Carbon and Water Footprints of ABP Derived Products
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.
Why This Study Matters
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).
Research Partner
Mérieux NutriSciences | Blonk conducted the LCA research using primary data from EFPRA members.
Data Scope
48 production lines of EFPRA members, covering the period 2020–2022.
Database
Results are available in the Global Feed LCA Institute (GFLI) database — an independent, industry-wide initiative.
"EFPRA wanted to show how rendered products can assist the animal-based food supply chain to reach its sustainability goals."
Carbon Footprint: Key Findings
The results of the study are very positive for feed ingredients made from ABPs, particularly regarding 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 plant-based protein sources amplifies the carbon footprint benefit. All figures are based on economic allocation using the ReCiPe 2016 methodology.
Protein Meals — CO₂ Impact
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 than soybean meal (7.22 kg CO₂ eq / tonne).
Animal Fats — CO₂ Impact
The climate change impact of animal fats ranges 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 soybean oils and palm oils, which range from 3.97 – 6.42 kg CO₂ eq / tonne.
The charts below compare the climate change impact of protein meals and fats/oils from ABPs against plant-based alternatives. ABP-derived products consistently demonstrate a useful carbon footprint profile.
Carbon Footprint of Protein Meals
Carbon Footprint of Fats and Oils
Carbon footprint comparison of fats and oils per kg of product (kg CO₂ eq / tonne). Animal fats from ABPs are competitive with rapeseed oil and substantially lower than palm and soybean oils.
Water Footprint Analysis
"Freshwater is a scarce resource, which cannot be replaced by other resources."
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. Water footprints vary more by product but are broadly in the same range as plant-based comparators.
PAPs & Meals
6.56–15.26
Litres of water per kg for processed animal proteins and meals.
Fats & Oils
17.79–24.4
Litres of water per kg for ABP-derived fats and oils — a higher range than meals.
Rendering
0.49–4.66
Litres per kg attributable solely to the rendering process — 7%–67% of total impact depending on the product.
Water use comparison of animal protein and plant-based meals on a protein basis. Rapeseed meal has a lower water footprint than rendered meals, while soybean meal has a higher water footprint. For oils, most plant-based options have lower water footprints than rendered oils, except for crude soybean oil.
Total Water Use (per kg ABP derived product from cradle to exit)
Water Use – Animal Protein and Plant-based Meals
Limitations & Study Context
Data Quality
The data collected for EFPRA is considered of high quality, based on primary information from the rendering industry. The vegetable alternatives are derived from a commercial LCA database, largely relying on secondary information. There is therefore an uncertainty regarding the representativeness of the plant-based alternatives.