_content=pubgrade&dclid=&gad_source=7 (accessed on 16 May 2025).
  103. OECD. Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries: Key Trends and Insights; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Barwicki, J.; Roman, K.; Borek, K.; Mazur, K.; Wardal, W.J.; Kierończyk, M. Some experimental studies concerning mixing of loose and liquid agricultural materials. Inżynieria Mater. Mater. Eng. 2021, 42, 18–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Barwicki, J.; Borek, K. Remote sensing in farm machinery design—As fundamental improvement of development—Of precision agriculture phenomenon. Pol. Tech. Rev. 2019, 3, 26–30. [Google Scholar]
  106. Barwicki, J.; Mazur, K.; Borek, K. Some aspects of using automated electronic systems in the development of modern agriculture. Inżynieria Mater. 2020, 41, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Mithraratne, N.; Vale, B. Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses. Build. Environ. 2004, 39, 483–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Galvin, R. Thermal upgrades of existing homes in Germany: The building code, subsidies, and economic efficiency. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 834–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 18 05411 g001
Figure 1. Typical wooden livestock buildings in Finland: (a) cowshed for beef cattle; (b) building for turkeys (source: W.J. Wardal).
Figure 1. Typical wooden livestock buildings in Finland: (a) cowshed for beef cattle; (b) building for turkeys (source: W.J. Wardal).
Energies 18 05411 g001
Energies 18 05411 g002
Figure 2. Stages of action during the research process.
Figure 2. Stages of action during the research process.
Energies 18 05411 g002
Energies 18 05411 g003
Figure 3. (a) Farms by type of specialization in EU countries. Source: Own elaboration based on [46]. (b) Farms by type of specialization in EU countries. Source: Own elaboration based on [46,47]. (*) other crops: cereal, oilseed, protein crops, olives, fruit and citrus fruits, vineyards, various permanent crops combined, and horticulture.
Figure 3. (a) Farms by type of specialization in EU countries. Source: Own elaboration based on [46]. (b) Farms by type of specialization in EU countries. Source: Own elaboration based on [46,47]. (*) other crops: cereal, oilseed, protein crops, olives, fruit and citrus fruits, vineyards, various permanent crops combined, and horticulture.
Energies 18 05411 g003
Energies 18 05411 g004
Figure 4. Livestock population (ruminants, pigs, sheep and goats) in mln LSU in 2020 in chosen EU countries, according to EUROSTAT. Source: Own elaboration based on [41,46,48,49,50,51].
Figure 4. Livestock population (ruminants, pigs, sheep and goats) in mln LSU in 2020 in chosen EU countries, according to EUROSTAT. Source: Own elaboration based on [41,46,48,49,50,51].
Energies 18 05411 g004
Energies 18 05411 g005
Figure 5. Share of livestock population types in particular countries in 2020, based on [46,49,50,51].
Figure 5. Share of livestock population types in particular countries in 2020, based on [46,49,50,51].
Energies 18 05411 g005
Energies 18 05411 g006
Figure 6. Number of bovine herds in Poland in 2023. Source: Own elaboration based on [52].
Figure 6. Number of bovine herds in Poland in 2023. Source: Own elaboration based on [52].
Energies 18 05411 g006
Table 1. Afforestation and the number of livestock (bovine, pigs, goats, sheep) in the chosen EU countries.
Table 1. Afforestation and the number of livestock (bovine, pigs, goats, sheep) in the chosen EU countries.
CountryForests (km2)LSU (2020)LSU∙km−2 of Forests
Finland250,051.0821,030.00.3045
Sweden310,244.01,394,440.00.2225
France173,284.03,726,970.00.0465
Spain189,746.010,457,500.00.0181
Italy110,989.07,546,880.00.0147
Poland96,302.07,552,460.00.0128
Germany116,529.014,299,610.00.0082
Denmark6464.03,874,700.00.0017
Source: Own elaboration, based on [43,48].
Table 2. Projected technical parameters for livestock buildings in typical construction and the wood demand for dairy cow barns, pig fattening units, and goat sheds.
Table 2. Projected technical parameters for livestock buildings in typical construction and the wood demand for dairy cow barns, pig fattening units, and goat sheds.
Technical ParameterCowshedPiggeryGoat ShedUnit
Building dimensions
(width × length)		20 × 37.518 × 2210 × 15m2
Building area 750.00396.00150.00m2
Height of side walls3.003.003.50m
Ridge height7.457.905.73m
Surface of wooden walls299.00200.00125.00m2
Gable roof slope~24.00~24.00~24.00°
Roof area765.00433.50164.00m2
The volume of timber for roof covering (including the roof structure, i.e., wall plates, rafters, collar beams, purlins)32.4315.268.18m3
Total volume of structural timber (including columns, beams and reserves)46.8321.6618.27m3
Foundation, for a thickness of 0.2 m23.0016.0010.00m3
Table 3. Carbon footprint CFP for model livestock buildings.
Table 3. Carbon footprint CFP for model livestock buildings.
BuildingCattlePigsGoatsUnit
Carbon footprint (wooden parts Ww)4683.02166.01827kg CO2e
Carbon footprint
(concrete walls Cw foundation above ground part		5750.04000.02500.0kg CO2 e
Total carbon footprint (Ww + Cw)10,43361664327kg CO2e
Carbon footprint–building in traditional technology (T)17,450.09420.07070.0kg CO2e
Source: Own elaboration, based on [53,54]. Carbon sequestration:−0.9 t CO2∙m−3. CFP for reinforced concrete 0.25 t CO2∙m−3.
Table 4. Embodied energy (EE) for model livestock buildings.
Table 4. Embodied energy (EE) for model livestock buildings.
MaterialCFP
Coefficient		DensityEE
Coefficient		EEEEEE
[t CO2∙m−3][kg/m3][MJ/m3][MJ][MJ][MJ]
Constructing wood0.1 5001700112,39251,98443,848
Reinforced
Concrete		0.252400240039,10027,20017,000
Total embodied energy151,49279,18460,848
Embodied energy in traditional
technology (walls: reinforced concrete;
layered roof: mineral wood, corrugated fiber cement sheet)		246,783131,64473,674
Table 5. Number of livestock buildings based on the livestock population according to Eurostat.
Table 5. Number of livestock buildings based on the livestock population according to Eurostat.
CountryCattle [LSU]Number of CowshedsPigs
[LSU]		Number of PiggeriesGoats
[Units]		Number of Goat Sheds
Germany8,202,34082,0235,900,87059,009154,9001549
Spain450,10045018,139,61081,3962,668,70026,687
Poland4,650,40046,5042,866,97028,67052,900529
Italy4,508,54045,0852,243,54022,435953,1009531
Denmark1,009,57010,0962,850,53028,505900090
France12,5101252,873,74028,7371,412,20014,122
Sweden1,008,38010,084335,940335900
Finland594,4005944212,0102120600060
Table 6. Embodied energy and their CO2 equivalent for the wooden variant compared with traditional ones.
Table 6. Embodied energy and their CO2 equivalent for the wooden variant compared with traditional ones.
CountryEE Traditional VariantEE Wooden VariantCO2e (t) Traditional VariantCO2e (t) Wooden Variant
Germany28,129,37117,350,2851,007,578872,851
Spain13,793,3568,707,966520,835456,673
Poland15,288,3339,352,533547,418474,292
Italy14,775,2019,218,813537,197465,282
Denmark6,245,9093,785,756224,498196,082
France4,855,1123,469,628187,853164,615
Sweden2,926,3031,795,078104,71590,554
Finland1,539,0261,021,24762,58954,082
Table 7. Embodied energy in the chosen EU countries in the traditional and wooden variants.
Table 7. Embodied energy in the chosen EU countries in the traditional and wooden variants.
Traditional Variant EE [GJ]Wooden Variant EE [GJ]
CountryCattlePigsGoatsCattlePigsGoats
Germany13,140,27010,669,7864,319,3158,168,4576,630,4622,551,366
Spain3,283,1668,363,3202,146,8701,904,1996,539,012264,755
Poland8,304,6514,561,0912,422,5915,095,4303,565,495691,608
Italy5,989,2985,060,3283,725,5753,674,3423,959,2591,585,212
Denmark1,340,6364,533,228372,044732,1033,546,572507,081
France482,2373,086,1871,286,689252,3772,416,204800,847
Sweden1,004,1531,338,053584,097525,5551,047,050222,473
Finland629,995765,371143,660329,512598,15393,582
Table 8. Comparison of global warming potential (GWP) coefficient between timber and concrete as building materials.
Table 8. Comparison of global warming potential (GWP) coefficient between timber and concrete as building materials.
SourceType of BuildingsReduction Value Compared with
Conventional Structures
Eslami, H. et al., 2024 [55]Single-family house, light timber frames vs. masonry-concrete43.5% lower GWP for a wooden building compared to a concrete building
Chen, C.X. et al., 2022 [56]Multi-story residential building, CLT vs. concrete25% reduction in GWP for a wooden building (cradle-to-gate).
Andersen, C.E. et al., 2021 [57]Overview—studies of timber buildings~33–50% reduction (depending on scope and methodology).
Alam A, et al., 2022 [58]Multi-story timber building vs. concrete Wooden structures emit approximately 65% less GHG in the sourcing, manufacturing, and building phases than concrete structures
Rinne, R. et al., 2022 [59]Multi-story
apartment		28% less than the hybrid building
Table 9. Overview of governance and policy factors influencing investments in wood constructions/traditional buildings.
Table 9. Overview of governance and policy factors influencing investments in wood constructions/traditional buildings.
Governance and Policy Factors
Characteristic features of the problem groupAdvantages/Chances
  • Climate policy instruments aim to support efficient ways to capture and store CO2 from the atmosphere
  • Many policy and law regulations dealing with environmental protection [61,62,63,64]
  • Urgent need to institutionalize regulations
  • Organizations were set up to act to support the development of the wood sector in Sweden [65]
  • Circular economy idea, established by UNECE countries in 2021 [66]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barwicki, J.; Wardal, W.J.; Mazur, K.E.; Tseyko, M. Technical, Technological, Environmental and Energetical Aspects in Livestock Building Construction Using Structural Timber. Energies 2025, 18, 5411. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18205411

AMA Style

Barwicki J, Wardal WJ, Mazur KE, Tseyko M. Technical, Technological, Environmental and Energetical Aspects in Livestock Building Construction Using Structural Timber. Energies. 2025; 18(20):5411. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18205411

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barwicki, Jan, Witold Jan Wardal, Kamila Ewelina Mazur, and Mikhail Tseyko. 2025. "Technical, Technological, Environmental and Energetical Aspects in Livestock Building Construction Using Structural Timber" Energies 18, no. 20: 5411. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18205411

APA Style

Barwicki, J., Wardal, W. J., Mazur, K. E., & Tseyko, M. (2025). Technical, Technological, Environmental and Energetical Aspects in Livestock Building Construction Using Structural Timber. Energies, 18(20), 5411. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18205411

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop