LCA Food 2012 in Saint Malo, France! - Manifestations et colloques ...

PARALLEL SESSION 3C: SHEEP AND DAIRY PRODUCTION SYSTEMS 8 th Int. Conference on LCA in the
Agri-Food Sector, 1-4 Oct 2012
Table 4. Effect of feeding strategy and LCA method (ACLA and CLCA) on GHG emission from feed production
ALCA CLCA
Strategy Local Import Local Import
GHG from feed 1) , g CO2e/kg ECM
From growing the feed 0.20 0.21 0.23 0.19
From processing the feed 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
From transport 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05
From LUC (direct or indirect) 0 0.23 0.15 0.15
From LU 0.21 0.19 0.26 0.26
Total 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.25
Total, including LUC 0.22 0.48 0.41 0.40
Total, including LUC and LU 0.44 0.67 0.67 0.66
Land use, m 2 / kg ECM 0.90 1.01 1.07 1.06
1 GHG emissions related to feed production (only for cows) calculated per kg milk produced
4. Discussion
From the present study it becomes clear that choice of method strongly affects the calculation of CF of feed.
Which LCA approach should be used depends on the goal and scope of the study (Thomassen et al., 2008).
ALCA seeks to quantify the fraction of the global environmental impact related to the product, whereas
CLCA seeks to capture change in environmental impact as a consequence of a certain activity. The present
study, using ALCA, showed a huge impact contribution from LUC when feeding is based on feed import
from areas where deforestation takes place. However, the choice of method to account for emissions from
LUC is critical, and so far there is no consensus on which method is best for inclusion of GHG emissions
from LUC. Therefore, it is recommended to present the results in relation to LUC separately. The use of the
CLCA method clarifies that for planning animal feeding in the future, a key measure is to reduce the land use
rate per unit of product output, i.e. to increase land use efficiency. Land is a limited resource so that an increase
in demand for land would cause indirect LUC elsewhere. In addition, it is important to consider soil
carbon storage or loss potential of different land use types.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, there were large variations in CF of different feedstuffs and especially between concentrated
feed and home grown roughage. However, when calculating CF of a complete feed ration for cows using an
attributional approach, the main reason for the difference was related to contribution from transport, and in
particular from direct LUC. However, if calculated based on consequential LCA. there was only a minor
difference in total GHG emissions between a ‘local’ and an ‘import’ feeding strategy, as the burden of indirect
LUC was attributed to any type of feed, no matter it is local or imported.
6. Acknowledgement
This study was funded through the ÖSK Interreg IV A Programme project ‘REKS – Regional nöt och
lammköttsproduktion – en tillväxtmotor’ funded by the European Union.
7. References
Audsley, E., Brander, M., Chatterton, J., Murphy-Bokern, D., Webster, C., and Williams, A. (2009). How low can we go? An assessment
of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope for to reduction them by 2050. How low can we
go? WWF- UK.
BSI, 2008. PAS2050. Specification for the assessment of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services.
Dalgaard, R., Schmidt, J., Halberg, N., Christensen, P., Thrane, M., Pengue, W.A. 2008. LCA of soybean meal. Int. J. LCA. 13, 240-
254.
Ecoinvent Centre, 2010. Ecoinvent Data v2.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
http://www.ecoinvent.ch.
Elsgaard, L. 2010. GHG emission from cultivation of winter wheat and winter rapeseed for biofuels. Report requested by the Danish
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. The faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Aarhus University. 34 pp.
Gyldenkærne, S., Albrektsen, R. 2008. Revurdering af ammoniakemissionen 2003-2007. Baggrundsnotat til vandmiljøplan III. Danmarks
Miljøundersøgelser, Aarhus Universitet, Denmark.
Hermansen, J.E., Kristensen, T., 2011. Management options to reduce the carbon footprint of livestock products.Animal Frontier. 1
(1), 33-39.
IPCC, 2006. IPCC Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html
325