"Nose-to-tail" meat consumption, carbon footprint and mass allocation vs economic allocation
I have a puzzle to solve.
I help caterers to see the environmental impact of their menus, and up til now have been using mass allocation for carbon footprints - in other words, the cut of meat has been irrelevant, but the animal it came from is the defining factor. However, the "nose-to-tail" food movement is providing me with an interesting challenge. There are a number of good arguments for eating less trendy bits of the animal (which we don't need to go into here) and I am aware that mass allocation does not deal with this as well as it might. 90% of the time it is not relevant (90% of restaurants do not use less trendy cuts!), but I have one restaurant that uses pigs trotters and we feel they could promote them as a more sustainable choice than, for example, a tenderloin steak. Whilst pork does arguable have a lower impact (and certainly carbon footprint) than beef, even on mass allocation, is it possible to use economic allocation here?
Anyone know of good research data?
I have found one paper (Sustainability 2012, 4 3280) - quote "based on an economic allocation, the carbon footprints of meat (primal cuts), hide, offal and fat, bones and other products for rendering were 19.6, 12.3, 7 and 2 kg CO2e per kg of product, respectively"... but this does not really help with "nose-to-tail" meat consumption, and it opens the question "where do you draw the line, and what happens if pigs trotters become really popular and start commanding a higher price / economic value"...
Any help and advice much appreciated!