Search

International audience; Aim Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is often used to claim sustainability in food innovation projects. Sometimes, its power is overestimated by stakeholders when define their expectations leading to deceptions and possible mistakes. Sometimes, its capacities are underestimated and LCA is not part of the innovation process but only used for a posteriori validation. This is emphasized by the increasing diversity of innovations (e.g. technological/organisational) and the expansion of LCA in response to this diversity (e.g. organisational/territorial LCA). Facing with the diversity of innovations in Fairchain EU project, we aim to analyse what should reasonably be expected from LCA for each of the 5 case studies (CS) of agrifood value chains. Method By crossing initial expectations of CS stakeholders with potentialities of LCA and first results, we expect to answer the following questions: (1) is LCA suitable to help meeting the claimed sustainability objectives, (2) is it suitable to assess the consequences of their realisation and (3) how LCA should be supplemented or adapted to fulfil these objectives. By doing this on various CS, we define recommendations of usage of LCA by food innovators giving them information on what they can expect – or not – from LCA, in what conditions (e.g. supplemented with other methods). Results Based on Fairchain CS, we discuss LCA capacities and requirements to meet the expectations of stakeholders and the role they should play into LCA process. It comes to recommendations such as, for example, (i) defining adequately the goal and scope of the study in order to produce fair comparisons between current situations, generally optimized, and future situations, non-optimized during development of the innovation and (ii) complementing LCA by other methods when insufficient to evaluate all the environmental impacts, and furthermore the sustainability. Conclusion LCA is a powerful method with multiple possibilities when being involved in research and innovation of food projects. However, initial expectations and choices can lead to impaired usages (missing opportunities, asking wrong questions, not giving answers, giving wrong answers, greenwashing). Based on innovation CS, this work aims to well involve LCA and stakeholders during a project.

National audience; The emergence of the notion of sustainable development has led to a shift from single-criterion-oriented evaluations to more integrated assessments covering the different dimensions of livestock performance: economics, social, health, welfare and the environment. Many methodological questions arise from the confrontation of these dimensions which have different measurement scales. How to support the evolution of livestock systems with a multicriteria assessment? How to well define the purposes of the evaluation? How to manage the multiplicity of information? How to interpret a set of indicators together when they take opposite values? Which tools to mobilize? Should we use or create our own assessment tools? Livestock farming with its multiple stakes at different scales herd, farm and territory, is particularly concerned with these issues. The participation of the actors in the evaluation process is also a question to be decided: are they co-designers of the method, validators, surveyors or only recipients of the results? These different elements will lead to the definition of the best methods of mathematical data processing. This data processing is intimately linked to how the results are represented and how they are used. This paper discusses the different uses of multicriteria evaluations applied to livestock systems and the key methodological points.; L’apparition de la notion de développement durable a conduit à un passage des évaluations orientées selon un seul critère vers des évaluations plus intégrées couvrant différentes dimensions de la performance des élevages : l’économie, le social, le sanitaire, le bien être, l’environnement. De nombreuses questions méthodologiques sont posées par la confrontation de ces différentes dimensions avec leurs échelles de mesure propres. Comment accompagner l’évolution des systèmes d’élevage avec une évaluation multicritère ? Comment bien définir les finalités de l’évaluation ? Comment gérer la multiplicité des informations ? Comment interpréter un ensemble d’indicateurs conjointement lorsqu’ils prennent des valeurs opposées ? Quels outils mobiliser ? Faut-il utiliser ou créer ses propres outils d’évaluation ? L’élevage avec ses enjeux multiples qui s’étagent entre les niveaux des ateliers, des filières et des territoires est particulièrement concerné par ces questions. La participation des acteurs dans la démarche d’évaluation est aussi une question à trancher, sont-ils co-concepteurs de la méthode, validateurs, enquêtés ou seulement destinataires des résultats ? Ces différents éléments conduiront à définir les meilleures méthodes de traitement mathématique des données. Ce traitement des données est intimement lié au mode de représentation des résultats et de leur utilisation. Cet article aborde les différents usages des évaluations multicritères appliquées aux systèmes d’élevage et les points méthodologiques clefs à respecter.

Despite the common use of oxygen supplementation in fish farms to maintain oxygen level around normoxia, the long-term effects of this practice on zootechnical performance has been extensively described but there is a lack of data concerning fish quality. Rainbow trout were reared in freshwater, from 12 g to 400 g, at three oxygen levels (76 ± 4, 98 ± 14 and 117 ± 12% saturation, mean ± standard deviation) in order to assess the influence of long-term oxygen exposure on fish carcass quality traits in 2 m3 tanks. At the end of the 18 weeks experiment, no effect of oxygen level on fish weight and morphometric traits (condition factor, fish height and width) was observed. No significant effect of oxygen level was measured on carcass yield, viscero-somatic index, nor on hepato-somatic index. In fish reared at 117% oxygen saturation, fillet yields was higher than in the 76% group (+ 2.6%) and concomitantly there was a higher development of red muscle (+ 8.4%). Thus oxygen level was shown to affect carcass quality, but the biological basis of this effect remains to be elucidated.