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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

PARALLEL SESSION 6A: TOOLS AND DATABASES 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 />

The contribution from ILUC <strong>in</strong>cludes contributions from transformation of land not <strong>in</strong> use (primary and<br />

secondary forest) to arable land and from <strong>in</strong>tensification of land already <strong>in</strong> use. The major contribution is the<br />

one from <strong>in</strong>tensification, where the emissions from additional fertiliser application are the most significant<br />

source of the GHG-emissions.<br />

The GHG emission per kg Swedish ECM is 1.15 kg CO2-eq and is thereby 8% higher than the Danish<br />

milk (Figure 2, first column). The overall results, i.e. the relative magnitude of different contribut<strong>in</strong>g activities,<br />

for Swedish milk are not significantly different from the ones for Danish milk <strong>in</strong> Table 1. The underly<strong>in</strong>g<br />

reasons for the difference b<strong>et</strong>ween Danish and Swedish milk are described <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g. The direct<br />

emissions are higher for Sweden, because the activity ‘Rais<strong>in</strong>g bull’ contributes more <strong>in</strong> Sweden. The reason<br />

for this is that these animals are kept for longer time and grown bigger before they are slaughtered <strong>in</strong> Sweden<br />

than <strong>in</strong> Denmark. The contributions from activities outside the animal activities are higher for Sweden, and<br />

this is also because the bulls grow bigger before they are slaughtered and thereby consume more feed.<br />

Furthermore, the Swedish cows eat relatively less maize ensilage and gra<strong>in</strong> crops and more permanent<br />

grass, which results <strong>in</strong> higher GHG-emissions. However, carbon sequestration is not <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the model<br />

and <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g that could result <strong>in</strong> a lower CF for permanent grass (Doreau and Dollé, 2011). The avoided<br />

emissions <strong>in</strong> Sweden are higher than <strong>in</strong> Denmark, which aga<strong>in</strong> is related to the higher meat output from the<br />

Swedish milk system.<br />

Fig. 2 shows the GHG emissions per kg Danish and Swedish milk by use of the different switches as expla<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

previously. The result for ‘Attributional’ (average/allocation) is not significantly different from the<br />

result based on consequential modell<strong>in</strong>g (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g ILUC). But it should be noted, that these ‘similar’ results<br />

are more a matter of <strong>in</strong>cident than an <strong>in</strong>dication that similar results can be expected when us<strong>in</strong>g consequential<br />

and attributional modell<strong>in</strong>g assumptions. The most important deviation from consequential modelled<br />

results are that economic allocation is used, which implies that only 82% of the emissions and <strong>in</strong>puts are<br />

ascribed to the milk, and there is no subsituted beef system. Also, ‘ILUC related to feed’ is much lower, because<br />

attributional modell<strong>in</strong>g of ILUC considers all <strong>in</strong>puts to the mark<strong>et</strong> for land (land tenure) as flexible and<br />

a mark<strong>et</strong> average mix is applied. There is no substituted beef system.<br />

The modell<strong>in</strong>g assumptions <strong>in</strong> the IDF and PAS2050 switch mode are to a large extent similar to the average/allocation<br />

attributional switch mode and the results exclud<strong>in</strong>g ILUC are rather similar. However, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<br />

emissions from ILUC drastically <strong>in</strong>crease the CF for milk us<strong>in</strong>g IDF and PAS2050. The reason for<br />

the high total results for the IDF and PAS2050 switch mode is the contribution from land use changes <strong>in</strong> soy<br />

cultivation <strong>in</strong> Brazil (and m<strong>in</strong>or contributions from oil palm <strong>in</strong> Malaysia). It should be noticed that the way<br />

land use changes are modelled <strong>in</strong> PAS2050 are direct land use changes (DLUC) and by apply<strong>in</strong>g a 20 year<br />

historical amortisation period. This approach is substantially different from the modell<strong>in</strong>g of ILUC which is<br />

applied <strong>in</strong> the switch modes for ISO14040/44 consequential and average/allocation attributional. DLUC here<br />

only considers impacts from cultivated fields that have been transformed with<strong>in</strong> the recent 20 years. The<br />

results when us<strong>in</strong>g the IDF switch mode are slightly higher than the ones of PAS2050. The reason for this is<br />

a higher degree of compl<strong>et</strong>eness, i.e. capital goods and services are <strong>in</strong>cluded.<br />

kg CO2e per kg ECM<br />

2.0<br />

1.5<br />

1.0<br />

0.5<br />

0.0<br />

DK SE DK SE DK SE DK SE<br />

Consequential Attributional IDF PAS2050<br />

Figure 2. GHG emissions from 1 kg ECM for the Danish and Swedish basel<strong>in</strong>e by use of the different<br />

switches.<br />

ILUC<br />

CF excl. ILUC<br />

481

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!