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 6B: FISHIERIES, SOIL, AND EMERGY METHODS 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 />

Mg SOM ha -1 , were converted <strong>in</strong>to Mg CO2 ha -1 us<strong>in</strong>g a SOM/SOC ratio of 1.724 (van Bemmelen factor, <strong>in</strong><br />

Nelson and Sommers, 1982) and a C/CO2 molecular weight ratio of 3.66 (44 CO2/12 C g mole -1 ).<br />

Case study<br />

The study area was the hilly <strong>in</strong>land region <strong>in</strong> Southern Tuscany, Italy. Climate is typically Mediterranean,<br />

characterised by two ma<strong>in</strong> ra<strong>in</strong>y seasons <strong>in</strong> the autumn and the spr<strong>in</strong>g, a total annual ra<strong>in</strong>fall of around<br />

800 mm, and an average temperature of 14.5° C. Soils are quite variable with a texture rang<strong>in</strong>g from silt<br />

loam to clay. The ma<strong>in</strong> physical and chemical characteristics of the soil on the case study v<strong>in</strong>eyard are reported<br />

<strong>in</strong> Table 1.<br />

Table 1. Soil param<strong>et</strong>er on the case study v<strong>in</strong>eyard needed to run the model.<br />

Soil param<strong>et</strong>er Unit Value<br />

Sand (g/kg) 200<br />

Silt (g/kg) 485<br />

Clay (g/kg) 315<br />

Limestone (g/kg) 0.00<br />

Bulk density (g/cm 3 ) 1.30<br />

Soil organic matter (g/kg) 1.19<br />

The functional unit (FU) used for the study was one 0.75 L bottle of w<strong>in</strong>e, and all data refers to the year<br />

2009. The system boundary was divided <strong>in</strong>to two ma<strong>in</strong> phases, the v<strong>in</strong>eyard and the w<strong>in</strong>ery, and seven subphases,<br />

<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g v<strong>in</strong>eyard plant<strong>in</strong>g (1 year), pre-production sub-phase (3 years), production sub-phase (27<br />

years), v<strong>in</strong>ification, bottl<strong>in</strong>g, packag<strong>in</strong>g and distribution.<br />

Data on v<strong>in</strong>eyard soil management, such as manure distribution, use of prun<strong>in</strong>g residues and <strong>in</strong>ter-row<br />

v<strong>in</strong>eyard grass cover or grass<strong>in</strong>g was collected us<strong>in</strong>g specific questionnaires, while data relat<strong>in</strong>g to the physical<br />

and chemical characteristics of the soil was provided by farmer <strong>in</strong> the form of soil samples collected at<br />

the v<strong>in</strong>eyard plant<strong>in</strong>g stage. CO2 emissions/removal caused by carbon stock changes <strong>in</strong> v<strong>in</strong>e biomass were<br />

not <strong>in</strong>cluded, s<strong>in</strong>ce its carbon pool is considerably smaller than that of soil, less than 1% (Keightley 2011),<br />

and the correspond<strong>in</strong>g v<strong>in</strong>e biomass C pool is removed at the end of the v<strong>in</strong>eyard production period. Direct<br />

and <strong>in</strong>direct N2O soil emissions from synth<strong>et</strong>ic and organic fertilisers were calculated us<strong>in</strong>g the IPCC m<strong>et</strong>hodology<br />

and emissions factors (IPCC, 2006).<br />

For this study, GWP impact was evaluated by consider<strong>in</strong>g the CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions associated<br />

with energy and material <strong>in</strong>puts dur<strong>in</strong>g each sub-phase of the production cha<strong>in</strong>. Biogenic emissions were not<br />

considered.<br />

The basel<strong>in</strong>e situation and four scenarios have been elaborated to assess the effect of crop management,<br />

consider<strong>in</strong>g a decreas<strong>in</strong>g levels of organic matter <strong>in</strong>puts, as follow:<br />

S1: manure distribution at v<strong>in</strong>eyard plant<strong>in</strong>g; <strong>in</strong>ter-row grass<strong>in</strong>g with cover crops; <strong>in</strong>corporation of<br />

prun<strong>in</strong>g residues <strong>in</strong>to the soil;<br />

S2: no manure distribution; <strong>in</strong>ter-row grass<strong>in</strong>g with cover crops; <strong>in</strong>corporation of prun<strong>in</strong>g residues<br />

<strong>in</strong>to the soil;<br />

S3: manure at v<strong>in</strong>eyard plant<strong>in</strong>g; tillage for weed control; prun<strong>in</strong>g residues removed;<br />

S4: no manure distribution; tillage for weed control; prun<strong>in</strong>g residues removed.<br />

The values used <strong>in</strong> the scenarios are reported <strong>in</strong> Table 2.<br />

Table 2. Values used <strong>in</strong> the basel<strong>in</strong>e and <strong>in</strong> the scenarios to simulate the effect of v<strong>in</strong>eyard management.<br />

Treatment Unit Basel<strong>in</strong>e S1 S2 S3 S4<br />

Manure at plant<strong>in</strong>g Mg f.m. ha -1 20 65 0 65 0<br />

Incorporation of prun<strong>in</strong>g residues Mg d.m. ha -1 0 3.02 3.02 0 0<br />

Inter-row grass<strong>in</strong>g with cover crops Mg d.m. ha -1 0 4.5 4.5 0 0<br />

3. Results<br />

Table 3 shows the SOM pool evolution dur<strong>in</strong>g the v<strong>in</strong>eyard’s lifespan, from the v<strong>in</strong>eyard plant<strong>in</strong>g to the<br />

last productive year. For each sub-phase, the organic <strong>in</strong>puts and the organic outputs are reported, as well as<br />

the <strong>in</strong>termediate SOM balance.<br />

530

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!