Cited by 103Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactSustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability

Application of life cycle assessment to sheep production systems: investigating co-production of wool and meat using case studies from major global producers.

Open access
Wiedemann, Stephen G., Ledgard, Stewart F., Henry, Beverley K., Yan, Ming-Jia, Mao, Ningtao, Russell, Stephen J.·2015·The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11367-015-0849-z

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

  1. 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
  2. Brander M, Wylie C (2011) The use of substitution in attributional life cycle assessment. Greenh Gas Meas Manag 1(3-4):161-166
  3. 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
  4. de Vries M, de Boer IJM (2010) Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livest Sci 128:1-11
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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

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.
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
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