Literature Study Julia Russell Final

J. N. M.
Russell
Carbon balancing in the

feed production of the
livestock industry
Delft University of Technology
A literature review
Carbon balancing in the feed production of
the livestock industry
A literature review
by
J. N. M. Russell
Thesis
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of science
in Mechanical Engineering
at the department Maritime and Transport Technology of faculty Mechanical, Maritime and Materials
Engineering of Delft University of Technology.
Student number: 4451538

Msc track: Multi-Machine Engineering
Report number: 2021.MME.8583
Supervisors: Wouter Beelaerts van Blokland TU Delft
Sean Lestiboudois Deloitte
Date: February 4, 2022
It may only be reproduced literally and as a whole. For commercial purposes only with written autho-
rization of Delft University of Technology. Requests for consult are only taken into consideration under
the condition that the applicant denies all legal rights on liabilities concerning the contents of the advice.
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 The future of food. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Problem definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Research objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.5 Scope of the research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.6 Outline of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 The Dutch livestock industry in perspective 5
2.1 The market size of Dutch livestock industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Emissions in Dutch livestock industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3 Feed production for the livestock industry 13
3.1 Import of feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2 Feed production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3 Feed compositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.1 Maize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.2 Grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.3 Cereals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.4 Soy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4 Objectives for feed composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4 GHG balancing 21
4.1 Greenhouse gas emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.1 Crop production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.2 Transport and storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1.3 Feed production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2 Circularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.3 Greenhouse gas capturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3.1 Regenerative agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.4 Impact of climate change on feed production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5 Model to guide the future 33
5.1 GHG emissions assessment model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2 Trend analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6 Conclusion and discussion 37
iii
1
Introduction
Food is a basic need for every human being. To fulfill this need a food system has been established
by human civilizations throughout the ages. Due to the continuous growth of globalization and trade
to meet the demands of society, this global system has become very complex. This complex global
food system has a major contribution to the global greenhouse gas emissions. There is a growing
tendency toward environmentally conscious food and their supply chains in modern society. To meet
these demands the global food system needs to undergo a transformation.
The global food system must deliver safe food in a secure way at an affordable price. The supply chains
need to be agile and efficient, products should be track- and trace-able and all this has to happen with
the least possible emissions. The world faces significant challenges to transform the current system
into a safe, efficient and sustainable system.
In this chapter the future of the overall global food system will be introduced. The problem that will be
addressed in this literature study will be defined with the associated research objectives and research
questions. Finally, the scope of the research and the setup of the literature study will be outlined.
1.1. The future of food

The world population has grown and the number of people will keep rising in the coming years. Every
day, every human being needs to have access to food, a fundamental human right. Food is, besides
a basic need, in important aspect of social activities in almost every culture. The global food system
needs to be expanded by 50% in 2050 to feed the world population of, by then, approximately 10 billion
people (Willett et al., 2019). The challenges that come along with providing the growing population with
sufficient, healthy and safe food while ensuring this is done in a sustainable way that can be maintained
long-term are significant.
When taking up these challenges the system should be transformed and this offers the opportunity to
contribute to a better, healthier and more sustainable world.
The overarching themes that concern the global food system are food waste, environmental sustainabil-
ity, safety and health. Food waste has become a big topic over the past decades. It is a hot topic since
approximately one third of all food produced worldwide for human consumption is wasted. Without a
transformation of the food system, the global waste will grow by 70% in 2050 (Jagt and Lestiboudois,
2020). Costs will keep rising and profits will keep decreasing, while food waste puts unnecessary pres-
sure on the environment as well. Unless we take urgent action, the price of food will be driven up by
the growth of food waste (European Commission, n.d.-b; Jagt and Lestiboudois, 2020).
Next to this, environmental sustainability is an important topic. The food industry is responsible for al-
most 30% of the total global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Emissions should be brought back, a
sustainable long-term approach is needed to ultimately have net-zero emissions and limit global warm-
ing to 1.5∘ C compared to pre-industrial levels (Masson-Delmotte et al., 2019; Niles et al., 2017; Willett
et al., 2019).
Furthermore, food safety should always be ensured. Rapid improvements enabled by emerging tech-
1
2 1. Introduction
nologies could support track- and trace-ability to create more visibility and control in the food chain.
Now, and in the future, health is extremely important. With the current forecasts about 820 million peo-
ple do not have access to sufficient food and by 2030 almost half the world population will be over-fed.
Innovations in the field of health could contribute to fighting hunger as well as diet-related diseases
such as type-2 diabetes (Willett et al., 2019; Yambi et al., 2020). This is also associated with animal
welfare. Welfare of animals should be ensured to secure the safety of food, because livestock has a
higher potential to carry foodborne diseases. Besides the benefits for humanity, appropriate manage-
ment, nutrition and slaughter should be an ethical concern (FAO, 2018; Willett et al., 2019).
The COVID-pandemic has acted as a catalyst, it exposed the fragility of the system. Both, the de-
mand and supply of food were affected by the pandemic. Society wants and expects the supply chains
to be able to cope with future setbacks such as a pandemic. The future system needs to be resilient to
black swan events.
1.2. Problem definition

A transformation of the global food system is necessary to make it, among other things, environmental
sustainable and durable. The food and agriculture sector have a great contribution to GHG emissions.
The global food system is responsible for almost 30% of worldwide GHG emissions (Niles et al., 2017).
The livestock industry is the most polluting sector within the food industry, it is responsible for almost
50% of all emissions within the global food system (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017).
The GHG emissions of the livestock industry can be divided into different sources: energy consumption,
manure management, enteric fermentation and feed production. Energy consumption is responsible
for 5%, manure management for 10%, enteric fermentation for 44% and feed production for 41% of the
total GHG emissions. This is visualized in Figure 1.1. It can be concluded that the enteric fermentation
and the feed production are the two major contributors to the GHG emissions (FAO, 2021).
Figure 1.1: Overview of sources of GHG emissions
During the past decades, the growing preference for more environmentally sustainable products can
be observed within society. Retailers and customers start focusing more on, and are even demanding,
sustainable products. Besides this market pull, the need for a reduction of GHG emissions is not just
a demand from society. The European Union (EU) has committed to reach net-zero GHG emissions
by 2050. This commitment is in line with the European Green Deal and the global climate action under
the Paris Agreement. As a part of this commitment, the EU wants to at reduce the emissions by 55%
compared to 1990 (European Commission, n.d.-a).
Animal feed is a key component for making the livestock industry more sustainable. This literature
study focuses on the feed production for the livestock industry in order to reach net-zero GHG emis-
sions in the Netherlands.
1.3. Research objectives

In this literature study a firm foundation for advancing knowledge will be created. Theory on the feed
production of the livestock industry is developed and the study will identify research gaps.
The objective of this literature study is to assess a carbon balance for the feed production of the livestock
industry. The carbon balance consists of GHG emissions and GHG capturing.
The current state of the livestock industry is looked at, as well as the current state of the feed production
for the livestock industry. This is done to be able to assess the carbon balance. Besides looking into
the current balance, alternative options to decrease emissions and to increase capture are considered.
After determining the current state of the feed production system for the livestock industry, relevant
1.4. Research questions 3
emission models and optimization theories are investigated in the literature. An assessment of these
models can help guide models for the future of feed production.
1.4. Research questions

A research question is formulated to find an answer to the proposed problem. To find an answer to the
research question, four sub-questions are formulated.
Research question: How can the carbon balance of the feed production in the livestock in-
dustry be assessed and how can the carbon balance be improved?
Four sub-questions are formulated to obtain an answer to the research question.
Sub-question 1: What can be found on the size and the emissions in the Dutch livestock in-
dustry?
Sub-question 2: What is the current state of the feed production for the livestock industry with
regards to GHG emissions?
Sub-question 3: Which GHG emissions and GHG capturing sources need to be taken into ac-
count for a carbon balance for the feed production of the livestock industry and what alternative
options are there to reduce emissions or to increase capture?
Sub-question 4: What emission models and optimization theories can be identified and what
trend can be found?
1.5. Scope of the research

The literature study focuses on the GHG emissions and GHG capturing in the feed production for the
livestock industry in the Netherlands. The Dutch feed production industry is in scope, this includes the
import and transport of raw materials from all over the world.
In this study the GHG emissions that are taken into account are 𝐶𝑂2 and 𝐶𝑂2 equivalents. So, 𝐶𝑂2 ,
𝐶𝐻4 and 𝑁2 𝑂. These GHG emissions are expressed in 𝐶𝑂2 and 𝐶𝑂2 -equivalents.
The carbon balance is considered from crop production to feed production. Manure management and
enteric fermentation are out of scope. Land-use change (LUC) as a result of the high demand for
livestock feed is in scope.
1.6. Outline of the report

By answering the defined sub-questions a conclusion can be drawn and the research question can be
answered. Every chapter answers a sub-question and in the last chapter, the conclusion, the research
question is answered and recommendations for further research are made.
The first Chapter provides information on the Dutch livestock industry and puts it in a European and
global perspective. Next, the feed production for the Dutch livestock industry is elaborated on. Thus,
Chapter 3 gives an answer on sub-question 2. In Chapter 4, the different sources of GHG emissions
in the feed industry are outlined. Besides, possibilities to capture carbon from the atmosphere are
discussed. Sub-question 4 is answered in Chapter 5. Current models to assess GHG emissions and
carbon capture are elaborated on. Also, a trend analysis is done to structure the relevant studies and to
find the gap in literature. In the last Chapter the research question is answered and recommendations
for future research are made.
The Dutch livestock industry in
2
perspective
In order to assess the GHG emissions and the GHG capturing in the feed production of the livestock
industry, the overall structure of the livestock industry should be well understood. This knowledge is
required to determine what the key drivers of the carbon balance are and what models are suitable
to guide the future of the feed production of this industry. First, the market size of the Dutch livestock
industry is outlined to get a better insight on the size of the problem. Second, the GHG emissions in
the Dutch livestock industry are explored. With this information the first sub-question can be anwered.
2.1. The market size of Dutch livestock industry

The livestock industry is an important asset to society. Livestock products contain proteins and essen-
tial additional micro-nutrients that contribute to a healthy diets with the appropriate nutritional values
(Tzachor, 2019; Willett et al., 2019). In this study, meat, eggs and dairy products are referred to as
livestock products. These products provide 17% of the kilo-calorie intake worldwide and they provide
34% of the global protein intake (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017; Tzachor, 2019). The intake of proteins
by eating animal products rose tremendously over the past 80 years. In developed countries, such as
the Netherlands, the protein intake increased with 33%. In under-developed and developing countries
the daily availability, and therefore, the intake of protein rose with 116% (Tzachor, 2019). It is expected
that the overall worldwide demand for livestock products will increase even further (Schomberg et al.,
2014; Tzachor, 2019).
Next to nutritional purposes and benefits, the livestock industry provides jobs and income (Herrero
et al., 2011). Worldwide, 28% of humanity is employed in the agricultural sector. However, this per-
centage of people has decreased over the years. Data from the World Bank shows that between 2008
and 2018 the employment in agriculture has decreased with almost 21% (World Bank, 2021). This
results in a global gross domestic product (GDP) of 4% in 2018. The livestock industry is responsible
for 40-50% of the agricultural global GDP (Herrero et al., 2016).
Research done by Wageningen University and Research (WUR) shows that the Dutch agricultural sec-
tor is responsible for 3% of the Dutch GDP and for 2% of the labour force in the Netherlands (van der
Lee et al., 2013). According to Cor Pierik (Pieter Stokkermans, 2021) from the ’Centraal Bureau voor
de Statistiek’ (CBS) 3.1% is employed in the livestock industry and many companies are dependent of
this industry, such as the feed, processing and transport companies. The number of people employed
in agriculture in the Netherlands is less compared to the worldwide average. Despite this, the Nether-
lands is a great exporter of food.
The value of the total Dutch export of agricultural products in 2020 is estimated on 95.6 billion euros.
Despite the Covid-pandemic, this is is 1% higher than 2019 (Jukema et al., 2021). Research done
by van Grinsven et al. (2019) emphasises that re-export should be considered to prevent a distorted
picture of gross export, especially in the Netherlands since some commodities are imported through
the port of Rotterdam and through Schiphol and are directly re-exported (van Grinsven et al., 2019). A
5
6 2. The Dutch livestock industry in perspective
more accurate overview of the Dutch export is that the overall export is composed of 68.3 billion euros
of exported goods of Dutch origin and 27.3 billion euros of re-exported foreign agricultural products
(Jukema et al., 2021).
78.8% is exported to countries within the EU (still including the United Kingdom (UK)). The export to
neighbouring countries, Germany, Belgium, the UK and France, is the most significant with respec-
tively an export rate of 26%, 11%, 9% and 8% (Jukema et al., 2021). It can be argued that export to
neighbouring countries from the Netherlands is regional transport, because the goods are exported but
the chain is relatively short.
The most lucrative agricultural goods exported by the Netherlands are ornamental cultivation. The
second most lucrative is meat. Dairy and eggs are a close third (Jukema et al., 2021).
When putting this in perspective, the Netherlands is the second biggest exporter of agricultural goods in
the world after the Unites States (US) (Jukema et al., 2021; van Grinsven et al., 2019). More accurately,
when correcting for re-export, the Netherlands is the third biggest exporter of agricultural products (van
Grinsven et al., 2019). This high ranking of the Netherlands is unexpected since it is a small country
that possesses only 1% of the agricultural land in the EU, which results in 0.04% of the total agricultural
land in the world (van Grinsven et al., 2019). The Netherlands is a tiny country but has an extremely
efficient agricultural sector (Post et al., 2020). This efficient industry is the most productive per unit of
land in the EU (van Grinsven et al., 2019).
When looking at the livestock industry, the Netherlands has one of the most densely packed livestock
industries in the world (Post et al., 2020). The high level of knowledge development in the area of
agricultural and animal science and technology are a driving force of the Dutch success. Besides this,
the good Dutch market position is due to the good climate and soil conditions, high cost-efficiencies
and imports of agricultural materials such as livestock feed (van Grinsven et al., 2019).
The high level of development is not just reflected in the livestock industry, but in the agricultural sector
overall. The Netherlands is from all EU countries the most productive per unit of land. However, this
high productivity and efficiency go hand in hand with high GHG emissions. Grinsven et al. (2019) com-
pares the Dutch agriculture to other European countries expressing it in eco-efficiency. The research
defines eco-efficiency as: ”Economic value added per unit of environmental damage or pressure”.
This makes the quantification of the gross value added per unit of environmental degradation possi-
ble. Grinsven et al. (2019) ranked the Netherlands first, so the country with the highest eco-efficiency.
However, they also ranked the Netherlands as the country with the highest environmental pressure.
To understand the Dutch livestock industry, it is important to look at the size of the Dutch land area
and to the type and number of livestock. The Netherlands consists of 33,893 𝑘𝑚2 land area (van der
Lee et al., 2013; World Bank, 2018). According to data from the World Bank, 54% of the Dutch land
area is covered by agricultural land (World Bank, 2018). Approximately 70% of the agricultural land
in the Netherlands is used for feed production for the livestock industry, this includes both crop and
grazing land (Post et al., 2020).
Worldwide, 50% of the habitable land area is used for agriculture. The total area of habitable land is
104 Million 𝑘𝑚2 , so 51 Million 𝑘𝑚2 is used for agricultural purposes (Ritchie and Roser, 2019). The
livestock industry occupies approximately 80% of the agricultural land, 40 Million 𝑘𝑚2 of land. This in-
cludes grazing land and land used for feed production (Herrero et al., 2016; Ritchie and Roser, 2019).
It is remarkable that the worldwide land area used for agriculture is relatively less than the land area
used in the Netherlands, since the Netherlands is densely populated. The Netherlands has 515 inhab-
itants per 𝑘𝑚2 of land area and globally there are 75 inhabitants per 𝑘𝑚2 of habitable land area. This
is a significant difference. A plausible explanation could be that a relatively smaller area is covered
with forests in the Netherlands and the high export rates in the Netherlands (Ritchie and Roser, 2019;
van Grinsven et al., 2019).
The Dutch livestock industry is composed of different kinds of livestock. In Table 2.1 an overview
of the different types of livestock and the numbers present in the Netherlands in December 2020 is
shown (CBS, 2021).
2.1. The market size of Dutch livestock industry 7
Livestock Number of livestock (x1000)

Cattle 3,691
Pigs 11,541
Sheep 710
Rams 27
Bulls 11
Goats 557
Chickens 89,515*
Ducks 568*
Turkeys 568*
Table 2.1: Dutch livestock numbers (Dec 2020, *data from April 2021) (CBS, 2021)
In this Table there can be seen that cattle, pigs and chickens are the predominant Dutch livestock types.
Therefore, this study will focus on these three categories.
To study the carbon balance, the growth of the livestock numbers over the past years should be eval-
uated. In Figure 2.1 the growth of the cattle market is shown from 1980 to 2020.
Figure 2.1: Evolution of cattle in the Netherlands (CBS, 2021)
In this Figure there can be seen that the number of cattle has decreased with almost 27% over the past
40 years, with a stable period in the past 20 years.
In Figure 2.2 the evolution of the numbers of pigs is shown.
Figure 2.2: Evolution of pigs in the Netherlands (CBS, 2021)
In this Figure it becomes clear that the the number of pigs in the Netherlands has grown over the past
20 years. An increase of almost 18% is realized over two decades.
In Figure 2.3 the number of chickens in the Netherlands is shown. It shows an increase of almost 26%
between 1980 and 2020.
Figure 2.3: Evolution of poultry in the Netherlands (CBS, 2021)
The findings of the Dutch livestock market are partially in line with the European livestock market. In
Europe, the number of cattle has been declining since 1980 (Lesschen et al., 2011). This is in line with
the Dutch market, as can be seen in Figure 2.1. This reduction is visible in all countries in Western-
Europe and is the consequence of new environmental policies, agricultural land change and market
developments (Lesschen et al., 2011).
Pig numbers have been stable since the mid 1980s in Europe (Lesschen et al., 2011). In Figure 2.2
it becomes clear that when comparing 2018 to the mid 1980s the number of pigs is stable, but almost
the two decades after the mid 1980s, a growth of number of pigs was visible in the Dutch market. From
2004 and forward, the Dutch pig market stabilized.
Finally, the number of poultry in the European market is in line with the numbers of the Dutch market,
the numbers have been increasing over the last 40 years (Lesschen et al., 2011).
It is important to have a clear overview of the processes, volume flows and emissions in the live-
stock industry. In Figure 2.4 an flow chart is shown. In the grey boxes the supply chain in shown. The
emissions, volumes and processes influencing the chain are shown in the flow chart. In the circle sized
boxes GHG emissions and capture are shown. Emission flows are shown with green lines. In rectan-
gular boxes volumes are shown, volume flows are indicated with blue lines. In the stretched rectangle
shaped boxes processes are displayed. Process flows are shown in red.
2.2. Emissions in Dutch livestock industry

The livestock industry feeds and employs people around the world. However, there are multiple envi-
ronmental downsides connected to the livestock industry. First of all, the livestock industry makes use
of an excessive amount of land, this requires land-use changes and comes with deforestation. Next to
this, the sector contributes to increased GHG emissions and loss of biodiversity (Herrero et al., 2016;
Lesschen et al., 2011; Rojas-Downing et al., 2017).
Greenhouse gas emissions contribute to the global warming of the earth. The Netherlands have com-
mitted to the climate regulations of the EU. The commitment is made to have net-zero emissions by
2050. This commitment is in line with the European Green Deal and the Paris Agreement (European
Commission, n.d.-a). Currently, the livestock industry is responsible for 14.5% of the GHG emissions
worldwide (FAO, 2016; Gerber et al., 2013; Rojas-Downing et al., 2017; Sasu-Boakye et al., 2014). The
worldwide demand for animal products is still growing, this puts an even greater pressure on the envi-
ronment and the need for a transformation becomes even more clear (Chen et al., 2021; Schomberg
et al., 2014; Tzachor, 2019).
The Dutch livestock sector is responsible for 9% of the country’s total GHG emissions. The Dutch
industry imports a high amount of feed for the livestock industry, therefore, these emissions are often
allocated to other countries (Post et al., 2020). A study done by Post et al. (2020) emphasized that this
high import rate of feed by the Dutch livestock industry, the emissions associated with the feed pro-
duction are often allocated to the country of origin. The study estimates that the Dutch GHG emissions
2.2. Emissions in Dutch livestock industry 9
Figure 2.4: Flow chart livestock industry
produced by the livestock industry are almost doubled when both national and international emissions
related to the livestock industry are taken into account (Post et al., 2020). Before diving deeper into the
origin of the different emissions it is important to discuss the relevant GHG emissions in the livestock
sector.
The three major GHG emissions in the livestock sector are carbon dioxide (𝐶𝑂2 ), methane (𝐶𝐻4 ) and
nitrous oxide (𝑁2 𝑂) (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017; Sasu-Boakye et al., 2014; Vellinga et al., 2013). In
this study, GHG emissions are expressed in 𝐶𝑂2 and 𝐶𝑂2 -equivalents (𝐶𝑂2 -eq), so relative to 𝐶𝑂2 , fol-
lowing the 100-year global warming potential (GWP) value (IPCC, 2014). In Table 2.2 the most recent
assessment of GWP values relative to 𝐶𝑂2 is shown.
GHG GWP value

𝐶𝑂2 1
𝐶𝐻4 28
𝑁2 𝑂 265
Table 2.2: Global warming potential values for a 100-year time horizon (AR5) (IPCC, 2014)
However, the GWP values have changed over the years, so these values are not constant in all litera-
ture studies. For example, Sasu-Boakye et al. (2014) used GWP values published by the IPCC in 2007
in the Fourth Assessment Report. In a study done by Rojas-Downing et al. (2017) the differences in
GWP values are pointed out, the recent assessments of GWP values are higher than thought before.
The IPCC itself recommends the use of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) (IPCC, 2014).
The Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM) developed by the FAO (2021) is
a model that assesses the different GHG emissions and the mitigation potentials of the livestock indus-
try. It identifies the different GHG emissions per source and per species.
GLEAM identified four different sources of GHG emissions in the livestock industry. They can be di-
vided into feed production, enteric fermentation, manure management and energy consumption. Feed
production and enteric fermentation are responsible for a major part of the total emissions, 41% and
44% respectively. Manure management contributes to 10% of the GHG emissions. The energy con-
sumption in the livestock industry is responsible for only 5% of all GHG emissions (FAO, 2021).
In the process of the production of feed there are multiple factors that cause the high emission of green-
house gasses. A high amount of land is necessary to produce enough feed. The expansion of land
(crop land and pasture) from forests causes deforestation. This land-use change (LUC) contributes to
𝐶𝑂2 emissions. Besides LUC, the transportation and the processing of feed contribute to 𝐶𝑂2 emis-
sions. Next to carbon dioxide emissions, there are two factors in the feed production that contribute to
𝑁2 𝑂 emissions. Firstly, the utilization of fertilizers on feed crops. Secondly, the deposition of manure
of land, the manure acts as a fertilizer (FAO, 2021; Gerber et al., 2013).
The second major contributor to the climate change due to the livestock industry is enteric fermenta-
tion. With enteric fermentation methane gets emitted. 𝐶𝐻4 is produced at the digesting stage of mainly
ruminants. However, enteric fermentation occurs at monogastrics as well, but the amount of methane
produced is less (FAO, 2021). Pigs and chickens are monogastrics, this means that they have one
stomach. Cattle is a ruminant. The composition of feed influences the digestion of the feed and, thus,
the amount of methane emitted (LEAD, 2006).
Manure management is held accountable for a smaller part of the GHG emissions. Manure is stored
prior to the use, 𝐶𝐻4 and 𝑁2 𝑂 are emitted during storage. 𝐶𝐻4 is generated during decomposition of
organic matter. 𝑁2 𝑂 mostly is released as a result of manure ammonia decomposition (FAO, 2021).
Lastly, energy is consumed along the whole supply chain in the form of 𝐶𝑂2 . Harvesting, processing
and transport are accounted for, but ventilation, cooling and illumination play a part as well. Besides
this, there are post-farm emissions arising from transport and further processing as well (FAO, 2021).
When considering the different livestock sectors, cattle is the biggest polluter. 62% of the Dutch GHG
emissions are emitted by cattle. Second are pigs and poultry emits the least (Post et al., 2020). There
is no difference between the emissions of beef and dairy cows. According to GLEAM, cattle generates
more than six times more GHG emissions than pigs and almost six and a half times more GHG emis-
sions than chickens (FAO, 2021).
The research and data of the FAO are considered a reliable source, but there are different inter-
pretations of the emissions of the livestock industry. Research done by WUR (2013) estimates the
contribution to GHG emissions by the livestock industry between 12% and 18%. They emphasize the
importance of quantification of the emissions along the supply chains of different livestock production
processes, to back the increasing awareness with solid information. However, the different interpreta-
tion of numbers and scopes complicates this and causes the big range of the estimation (Vellinga et al.,
2013).
This complicated issue is backed by Dr. Frank Mitloehner, an animal scientist based at UC Davis, at
an American Chemical Society (Brainard, 2010). He gave feedback on a study called ’Livestock’s long
shadow’ published by The Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD). LEAD concluded that
the livestock industry has a contribution of 18% to the global GHG emissions and they stated that this
is even higher than the contribution to GHG emissions of the global transportation sector. Concluding
that the livestock industry has a higher impact than the transport sector (LEAD, 2006).
The conclusion drawn by LEAD has been cited repeatedly over the years. It was considered a cred-
ible research since it was an initiative of the World Bank, the EU, the FAO and various more federal
ministries around the globe (LEAD, 2006). Dr. Frank Mitloehner (2010) commented, however, that the
stated conclusion is false. According to him, the comparison is not valid since for the calculation of the
livestock industry a full life cycle analysis is performed and for the transport industry this is not calcu-
lated the same. For the livestock industry all direct and indirect sources of emissions are taken into
account. For the transport industry only the direct emissions from fossil-fuel combustion are accounted
for. LEAD commented that the comparison of the two industries is indeed incorrect (Brainard, 2010).
The full life cycle analysis of the livestock industry which showed that the livestock industry has a con-
tribution of 18% to the global GHG emissions, is however assumed to be correct by both LEAD and Dr.
Frank Mitloehner (Brainard, 2010).
The different interpretations of numbers are a complex matter that should be focused on. Next to this,
the differences of the scope of studies that investigate the same matter make the comparison of studies
complicated. For example, IPCC (2007), LEAD (2006) and Gerber et al. (2010) all assessed global
GHG emissions, but the final numbers do not correspond because of the dissimilarities in the scope.
Differences in allocations of emissions contribute to dissimilarities of the results as well (Vellinga et al.,
2013).
2.3. Summary 11
Despite the inconsistencies in research approaches in studies on GHG emissions in the livestock in-
dustry, it can be concluded that the livestock system imposes big effects on the environment. Trans-
formations and innovations are necessary to fight climate change. This literature study focuses on one
of the two major sources of GHG emissions, namely the feed production for the livestock industry.
2.3. Summary
In this Chapter background information on the size and the emissions of the Dutch livestock industry in
outlined. With the information the first sub-question can be answered: ”What can be found on the size
and the emissions in the Dutch livestock industry?”.
In this study, livestock products refer to meat, egg and dairy products. The highly efficient and devel-
oped Dutch livestock industry and its products provide many benefits for society. There are nutritional
benefits such as protein and calorie intake, but also economic benefits. The industry provides jobs and
income and livestock goods are a big export product.
However, there is a huge downside. The Dutch livestock industry is responsible for 9% of the total
Dutch GHG emissions. These emissions are divided into four categories. In Figure 2.5 this size of the
emissions per division is shown and the emissions per category are shown.
Figure 2.5: GHG emissions of the livestock industry per category
GHG emissions contribute to global warming and should be drastically decreased. A transformation
of the livestock system is necessary and innovations should be made. In this literature study the feed
production for the livestock industry is focused on. In the next Chapter further research is done on the
feed production.
3
Feed production for the livestock
industry
The Netherlands is a big importer of feed for the livestock industry. This is required to feed the high
amount of livestock present in the Netherlands. The feed production is responsible for high GHG
emissions. There are many sources of GHG emissions that are associated with the production of feed.
To assess these emissions and to explore mitigation potentials, the composition and the origin of the
feed should be known.
In this Chapter the Dutch feed production and import industry are elaborated on. Next, the typical feed
composition for cattle, pigs and chickens in the Netherlands is investigated. Lastly, the objectives for
feed compositions are discussed.
3.1. Import of feed

The Netherlands belongs to the most intensive producers of cattle, pig and poultry in Europe (Lesschen
et al., 2011). For the intensive production of livestock a constant supply of feed is required. To meet
this high demand of the Dutch livestock market a high amount of feed needs to be produced.
The total area of land dedicated to agricultural purposes in the Netherlands is smaller than the amount
of land that is necessary to supply the livestock industry with enough feed. To compensate for this,
livestock feed needs to be imported from abroad (Post et al., 2020).
A study by Grinsven et al. (2019) puts all the factors that are relevant to assess emissions of the
Dutch livestock industry in a European perspective. As mentioned before, they ranked the Dutch agri-
cultural market first in terms of eco-efficiency. To confirm whether this holds for individual products, they
looked into six different products. Three out of the six products are part of the livestock industry and
are therefore relevant for this study. The price and feed production of dairy production, pork production
and chicken meat production will be elaborated on.
For the production of dairy in the Netherlands a significant amount of feed is imported, namely 47%.
To put this in perspective, the amount of feed imported by other European countries ranges from 20%
and 40%. Germany, France and Poland tend more towards 20% and Italy is in the high range. It is
interesting to note that the price per kilogram of fat-protein correct milk is 15% to 20% higher in Italy
than in Germany and France. The price per kilogram of fat-protein correct milk in the Netherlands is
similar to Germany and France, despite the high amount of imported feed.
The share of land associated with the import of feed for the production of pork varies between 2% in
the Czech Republic and 30% in Germany and Spain. The Netherlands exceeds this range significantly
with 90%. This means, 90% of the land that is used for the cultivation of feed for the Dutch market
is located outside of the Netherlands. The price per kilogram (live weight) pork is 1.2 €/kg pork at the
farm gate in Germany, Spain and the Czech Republic, in the Netherlands it is 0.1 €/kg pork cheaper.
There is no clear connection between the price per kilogram of pork and the amount of imported feed
for the production of pork.
For the production of chicken meat the area of land across borders differs from 36% in Poland, to 42%
13
14 3. Feed production for the livestock industry
in France, to 55% in Germany and Spain. Again, the Netherlands exceeds this range, the international
share of land associated with feed production is 90% . The price per kilogram of (live weight) chicken
is 0.9 EUR/kg in the Netherlands, Germany and Poland and 1.2 €/kg in Spain. In France the price
per kilogram of (live weight) chicken is 1.8 €/kg in France, so a 100% higher than in the Netherlands,
Germany and Poland. The use of land abroad cannot be linked to the price per kilogram of chicken.
The extremely high import rate of feed for the livestock industry by the Netherlands gives reason to
look into the type of import and the GHG emissions that are associated with this.
A study done by Lesschen et al. (2011) confirms the importance of the GHG emissions associated
with imported feed. They study the emission profiles associated with the European livestock industry,
focusing on the EU-27. In Figure 3.1 the average feed conversion ratio, surface area for feed and
forage and the GHG emissions per kilogram of product for the EU-27 are shown. They emphasize
that there are significant differences between the different countries, due to differences in production
systems, feed types and nutrient-use efficiencies.
Figure 3.1: Feed conversion ratio, surface area for feed and forage, and GHG emission/kg product for the EU-27 (Lesschen
et al., 2011)
In this Figure there can be seen that the GHG emissions related to feed for cattle are significantly higher
than for pork and poultry. Many square meters (𝑚2 ) of agricultural land are required to get a kilogram
(𝑘𝑔) of beef. This does not alter the fact that the land required for a kilogram of pork and poultry is high
as well.
The high surface area for feed is related to land-use change. LUC is especially associated with crop
production in South America. Protein-rich crops are imported for livestock feed (De Boer et al., 2014).
LUC contributes to GHG emissions.
Nevertheless, in the study the GHG emissions associated to land-use change are left out of consider-
ation. The study makes the estimation that another 25% should be added up to the GHG emissions
when land-use change is taken into account. That is an estimate for the average of the EU-27 (Less-
chen et al., 2011). This high percentage shows that GHG emissions of imported feed due to land-use
change are significant and therefore of major importance. The high import rates of the Netherlands
make it realistic to take on that more GHG emissions due to land-use change can be associated with
the Netherlands.
Post et al. (2020) estimated that in 2015 14,000 𝑘𝑚2 of land within the Netherlands and 26,000 𝑘𝑚2
of land outside of the Netherlands was used for the feed production for the Dutch livestock.
Feed for the livestock in the Netherlands is typically composed of grass, cereals, maize and crops rich
of proteins such as soy. The land area within the Dutch borders is mainly used to grow grass and
maize. On the land outside of the Netherlands cereals and protein-rich crops are grown (Post et al.,
2020).
3.2. Feed production

For the production of feed a mixture of different raw materials is made. A flow diagram of this production
process is shown in Figure 3.2 (Shrinivasa and Mathur, 2020).
In this flow diagram there is assumed that the feed is stored and transported in the form of pellets. A
study done by Shrinivasa and Mathur (2020) states that a pellet is the preferred form of to store and
transport compound feed. A pellet prevents the segregation of compound feed and, therefore, ensures
a homogeneous mixture.
The composition of feed for the Dutch livestock industry is different for the different sorts of livestock
3.3. Feed compositions 15
Figure 3.2: Flow diagram of feed production (Shrinivasa and Mathur, 2020)
and is composed of different raw materials. The different compositions have consequences on several
factors. This is all discussed in the next Section.
3.3. Feed compositions

Worldwide, the four global staple feed crops are wheat, maize, rice and soybean. These four crops are
cultivated on approximately half of the global agricultural land area (Tzachor, 2019).
In the Netherlands, the typical composition of feed consists of grass, cereals, maize and crops rich of
proteins such as soy, as mentioned before (Post et al., 2020).
The composition of feed differs for pigs, chicken and cattle. In Figure 3.3 a more detailed overview of
the raw materials in the feed for monogastric livestock in the Netherlands is shown.
Figure 3.3: Raw materials used for feed of monogastric livestock in the Netherlands (LEAD, 2006)
In this Figure there can be seen that the composition of feed differs for pigs and chickens. The majority
of the compound feed of pigs consists of wheat and rye. Both wheat and rye are cereals. Maize and
soymeal make up a smaller part of the compound feed, respectively 4% and 6%.
For chickens, the three most used raw materials are maize, wheat and soymeal. Besides these three,
peas make up 13% of the compound feed for chickens in the Netherlands.
The feed of ruminants differs from the feed of monogastrics. The diet of ruminants is mainly based
on grass and maize. High fibrous feeds are of the essence for ruminants (FAO, 2016; Lesschen et al.,
2011). An efficient growth can be stimulated by including grain in the diet (FAO, 2016). The Neder-
landse Zuivel Organisatie (NZO) outlines the diet of a Dutch dairy cow consists of 75% grass and 25%
corn. A concentrate is added with different sources of energy such as soy, palm kernel meal, maize,
rapeseed meal, wheat, beet and citrus pulp and by-products from the food industry (Nederlandse Zuivel
Organizatie (NZO), 2021).
3.3.1. Maize
Maize is an important material for the feed of both monogastrics and ruminants. Land area used to
cultivate maize for the Dutch livestock is mostly situated in the Netherlands (Post et al., 2020). The
cultivation of maize in the Netherlands is accompanied by a high application rate of fertilizer and pesti-
cides. The application of fertilizers and pesticides have a big impact on the environment (LEAD, 2006;
Post et al., 2020).
Maize completes on average two production cycles per year. This should be reflected when addressing
emissions (FAO, 2016).
Maize should be processed after harvesting. The process is called wet-milling and is shown in Fig-
ure 3.4 (FAO, 2016).
Figure 3.4: Wet-milling of maize (FAO, 2016)
3.3.2. Grass
Grass is a source of feed for ruminants. Grass and grassland mainly originates from the Netherlands
(Post et al., 2020). Grassland is mostly important for dairy cows. Meat cows use grazing land as well,
but a small proportion is attributed to meat cows (Boere, 2015).
Grass is not processed, it is directly fed to the livestock. Emissions mainly originate from pesticides
applied on grassland, land-use and land-use change (FAO, 2016; Post et al., 2020).
3.3.3. Cereals
There are different sorts of cereals. A wide variety can be utilized as feed. Cereals are an important
ingredient for the feed mix of monogastrics (LEAD, 2006).
The biggest part of cereals used in the Dutch feed industry are imported from abroad (Post et al., 2020).
In Figure 3.1 the different sorts of cereals suitable as feed are shown with the most important countries
of origin. The countries shown are for the Netherlands the most important countries for the import of
cereals. Cereals need to be processed before they can be included in compound feed. The processing
of cereals is called dry-milling. Dry-milling is a less complex process than wet-milling. After the process
milled fractions of cereal grains are obtained.
Cereals Country of origin

Barley Germany, France, Belgium
Maize Germany, France, USA, Hungary, Brazil
Millet India, Nigeria, Niger
Oats the Netherlands, Belgium
Rice China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam
Rye Poland, Germany
Sorghum USA, Argentina
Triticale Germany, the Netherlands, France
Wheat Germany, France, the Netherlands, United Kingdom
Table 3.1: Variety of cereals and the most important countries of origin (Vellinga et al., 2013)
3.3.4. Soy
The increasing demand for animal products worldwide results in an increase in the production of animal
feed. The demand for feed is growing and especially the demand for soy products. Soy products, such
as soybean oil and soybean meal, are very effective and efficient protein-rich crops used in feed for
the livestock industry (Barona et al., 2010).
Soy is an annual crop, so it completes its entire life-cycle in a year. The crop completes multiple produc-
tion cycles per year, this should be reflected when calculating the emissions (FAO, 2016; Taelman et al.,
2015). Brazil, the US and Argentina are major producers of soy. The (sub-)tropical climate conditions
in these countries are optimal for growing soy crops. In Europe, the climate conditions are different.
Therefore, European countries are urged to import soy products. The EU imported 13.9 million tons of
soybeans and 22.1 million tons of soymeal, based on data from 2006 to 2010. The largest share, 57%,
came from Brazil. Followed by 22% from the US. The Netherlands play a major role in the European
3.4. Objectives for feed composition 17
import market of soy, 26% of the imported soy is destined for the Netherlands. However, only 75% is
used as livestock feed, the remaining 25% is imported, processed and re-exported to other EU coun-
tries. The soy comes to the Port of Rotterdam as a raw material and is processed in the Netherlands
(Taelman et al., 2015). In Figure 3.5 the crushing process of soy is shown (FAO, 2016).
Figure 3.5: Crushing of soy (FAO, 2016)
However, the high import rates of cereals and protein-rich crops such as soy in the Netherlands are a
reason for concern. The reasons for these concerns differ per stakeholder. The European Parliament
introduced measures to reduce the dependency on the import of protein-rich crops for feed from mainly
the US, Argentina and Brazil. These measures were introduced in 2011 because of the concern that
the feed markets become too vulnerable for volatile commodity prices and trade distortions with the
high dependency on imports from outside of the EU (De Boer et al., 2014).
The biggest concern of NGOs is the deforestation that comes with the production of protein-rich crops.
The high demand for protein-rich crops is accompanied by land-use change. The pollution of water
and soil also gives reason to have concerns about the cultivation of soy (De Boer et al., 2014).
Besides the European Parliament and NGOs, many more stakeholders have growing concerns about
the sustainability of soy cultivation. The cycle is disturbed because the soy production and the livestock
are geographically separated. This means that the manure of the Dutch livestock cannot be used as
fertilizer for the crop land. Exporting countries experience water and soil pollution and depletion. This is
enhanced by the strong will to have higher yields to comply with the high demand for soy products from
importing countries. This high demand and aim for high yields results in land-use change. Especially
in Brazil, there is a very high rate of deforestation. On the other hand, the importing countries suffer
from high amounts of waste products. The intercontinental transport contributes to the environmental
impact as well (Taelman et al., 2015).
3.4. Objectives for feed composition

The feed compositions for chickens, pigs and cattle shown above are a simplified overview. The compo-
sitions of feed are determined based on many factors such as costs of commodities, transport, storage,
availability of commodities, nutritional values and others.
The choice of commodities for feed and the composition of these commodities are essential for a more
sustainable and efficient future of feed (Castrodeza et al., 2005; Mackenzie et al., 2016; Pinotti et al.,
2021). There are several objectives that should be taken into account when determining an optimal
feed composition:
• Cost
• Environmental sustainability
• Nutritional values
First of all, cost is an important objective (Babić and Perić, 2011; Castrodeza et al., 2005; Mackenzie
et al., 2016; Rasyida et al., 2020; Shrinivasa and Mathur, 2020). The cost of feed is the biggest influ-
encing factor on the final price of food (Chen et al., 2021; Makkar, 2016; Pinotti et al., 2021). The price
of feed depends on the composition. The differences in costs per composition are due to, first of all,
the different prices of raw materials. These commodity prices fluctuate throughout the year.
Next to this, the transport from the country of origin to the Netherlands and the type of processing play
a role in the determination of the costs of feed.
Lastly, the feed conversion ratio influences the price. A low feed conversion ratio means less feed is
required per unit of the livestock product (Bellarby et al., 2013).
Secondly, the contribution to global warming is an objective with rising attention. The composition
of feed affects the GHG emissions and, thus, the environmental sustainability (Castrodeza et al., 2005;
Mackenzie et al., 2016; Pinotti et al., 2021; Rojas-Downing et al., 2017; Sasu-Boakye et al., 2014).
The emissions from production vary per raw material. Emissions from fertilizer vary per raw material,
since the intensity of the use of fertilizers can differ per crop, climate and farm management. The
production processes of raw materials differ. Often used processes in the Netherlands are dry-milling,
wet-milling and crushing, as discussed before. Processing requires the use of fossil fuels (FAO, 2016;
Mackenzie et al., 2016).
Also, the amount of feed necessary to feed livestock influences the emission of GHGs. A low conver-
sion ratio can result in the use of less feed, which results in the release of less GHG emissions (Blonk
et al., 2009). Furthermore, the emissions from transport differ per country of origin and per transport
mode (Mackenzie et al., 2016; Verge et al., 2012; Weiss and Leip, 2012). Altering the country of origin
and transport modes can bring down GHG emissions (Blonk et al., 2009).
Besides this, the amount of emissions from enteric fermentation by the livestock is affected by the com-
position of feed. Feed additives can contribute to lowering emissions through enteric fermentation and
manure (Blonk et al., 2009; Willett et al., 2019).
Lastly, the emissions from land-use change due to the feed production industry influence the release
of GHGs majorly. Forests function as a carbon sink. The stored carbon in the soils is partially released
with deforestation (Bellarby et al., 2013; Lal, 2020).
Subsequently, the amount of GHG capture is influenced by the composition of feed. Carbon capture is
influenced by missed carbon sequestration due to land-use change, this is further discussed in Section
4.3.1). Besides, different raw materials and soil types have a different rate of capture (FAO, 2019).
Carbon capture is further elaborated on in Section 4.3.
Thirdly, the nutritional value of feed is an important objective (Castrodeza et al., 2005; Mackenzie
et al., 2016; Pinotti et al., 2021; Rasyida et al., 2020; Sasu-Boakye et al., 2014; Shrinivasa and Mathur,
2020). The nutritional values of feed are determined by the composition of raw materials. The growth
rate of livestock is affected by the nutritional values. Feed additives can be added to feed to improve
the quality and nutritional values (Blonk et al., 2009; FAO, 2020).
Currently, the formulation of feed compositions is often just based on nutritional values and costs (Babić
and Perić, 2011; Mackenzie et al., 2016; Rasyida et al., 2020; Shrinivasa and Mathur, 2020). The in-
terest in the environmental sustainability objective is rising. Due to regulations and a market pull this
objectives is getting more important when determining an optimal feed composition for livestock feed
(Mackenzie et al., 2016; Pinotti et al., 2021).
3.5. Summary 19
3.5. Summary
In this Chapter the feed production for the livestock industry is discussed and analyzed. The Nether-
lands is a big importer of feed, much bigger than other EU countries. 47% of the dairy cattle feed is
imported. For pig and chickens this is even higher. 90% of the land for pig and chicken feed is located
outside of the Netherlands. The import of feed is associated with a high rate of land-use change, which
imposes big effects on the climate.
Compound feed for livestock consists of a mixture different commodities. The selection of commodi-
ties for this mixture should be done carefully because it influences the properties of the final mixture. A
mixture should be optimized to create feed with the desired properties. Research shows that optimized
feed compositions are often based on nutritional values and costs. However, interest in optimizing
towards environmental sustainability is rising.
In Table 3.2 a literature matrix is shown. The literature selected for the matrix elaborates on two topics.
Firstly, the literature displayed in the matrix discusses the emissions of the feed production of the live-
stock. Secondly, the papers in the matrix investigate an optimized feed composition for the livestock
industry.
The papers that elaborate on GHG emissions and an optimized feed compositions do not all include
the sustainability objective in the optimization model. Castrodeza et al. 2005 were the first to explore
a multi-criteria model for the formulation of feed compositions with environmental sustainability as one
of the objectives. The environmental constraint used in the model is defined as limiting unaccept-
able damage to the environment, by taking nitrogen and phosphorus pollution into account. This is
not focused on the GHG footprint of feed. Mackenzie et al. (2016) does look at the GHG footprint
in the livestock industry and confirms the rising interest in the optimization of livestock feed in terms
of environmental impact. The study, however, focuses on pig diets in Canada. The environmental
sustainability objective is quantified with 𝐶𝑂2 (-equivalents), the acidification potential, the eutrophica-
tion potential and non-renewable resource use. The total environmental sustainability is showed in
a combined environmental impact score by normalizing the different categories using a methodology
developed by the Institute of Environmental Sciences at Leiden University (CML).
The remaining papers displayed in the the literature matrix do not optimize against environmental sus-
tainability.
In this Chapter the second sub-question, ”What is the current state of the feed production of the live-
stock industry with regards to GHG emissions?”, is answered. From the literature matrix in Figure 3.2
there can be concluded there is an rising interest in the optimization of feed blends with regards to
environmental sustainability. In fact, the necessity is acknowledged that the traditionally used feed op-
timization models that include minimizing cost and maximizing nutritional values should be expanded
with maximizing the environmental sustainability.
It is important to get a better understanding of the environmental sustainability in the feed production for
the livestock industry. In the next Chapter, the GHG emissions associated with the feed production and
the selection of crops is further researched. Furthermore, mitigation options for the GHG emissions
are explored.
Table 3.2: Literature matrix optimization of feed compositions
Optimize against environmental sustainability

Elaborate on emissions of livestock feed
Investigate optimized feed composition
Optimize against nutritional values

Optimize against cost
2021 Pinotti et al. * * * *
Recycling food leftovers in feed as opportu-
nity to increase the sustainability of livestock
production
2020 Rashid et al. * * * *
Feeding blend optimization for livestock by
using goal programming approach
2020 Shrinivasa et al. * * *
Compound feed production for livestock
2016 Mackenzie et al. * * * * *
Towards a methodology to formulate sustain-
able diets for livestock: Accounting for envi-
ronmental impact in diet formulation
2014 Sasu-Boakye et al. * *
Localising livestock protein feed production
and the impact on land use and greenhouse
gas emissions
2011 Babic et al. * * * *
Optimization of livestock feed blend by use of
goal programming
2005 Castrodeza et al. * * * * *
Multicriteria fractional model for feed formula-
tion: Economic, nutritional and environmental
criteria
4
GHG balancing
The feed industry strives towards a more sustainable and environmentally conscious production sys-
tem. The rising demand for feed makes a transformation even more necessary with the high emissions
that come along with the production of feed.
In this Chapter, the GHG emissions associated with the production of feed is further explored. GHG
emissions from different stages in the chain are assessed. Besides this, opportunities to decrease
emissions and to assess and increase GHG capture are elaborated on. The concept of circularity is
discussed as a possible mitigation option. GHG capture is associated with crop cultivation and is a
possible option to decrease emissions by balancing this with the GHG emissions. Lastly, another an-
gle of the topic is discussed, namely the inflicted impact of climate change itself on the feed production
for the livestock industry.
4.1. Greenhouse gas emissions

In the process of feed production there are several stages with sources of GHG emissions. In Figure
4.1 a simplified chain from crop production to feed production is shown.
Figure 4.1: Supply chain from crop production to feed processing
During every stage of the chain there are operations that contribute to global warming. Land-use and
land-use change are associated with crop production. During this stage, pesticides and fertilizers are
applied to the crops as well. During the transport and storage stage fossil fuels and energy are utilized.
The same sources, fossil fuels and energy, are used during the last stage, feed production.
The emissions of the chain are elaborated on per stage. The current state and ways to mitigate the
emissions are discussed.
The amount of GHG emissions depend on the feed composition, since the amount of GHG emissions
depends on the type of crop. Different types of crops are handled differently in terms of the use of
fertilizers and pesticides and are to a different extent associated with land-use and land-use change.
The emissions due to transport and storage depend on the country of origin and differ, therefore, per
type of crop. The processing of different crops is done in different ways. The emissions depend, also
in this stage, on the type of crop. This means the feed composition can contribute to high differences in
GHG emissions (Gerber et al., 2013; Mackenzie et al., 2016; Vellinga et al., 2013; Vetter et al., 2018).
4.1.1. Crop production

Crop production is the cultivation of raw materials. In Figure 4.2 the individual sources of GHG emis-
sions during the crop production stage are visualized.
21
22 4. GHG balancing
Figure 4.2: Sources of GHG emissions during crop production
In the Figure emissions from land-use and land-use change are shown. For the cultivation of materi-
als for livestock feed a big area land is required. As discussed before, 70% of the Dutch agricultural
land is dedicated to crop and grazing land for the livestock industry (Post et al., 2020). To put this in
a broader context, worldwide the livestock industry occupies approximately 80% of all the agricultural
land (Herrero et al., 2016; Ritchie and Roser, 2019). The land-use for the feed production puts a strain
on the available land (Post et al., 2020). This pressure on the land area results in changes in the desig-
nation of the land-use and in land-use change. Land-use and land-use change (LULUC) are identified
as a large source of GHG emissions in the worldwide livestock feed production (Bellarby et al., 2013;
Sasu-Boakye et al., 2014).
Next to emissions associated with land-use and land-use change, emissions from fertilizer and pes-
ticides are linked to crop production (Bellarby et al., 2013; Post et al., 2020). Both sources of GHG
emissions are further outlined.
Land-use and land-use change

Land-use refers to a change in intended purpose of the agricultural land. Feed-food competition is
known to be associated with this matter. The cultivation of crops for feed for the livestock industry
requires an enormous area of land. The crop cultivation for feed is in direct competition with the crop
cultivation for human consumption. Next to the possibility to use the land for food purposes, alternative
options such as crop production for bio-energy compete with land-use for feed as well (Bellarby et al.,
2013). Makkar (2016) describes this as the food-fuel-feed competition. He underpins this with the case
about cereals. In 2000, 78% of the global cereal harvest was used to feed pigs and poultry in regions
with intensive livestock production systems. The loss of calories by feeding these cereals to livestock
instead of directly using the cereals for human consumption is significant. The loss of calories is equiv-
alent to the annual calorie intake of over 3.5 billion people. Makkar (2016) outlines options to make
use of smart feeding options to bring the use of cereals back for health, environmental and welfare
issues. He mentions that agro-industrial by-products could be used as feed to decrease the ratio of
cereals in the feed composition. For ruminants, green fodder, chopped forages and better digestible
crop residues could serve as agro-industrial by-products.
Makkar (2016) elaborates on the competition with fuel as well. He states that The International Food
Policy Research Institute has predicted that the possible drastic increase of bio-fuel by 2050 results
in additional undernourishment in Africa and South-Asia. Alternative feed components such as by-
products of bio-fuel production, insects, seaweeds and less known quality feeds could decrease the
fuel-feed competition (Makkar, 2016).
The decrease of land-use for feed production by replacing crop materials with by-products of other
production processes could have a positive effect on GHG emissions. This will be further elaborated
on in Section 4.2.
The high pressure on land-area by the feed production has led and is still leading to land-use change
(LUC). This refers to the replacement of forests by agricultural land, called deforestation. The high
strain on land area causes, especially in South-America, the urge to expand land by clearing forests.
Deforestation is mainly linked to the cultivation of soy (Bellarby et al., 2013; Gerber et al., 2013; Weiss
and Leip, 2012).
Land-use change has a major impact on GHG emissions. Colomb et al. (2013) states that deforesta-
tion on its own is responsible for 11% of the global GHG emissions. Gerber et al. (2013) comments
on this matter that land-use change is responsible for 9.2% of the global livestock industry emissions.
These findings are not in line with each other. According to Gerber et al. (2013), Bellarby et al. (2013)
4.1. Greenhouse gas emissions 23
and the FAO (2016) this is a known issue since the drivers of land-use change and the allocation of
the associated GHG emissions are unclear and still disputable. Therefore, the data are interpreted
differently by studies. Weiss and Leip (2012) elaborate on the different approaches of several studies.
Forests are carbon sinks, deforestation has a high effect on emissions and capture of 𝐶𝑂2 . The natural
carbon cycle of the soil is affected by LUC. Soil is able to sequester carbon, forests sequester a higher
amount of carbon in their soils than cropland and pasture (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017). The seques-
tration of carbon is further elaborated on in Section 4.3.
Emissions from land-use and land-use change (LULUC) are associated with high import rates of high
protein feed sources such as soy products. The intensive livestock production systems in the Nether-
lands requires high protein feed imports (Bellarby et al., 2013). The GHG emissions from LULUC are
significantly higher for the Dutch feed industry in comparison to other countries. This is, as mentioned
before, addressed by Lesschen et al. (2011) as well. The study estimated that another 25% should
be added to their GHG emission overview of the EU-27 if land-use change is taken into account. The
import rate of the Netherlands is far above the average of the EU-27.
Despite the high impact of LULUC on GHG emission from the feed industry, LULUC are sometimes
classified as indirect emissions and therefore not included in the emission picture. To capture all the
GHG emissions and the carbon capture of the feed industry to get a holistic view, it is important to take
LULUC into account.
Pesticides and fertilizers

The high yields of crop production are the result of the use of pesticides and fertilizers (LEAD, 2006).
The high output of the Dutch market is partly due to the extreme use of pesticides and fertilizers (van
Grinsven et al., 2019). The production and use of both contribute to the emission of greenhouse gasses
(LEAD, 2006).
Fertilizers increase the growing speed of crops by nitrogen (𝑁) and phosphorus (𝑃) and sometimes
potassium (𝐾) use (FAO, 2019; Rojas-Downing et al., 2017). GHG emissions are released during
production, but also by the application on crops. For the production of fertilizers natural gas is most
commonly used (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017; Vellinga et al., 2013). Ammonia and nitric acid are the
raw materials used to produce many fertilizers (Vellinga et al., 2013). The Haber-Bosch process is used
for this production process. This process makes nitrogenous fertilizers under extremely high pressure
with a catalyst that consists of mainly iron and other chemicals (LEAD, 2006).
The use of fertilizers contributes to 𝑁2 𝑂 emissions. Besides, a certain share of the 𝑁 and 𝑃 applied on
the crops is lost and runs off in the soil. This leads to the contamination of the soil and ground water
(LEAD, 2006).
The use of nitrogenous fertilizers can be decreased by managing to apply the required amount that
a crop needs and by applying it on positions where it can easily be absorbed by the crops. Also, mea-
suring the nutrient composition of the soil can help improve the use of fertilizers. Another option to
reduce the use of fertilizers could be the genetic modification and plant breeding of crops in order to in-
crease their nitrogen uptake. Besides this, fertilizer technology is emerging and it is possible to regulate
the nutrient release and to slow the nitrification process down. This advanced technology is a high-cost
solution (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017). Lastly, manure can replace fertilizers. The manure comes from
livestock. The emissions from the production of fertilizers can be eliminated this way (Herrero et al.,
2016; Vellinga et al., 2013).
For pasture land another low-cost aid is available. Less fertilizer is necessary when adding legumes to
the grasses. The legumes sequester the nitrogen though the Rhizobium bacteria (Herrero et al., 2016;
Rojas-Downing et al., 2017).
Next to fertilizers, pesticides are responsible for the high yields as well. Pesticides are a chemical
agent that serves as substance to control and kill diseases and pests (LEAD, 2006). The use of pes-
ticide usually do not have a great contribution to GHG emissions of crop cultivation (Vellinga et al.,
2013).
24 4. GHG balancing
4.1.2. Transport and storage

The transportation and storage of feed contributes to GHG emissions in the form of 𝐶𝑂2 . In Figure 4.3
the GHG emissions during the transport and storage part are shown. The emissions from transport
depend of the mode of transport and on the country of origin and the destination. During transport,
fossil fuels are used, as well as energy to maintain good environmental conditions for the feed and for
the employees. During storage, solely energy is used to, again, maintain good conditions for the feed
and the employees (Yambi et al., 2020).
Figure 4.3: Sources of GHG emissions during transport and storage
4.1.3. Feed production

The production of feed refers to the processing of the raw materials and the composing the different
mixtures feed with the raw materials. During this production process GHG emissions are released as
a result of the use of fossil fuels and energy use. This is visualized in Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.4: Sources of GHG emissions during feed production
Maize, cereals and soy require further processing after harvesting. Energy and fossil fuels are used
for the treatment of raw materials (FAO, 2016). After the input of individual materials a mixture is
determined. The production of feed is often done in a mechanical mixer. GHG emissions are released
in this process as well (Shrinivasa and Mathur, 2020).
4.2. Circularity
The release of GHGs can be mitigated by decreasing carbon emissions by creating circular processes
in the chain. Circularity is a practice that aims to create a loop of materials to reduce resource con-
sumption and GHG emissions (Van Zanten et al., 2019). Circularity in the feed chain can help mitigate
GHG emissions. It can be achieved in different ways. First, by-products and waste streams from dif-
ferent industries can be used as a source of feed. Secondly, manure from the livestock industry can
be used as a fertilizer for crops. Thirdly, by-products or waste of the feed production industry can be
used by other industries.
The use of waste streams and by-products of other industries can bring down the emissions of the
feed industry. Besides this, the use of these secondary streams could potentially replace soy products,
to avoid potential contribution to deforestation. These secondary streams are associated with more
local products (Sasu-Boakye et al., 2014). Pinotti et al. (2021) investigates the opportunity to bring
environmental pressure down by using former food products and bakery by-products. They emphasize
the lack of research and knowledge on the nutritional potential, the logistic processes and the life-cycle
cost. Based on current findings they hope to create more interest and raise awareness for the potential
of bringing down emissions by using secondary streams.
However, a study done by Mackenzie et al. (2016) questions this finding. They state that the use of
secondary streams often results in feed compositions that are lower in energy. The impact on the en-
vironment is therefore not always minimized.
4.3. Greenhouse gas capturing 25
Another form of circularity is the recycling of manure from livestock as fertilizers for crop production
and for grassland. Manure could reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers. Emissions from the produc-
tion of fertilizers can be mitigated (FAO, 2016). GHG emissions are, however, also associated with the
storage and processing of manure. Methane is released due to the anaerobic decomposition. Nitro-
gen 𝑁 is converted and emitted as ammonia (𝑁𝐻3 ). This can later become nitrous oxide (𝑁2 𝑂) (Gerber
et al., 2013). The GHG emissions that are released due to the circulation should not be forgotten.
The last form of circularity is the use of waste streams and by-products of the feed industry by other in-
dustries. This could, just like carbon credits, generate income for farmers. By-products can for example
be used in the construction industry. Rojas et al. (2019) describes the use of residual wheat straw and
corn husk biomass as thermal isolation material for sustainable buildings. Insulation materials from
by-products can decrease the high GHG emissions that are that are associated with the fabrication
of insulation materials (Rojas et al., 2019). Next to this application, Petrella et al. (2019) discusses
the use of cellulose fibers from wheat straw to make cement in a sustainable way. Thermal, acous-
tic, mechanical, and microstructural measurement show promising results for the use of this by-product.
There are several options to increase circularity in the feed production industry. It should be inves-
tigate whether the introduction of circularity can reduce GHG emission by comparing the emissions of
the new situation to the current situation.
4.3. Greenhouse gas capturing

The production of feed has the great advantage that has the possibility to capture greenhouse gasses,
specifically 𝐶𝑂2 . The sequestration of 𝐶𝑂2 is possible during the crop production stage (Post et al.,
2020; Soussana et al., 2009). By considering both GHG emissions and carbon capture, a GHG bal-
ance is created. GHG emissions are negative and carbon capture is positive. This way ultimately net
zero emissions can be reached.
Carbon sequestration can be improved with regenerative agricultural practices. The concept of regen-
erative agriculture should be well understood to get insights on the amount of carbon capture can be
assessed.
4.3.1. Regenerative agriculture

The goal of regenerative agriculture is to restore degraded soils to improve the amount of soil organic
carbon (SOC). SOC is defined by the FAO as ”organic carbon present in the fraction of soil that passes
through the 2 mm sieve” (FAO, 2019). SOC in soil works as a carbon sink for carbon from the atmo-
sphere. Carbon sequestration by land currently used for agricultural purposes can be optimized by
regenerative agriculture.
Regenerative agriculture is not solely based on increasing the carbon stocks in the soil. The bene-
fits are listed here (Lal, 2020; Zomer et al., 2017):
• Improvement of soil fertility
• Stimulation of biodiversity
• Availability of water
• Prevention of wind and water erosion
• Improvement soil organic carbon
The fertility of the soil is improved by increasing the soil organic matter, by 𝑁 fixation and by recycling
the nutrient by eliminating the input of chemical fertilizers. Biodiversity and the availability of water are
optimized. It also involves preventative measures to prevent wind and water erosion from happening
(Lal, 2020).
For a long time soil management to increase carbon capture has been ignored (von Unger and Emmer,
2018), but research has shown management of land can increase carbon capture in soil of crop and
grassland (Zomer et al., 2017). Cropland is able to sequester less carbon than grassland (FAO, 2016,
26 4. GHG balancing
2019; Post et al., 2020; Soussana et al., 2009. Grassland is of greater importance for carbon seques-
tration since they have higher SOC stocks than cropland (FAO, 2019). Post et al. (2020) elaborates on
the ratio of crop- and grassland in the Netherlands. 30% of the total agricultural land in the Netherlands
for feed purposes is cropland, the other 70% is grassland.
Cropland
Currently, nearly 10% of the global soil organic carbon is stored in the top 30 cm of cropland, over 140
Pg (101 5) carbon. In Figure 4.5 the current overview of the global SOC is shown.
Figure 4.5: Global SOC overview in top 30 cm of soil (Zomer et al., 2017)
The data for the image are retrieved from a geospatial analysis of datasets from the SoilsGrids250
database (Zomer et al., 2017). Temperature and precipitation have a strong effect on SOC stocks. In
general in areas where it is hot and dry, tropic areas, SOC are lower. In the more cooler and wetter
SOC stocks are higher. This is reflected in Figure 4.5, around the equator a low density of SOC stocks
is shown and in the more northern parts SOC stocks are higher (Zomer et al., 2017). The FAO (2019)
confirms the impact of precipitation on SOC stocks. A positive relationship between rainfall and SOC
is shown, the higher the annual precipitation, the higher the SOC stocks (FAO, 2019). The impact of
temperature and precipitation is an important factor when discussing SOC stocks.
The management of soil, regenerative management, could improve the rate of carbon capture (von
Unger and Emmer, 2018; Zomer et al., 2017).
Cultivation of crops results in a decrease in carbon stocks in the soil. The decrease of SOC stocks
can be counteracted by executing different practices. Returning crop residues to the land, also known
as mulching, and conservation tillage are know practices. Also, the use of organic manure increases
SOC stocks (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017; Vellinga et al., 2013; Zomer et al., 2017). Harder to im-
plement, but effective, are cover cropping and agroforestry (Zomer et al., 2017). Rojas et al. (2017)
adds an optimal crop cultivation scheme should be determined with double-cropping and crop rotations.
Next to managerial practices, carbon capture depends on the type of crop grown on the land. A study
done by Mathew et al. (2017) argues that grass and maize have the greatest ability to sequester carbon
from the atmosphere in the plant as well as the soil. The study found a possible direct link between
plant C stocks and an increase of SOC stock in the soil. The study indicates that soil underneath maize
and soybean have the highest SOC stocks. Unexpectedly high rates of SOC were found in soils where
maize and soybean were rotated.
Different types of crops have varying SOC stocks dependent on temperature and precipitation condi-
tions. In the tropics, equivalently high SOC stocks were found for maize and soybean. Under sub-
tropical conditions the SOC stocks with soybean were higher than with maize. Even, SOC stocks with
wheat were higher than maize in sub-tropical conditions, but in other climate conditions wheat is asso-
ciated with the lowest SOC stocks. Again, it becomes clear that climate conditions have a high impact
on soil carbon stocks. They emphasize that the comparison of crops is difficult due to the varying cli-
mate conditions and management practices (Mathew et al., 2017).
4.3. Greenhouse gas capturing 27
Zomer et al. (2017) created Figure 4.6 which predicts the potential annual increase of SOC stocks, as-
suming regenerative measures are carried out. It is based on a scenario study developed by Summer
and Bossio (2014), they formulated a pessimistic, a medium optimistic and highly optimistic scenario.
Figure 4.6 is based on the medium optimistic scenario. In this scenario, worldwide an annual increase
of 0.012% SOC stocks is assumed.
Figure 4.6: Potential global SOC overview in top 30 cm of soil after executing regenerative measures (Zomer et al., 2017)
Grassland
The FAO (2019) elaborated on SOC stocks in grassland. As mentioned before, grassland occupies
more land than cropland. Managing grassland is often done less intensively (Smith et al., 2008). For
this reason, Summer and Bossio (2014) assume it is more difficult to implement measures to increase
SOC stocks in grassland.
The FAO (2019) and Smith et al. (2008) both reflect on measures that could be taken to increase the
amount of SOC stocks in the soil of grassland. Grazing intensity, fertilization, grass species selection,
cutting frequency and reseeding are identified.
The effect of grazing intensity on SOC stocks are not unambiguous (FAO, 2019). In response to this
finding, McSherry and Ritchie (2013) conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the effects of grazing
of carbon stocks in grassland. They found that grazing has a significant influence on SOC stocks, but
the effects of the grazing intensity vary dependent on the climate, soils and grass type. Smith et al.
(2008) has drawn the same conclusions. SOC stock are bigger in optimally grazed lands, however, the
definition of optimally grazed is not yet defined and because of inconsistent results Smith et al., 2008.
It is difficult to draw a conclusion on the effects of grazing intensity.
Next to the grazing intensity, fertilization can affect SOC. Nutrients are essential to build up SOC stocks.
Fertilizers are applied to stimulate growth and contain nutrients such as nitrogen (𝑁), phosphorus (𝑃)
and potassium (𝐾). Especially 𝑁 contributes to the increase of SOC in the soil. Besides the nutrients,
the increased biomass due to the use of fertilizers results in higher amounts of SOC stocks. The com-
plexity of the effects of fertilizer is, however, higher (FAO, 2019). The FAO (2019) makes this statement
because several other studies found contradicting results when considering not just the aboveground
biomass, but also the belowground biomass.
Manure is used as a fertilizer as well. The utilization of manure impacts the carbon and nitrogen stocks
in the soil. Carbon present in manure can be partially be absorbed by the soil it is applied to (FAO,
2019). A meta-analysis done by Maillard and Angers (2014) confirms this finding. This meta-analysis
is based on 42 research articles, 49 websites and 130 observation worldwide. The study found that
SOC stocks were positively impacted by the cumulative manure-C input. The input is responsible for
a variability of 53% in SOC stocks compared to the reference cases, mineral fertilizers and unfertilized
treatments (Maillard and Angers, 2014).
In the Netherlands, animal products are produced at intensive livestock production sites. Livestock
is mainly kept in the stables at intensive livestock production farms. This means hay is cut from grass-
land instead of shortened by grazing. The FAO (2019) states that the effect of the cutting frequency
28 4. GHG balancing
on the SOC stock is not well understood, but the cutting frequency could have an effect on SOC due
to changes in net primary production, the difference between carbon taken up through photosynthesis
and the lost carbon through respiration, via changed canopy properties and plant species composition.
A reason the effect of the cutting frequency is not well understood is the effects of cutting frequency
and fertilizers are hard to keep apart, since grassland that is cut often receives more fertilizers (FAO,
2019).
The fourth and the last effect on SOC stocks identified are reseeding and grass species selection.
Reseeding cultivars with desirable traits can increase yields of grassland and, thus, the profits from
the land. Understandably, it is a frequently used practice. The seedbed is mechanically prepared for
reseeding. The soil is disrupted due to the mechanical preparation and changes in the carbon and
nutrients cycle in the soil go along with this disruption (FAO, 2019. More long-term and holistic experi-
ments on farm-scale are necessary but require a lot of money to maintain.
The selection of the grass species selection is identified as a factor that affects SOC stocks. Species
rich grasslands have a higher aboveground net primary production and their roots are more diverse
and complex. This root structure ensures a larger volume of soil is penetrated. The high net primary
production and penetration of the soil potentially have a positive effect on the SOC stocks (FAO, 2019;
Smith et al., 2008).
The assessment of the influence factors on the SOC stocks on grassland shows that the seques-
tration of carbon by grassland is not yet well understood. This is also apparent from different studies,
the rate of sequestration are not unambiguous per paper. Both Soussana et al. (2009) and Conant
et al. (2005) looked into carbon sequestration of grassland. Both state that SOC stocks in grassland
increase over the years. However, Soussana et al. (2009) argues that the carbon sequestration is a
continuing process. Conant et al. (2005) believes an equilibrium is reached over the years. Vellinga et
al. (2013) and Mathew et al. (2017) share this view.
SOC stocks forests

Deforestation affects the carbon stocks of the land as well. Major carbon sinks are lost due to the loss
of forests and the change of the designation of the land (Bellarby et al., 2013; Lal, 2020). Forests
sequester significantly more carbon than crop- and grassland. The carbon sequestration potential of
forests is of high importance for the global warming mitigation potential (Herrero et al., 2016; Xu et al.,
2014). By land-use change high amounts of 𝐶𝑂2 are released into the atmosphere (Rojas-Downing
et al., 2017). After the land-use change, the high rate of carbon sequestration by forests is missed as
well (Colomb et al., 2013; Herrero et al., 2011).
Don et al. (2011) did a meta-analysis research based on 385 studies on changes in SOC stocks as
a result of land-use change in tropic areas. The study indicated that an average decline of 25% in
SOC stocks could be seen when converting primary forests into cropland and a decline of 12% when
converting forests into grassland. The loss of carbon in the soil is partially reversible. If agricultural
land is reforested the SOC stocks will increase with 29%. An increase in SOC stocks of 26% is seen
when converting cropland to grassland (Don et al., 2011). The findings of a meta-analysis based on 74
papers done by Guo and Gifford (2002) and Soussana et al. (2009) are in line with the findings on the
reversibility of land. Besides, Soussana et al. (2009) emphasizes the effect of climate conditions on
SOC stocks as a result of land-use change. The findings of this study are that land-use change from
grass- to cropland causes a decrease of 18% in dry climates and a decrease of 29% in moist climates
in SOC stocks in the soil. When reverting this, so crop- to grassland, an increase of 18% in SOC stocks
is seen in moist climates. In dry climates an increase of only 7% in reported. There can be concluded
that the conversion of cropland to grassland or the conversion of crop- and grassland to forests could
increase carbon capture.
The describes factors influencing the SOC stocks in the soil should be taken into account with re-
generative agricultural practices. This way the carbon sequestration of farmers can be optimized to
ultimately create a net zero balance in the feed production chain. Eventually, farmers can use regen-
erative practices to sell carbon credits.
4.4. Impact of climate change on feed production 29
4.4. Impact of climate change on feed production

Climate change is an uncertain event and the future change is hard to forecast. However, the influence
of the human is clear and the induced change has high impacts on humanity and the earth. A special
report of the IPCC on Global Warming of 1.5∘ 𝐶 shed light on climate change. To mitigate the risk of
the temperature rise a big transformation in many aspect of society is required. If the current approach
is maintained until 2030, the global warming of 3∘ 𝐶 can be reached by 2100 (Masson-Delmotte et al.,
2019).
Global warming would have an effect on the feed production for the livestock industry. The production
of crops, the quality of crops and forage can all be impacted. The impact is due to the rise in temper-
ature, due to rise of 𝐶𝑂2 levels in the air and due to fluctuations in precipitation (Rojas-Downing et al.,
2017).
The increase of 𝐶𝑂2 levels changes the growth of forage, especially the growth of herbage. The quality
of forage will decrease. It would, however, have a positive effect on the growth of plants (Rojas-Downing
et al., 2017).
The increase in temperature would have negative effects on forage. The nutrient availability will de-
crease and the feed intake increases. This means the feed conversion will increase (Rojas-Downing
et al., 2017).
The variation in precipitation can affect the forage quality and growth with longer dry seasons and floods
(Rojas-Downing et al., 2017).
All these changes change the seasonal pattern, change the optimal growth rate and change the avail-
ability of water (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017).
In the long term, climate change could have an influence on the feed production for the livestock in-
dustry. A transformation to prevent the temperature from rising is required.
4.5. Summary
In this Chapter an answer to the third sup-question is found. The sub-question is: ”Which GHG emis-
sions and GHG capturing sources need to be taken into account for a carbon balance for the feed
production of the livestock industry and what alternative options are there to reduce emissions?”
The GHG emissions in the different stages in the feed production industry are explored. In Figure 4.7
an overview of the different sources of GHG is shown.
Figure 4.7: Sources of GHG emissions during full feed production process
From the literature study there can be concluded that GHG from pesticides are very small and can be
left out of scope for if a holistic overview of GHG emissions is made.
The GHG emissions should be reduced. The implementation of circular processes is looked at as a
possibility to mitigate the emissions.
Carbon capture through soil management is getting increased attention. Soil management can be
referred to as regenerative agriculture. The options to increase soil organic carbon are explored. If the
carbon capture in soil can be assessed, a GHG balance can be created by combining GHG emissions
and carbon capture.
A literature matrix is made to get an overview of the trend of these topics. The papers are selected if
there is elaborated on GHG emissions in the feed production for the livestock industry. In Figure 4.1
the matrix is shown.
30 4. GHG balancing
Table 4.1: Concept matrix literature study
Emissions from land-use change (LUC)
Link emissions to feed composition

Carbon capture
Circularity
2021 FAO * * *
Global Livestock Environmental Assessment
Model (GLEAM)
2020 Post et al. * * *
Effects of Dutch livestock production on hu-
man health and the environment
2019 van Grinsven et al. * *
Benchmarking Eco-Efficiency and Footprints
of Dutch Agriculture in European Context and
Implications for Policies for Climate and Envi-
ronment
2017 Rojas-Downing et al. * * * *
Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adap-
tation, and mitigation
2016 FAO * * * * *
Environmental performance of animal feeds
supply chains
2013 Vellinga et al. * * * * *
Methodology used in FeedPrint: a tool quan-
tifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed pro-
duction and utilization
2013 Gerber et al. * * *
Tackling climate change through livestock
2012 Weis and Leip * * * *
Greenhouse gas emissions from the EU live-
stock sector: A lifecycle assessment carried
out with the CAPRI model
2011 Lesschen et al. * *
Greenhouse gas emission profiles of Euro-
pean livestock sectors
2006 LEAD * * * * *
Livestock’s long shadow
2005 van der Werf et al. * * *
The environmental impacts of the production
of concentrated feed: The case of pig feed in
Bretagne
4.5. Summary 31
In the matrix there can seen that all papers that elaborate on GHG emission in the feed industry con-
clude that the GHG footprint is dependent on the feed composition. Different types of crops have
different rates of emissions, circularity and capture.
Furthermore, in the matrix there can be seen that most papers take GHG emissions from LULUC into
account. Often GHG emissions from LUC are not included since they are classified as indirect emis-
sions. To get a holistic overview of emissions LULUC should be taken into account in future research.
Carbon capture by implementing regenerative practices is better understood for cropland than for grass-
land. Limited research is done on this topic, but there is concluded that GHGs can be captured and the
possibility to create a GHG balance is therefore interesting to do further research on.
Lastly, circularity could possibly reduce GHG emissions in the feed production industry. This possibility
is not yet included in many research papers that elaborate on emissions in the feed production industry.
In Figure 4.8 the situation without circularity and carbon capture is visualized.
Figure 4.8: Current situation feed production
By analyzing literature, there is concluded circular processes and carbon capture should be included
because the GHG balance could be optimized by doing this. In Figure 4.9 this new situation is visual-
ized. In future models, the GHG emissions, carbon capture en circularity can be analysed using this
outcome.
Figure 4.9: Future situation feed production

5
Model to guide the future
GHG balancing of the feed production for the livestock industry is a complex issue. The amount of GHG
emissions released in the process are extremely high. However, the industry has the great opportunity
to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. To assess the emissions and the possibilities of carbon
capture it is necessary to elaborate on existing models to do this.
In this Chapter, the models used by other studies to assess GHG emissions and capture are discussed.
Next, a trend analysis is done to get a structured view on the relevant literature.
5.1. GHG emissions assessment model

Many researches are conducted on the GHG emissions in the livestock industry. The goal of these
studies is to show a complete overview of the GHGs emitted by the livestock industry. Some studies
focus solely on the feed production, others asses the livestock industry as a whole.
From the literature study several models are identified. The most commonly used model is Life cy-
cle analysis (LCA). This analysis has the ability to give insight and compare the environmental impact
of the full life cycle of products and processes. It is seen as the most complete holistic framework to
assess emissions. The FAO (2016) describes LCA as follows: ”LCA provides quantitative, confirmable,
and manageable process models to evaluate production processes, analyse options for innovation and
improve understanding of complex systems”. The different phases that should be completed for a LCA
are described in ISO14040:2006. First, the scope, goal and metrics should be defined. Secondly,
the data collection including inputs, outputs and discharges to the environment of the to-be analyzed
system should be gathered. Thirdly, identified emissions should be normalized to common metrics.
In the fourth phase the analysis should be done and the results can be interpreted (FAO, 2016). The
reliability of LCA is proven by the amount of studies using this method. It is, among others, used by
the FAO (2016, 2020), van Grinsven et al. (2019), Sasu-Boakye et al. (2014), Mogensen et al. (2014),
Vellinga et al. (2013), Gerber et al. (2013), Weis and Leip (2012) and van der Werf et al. (2005).
Sasu-Boakye et al. (2014), however, emphasizes that there is no standardised method to include
emissions from land-use change in a LCA. This is noticed and described as a problem by Mogensen
et al. (2014) as well. Another methodological limitation of LCA identified by Mogensen et al. (2014) is
the opportunity to include carbon capture. For their analysis an approach described by Petersen et al.
(2013) is used. Petersen et al. (2013) suggests carbon sequestration can be included by translating
the sequestration to a time perspective. This way the sequestration of carbon and the consequences
the sequestration has on the 𝐶𝑂2 concentration in the atmosphere can be calculated for one year.
The FAO (2019) emphasizes the importance of including LULUC and the carbon sequestration by SOC
stocks in LCA to be able to balance the emissions and to create a more complete view to avoid the dis-
semination of wrong information. The FAO states a standardized calculation method should be agreed
on since the importance is expressed by many stakeholders (FAO, 2019).
There are several sources for input data for a LCA. Lesschen et al. (2011) and Weiss and Leip (2012)
make use of CAPRI. CAPRI is simulator and data-base of the European agricultural sector. The CAPRI
33
34 5. Model to guide the future
data-base contains data on crop areas, the distribution of livestock and the input of feed (Lesschen et
al., 2011). The data are based on national information on slaughtering, livestock numbers, crop produc-
tion, land-use, farm and market balances and trade. Economic, physical and environmental information
are consolidated and included consistently (Weiss and Leip, 2012).
Lesschen et al. (2011) makes use of other data input sources besides CAPRI: GAINS, FAO statistics
and IPCC. GAINS contains data on livestock numbers, excretion and 𝑁𝐻3 factors. FAO statistics has
data on crop yields, fertilizer use and livestock production. Data from the IPCC are used for emission
factors.
Most studies make use of LCA. Vetter et al. (2018) calculated GHG emissions associated with egg
production using the Cool Farming Tool (CFT). The CFT is a GHG emission calculator that creates
an emission model for products based on its location and management practice. 𝐶𝑂2 , 𝐶𝐻4 and 𝑁2 𝑂
emissions are determined as a function of soil and residue management, the use of fertilizers and pes-
ticides, the use of energy, irrigation and the management of livestock. The study concludes that the
CFT is a good tool for farmers to get a better insight on different sources of emissions and to identify
mitigation possibilities.
5.2. Trend analysis

To get an overview what objectives and subjects are covered by other studies an overview is made.
Webster and Watson (2002) outline that literature can be structured by using a concept matrix.
In Chapter 3 the second sub-question is answered. In a literature matrix, Figure 3.2, an overview
of papers shown. The papers elaborate both on GHG emissions of the feed production industry and
on optimizing feed compositions.
The third sub-question is answered in Chapter 4. The answer is supported with another literature ma-
trix, see Figure 4.1. The papers all elaborate on emissions of livestock feed and link these emissions
to the composition of feed.
From these two matrices it has become clear that the environmental footprint of feed depends on the
composition of feed. The amount of emissions and carbon capture depend on the type of crop. Optimiz-
ing feed compositions gives the possibility to mitigate GHG emissions and to maximize carbon capture.
These two matrices are therefore combined in a concept matrix. This new matrix in shown in Figure 5.1.
On the vertical axis the relevant literature is shown. The articles are separated into two parts. The
upper part of the articles from Figure 4.1 and mainly elaborate on and assess emissions in the livestock
industry. The lower part are the articles from Figure 3.2 and elaborate on optimal feed compositions
for the livestock industry.
On the horizontal axis important objectives discussed in the literature are shown. This axis is divided
into four parts.
There can be seen that all papers cover emissions from livestock feed and all articles agree on the
link between emissions and feed composition. The upper part of the matrix shows that most studies
include emissions from land-use change and use LCA to assess the emissions. The inclusion of cap-
ture carbon in the emissions overview to balance GHGs and circularity to mitigate GHG emissions are
mostly excluded.
In the lower part of the matrix there can be seen that all articles include optimizing feed composition.
Only two out of the five articles included all three defined objectives important for the feed composition.
These two articles miss the link with carbon capture and circularity.
It is interesting to see in this matrix that all articles link GHG emissions of feed for the livestock in-
dustry to an optimized feed composition. However, non of the studies combined these two topics and
include carbon capture.
5.2. Trend analysis 35
Table 5.1: Concept matrix literature study
Optimize against environmental sustainability

Emissions from land-use change (LUC)
Investigate optimized feed composition

Link emissions to feed composition
Optimize against nutritional values

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
Optimize against cost

Carbon capture
Circularity
2021 FAO * * * *
Global Livestock Environmental Assessment
Model (GLEAM)
2020 Post et al. * * *
Effects of Dutch livestock production on hu-
man health and the environment
2019 van Grinsven et al. * * *
Benchmarking Eco-Efficiency and Footprints
of Dutch Agriculture in European Context and
Implications for Policies for Climate and Envi-
ronment
2017 Rojas-Downing et al. * * * *
Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adap-
tation, and mitigation
2016 FAO * * * * * *
Environmental performance of animal feeds
supply chains
2013 Vellinga et al. * * * * * *
Methodology used in FeedPrint: a tool quan-
tifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed pro-
duction and utilization
2013 Gerber et al. * * * *
Tackling climate change through livestock
2012 Weis and Leip * * * * *
Greenhouse gas emissions from the EU live-
stock sector: A lifecycle assessment carried
out with the CAPRI model
2011 Lesschen et al. * *
Greenhouse gas emission profiles of Euro-
pean livestock sectors
2006 LEAD * * * * *
Livestock’s long shadow
2005 van der Werf et al. * * * * *
The environmental impacts of the production
of concentrated feed: The case of pig feed in
Bretagne
36 5. Model to guide the future
2021 Pinotti et al. * * * * * *

Recycling food leftovers in feed as opportu-
nity to increase the sustainability of livestock
production
2020 Rashid et al. * * * * *
Feeding blend optimization for livestock by
using goal programming approach
2016 Mackenzie et al. * * * * * * * *
Towards a methodology to formulate sustain-
able diets for livestock: Accounting for envi-
ronmental impact in diet formulation
2014 Sasu-Boakye et al. * * * * *
Localising livestock protein feed production
and the impact on land use and greenhouse
gas emissions
2011 Babic et al. * * * * *
Optimization of livestock feed blend by use of
goal programming
2005 Castrodeza et al. * * * * * *
Multicriteria fractional model for feed formula-
tion: Economic, nutritional and environmental
criteria
6
Conclusion and discussion
In this Chapter the findings of this literature study are outlined. The sub-questions are answered. The
answers to the sub-questions cover the following. The size and emissions of the Dutch livestock indus-
try are outlined. The current state of the feed production with regards to GHG emissions is discussed.
With this information the sources of GHG emissions and the possibilities for carbon capture are outlined.
To bring all the information together already existing models are discussed and a trend in literature is
found. By assessing these findings an answer to the research question is found: ”How can the carbon
balance of the feed production in the livestock industry be assessed and how can the carbon balance
be improved?” Furthermore, recommendations for further research are proposed.
The first sub-question is: ”What can be found on the size and the emissions in the Dutch livestock
industry?”. Livestock products are important to the Dutch society. They provide food, employment and
are a big export product. The Netherlands is densely packed, due to the advanced knowledge in the
field of animal science and technology, the industry is highly efficient. However, the environmental
impact is extremely high in comparison to other European countries. A transformation of the livestock
industry is necessary to bring back the high release of GHG emissions.
The feed production is a big source of emissions of the livestock industry. Innovations in the feed pro-
duction industry can help mitigate GHG emissions of the overall livestock industry.
To answer sub-question 2 the current state of the feed production for the livestock industry with re-
gards to GHG emissions is investigated. The Netherlands is a big importer of livestock feed. The total
area of agricultural land in the Netherlands is smaller than the total amount of land necessary to pro-
duce enough feed for the livestock present in the Netherlands. This high import rate is associated with
a high contribution to land-use change.
Feed is a mixture of different commodities. Optimization models are used to determine the right com-
position for every sort of livestock. Currently, it is often optimized against cost and nutritional values.
Environmental sustainability is mostly excluded, despite the rising interest in this topic. Therefore, fur-
ther research should be done on an optimization model for feed compositions with regards to cost,
nutritional values and environmental sustainability.
With sub-question 3 the GHG emissions are assessed and mitigation options are explored. Besides
this, carbon capture is elaborated on to be able to create a carbon balance for the feed production of
the livestock industry.
The emission of GHGs depends on the feed composition, since different commodities release different
amounts of GHGs. First, during the crop production stage, GHGs are emitted due to land-use and
land-use change and due the use fertilizers. During the second stage, transport and storage, GHG
emissions are released through energy and fossil fuel use. In the last stage, feed production, GHGs
are emitted due to the use of energy and fossil fuels with the processing of the raw commodities.
Introducing circular processes could possibly help reduce GHG emissions. The effect of the implemen-
tation should be further explored by comparing the current situation to a new situation that includes
circularity.
37
38 6. Conclusion and discussion
A great advantage crop production brings along is the possibility to capture carbon. Carbon capture
is an important asset and should therefore definitely be taken into account when defining the GHG
footprint of livestock feed.
Lastly, emission models and optimization theories are identified and a trend in literature is looked at.
The Dutch emissions of the feed production for the livestock industry should be assessed using LCA.
The carbon balance can be improved by including carbon capture in the LCA. Another possibility to
improve the carbon balance is the optimization of feed compositions.
From the trend analysis a gap in literature is found and this answers the research question: ”How
can the carbon balance of the feed production in the livestock industry be assessed and how can the
carbon balance be improved?”.
A GHG balance that includes GHG emissions and carbon capture is never investigated in combination
with the optimization of feed compositions in terms of environmental sustainability, cost and nutritional
values. This provides opportunity for future research. An index should be created to asses individual
crops and feed compositions in terms of cost, nutritional values and environmental sustainability. To
assess the environmental sustainability GHG emissions and carbon capture should be included. Liter-
ature research on indices should be done and methods to measure carbon capture should be further
investigated.
In this index emissions from pesticides can be left out of scope, because the emissions are negligible.
Emissions from LULUC, fertilizers, fossil fuels and energy use should be taken into account. Circular
processes should be implemented in the index. Waste streams from the livestock industry itself and
other industries should be included as well as the use of manure as a replacement of fertilizers. Lastly,
carbon capture with regenerative practices should be included in the index to create a GHG balance.
The output of the index should rate feed compositions for the livestock based on environmental sustain-
ability, costs and nutritional values. The outcome of the index can contribute to improving the carbon
balance and could, thus, help reduce GHG emissions from the feed production of the livestock industry.
Bibliography
Babić, Z., & Perić, T. (2011). Optimization of livestock feed blend by use of goal programming. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics, 130(2), 218–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.
12.016
Barona, E., Ramankutty, N., Hyman, G., & Coomes, O. T. (2010). The role of pasture and soybean in
deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters, 5(2). https://doi.org/
10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024002
Bellarby, J., Tirado, R., Leip, A., Weiss, F., Lesschen, J. P., & Smith, P. (2013). Livestock greenhouse
gas emissions and mitigation potential in Europe. Global Change Biology, 19(1), 3–18. https:
//doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-2486.2012.02786.X
Blonk, H., Ponsioen, T., Hennen, W., Van Kernebeek, H., Waarts, Y., & Advies, B. M. (2009). Towards
a tool for assessing carbon footprints of animal feed (tech. rep.).
Boere, E. (2015). Economic Analysis of Dutch Agricultural Land Use in a Changing Policy Environment
(Doctoral dissertation). WUR.
Brainard, C. (2010). Meat vs. Miles. Columbia Journalism Review. https : / / archives . cjr . org / the _
observatory/meat_vs_miles.php?page=all
Castrodeza, C., Lara, P., & Peña, T. (2005). Multicriteria fractional model for feed formulation: Economic,
nutritional and environmental criteria. Agricultural Systems, 86(1), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.agsy.2004.08.004
CBS. (2021). Omvang veestapel op agrarische bedrijven: peildatum 1 april en 1 december (tech. rep.).
Statline. https://opendata.cbs.nl/#/CBS/nl/dataset/84952NED/table?ts=1634128628700
Chen, W., Jafarzadeh, S., Thakur, M., Ólafsdóttir, G., Mehta, S., Bogason, S., & Holden, N. M. (2021).
Environmental impacts of animal-based food supply chains with market characteristics. Sci-
ence of The Total Environment, 783, 147077. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.
147077
Colomb, V., Touchemoulin, O., Bockel, L., Chotte, J. L., Martin, S., Tinlot, M., & Bernoux, M. (2013).
Selection of appropriate calculators for landscape-scale greenhouse gas assessment for agri-
culture and forestry. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1). https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1088 / 1748 -
9326/8/1/015029
Conant, R. T., Paustian, K., Del Grosso, S. J., & Parton, W. J. (2005). Nitrogen pools and fluxes in
grassland soils sequestering carbon. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-004-5085-z
De Boer, H. C., Van Krimpen, M. M., Blonk, H., & Tyszler, M. (2014). Replacement of soybean meal
in compound feed by European protein sources Effects on carbon footprint (tech. rep.). WUR
Livestock Research. www.wageningenUR.nl/en/livestockresearch.
Don, A., Schumacher, J., & Freibauer, A. (2011). Impact of tropical land-use change on soil organic
carbon stocks - a meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 17(4), 1658–1670. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02336.x
European Commission. (n.d.-a). Climate Action. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2050_
enl
European Commission. (n.d.-b). Food Waste. https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food-waste_enl
FAO. (2016). Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains. http://www.fao.org/partnerships/
leap/publications/en/
FAO. (2018). Shaping the future of livestock. The 10th Global Forum for Food and Agriculture (GFFA),
1–20.
FAO. (2019). Measuring and modelling soil carbon stocks and stock changes in livestock production
systems Guidelines for assessment. http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/publications/en/
FAO. (2020). Environmental performance of feed additives in livestock supply chains. FAO. https://doi.
org/10.4060/ca9744en
FAO. (2021). Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM). http://www.fao.org/gleam/
results/en/
39
40 Bibliography
Gerber, P., Vellinga, T., Opio, C., Hernderson, B., & Steinfeld, H. (2010). Greenhouse gas emissions
from the dairy sector. A Life Cycle Assessment. FAO.
Gerber, P., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A., & Tempio,
G. (2013). Tackling climate change through livestock (tech. rep.). FAO. Rome. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/289509969
Guo, L. B., & Gifford, R. M. (2002). Soil carbon stocks and land use change: A meta-analysis. Global
Change Biology, 8(4), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1354-1013.2002.00486.x
Herrero, M., Gerber, P., Vellinga, T., Garnett, T., Leip, A., Opio, C., Westhoek, H. J., Thornton, P. K.,
Olesen, J., Hutchings, N., Montgomery, H., Soussana, J. F., Steinfeld, H., & McAllister, T. A.
(2011). Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions: The importance of getting the numbers
right. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 166-167, 779–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ANIFEEDSCI.2011.04.083
Herrero, M., Henderson, B., Havlík, P., Thornton, P. K., Conant, R. T., Smith, P., Wirsenius, S., Hristov,
A. N., Gerber, P., Gill, M., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Valin, H., Garnett, T., & Stehfest, E. (2016).
Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nature Climate Change, 6(5).
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2925
IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2014). Global Warming Potential Values (tech. rep.). www.ipcc.ch
Jagt, R., & Lestiboudois, S. (2020). Future of Food: responsible waste management. https://www2.
deloitte.com/nl/nl/pages/consumer/articles/food-responsible-waste-management.html
Jukema, G., Ramaekers, P., & Berkhout, P. (2021). De Nederlandse agrarische sector in internationaal
verband - editie 2021 (tech. rep.). https://doi.org/10.18174/538688
Lal, R. (2020). Regenerative agriculture for food and climate. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2020.0620A
LEAD. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow. FAO.
Lesschen, J., van den Berg, M., Westhoek, H., Witzke, H., & Oenema, O. (2011). Greenhouse gas
emission profiles of European livestock sectors. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 166-
167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.058
Mackenzie, S. G., Leinonen, I., Ferguson, N., & Kyriazakis, I. (2016). Towards a methodology to for-
mulate sustainable diets for livestock: Accounting for environmental impact in diet formulation.
British Journal of Nutrition, 115(10), 1860–1874. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114516000763
Maillard, E., & Angers, D. A. (2014). Animal manure application and soil organic carbon stocks: A
meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 20(2), 666–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12438
Makkar, H. P. S. (2016). Animal nutrition in a 360-degree view and a framework for future R&D work:
towards sustainable livestock production. Animal Production Science, 56(10). https://doi.org/
10.1071/AN15265
Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P. R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-
Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., Connors, S., Matthews, J. B. R., Chen, Y., Zhou, X., Gomis,
M. I., Lonnoy, E., Maycock, T., Tignor, M., & Waterfield, T. (2019). Global warming of 1.5∘ C
(tech. rep.). IPCC. www.environmentalgraphiti.org
Mathew, I., Shimelis, H., Mutema, M., & Chaplot, V. (2017). What crop type for atmospheric carbon
sequestration: Results from a global data analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,
243, 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGEE.2017.04.008
Mcsherry, M. E., & Ritchie, M. E. (2013). Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: A global review.
Global Change Biology, 19(5), 1347–1357. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12144
Mogensen, L., Kristensen, T., Nguyen, T. L. T., Knudsen, M. T., & Hermansen, J. E. (2014). Method for
calculating carbon footprint of cattle feeds – including contribution from soil carbon changes
and use of cattle manure. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JCLEPRO.2014.02.023
Nederlandse Zuivel Organizatie (NZO). (2021). Cattle feed. https://www.nzo.nl/en/quality/cattle-feed/
Niles, M. T., Ahuja, R., Esquivel, M. J., Mango, N., Duncan, M., Heller, M., & Tirado, C. (2017). Climate
change (tech. rep.). https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/calsfac
Peters, M., Herrero, M., Fisher, M., Erb, K.-H., Rao, I., Subbarao, G. V., Castro, A., Arango, J., Chara,
J., Murgueitio, E., Van Der Hoek, R., Läderach, P., Hyman, G., Tapasco, J., Strassburg, B.,
Paul, B., Rincón, A., Schultze-Kraft, R., Fonte, S., & Searchinger, T. (2013). Challenges and
opportunities for improving eco-efficiency of tropical forage-based systems to mitigate green-
Bibliography 41
house gas emissions (tech. rep.). www.tropicalgrasslands.infowww.ciat.cgiar.orgwww.jircas.

affrc.go.jpwww.cipav.org.cowww.iis-rio.orgwww.corpoica.org.co
Petrella, A., Spasiano, D., Liuzzi, S., Ayr, U., Cosma, P., Rizzi, V., Petrella, M., & Di Mundo, R. (2019).
Use of cellulose fibers from wheat straw for sustainable cement mortars. Journal of Sustainable
Cement-Based Materials, 8(3), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650373.2018.1534148
Pieter Stokkermans. (2021). CBS: inkrimping veestapel kost miljarden en tienduizenden banen. https:
/ / www . nieuweoogst . nl / nieuws / 2021 / 07 / 06 / cbs - inkrimping - veestapel - kost - miljarden - en -
tienduizenden-banen
Pinotti, L., Luciano, A., Ottoboni, M., Manoni, M., Ferrari, L., Marchis, D., & Tretola, M. (2021). Recy-
cling food leftovers in feed as opportunity to increase the sustainability of livestock production.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 294, 126290. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.126290
Post, P. M., Hogerwerf, L., Bokkers, E. A., Baumann, B., Fischer, P., Rutledge-Jonker, S., Hilderink, H.,
Hollander, A., Hoogsteen, M. J., Liebman, A., Mangen, M. J. J., Manuel, H. J., Mughini-Gras,
L., van Poll, R., Posthuma, L., van Pul, A., Rutgers, M., Schmitt, H., van Steenbergen, J., … de
Boer, I. J. (2020). Effects of Dutch livestock production on human health and the environment.
Science of The Total Environment, 737, 139702. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.
139702
Rasyida, N., Rashid, M., Lip, N. M., Farhayu, F., Salim, M., Kamazan, N. F., Nor, S., & Latib, A. M.
(2020). Feeding blend optmization for livestock by using goal programming approach. Malaysian
Journal of Computing, 5(2), 495–503.
Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2019). Land Use. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
Rojas, C., Cea, M., Iriarte, A., Valdés, G., Navia, R., & Cárdenas-R, J. P. (2019). Thermal insulation
materials based on agricultural residual wheat straw and corn husk biomass, for application in
sustainable buildings. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
susmat.2019.e00102
Rojas-Downing, M. M., Nejadhashemi, A. P., Harrigan, T., & Woznicki, S. A. (2017). Climate change
and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Climate Risk Management, 16, 145–163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CRM.2017.02.001
Sasu-Boakye, Y., Cederberg, C., & Wirsenius, S. (2014). Localising livestock protein feed production
and the impact on land use and greenhouse gas emissions. Animal, 8(8), 1339–1348. https:
//doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114001293
Schomberg, H. H., Fisher, D. S., Reeves, D. W., Endale, D. M., Raper, R. L., Jayaratne, K. S. U., Gam-
ble, G. R., & Jenkins, M. B. (2014). Grazing winter rye cover crop in a cotton no�till System:
Yield and economics. Agronomy Journal, 106(3). https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj13.0434
Shrinivasa, D. J., & Mathur, S. M. (2020). Compound feed production for livestock. https://doi.org/10.
18520/cs/v118/i4/553-559
Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H., Kumar, P., Mccarl, B., Ogle, S., O’mara, F.,
Rice, C., Scholes, B., Sirotenko, O., Howden, M., Mcallister, T., Pan, G., Romanenkov, V.,
Schneider, U., Towprayoon, S., Wattenbach, M., & Smith, J. (2008). Greenhouse gas mitigation
in agriculture. Philisophical transactions of the royal society, 363, 789–813. https://doi.org/10.
1098/rstb.2007.2184
Sommer, R., & Bossio, D. (2014). Dynamics and climate change mitigation potential of soil organic
carbon sequestration. Journal of Environmental Management, 144, 83–87. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.017
Soussana, J. F., Tallec, T., & Blanfort, V. (2009). Mitigating the greenhouse gas balance of ruminant
production systems through carbon sequestration in grasslands. Animal, 4(3), 334–350. https:
//doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109990784
Taelman, S. E., De Meester, S., Van Dijk, W., Da Silva, V., & Dewulf, J. (2015). Environmental sus-
tainability analysis of a protein-rich livestock feed ingredient in The Netherlands: Microalgae
production versus soybean import. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 101, 61–72. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2015.05.013
Tzachor, A. (2019). The future of feed: Integrating technologies to decouple feed production from en-
vironmental impacts. Industrial Biotechnology, 15(2), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1089/ind.2019.
29162.atz
42 Bibliography
Van Der Werf, H. M., Petit, J., & Sanders, J. (2005). The environmental impacts of the production of
concentrated feed: The case of pig feed in Bretagne. Agricultural Systems, 83(2), 153–177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2004.03.005
van der Lee, J., van, K., & Cornelissen, J. (2013). A quick scan of opportunities in livestock production
in nine countries Livestock, the World, and the Dutch (tech. rep.). http://www.livestockresearch.
wur.nl
Van Zanten, H. H., Van Ittersum, M. K., & De Boer, I. J. (2019). The role of farm animals in a circular
food system. Global Food Security, 21, 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.06.003
van Grinsven, H. J., van Eerdt, M. M., Westhoek, H., & Kruitwagen, S. (2019). Benchmarking eco-
efficiency and footprints of Dutch agriculture in European context and implications for policies
for climate and environment. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3. https : / / doi . org / 10 .
3389/fsufs.2019.00013
Vellinga, T. V., Blonk, H., Marinussen, M., Van Zeist, W. J., De Boer, I. J. M., & Starmans, D. (2013).
Methodology used in FeedPrint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed produc-
tion and utilization (tech. rep.). http://www.livestockresearch.wur.nl
Verge, X. P., Dyer, J. A., Worth, D. E., Smith, W. N., Desjardins, R. L., & McConkey, B. G. (2012). A
greenhouse gas and soil carbon model for estimating the carbon footprint of livestock produc-
tion in Canada. Animals, 2(3), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani2030437
Vetter, S. H., Malin, D., Smith, P., & Hillier, J. (2018). The potential to reduce GHG emissions in egg pro-
duction using a GHG calculator – A Cool Farm Tool case study. Journal of Cleaner Production,
202, 1068–1076. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.08.199
von Unger, M., & Emmer, I. (2018). Carbon Market Incentives to Conserve, Restore and Enhance Soil
Carbon (tech. rep.). Silvestrum and The Nature Conservancy. Arlington. www.nature.org
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature
review (tech. rep. No. 2). http://www.misq.org/misreview/announce.html
Weiss, F., & Leip, A. (2012). Greenhouse gas emissions from the EU livestock sector: A life cycle
assessment carried out with the CAPRI model. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 149,
124–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.015
Willett, W., Rockstrom, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T., Tilman,
D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., & and others. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet
Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393, 447–492. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/S0140
World Bank. (2018). Agricultural land (sq. km) - Netherlands. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.
LND.AGRI.K2?end=2018&locations=NL&start=2014
World Bank. (2021). Employment in agriculture (% of total employment). https://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?end=2018&most_recent_year_desc=true&start=1991&type=
shaded&view=chart
Xu, B., Yang, Y., Li, P., Shen, H., & Fang, J. (2014). Global patterns of ecosystem carbon flux in forests:
A biometric data-based synthesis. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 28(9), 962–973. https://doi.
org/10.1002/2013GB004593
Yambi, O., Rocha, C., & Jacobs, N. (2020). Unravelling the food-health nexus to build healthier food
systems. Hidden hunger and the transformation of food systems. Karger Publishers. https :
//doi.org/10.1159/000507497
Zomer, R. J., Bossio, D. A., Sommer, R., & Verchot, L. V. (2017). Global Sequestration Potential of
Increased Organic Carbon in Cropland Soils. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598- 017-
15794-8

Literature Study Julia Russell Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Literature Study Julia Russell Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J. N. M.

Carbon balancing in the

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Student number: 4451538

1.1. The future of food

1.2. Problem definition

Figure 1.1: Overview of sources of GHG emissions

1.3. Research objectives

1.4. Research questions

Four sub-questions are formulated to obtain an answer to the research question.

1.5. Scope of the research

1.6. Outline of the report

2.1. The market size of Dutch livestock industry

Livestock Number of livestock (x1000)

Figure 2.1: Evolution of cattle in the Netherlands (CBS, 2021)

In Figure 2.2 the evolution of the numbers of pigs is shown.

Figure 2.2: Evolution of pigs in the Netherlands (CBS, 2021)

Figure 2.3: Evolution of poultry in the Netherlands (CBS, 2021)

2.2. Emissions in Dutch livestock industry

Figure 2.4: Flow chart livestock industry

GHG GWP value

Figure 2.5: GHG emissions of the livestock industry per category

3.1. Import of feed

3.2. Feed production

3.3. Feed compositions

Figure 3.4: Wet-milling of maize (FAO, 2016)

Cereals Country of origin

Figure 3.5: Crushing of soy (FAO, 2016)

3.4. Objectives for feed composition

Table 3.2: Literature matrix optimization of feed compositions

Optimize against environmental sustainability

Investigate optimized feed composition

Optimize against nutritional values

4.1. Greenhouse gas emissions

Figure 4.1: Supply chain from crop production to feed processing

4.1.1. Crop production

Figure 4.2: Sources of GHG emissions during crop production

Land-use and land-use change

Pesticides and fertilizers

4.1.2. Transport and storage

Figure 4.3: Sources of GHG emissions during transport and storage

4.1.3. Feed production

Figure 4.4: Sources of GHG emissions during feed production

4.3. Greenhouse gas capturing

4.3.1. Regenerative agriculture

SOC stocks forests

4.4. Impact of climate change on feed production

Table 4.1: Concept matrix literature study

Elaborate on emissions of livestock feed

Emissions from land-use change (LUC)

Link emissions to feed composition

Figure 4.8: Current situation feed production

Figure 4.9: Future situation feed production

5.1. GHG emissions assessment model

5.2. Trend analysis

Table 5.1: Concept matrix literature study

Optimize against environmental sustainability

Emissions from land-use change (LUC)

Investigate optimized feed composition

Optimize against nutritional values

Optimize against cost

2021 Pinotti et al. * * * * * *