Mr. Allan Stokes - The Sustainable Pork Framework
•Als PPSX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•663 views
The Sustainable Pork Framework - Mr. Allan Stokes, Director of Environmental Programs, National Pork Board, from the 2015 NIAA Annual Conference titled 'Water and the Future of Animal Agriculture', March 23 - March 26, 2015, Indianapolis, IN, USA. More presentations at http://www.trufflemedia.com/agmedia/conference/2015_niaa_water_future_animal_ag
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (9)
Ähnlich wie Mr. Allan Stokes - The Sustainable Pork Framework
Ähnlich wie Mr. Allan Stokes - The Sustainable Pork Framework (20)
Mehr von John Blue
Mehr von John Blue (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Mr. Allan Stokes - The Sustainable Pork Framework
- 1. The Sustainable Pork NIAA Swine Committee March 24, 2015 Allan Stokes Director Environmental Programs National Pork Board
- 2. Points to Consider… • World population 9 -10 Billion by 2050 • To keep up with population growth global food production will need to increase 70% - 80% by 2050 • To keep up with population growth more food will have to be produced in the next 50 years as the past 10,000 years combined. 2
- 3. Points to Consider… There are limitations to emissions reductions in the agriculture sector particularly because of the role of the sector in providing food for a global population that is expected to continue to grow in the coming decades. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect emissions reductions in terms of improvements in efficiency rather than absolute reductions in GHG emissions. Challenges and opportunities for mitigation in the agricultural sector United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Technical Report, 21 November 2008 FCCC/TP/2008/8 Policies & Measures – pages 7 & 8
- 4. Protecting the Environment Safeguarding the environment comes naturally to America’s pork producers because we understand our inherent responsibility to future generations. 4
- 5. Protecting the Environment • 153 Research projects ($7.5 Million) funded 5
- 6. Protecting the Environment • National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS) – Two-year study (2007-2009) – U.S. EPA designed, directed, and supervised • Pork, dairy, eggs & broilers – Conducted by Purdue University – Industry funded - $5 Million - Pork – 11 Monitoring sites in 4 states • North Carolina (4) • Indiana (2) • Iowa (2) • Oklahoma (3) – ALL data provided directly to U.S. EPA 6
- 7. Protecting the Environment • Doing What’s Right - We Care℠ – Produce Safe Food ‒ Protect And Promote Animal Well-Being ‒ Ensure Practices to Protect Public Health ‒ Safeguard Natural Resources In All Of Their Practices ‒ Provide A Work Environment That Is Safe ‒ Contribute To A Better Quality Of Life In Their Communities 7
- 8. Protecting the Environment • Addressing a Changing Marketplace – Consumers more removed from production agriculture – Consumers concerned about food quality, environment, animal welfare & health impacts associated with modern agriculture – Increased media coverage of food production issues & increased pressure from special interest groups – Agriculture & America’s pork producers need to maintain & enhance consumer trust 8
- 9. Protecting the Environment • Benefits to Producers ‒ Improved management efficiency ‒ Reduced input costs ‒ Potential new revenue sources from energy or byproducts 9
- 10. 50 Years of Progress: 1959-2009 • Hogs marketed increased 29% • Breeding herd decreased 39% • Over 2X carcass wt. produced/sow/per • Feed efficiency improved 33% / lb. carcass wt. • Water use reduced 41%/lb. carcass wt. • Total land use reduced 59% ‒ 78%/lb. carcass wt. • Carbon footprint reduced 35%/lb. carcass wt. 10 A 50-Year Comparison of the Carbon Footprint and Resource Use of the US Swine Herd: 1959 – 2009 - May 2012 Garth Boyd, Ph.D., CAMCO & Roger Cady, Ph.D., Elanco
- 11. Four Pillars of Environmental Sustainability Environmental Sustainability Program Air Footprint 2014 Carbon Footprint 2011 Water Footprint 2013 Land Footprint 2014 11 Air Emissions Dust, Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide Greenhouse Gas Methane, Nitrous Oxide, CO2 Land Use Include Feed Crops Water Use
- 12. Four Pillars of Environmental Sustainability • University of Arkansas Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability • 3 Phase Approach – Literature Review – Scan Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) - Pork Chain • Across entire pork chain - “field to fork” • Understand pig production relative contribution – Detailed Life-cycle Assessment – Pig Production • Focus on pig production - “field to farm gate” • Understand details of live pig production contribution 12
- 13. Four Pillars of Environmental Sustainability • Goal – Pork Supply Chain Scan Level LCA • Based on 1 serving (4 oz.) boneless pork to U.S. consumer – Detailed Live Swine Production LCA • Based on 1 pound live weight sent to harvest • Scope – Field to Finished Product • Include fuels • Exclude infrastructure (buildings/equipment/etc.) 13
- 14. Pork’s Carbon Footprint Swine 0.35% Other Livestock 2.77% Human Waste Systems 2.46% All Other Sources 94.42% U.S. Greenhouse Gas Sources Source: Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990- 2009 - Feb. 15, 2011 14
- 15. Pork’s Carbon Footprint • 2.87 Lb. CO2e / Lb. Live Wt. – At Farm Gate – 3.8 Lb. CO2e / Lb. Dressed Carcass Wt. – At Farm Gate • 2.48 Lb. CO2e/4 oz. boneless serving-Field-to-Fork including Feed crop production – On-farm use – Transportation – Processing & packaging – Retail contributions – Consumer consumption and – Disposal of unused pork & packaging National Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Study for Production of US Swine - May 2011 Thoma, Nutter, Ulrich, Maxwell, Frank & East – University of Arkansas Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability
- 16. Pork’s Carbon Footprint National Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Study for Production of US Swine - May 2011 Thoma, Nutter, Ulrich, Maxwell, Frank & East – University of Arkansas 5.6% 1.3% 62.1% 7.5% 23.5% 15% 42% 40% 3%
- 17. Pork’s Water Footprint • 18.38-18.94 Gal./Lb. Live Wt. – At Farm Gate • 8.2 Gal./4 oz. boneless serving - Field-to-Fork including: – Feed crop production – On-farm use – Transportation – Processing & packaging – Retail contributions – Consumer consumption and – Disposal of unused pork & packaging A Life Cycle Analysis of Water Use in U.S. Pork Production - Comprehensive Report – May 2014 Matlock, Thoma, Boles, Leh, Sandefur, Bautista & Ulrich – University of Arkansas Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability
- 18. Field to Fork Water Footprint Swine Rations, 84% Swine Farm, 13% Processing, 0.30% Live Transport, 0.10% Packaging, 0.70% Retail, 1.50% Per 4 oz. serving based on commodity feed A Life Cycle Analysis of Water Use in U.S. Pork Production - Comprehensive Report – May 2014 Matlock, Thoma, Boles, Leh, Sandefur, Bautista & Ulrich – University of Arkansas Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability
- 19. Field to Farm Gate Water Footprint Ration Footprint 89.6 On-Farm Footprint 10.4 A Life Cycle Analysis of Water Use in U.S. Pork Production - Comprehensive Report – May 2014 Matlock, Thoma, Boles, Leh, Sandefur, Bautista & Ulrich – University of Arkansas Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability
- 20. On-farm Water Footprint Drinking, 87% Cooling, 6% Wash, 5% Other, 2% A Life Cycle Analysis of Water Use in U.S. Pork Production - Comprehensive Report – May 2014 Matlock, Thoma, Boles, Leh, Sandefur, Bautista & Ulrich – University of Arkansas Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability
- 22. Sustainable Pork Framework America’s pork producers are taking public trust to the next level with their Pork Checkoff investment in research and efforts to develop an overall sustainable pork framework for pork producers. 22
- 23. Sustainable Pork Framework 1. Define “sustainability” in pig production 2. Define Key Performance Indicators (KPI) 3. Define impact metrics for each KPI 4. Benchmark performance for each metric 5. Develop and adopt goals for improvement across each metric 6. Implement improvement strategies 7. Measure each metric using best scientific methods at prescribed frequencies 8. Report results 9. Adjust and adapt practices as necessary 23
- 24. Sustainable Pork Advisory Council • 28 Invitees ̶ Restaurants ̶ Food Service ̶ Retail ̶ Packer - Processors ̶ Pork Producers • Third-party Facilitation & Technical Support ̶ Dr. Marty Matlock, University of Arkansas Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability • Addressing Pig Production Only • Provide Recommendations to National Pork Board Board of Directors 24
- 25. Narrative Definition “Showing how We Care: Doing more to benefit people, pigs, and the environment (planet)” Healthy pigs produce healthy pork for consumers. Our We Care℠ principles provide standards and training programs that help responsible farmers succeed by doing the right thing for people, pigs, and the environment. We invite you to join us in our commitment to the following values: – Protecting public health through a commitment to farm and food safety; – Protecting & promoting animal well-being with farmer-led standards and training programs; – Safeguarding natural resources in all of our practices through our Four Pillars of Environmental Sustainability; – Improving the work environment and best practices through continuous research and education; and – Contributing to a better quality of life in our communities.
- 26. Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) • Human Health & Safety • Animal Care & Welfare • Environmental Stewardship • Economic Integrity 26
- 27. Key Performance Indicators (KPI) & Metrics Human Health & Safety Animal Care & Welfare Environmental Stewardship Economic Integrity Employee Relations PQA+/TQA Air Quality Community & Neighbor Relations Employee Retention Energy Use Community Economic Benefit Employee Safety & Health GHG Emissions Consumer Confidence Food Safety Land Use Product Quality Biosecurity Nutrient Management Production Efficiency Food Security Water Use Profitability Product Integrity Water Quality Value Chain Collaboration
- 28. Metrics Points Under Development • SMART (specific, measureable, achievable, relevant, & time bound) • Science-based & technology neutral • Outcome-based & only practice-based if measurement of outcomes is impractical • Non-prescriptive & flexible toward practices • Cost implications & savings opportunities are considered • Useful to producers and stakeholders • Producers can benchmark and compare operations 28
- 29. KPI Metric Points - Human Health & Safety • Days Away, Restricted or Transferred (DART) • Worker Injury Incidence Rate • Workers Compensation Costs – Per Employee & – Per Pig Raised • Violative Residues In Market Hogs – Sow/boars & roaster pigs • Medication & Treatment Records – Measuring producers who have medication & treatment records 29
- 30. KPI Metric Points - Animal Welfare • Caretaker Training – Caretakers able to articulate or demonstrate training specific to their daily duties – All caretakers PQA Plus Certified within 6 months of hire and maintain certification while employed – Caretakers responsible for euthanasia have documented training & familiar with site euthanasia plan • Timely Euthanasia – Animals are euthanized in timely manner as defined in common audit standard • Welfare Audit Scores – Total animal welfare score on common industry audit 30
- 31. KPI Metric Points - Environmental Stewardship • Carbon Footprint – Lb. CO2e/Lb. live weight at farm gate • Water Use Footprint – Gal./Lb. live weight at farm gate • Land Use Footprint – Acre/Lb. live weight at farm gate • Energy Use – Purchased on-farm barn electricity & gas use/Lb. live weight 31
- 32. KPI Metric Points - Economic Integrity • Sow Lifetime Productivity – Pigs Per Productive Sow Lifetime • Mortality Rate – Pre-weaning, nursery & grow finish • Grow Finish Caloric Efficiency – Calories/Lb. of gain • Assess Consumer Perceptions & Attitudes Toward Pork – Annual tracking study • Increase Pork's U.S. Market Share vs Beef & Chicken – Increase Pork's Market Share of Real Per Capita Expenditures in U.S. 32
- 33. Sustainable Pork Framework • Define “Sustainability” • Define Key Performance Indicators (KPI) • Define critical impact metrics for each KPI • Benchmark performance for each metric • Develop and adopt goals for improvement across each metric • Measure each metric using best scientific methods at prescribed frequencies • Implement improvement strategies • Report results • Adjust and adapt practices as necessary
- 34. Questions? 34
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Contrary to popular belief, sustainable production may not mean a reduction in total impacts on the environment. This is especially true when talking about food production given that the U.N and others are predicting that total global food production will need to nearly double by 2050 to feed a global population that will grow to 9 Billion people. As pointed out in this statement from a U.N technical report of November 2008 – the goal should be a reduction in the environmental burden on a per unit of food produced basis.
- America’s Pork Producers have been stewards of the land and natural resources for generations
- This does not include the $5 million for the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study on next slide.
- The $5 million for this study is in addition to the normal research bnudget reflected on previous slide
- Addressing sustainability issues is a key underlying tenet of pork producer’s commitment to the industry’s We Care ethical principles.
- It is a continuing demonstration of pork producers on-going efforts at continuing to provide customers and consumers with the highest quality food at an affordable cost and in ways that are responsible and ethical as informed by the best science available.
- Identifying and implementing more efficient management options can result in lowered input costs as well as improved environmental performance.
- The National Pork Board funded an independent study to compare the environmental impacts of modern pork production methods (2009) to that of 1959. This 50 Year Comparison Study clearly documented that the pork industry has been proactively achieving the goal articulated by the U.N (previous slide) for reducing environmental impacts based on unit of pork produced.
- Beginning in 2009 the National Pork Board began developing The 4 Pillars of Environmental Sustainability that looks at the environmental impacts of live pig production from the standpoint of carbon, water, air and land footprints. These four pillars have guided the research and program development efforts of the National Pork Board’s Environment Committee for the past 5 years. These efforts are consistent with furthering the We Care ethical principles, responding to marketplace expectations & demands both domestically and internationally, helping to improve producer efficiency to lower their cost of production, and providing information and tools to help preserve producers freedom to operate.
- We have already completed a full life cycle assessment of the U.S. Pork industry’s carbon footprint and know what the relative contribution of the live pig production portion of the pork chain compared to the total pork chain (bar on left). We also know where the various components of the live pig carbon footprint come from (bar on right). This will help us focus future research to develop new tools (practices & technology) that producers may consider for use on their farms to not only improve their environmental performance but also their bottom line production costs. Carbon footprints = energy use (feed is an energy source for pigs) = $$$$$$. More efficient operations can reduce costs as well as emissions.
- As each of these efforts is completed, they will be added to the already existing Pig Production Environmental Footprint Calculator. This tool helps producers understand the impact different management practices can have on their environmental footprint and their cost impacts. Producers install and run the program on their own computers. Producer inputs into the system are strictly confidential. No information or data is shared with outside sources unless the producer chooses to do so on their own.
- An outline of an overall sustainability framework has been crafted including 8 general components or steps.
- National Pork Board Formed a Sustainable Pork Advisory Council to provide recommendations to the Board on a definitional statement of what we mean when we talk about sustainable pork and how we measure progress. 28 People invited to participate including the NPB President, CEO and ALL Committee Chairs; NPPC President & CEO; representatives of packer/processors (Tyson, Smithfield, Seaboard, Excel & JBS); representatives of retail (Walmart, Ahold, Kroger, Wegmans & FMI); Representatives of Food Service & Restaurants (SYSCO, Dardens, McDonalds & Nat’l. Restaurant Association) It was clarified early on that the work of this council was purely advisory to the National Pork Board – Board of Directors and that they were only addressing the live pig production portion of the pork chain. 2 Meetings held (March 2013 & August 3013) with primary focus on Definitional Statement. Statement proposed by council was reviewed by external communications consultants as to resonance with external consumer audiences. Consultant recommended modifications which were further refined by council at their second meeting.
- Both the Tag Line or short form statement of sustainability and the long-form narrative have been carefully crafted by the advisory council and tested by communications experts for its resonance and impact on non-pork producer audiences.
- Key Performance Indicator Categories and potential critical metric points have been suggested. If the concepts are embraced / approved by the Pork Board the actual critical metric points to be used going forward will be crafted/suggested by the relevant technical/program committees of the National pork Board. It is anticipated that this will be an iterative process.
- Guidance to committees for developing KPI’s and Critical metric Points is also provided. Once KPI’s and CM’s are crafted and approved a “sustainability measurement and reporting system “ (SMRS) will be developed along with protocols for reporting results on a periodic basis both within and outside the pork producer industry.
- Aspirational goals for the Key Performance Indicator Metrics have been included in the Pork Board’s 2015-2020 Strategic Plan