Next Article in Journal
Streamflow Alterations, Attributions, and Implications in Extended East Rapti Watershed, Central-Southern Nepal
Next Article in Special Issue
Grazing Management Influences Gut Microbial Diversity of Livestock in the Same Area
Previous Article in Journal
Reflective Learning in Higher Education: Active Methodologies for Transformative Practices
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of the Effect of Dolomitic Lime Application on Pastures—Case Study in the Montado Mediterranean Ecosystem
Article

Environmental Impacts of Beef as Corrected for the Provision of Ecosystem Services

1
Dipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, sp Casamassima, km 3, 70010 Valenzano (BA), Italy
2
Scuola di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali, Alimentari ed Ambientali, Università degli Studi della Basilicata, Via dell’Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(9), 3828; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093828
Received: 17 April 2020 / Revised: 29 April 2020 / Accepted: 6 May 2020 / Published: 8 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Collection Sustainable Livestock Production)
We aimed to assess whether the environmental impacts in terms of global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), and land occupation (LO) of beef can be decreased when ecosystem and cultural/provisioning services are included in the evaluation. We used four Italian production systems: Fat, with beef imported calves kept in confinement; CoCaI, with beef cows and calves kept in confinement; SpEx, with beef cows and calves kept on pasture and finishing conducted in confinement; and Pod, with Podolian cows and calves kept on pasture and finishing conducted in confinement. After the economic allocation, the GWP of system Pod decreased considerably and showed values lower than those computed for systems CoCaI and SpEx (P < 0.05 and P < 0.001, respectively). System Pod showed the lowest AP and EP as compared with all the other systems (P < 0.01). Systems Fat and CoCaI showed the smallest LO, with values lower than systems Pod (P < 0.05) and SpEx (P < 0.001). We conclude that the environmental impacts of extensive and local beef production systems in terms of GWP, AP, and EP was markedly reduced when the provision of accessory services was included in the calculation. Conversely, LO did not markedly change due to the high absolute values needed to allow pasture-based feeding. The estimation of additional positive aspects linked to the use of natural pastures, such as removal of carbon dioxide, increased biodiversity, and exploitation of feeds nonedible by humans, may allow a further reduction of LO. View Full-Text
Keywords: beef cattle; Podolian breed; life cycle assessment; ecosystem services; environmental impact beef cattle; Podolian breed; life cycle assessment; ecosystem services; environmental impact
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Bragaglio, A.; Braghieri, A.; Pacelli, C.; Napolitano, F. Environmental Impacts of Beef as Corrected for the Provision of Ecosystem Services. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093828

AMA Style

Bragaglio A, Braghieri A, Pacelli C, Napolitano F. Environmental Impacts of Beef as Corrected for the Provision of Ecosystem Services. Sustainability. 2020; 12(9):3828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093828

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bragaglio, Andrea, Ada Braghieri, Corrado Pacelli, and Fabio Napolitano. 2020. "Environmental Impacts of Beef as Corrected for the Provision of Ecosystem Services" Sustainability 12, no. 9: 3828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093828

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop