chapter 3 inventory of local food systems

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Project CP/59 - “Instruments and institutions to develop local food systems” cases they go straight to the distribution centre). From the distribution centre the products go to the individual supermarkets where the consumer can buy them. Next to these transport streams, almost every step in the LFS as well as in the MFS has its own storage facility, mainly for cooling the products. In some cases, mostly in local food systems, the farmer is also the processor (e.g. on-farm sales) which means that there is one step less in the food chain. Third, we constructed scenarios of LFS by selecting a basket of typical products and by selecting a limited number of cases from the LFS inventory (chapter 3). Every product we select is also given an specific portion weight so by combining the portions of the food items we can calculate the energy use and the carbon dioxide emission for a general meal. In this meal the different weights given to each of the products are: one portion of potatoes consists of 200 g, vegetables count for 70 g each, apples for 125 g, beef for 120 g and Gouda cheese for 15 g per portion (Carlsson- Kanyama et al., 2003; VIG, 2005). Given the fact that the focus of this study is on the marketing section, the results should be combined with more specific figures on production, households’ preparing and cooking of food and processing of waste, in order to carry out complete life cycle analyses for certain combinations of production and consumption methods. E.g. differences between conventional, organic and integrated crop production could have a large influence on the total energy and emission bill on the production side, whereas on the consumption side cooking on a gas or an electric stove or with a micro-wave oven could have very different influences. As some effects outside these system boundaries of the basic simulation, in the production phase as well as in the marketing phase itself, can have a very large influence on the total energy or emission bill, we compare our results to three additional calculations from literature. First, we consider the production in heated and ventilated greenhouses versus the production in open air. The same could be done for breeding cattle in heated and ventilated stables versus in open air. Second, we consider seasonal differences, linked to ways of import form abroad, each with their own (in)efficiency, as well as the above mentioned production in greenhouses. Third, we take into account the efficiency of transport from the outlet to the home of the consumer. This methodology is based on other scientific studies that calculate the total energy consumption in the life cycle of specific products. For example, Jones (2002) compared the total energy consumption and the resulting carbon dioxide emissions in the life cycle of fresh apples in the UK for different food supply systems, that is, different marketing outlets (supermarket, street market, home delivery box scheme, farm shop) and different sources (imported, UK, local, homegrown). The most extensive assessment is by Carlsson-Kanyama et al. (2003) who calculated the total energy input for 150 food items available in Sweden. SPSD II - Part I - Sustainable production and consumption patterns - Agro-Food 41
Project CP/59 - “Instruments and institutions to develop local food systems” 2.5.2. Results Table 2 shows the calculated levels of energy inputs respectively per kg and per portion of the selected food items up to the collecting point of the consumer (the collecting point for the local or the mainstream system), subdivided in transport energy use, and processing (only for cheese and meat, since the other products are fresh fruits and vegetables) and storage energy use. Table 3 shows the emitted greenhouse gasses in g CO2 per kg and per portion according with these energy uses. Within local food systems total energy uses per kg (table 2) range from 1.34 MJ/kg for apples up to 37.17 MJ/kg for cheese. These high values for cheese are partly because 9.5 liters of milk are transported from the farm to the cooperative to produce one kg of cheese. This energy use for milk transport would be zero for on-farm processing of cheese. Also the energy use of the cheese-making process and especially the distribution of this cheese to deli shops all around Flanders by van make the total energy bill high. This case study covers the largest territory of the four local food systems we investigated. The low energy consumption of apples sold on farmers’ markets is essentially due to the short transport distances in combination with a high enough trade volume per market. When looking at the energy use per portion, a parallel trend is seen, although less obvious because of the different weights of the food items. Potatoes are one of the three most energy consuming ingredients of the total meal, even with no storage energy uses and below-average transport energy uses. This is because potatoes represent a larger part of the meal in terms of weight (30% of the total weight of the meal). In the mainstream system the lowest total energy use per kilogram was found for potatoes and apples (respectively 1.07 and 1.08 MJ/kg) and the highest for cheese (33.46 MJ/kg). The low energy use for beef, compared to the LFS, is due to the short geographical distance between the different steps in the food supply chain and because of economics of scale: the slaughtering and processing of the cattle happens on the same location because of the sufficient volumes. For transport, the energy bill of cheese is about one fourth of that of the LFS despite the longer distance traveled to the collecting point of the consumer. This is due to a difference in transport mode: bigger trucks with a higher load factor result in less energy use per kg of transported product. As mentioned before, it should be said that the cheese making cooperative in our case study uses more energy for transport up to the collecting point of the consumer than LFS that make cheese on farm. This is because in the latter case there is only transport involved in distribution of the cheese and not for milk transport to the cheese manufactory. On the other side our case study is located in the city centre of one of Flanders’ largest cities, which will probably lead to easier access on foot, by bicycle or by public transport than an on-farm shop in the countryside (see transport efficiency of the consumer). When comparing the averages of the total calculated energy use per kilogram for the different food items between LFS and the mainstream food system, the energy use is smaller in the mainstream system but is in the same order of magnitude. The total energy use of a locally obtained meal is double that of one sourced through the mainstream. SPSD II - Part I - Sustainable production and consumption patterns - Agro-Food 42
Page 1 and 2: SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT PLAN FOR A SUSTA
Page 3 and 4: D/2006/1191/24 Published in 2006 by
Page 6 and 7: Project CP/59 - “Instruments and
Page 76: Project CP/59 - “Instruments and
Page 83: Project CP/59 - “Instruments and

chapter 3 inventory of local food systems

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?