Review: The challenge to integrate animal welfare indicators into the Life Cycle Assessment
Review: The challenge to integrate animal welfare indicators into the Life Cycle Assessment
复制标题
回顾：将动物福利指标纳入生命周期评估的挑战
DOI：
10.1016/j.animal.2023.100794
复制
发表时间：
2023
期刊：
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Lanzoni L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lanzoni L
向更可持续的畜牧业过渡是我们时代的重大挑战之一。生命周期评估(LCA)被公认为评估耕作系统环境影响的黄金标准方法。同时，动物福利是畜牧业生产的一个关键组成部分，与人类和环境福祉有着内在的联系。要进行农场可持续发展的总体评估，最好同时考虑环境影响和动物福利。本工作旨在总结和描述迄今为止发表的同行评议论文中采用的方法，这些论文将动物福利评估与生命周期评价相结合。根据JBI和PRISMA范围审查指南，对从四个书目数据库检索到的引文进行了系统的多阶段评估。搜索确定了460项研究中的1项，其中只有24项符合纳入标准。这些结果突出了环境生命周期评价是如何以一种比动物福利评估更同质化和标准化的方法进行的。当研究根据动物福利评估的类型进行分组时：16.7%使用单一福利指标，45.8%使用多个指标，8.3%使用现有的有效方案(即TGI-200和TGI-35L)，16.7%使用未经验证的方案，12.5%使用其他方法。根据“5个动物福利领域模型”进一步分类：评估最多的领域是“环境”(占论文的90.5%)，其次是“健康”(52.4%)、“营养”(33.3%)、“行为互动”(28.6%)和“精神状态”(9.5%)。没有一项研究同时评估所有领域。此外，66.7%的试卷(n=16)将动物福利指标汇总为最终分数。其中，只有四篇论文提出将动物福利评分与生命周期评价功能单位联系起来。46%的论文用几种不同的方法来总结信息，计算出总体可持续发展分数。总而言之，尽管该专题具有相关性，但到目前为止，既没有就将要进行的动物福利评估方法(指标的选择和汇总)达成共识，也没有就动物福利-LCA综合评估的标准化达成共识。本次审查为制定共同的未来准则提供了基础，以便进行全面、逼真和有力的农业可持续性评估。
The transition to a more sustainable livestock sector represents one of the major challenges of our time. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is recognised as the gold standard methodology for assessing the environmental impact of farming systems. Simultaneously, animal welfare is a key component of livestock production and is intrinsically related to human and environmental well-being. To perform an overall on-farm sustainability assessment, it would be desirable to consider both the environmental impact and the welfare of the animals. The present work aimed to summarise and describe the methodologies adopted in peer-reviewed papers published to date, that combine animal welfare evaluation with LCA. Citations, retrieved from four bibliographical databases, were systematically evaluated in a multi-stage approach following the JBI and PRISMA scoping review guidelines. The searches identified 1 460 studies, of which only 24 were compliant with the inclusion criteria. The results highlighted how the environmental LCA was undertaken with a much more homogenous and standardised method than animal welfare assessment. When studies were grouped based on the type of animal welfare assessment performed: 16.7% used single welfare indicators, 45.8% multiple indicators, 8.3% applied existing validated protocols (i.e., TGI-200 and TGI-35L), 16.7% used non-validated protocols and 12.5% employed other methods. The papers were further classified with respect to the “5 Animal Welfare Domains Model”: the most assessed domain was “environment” (90.5% of the papers%), followed by “health” (52.4%), “nutrition” (33.3%), “behavioural interactions” (28.6%) and “mental state” (9.5%). None of the studies assessed all the domains simultaneously. In addition, 66.7% of papers (n = 16) aggregated the animal welfare indicators into a final score. Within these, only four papers proposed to associate the animal welfare scores with the LCA functional unit. An overall sustainability score, calculated with several different approaches to summarise the information, was provided by 46% of the papers. In summary, despite the topic’s relevance, to date, there is neither a consensus on the animal welfare assessment approach to be carried out (indicators selection and their aggregation) nor on the standardisation of an integrated animal welfare-LCA evaluation. The present review provides a basis for the development of common future guidelines to carry out a comprehensive, true-to-life and robust farm sustainability assessment.