A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Effect of slaughter age on environmental efficiency on beef cattle in marginal area including soil carbon sequestration: A case of study in Italian Alpine area. | LitMetric

The production of beef carries significant environmental repercussions on a worldwide level. Considering that the production of beef in Alpine mountainous regions, such as South Tyrol (Italy), constitutes a modest yet progressively growing segment within the local agricultural sector focus must be put on minimizing the environmental impact of producing one kilogram of meat, while also accounting for the carbon sequestered by Alpine pastures in such marginal areas. To this end 20 beef farms distributed in the South Tyrolean region (Italy) were divided based on the age at slaughter of the beef cattle: 10 farms with a slaughter age of 12 months (SA12) and 10 farms with a slaughter age of 24 months (SA24). Live cycle assessment (LCA) approach was used, and the impact was estimated using two functional units (FU): 1 kg of live weight (LW) and 1 kg of carcass weight (CW). Global warming potential (GWP, kg CO-eq), acidification potential (AP, g SO-eq), and eutrophication potential (EP, g PO-eq) were investigated. Furthermore, within the account, the carbon sequestered by pastures and permanent grassland has been included for estimated the overall carbon footprint. In terms of GWP, the SA12 system proved to be significantly lower for both two functional units under studies, with reductions of 8.5 % and 7.4 % in terms of LW and CW, respectively, compared to the SA24 system, specifically, the SA12 system showed an environmental impact in terms of GWP of 19.5 ± 1.1 kg CO-eq/kg LW, which was significantly lower than the SA24 system that exhibited a value of 22.9 ± 1.1 kg CO-eq/kg LW (P < 0.05). When accounting for the carbon sequestered within the system, the observed values in terms of GWP are significantly lower for SA12 compared to SA24, 17.6 ± 1.5 vs. 20.9 ± 1.5 kg CO-eq/Kg LW (P < 0.05), and 29.2 ± 2.5 vs. 38.7 ± 2.5 kg CO-eq/Kg CW (P < 0.01). These differences are due to less purchase of concentrated feed and greater use of natural resources such as pastures and permanent grasslands. The research indicated that the production of beef in the Alpine region of South Tyrol predominantly occurs within extensive parameters, leading to a satisfactory environmental profile, also including the C sequestration.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170798DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

slaughter age
12
beef cattle
8
production beef
8
environmental impact
8
carbon sequestered
8
farms slaughter
8
functional units
8
terms gwp
8
sa12 system
8
sa24 system
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!