MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392059571 · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2024.02.023

A review of life cycle impacts of different pathways for converting food waste into livestock feed

2024· review· en· W4392059571 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Production and Consumption · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Waste Reduction and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEgg Farmers of Canada
KeywordsLife-cycle assessmentLivestockContext (archaeology)ScrutinyFood wasteScale (ratio)Environmental impact assessmentBusinessEnvironmental economicsProduction (economics)Environmental scienceEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementEngineeringWaste managementGeographyPolitical scienceEconomicsBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of direct valorization of food waste to livestock feed has garnered increasing attention as a potential solution to reduce the significant environmental impacts of both food waste disposal and livestock production. Much of that interest lies in the arena of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) since it is the preferred approach to evaluate the systems-level environmental performance of agri-food systems. It remains unclear, however, which specific substrate types and technologies should be prioritized for detailed LCA scrutiny under various regional and socio-economic contexts. This review aims to contribute towards filling this knowledge gap by synthesizing existing literature on the topic, identifying areas of improvement, and suggesting priority future research directions. Towards that end, 27 relevant research articles found through a keyword search and shortlisted using the PRISMA method and specific exclusion criteria were reviewed. The results showed that mixed food waste from households, supermarkets, and restaurants was the most studied substrate. A majority (56 %) of the studies either investigated a theoretical assumption-based system or did not include any information at all regarding the technology readiness of their studied system. Six of the seven commercial-scale facilities found in the review were from Asia, reflecting the supportive regulatory environments in this context. The majority of the studies identifying monogastrics as the target species indicated the valorized feed to be incomplete and requiring conventional feed supplementation. The review highlighted the substrate drying process as the largest contributor to the life cycle environmental impacts of food waste to feed valorization, accounting for up to 94 % of Global Warming Potential (GWP) burdens. Specific hotspot mitigation measures were discussed, such as adopting renewable energy sources, energy recycling, and more efficient substrate drying technology. Several LCA-specific issues were also highlighted in this review, such as ambiguity regarding the selection of impact categories, reporting single score results, or using uncommon units. Based on these findings, the review highlights the need for more LCA studies on commercial scale food waste to feed valorization systems, the need to further explore the impacts of avoided landfill emissions, and conduct more holistic assessments taking into account infrastructure availability and techno-economic viability.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it