Product in - FIL IDF Summilk - IDF World Dairy Summit 2011

wds2011.com

Product in - FIL IDF Summilk - IDF World Dairy Summit 2011

A feed database for

livestock systems

An improvement of CFP calculations for livestock systems

Theun Vellinga, Wageningen UR Livestock Research

Hans Blonk, Blonk Milieu Advies


Feed is important in GHG emissions !

GHG dairy Fraction (%) Source

CH4 45 – 50 Enteric fermentation, Manure

N2O 20 – 35 Manure, Feed

CO2 15 – 35 Feed

GHG

monogastrics

Fraction (%) Source

CH4 5 – 10 Enteric fermentation, Manure

N2O 40 – 55 Manure, Feed

CO2 35 – 55 Feed

30 - 35 %

65 - 70 %


Standards in alignment of GHG calculations

ISO 14000/14044

PAS2050, British Standards Institute

Both general guidelines on LCA

IPCC Guidelines for National Inventory Reports

No LCA, GHG guidelines, strict sectoral approach

IDF Guide to standard LCA, bulletin 445/2010

Combining LCA and GHG guidelines

Production chain approach

Specific for the dairy sector


(Inter) National activities

FAO’s global GHG of livestock systems 2009 –

2011

JRC-report GGELS 2011

Agribalyse (FR)

Sustainability consortium (USA/Europe)

LEARN (New Zealand)

Hundreds of detailed studies

....

Production chain approach

Combining LCA and GHG


The project

“Carbon Footprint Animal Nutrition”


Scope of the CFPAN project

Strategic goals:

insight in GHG emissions

production chain of animal feed and from feed utilization;

identify potential mitigation options

not for use in carbon labelling !!

Operational goals:

Elaborate methodology: scientific sound, international alignment

Develop robust database

Develop calculation tool including animal nutrition

Database and tool are public available


Life Cycle Assessment in livestock systems

ISO and others prescribe how to define:

System Borders

Functional Units

Allocation rules

Livestock systems:

diffuse sources, biological processes

simulation models and calculation rules required

Data requirement


The proof of the pudding is in the eating !

Cultivation

Feed database

Animal products

Processing

Feed mill

Transport and storage

CFP Feed

Nutritional quality

Farm

Nutrition/production

Housing

Manure storage

Other emissions

output input output

CFP Life Weight/Milk/Eggs

Other emissions


Data collection


Pedigree matrix (after Ecoinvent)

Reliability:

measurement (1) – non-qualified estimate (5)

Completeness:

representative for the process considered (1) – unknown (5)

Temporal correlation:

time gap < 3 years (1) – age unknown or more than 15 years difference (5)

Geographic correlation:

data from area under study (1) –unknown area or distinctly different (5)

Further technical correlation:

data from enterprises (1) –processes on lab scale or different technology

(5)


Data on plant raw materials: 5 * C

Crops

E.g wheat: winter/summer, consumption/feed

Countries of sourcing (> 80-90 %),

Distinction on- and off-farm production

Cultivation

Tillage – no tillage

Cultivars

GMO – non GMO

Conventional (or organic)

Covering the Dutch feed list (95 %)


Data collection plant raw materials

Yield (kg/ha) and dry matter content

Nutrients: N, P, K, energy (GE, ME, NE)

Crop residues

Inputs:

Synthetic fertilizer (N, P, K)

Manure

Pesticides

Seeds

Cultivation

Land Use and Land Use Change (LULUC)


Processing plant and animal products

Product in:

Mass

Dry matter

C, N, P

= 100

Processing

(split up in

1 – 4 sub

processes)

Co product 1 out:

Mass, DM, C, N, P, GE, €

Co product 2 out:

Mass, DM, C, N, P, GE, €

Co product n out:

Mass, DM, C, N, P, GE, €

Co products total out:

Mass, DM, C, N, P

= 100

€ total


Data analysis and interpretation

Multiple values, expert judgement:

• Pedigree matrix is helpful in decisions on average values

• Confidentiality interval, uncertainty

• Uniform, normal or lognormal distribution

Wide variation between companies and countries

In case of lack of data: standard procedure for defaults

e.g. MEXALCA


Calculating emissions


Allocation in processing and livestock production

Allocation does not change emissions

Prevent to put effort in the “blame game”

Preferred approach in feed: economic allocation

Show other options: mass, gross energy

Show embedded (allocated) emissions

What enters “your” link in the chain

What is the contribution of your link


Modelling biological processes

Emission factors: 2006 IPCC Guidelines

Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

• Chapters 2-6: Carbon stock changes related to land use change i.e.

grassland degradation, deforestation

• Chapter 10: livestock and manure management

• Chapter 11: nitrous oxide emissions from managed soils

• Enteric fermentation cattle: Tier “2½“, based on Tier 3 from NIR

Animal Nutrition:

• Cattle: cow-model Wageningen Livestock Research

• Pigs: INRA-porc combined with Dutch basic model

• Chicken: to be decided

• Veal: mechanistic veal model Wageningen University


Simulating animal nutrition

Feed intake and animal performance

Feed conversion is calculated !

Daily weight gain (in growing animals)

Milk or egg production (dairy/laying hens)

Nitrogen excretion

Manure production

Extension to P intake, P retention and excretion

foreseen


Use of the CFP calculation tool “Feedprint”

Main users:

Compound feed industry and their suppliers

• Coupling with feed optimization programs

Main applications:

Strategic management

• Change compound feed composition/sourcing

• Affect upstream production

Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting

International alignment and application

FAO, FEFAC, IDF


International harmonization

International workshop:

March 17: Experts: Sweden, Denmark, UK, Belgium,

France, Germany, Italy

Elaborate methods, especially land use change

Cooperation in calculating emissions of main crops

Cooperation with FAO

Exchange methods and data with project “Mitigation

and Climate Change in Agriculture” (MICCA)

Harmonization is an ongoing process


Land use change

LUC from single crop is useless

Direct and indirect land use change cannot be separated

Total human consumption of all commodities is the driver

Land use per unit product is a key item

Analysing drivers of LUC is useful for defining policy

above the level of separate production chains

Simple and robust method is still lacking

→ Develop LUC factor over all agricultural activities

Based on approach of Cranfield University:

Report: “How Low can you go?” for World Wild Life Fund


LUC factor (All sectors and countries are

linked)

Total CO 2e emission by LUC

5.8 Gt per year

• (Ramankutty et al., 2007; Houghton, 2010)

Total agricultural land use from FAOstat (2008):

4.9 * 10 6 hectare

Emissions per ha :

1180 kg CO 2-equivalents per ha per year

Emissions per kg:

1 000 kg/ha: 1.18 kg CO 2e per kg

10 000 kg/ha: 0.118 kg CO 2e per kg


Advantage;

Simple, robust and stabile

No discussion about displacement

No double counting

Every change in production: change in LU and

LUC

No discussion about direct and indirect LUC

Shows efficiency of crop and livestock production

low yields or bad feed conversion: high LUC emission

Shows clearly the only two solutions:

Change consumption patterns

Increase productivity and efficiency

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines