Case Study 3

EFPRA commissioned carbon and water footprint studies of products derived from animal by-products (ABPs) used as feed ingredients. The studies compare meals, fats and oils made from ABPs with plant-based sources of fat and protein used for feed.

Using nutritious fats, oils and proteins derived from ABPs in feed is the optimal use of ABPs, in line with European food waste hierarchy and circular economy policies. Feed manufacturers and the whole livestock value chain from farm-to-fork also consider other environmental indicators when assessing the sustainability of their operations. A key indicator is the carbon and water footprints of their feed ingredients which can be calculated by life cycle assessments (LCA).

The LCA research was carried out by Mérieux NutriSciences | Blonk using data from 48 production lines of EFPRA members from 2020 – 2022. The results are available in the Global Feed LCA Institute (GFLI) database, an independent industry wide initiative to quantify the environmental impact of feed ingredients.

The results of the study are very positive for feed ingredients made from ABPs, particularly the carbon footprint. Animal fats, oils and meals have a lower carbon footprint than widely-used imported plant-based feed ingredients such as palm oil and soybean meal. The higher protein content of Processed Animal Proteins (PAPs) compared to plantbased protein sources amplifies the carbon footprint benefit. Water footprints vary more by product but are in the same range as the plant-based comparators.

Figures 1 and 2 compare the climate change impact of protein and fat from ABPs with plant-based alternatives. Protein meals derived from ABPs produce 0.79 – 2.14 kg CO2 eq / tonne depending on the product. This is similar to rapeseed meal (1.54 kg CO2 eq / tonne) and much lower that soybean meal (7.22 kg CO2 eq / tonne).

The climate change impact of animal fats range from 1.56 – 3.44 kg CO2 eq / tonne. This is similar to rapeseed oil (2.08 kg CO2 eq / tonne) and much lower than imported options like soybeans oils and palm oils which range from 3.97 – 6.42 kg CO2 eq / tonne.

Soybean and oil palm cultivation is associated with deforestation activities in Southeast Asia and South America over the past 20 years and is reflected by the relatively high contribution of land use change (LUC) to climate change impact. The plant-based alternatives include a large share of the agricultural activities associated to their production. This is not the case for ABP based products, where most of the agriculture and animal farming impact is allocated to fresh meat production.

All figures are based on economic allocation using the ReCiPe 2016 methodology.

For many agricultural and industrial processes a significant amount of water is used, either for irrigation, cooling or washing. The LCA study of ABP derived products covers water use until the end of the rendering process. Figure 3 shows the water footprint expressed as litres of water per kg of ABP derived product.

Water use ranges from 6.56 – 15.26 litres / kg for PAPs and meals whilst the range is higher (17.79 – 24.4 litres / kg) for fats and oils. The “rendering only” contribution varies from 0.49 – 4.66 litres / kg and is between 7% – 67% of the total impact, depending on the product.