Environmental impact of meat meal fertilizer vs. chemical fertilizer

J. Spångberg, P.-A. Hansson, P. Tidåker and H. Jönsson

Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 2011, vol. 55, issue 11, 1078-1086

Abstract: Animal by-products (ABP) are rich in nutrients and energy. This LCA study assessed and compared the environmental impact of using meat meal as fertilizer with that of using chemical fertilizer. In one system the nutrient content of ABP Category 2 was recovered and used as a meat meal fertilizer on arable land, replacing chemical fertilizers. In the other system a chemical fertilizer was used and the energy content of the ABP material recovered. The functional unit consisted of one kg of harvested spring wheat and treatment of 0.59kg of ABP Category 2. The system for nutrient recovery and chemical fertilizer replacement had lower emissions of greenhouse gases and acidification than the energy recovery system, but had higher total use of energy and eutrophying emissions. Overall, the results of the study greatly depended on the fuels replaced.

Keywords: Chemical fertilizer; Energy recovery; LCA; Meat meal; Organic fertilizer (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2011
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344911001285
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:recore:v:55:y:2011:i:11:p:1078-1086

DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.06.002

Access Statistics for this article

Resources, Conservation & Recycling is currently edited by Ming Xu

More articles in Resources, Conservation & Recycling from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kai Meng ().