Application of life cycle assessment to sheep production systems: investigating co-production of wool and meat using case studies from major global producers.
Open accessAbstract
Methodology of co-product handling is a critical determinant of calculated resource use and environmental emissions per kilogram (kg) product but has not been examined in detail for different sheep production systems. This paper investigates alternative approaches for handling co-production of wool and live weight (LW, for meat) from dual purpose sheep systems to the farm-gate. Seven methods were applied; three biophysical allocation (BA) methods based on protein requirements and partitioning of digested protein, protein mass allocation (PMA), economic allocation (EA) and two system expansion (SE) methods. Effects on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fossil energy demand and land occupation (classified according to suitability for arable use) were assessed using four contrasting case study (CS) farm systems. A UK upland farm (CS 1) and a New Zealand hill farm (CS 2) were selected to represent systems focused on lamb and coarse-textured wool for interior textiles. Two Australian Merino sheep farms (CS 3, CS 4) were selected to represent systems focused on medium to superfine garment wool, and lamb. Total GHG emissions per kilogram total products (i.e. wool + LW) were similar across CS farms. However, results were highly sensitive to the method of co-product handling. GHG emissions based on BA of wool protein to wool resulted in 10–12 kg CO 2 -e/kg wool (across all CS farms), whereas it increased to 24–38 kg CO 2 -e/kg wool when BA included a proportion of sheep maintenance requirements. Results for allocation% generated using EA varied widely from 4 % (CS 1) to 52 % (CS 4). SE using beef as a substitution for sheep meat gave the lowest, and often negative, GHG emissions from wool production. Different methods were found to re-order the impacts across the four case studies in some instances. A similar overall pattern was observed for the effects of co-product handling method on other impact categories for three of the four farms. BA based on protein partitioning between sheep wool and LW is recommended for attributional studies with the PMA method being an easily applied proxy for the more detailed BA methods. Sensitivity analysis using SE is recommended to understand the implications of system change. Sensitivity analysis using SE is recommended to investigate implications of choosing alternative products or systems, and to evaluate system change strategies in which case consequential modelling is appropriate. To avoid risks of burden shifting when allocation methods are applied, results should be presented for both wool and LW.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Allocation between meat and wool for the sheep enterprise was based on the protein allocation method of Wiedemann et al. 2015, 2016b.
“Allocation between meat and wool for the sheep enterprise was based on the protein allocation method of (Wiedemann et al. 2015(Wiedemann et al. , 2016b)).”
From Can soil and tree carbon sequestration maintain zero net emissions grazing? (2025) · cites this paper as Wiedemann et al. 2015
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Ayer NW, Tyedmers PH, Pelletier NL, Sonesson U, Scholz A (2007) Co- product allocation in life cycle assessments of seafood production systems: review of problems and strategies. J Life Cycle Assess 12(7):480-487
- Brander M, Wylie C (2011) The use of substitution in attributional life cycle assessment. Greenh Gas Meas Manag 1(3-4):161-166
- Cronje PB (2012) Biological partitioning of environmental costs review for wool LCA. Australian Wool Innovation, Sydney CSIRO (2007) Nutrient requirements of domesticated ruminants. CSIRO, Collingwood DCCEE (2012) National Inventory Report 2010, Volume 1. Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Canberra, ACT, Australia
- de Vries M, de Boer IJM (2010) Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livest Sci 128:1-11
- Dolle J-B, Agabriel J, Peyraud J-L, Faverdin P, Manneville V, Raison C et al (2011) Greenhouse gases in cattle breeding: evaluation and mitigation strategies. Prod Anim 24(5):415-431
- Gac A, Ledgard S, Lorinquer E, Boyes M, Le Gall A (2012) Carbon footprint of sheep farms in France and New Zealand: comparison of results and methodology analysis. In: Corson MS, van der Werf HMG (eds) 8th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2012), Saint Malo, France.
- IDF (2010) A common carbon footprint approach for dairy: the IDF guide to standard lifecycle assessment methodology for the dairy sector Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 445
- Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T, Brandão M, Civit B, Margni M, Canals M i, Saad R, Maia de Souza D, Müller-Wenk R (2013) UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiver- sity and ecosystem services in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1188-1202
- Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. J Life Cycle Assess 13(5):374- 388
- Webby R (1993) Improving the balance of sheep and beef cattle livestock systems. In: Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association, 1993. New Zealand Grassland Association, pp 73-76
- Wiedemann S, McGahan E, Murphy C, Yan M-J, (2015a) Resource use and environmental impacts from beef production in eastern Australia investigated using life cycle assessment. J Anim Prod Sci. In press
- Wiedemann SG, Yan M-J, Murphy CM, (2015b) Resource use and environmental impacts from Australian export lamb production: a life cycle assessment. J Anim Prod Sci. In press
- Zehetmeier M, Gandorfer M, Heibenhuber A, de Boer IJM Modelling GHG emissions of dairy cow production systems differing in milk yield and breed-the impact of uncertainty. In: 8th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2012), Saint Malo, France. INRA, Rennes, France, 1- 4 October 2012
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Can soil and tree carbon sequestration maintain zero net emissions grazing?
Macdonald, A., Court, J., Meyer, R., Wootton, M., Kantor, E., Keenan, R., Stewart, H., & Eckard, R. (2025) · Animal Production Science · doi:10.1071/an24346 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wiedemann, S. G., Ledgard, S. F., Henry, B. K., Yan, M.-J., Mao, N., & Russell, S. J.
- Affiliations
- AgResearch (NZ)
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- University of Leeds (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Wiedemann, Stephen G.
- ORCID
- Venue
- The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
- Published
- 2015-01-28
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 463-476
- ISSN
- 0948-3349 (ISSN-L)
- 1614-7502
- OpenAlex
- W2073573178
- Cited by
- 103
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 9.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Australian Wool Innovation
- Australian Government
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
- Keywords
- dual-purpose sheep, economic allocation, system expansion, greenhouse gas emissions, land occupation, Merino sheep, lambs, wool fabrics, upland agriculture, burden shifting
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review