28.12.2012 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

PARALLEL SESSION 4C: CROP PRODUCTION SYSTEMS 8 th Int. Conference on <strong>LCA</strong> <strong>in</strong> the<br />

Agri-<strong>Food</strong> Sector, 1-4 Oct <strong>2012</strong><br />

w<strong>in</strong>ter wheat technological quality on its environmental impacts. Over all, this study will make it possible to<br />

say wh<strong>et</strong>her, as demand<strong>in</strong>g as it may be, <strong>LCA</strong> based on field-scale data is as worthwhile as is expected.<br />

2. M<strong>et</strong>hods<br />

2.1 Data collection<br />

An <strong>LCA</strong> was conducted on w<strong>in</strong>ter wheat, based on real agricultural practices recorded for w<strong>in</strong>ter wheat<br />

harvested <strong>in</strong> 2009, on a sample of 13 941 fields, cover<strong>in</strong>g 95 432 ha <strong>in</strong> different production bas<strong>in</strong>s of <strong>France</strong><br />

where six cooperatives, from different regions, collect their wheat. The real agricultural practices were directly<br />

recorded with a tool used by farmers to manage their practices and to carry out their products’ traceability.<br />

To use this tool farmers have to record all their field operations. Through this system, data on pedology<br />

and agricultural practices <strong>in</strong> each field where the tool is used were gathered <strong>in</strong> a database and were analysed<br />

us<strong>in</strong>g the Statistic Analysis System (SAS) software. Thus, the results of this <strong>LCA</strong> are representative of<br />

farmers who use such decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g tools.<br />

The fields were divided <strong>in</strong>to groups, correspond<strong>in</strong>g to the 6 cooperatives’ production bas<strong>in</strong>s, which were<br />

then further divided <strong>in</strong>to second-range groups identified by their own agronomic experts. These production<br />

scenarios were thus characterised by different soil conditions and/or by different technologic qualities (prote<strong>in</strong><br />

content of the gra<strong>in</strong>s), i.e. by different agricultural practices. Such a classification allowed for a f<strong>in</strong>er<br />

analysis; however, all results cannot be d<strong>et</strong>ailed here for obvious conciseness reasons.<br />

Table 1. Description of the population<br />

Cooperative’s name Number of fields Surface of the sample (hectares)<br />

2.2 System boundaries<br />

420<br />

Coop 1 437 3 273<br />

Coop 2 2 198 23 701<br />

Coop 3 70 703<br />

Coop 4 1 908 7 831<br />

Coop 5 7 709 50 937<br />

Coop 6 1 619 8 987<br />

The functional unit studied here is “1 kg of wheat gra<strong>in</strong>, ready to be exported from the cooperative”.<br />

Figure 4. Studied w<strong>in</strong>ter wheat production system.<br />

The agricultural practices considered <strong>in</strong> this study are cultivation, sow<strong>in</strong>g, fertilis<strong>in</strong>g and pesticide application<br />

and fuel consumption on field to produce and harvest the wheat. Eco<strong>in</strong>vent 2.0 life cycle <strong>in</strong>ventories<br />

(Nemecek and Kägi, 2007) were used to consider the production of the <strong>in</strong>puts: wheat seed, fertilisers, pesticides,<br />

fuel, <strong>et</strong>c.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!