Framework for integrating animal welfare into life cycle sustainability assessment
Framework for integrating animal welfare into life cycle sustainability assessment
复制标题
将动物福利纳入生命周期可持续性评估的框架
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Pfister
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
L. Scherer;Brian Tomasik;O. Rueda;S. Pfister
目的本研究旨在提供一个框架，将动物福利作为第四个支柱纳入生命周期可持续性评估，并提出三个替代动物福利指标。方法在农场生活和屠宰过程中评估动物福利。这些指标的不同之处在于它们对过早死亡的评估方式不同。所有这三个因素都考虑（1）动物的生活质量，例如空间余量，（2）屠宰年龄作为生命持续时间或生命分数，以及（3）因提供产品单位而受到影响的动物数量，例如。 1 麦卡尔。其中一项指标还考虑了代表他们的智力和自我意识的道德价值观。该框架允许跨研究和产品进行比较以及大空间尺度的应用。为了说明这个框架，我们对八种产品进行了分析和比较：牛肉、猪肉、家禽、牛奶、鸡蛋、鲑鱼、虾，以及作为一种新型蛋白质来源的昆虫。结果和讨论昆虫的寿命比正常寿命长，而且由于假定的感知能力较低，它们的生活质量受到的影响较小。尽管如此，根据所有三个指标，它们的表现最差，因为它们的体型较小，只能产出较低的产品数量。因此，我们不鼓励吃昆虫。相比之下，根据三项指标中的两项，牛奶是对动物福利影响最小的产品，并且在大多数类别中其表现相对优于其他动物产品。不同动物产品的动物福利差异大多大于同一产品不同生产系统的动物福利差异。这意味着，除了减少动物性产品的消费外，转向其他动物产品可以显着改善动物福利。结论虽然动物福利评估得到简化，但它可以直接纳入生命周期可持续性评估。适用性和指标复杂性之间存在权衡，但即使是对动物福利的简单估计也比忽视该问题要好得多，这是生命周期可持续性评估的常见做法。未来的研究应致力于制定生活质量标准并扩大产品覆盖范围。
PurposeThis study seeks to provide a framework for integrating animal welfare as a fourth pillar into a life cycle sustainability assessment and presents three alternative animal welfare indicators.MethodsAnimal welfare is assessed during farm life and during slaughter. The indicators differ in how they value premature death. All three consider (1) the life quality of an animal such as space allowance, (2) the slaughter age either as life duration or life fraction, and (3) the number of animals affected for providing a product unit, e.g. 1 Mcal. One of the indicators additionally takes into account a moral value denoting their intelligence and self-awareness. The framework allows for comparisons across studies and products and for applications at large spatial scales. To illustrate the framework, eight products were analysed and compared: beef, pork, poultry, milk, eggs, salmon, shrimps, and, as a novel protein source, insects.Results and discussionInsects are granted to live longer fractions of their normal life spans, and their life quality is less compromised due to a lower assumed sentience. Still, they perform worst according to all three indicators, as their small body sizes only yield low product quantities. Therefore, we discourage from eating insects. In contrast, milk is the product that reduces animal welfare the least according to two of the three indicators and it performs relatively better than other animal products in most categories. The difference in animal welfare is mostly larger for different animal products than for different production systems of the same product. This implies that, besides less consumption of animal-based products, a shift to other animal products can significantly improve animal welfare.ConclusionsWhile the animal welfare assessment is simplified, it allows for a direct integration into life cycle sustainability assessment. There is a trade-off between applicability and indicator complexity, but even a simple estimate of animal welfare is much better than ignoring the issue, as is the common practice in life cycle sustainability assessments. Future research should be directed towards elaborating the life quality criterion and extending the product coverage.