Applying water scarcity footprint methodologies to milk production in Finland

Usva, Kirsi; Virtanen, Eetu; Hyvärinen, Helena; Nousiainen, Juha; Sinkko, Taija; Kurppa, Sirpa

doi:10.1007/s11367-018-1512-2

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The stress-weighted WSF for raw milk production by the dairy farms in Hsinchu County was 9.4 H 2 O-eq/kg FPCM, which is lower than the studies in the Netherlands (33.4 H 2 Oeq/kg FPCM), Southeastern Australia (87.7 H 2 O-eq/kg FPCM), and China (11 H 2 O-eq/ kg FPCM) [8,9,12]. However, the data of stress-weighted WSF of this study was higher than the studies in Finland (3.8 H 2 Oeq/kg FPCM) and Ireland (0.4 H 2 Oeq/kg FPCM) [10,13].…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 59%

“…The study by Kuoppala et al [36] calculated the daily drinking water of lactating cows according to their milk production. When a system boundary includes the stage of feed crop production, location of production, and the production type (irrigated versus rain-fed agriculture), the hotspots in the production chains and the magnitude of their impacts will greatly affect the impacts of milk production systems [13]. Thus, the comparability between studies will be limited.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The consumption of soil moisture derived from natural precipitation does not generally contribute to regional water scarcity in water bodies; therefore, it was not included in the calculation. Capital goods used in production (e.g., machinery and buildings), domestic water, and dairy farm services (e.g., veterinary and business services) were not included in the assessment because the environmental relevance of these items is difficult to ascertain and minor for most dairy farming systems [9,10,11,13,14,18]. In order to compare with other studies, the chosen functional unit is 1 L of fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM; 4.0% fat and 3.3% protein) [19].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The water stress index (WSI), which was based on a withdrawal-to-availability ratio according to the method proposed by Pfister [7], was used as a local characteristic factor, e.g., watershed, region, nation, etc. Effective identification of water hotspots and major impacts in raw milk production have been studied [6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. However, in these cases, due to data limitations or partial water use of projects that were too large, the results might lead to inappropriate improvements [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of Water Scarcity Footprint for Taiwanese Dairy Farming

Liao

2019

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Raw milk production in Taiwan has increased year after year, which means that the environmental impact might also be intensified in certain regions. To balance both consumer demand and environmental sustainability, evaluating the potential impact and understanding the causal relationship between production and environment is imperative. This study applied the life cycle assessment (LCA) protocol to explore water consumption for raw milk production from cradle to farm gate of five dairy farms in Hsinchu County and evaluate the stress-weighted water scarcity footprint (WSF) as well as the water scarcity productivity (WSP) of the 16 Taiwanese counties and cities. Results indicated that the highest stress-weighted WSF of the dairy farms for raw milk production was located in northern and central Taiwan and was around 44.8 H2Oeq/kg fat- and protein-corrected milk (FPCM). On the other hand, both the smallest stress-weighted WSF (about 2.2 H2Oeq/kg FPCM) and the highest WSP (0.749 kg FPCM/m3 water) of the dairy farms were located in Nantou and Chiayi Counties, because these two counties were the least water-stressed regions in Taiwan. The achievement of this study could be the first and important reference for the sustainable production of raw milk and optimizing the industrial policy of dairy farming by policy makers.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 59%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of Water Scarcity Footprint for Taiwanese Dairy Farming

Liao

2019

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The inventory data for these coffee drink options is presented in Table 4. In terms of the water scarcity impact, it was assumed that Finnish milk (Usva et al 2019) and Danish sugar (EcoInvent) were used.…”

Section: Coffee Making and Consumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon and water footprint of coffee consumed in Finland—life cycle assessment

Usva

Sinkko

Silvenius

et al. 2020

Int J Life Cycle Assess

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Coffee is one of the most widely grown cash crops globally, but there are few scientific articles on its carbon footprint and water scarcity impacts. The aim of this study was to assess the carbon footprint and water scarcity impacts throughout the life cycle of the coffee chain (cradle-to-grave) and to identify the most important sources of the impacts (hotspots). Methods The system included all the key stages of the supply chain from land use change and coffee cultivation to roasting and household consumption. Primary data was collected from eight coffee cultivation farms in Brazil, Nicaragua, Colombia and Honduras and coffee roastery and packaging manufacturers in Finland. The AWARE method was applied in a water scarcity impact assessment. Results and discussion The carbon footprint varied from 0.27 to 0.70 kg CO2 eq/l coffee. The share of the coffee cultivation stage varied from 32 to 78% and the consumption stage from 19 to 49%. The use of fertilizers was the most important process contributing to the carbon footprint. Furthermore, deforestation-related emissions notably increased the carbon footprint of coffee from Nicaragua. Compared with the previous literature, our results indicate a relatively larger share of climate impacts in the cultivation stage and less during consumption. The water scarcity impact was relatively low for non-irrigated systems in Central America, 0.02 m3 eq/l coffee. On Brazilian farms, irrigation is a major contributor to the water scarcity impact, varying from 0.15 to 0.27 m3 eq/l coffee. Conclusions Improving the management practices in cultivation and fertilization is key for lower GHG emissions. Irrigation optimization is the most important mitigation strategy to reduce water scarcity impact. However, actions to reduce these two impacts should be executed side by side to avoid shifting burdens between the two.

show abstract

Comparison of carbon footprint and water scarcity footprint of milk protein produced by cellular agriculture and the dairy industry

Behm

Nappa

Aro

et al. 2022

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper studies the carbon footprint and water scarcity footprint (WSF) of a milk protein, beta-lactoglobulin, produced by cellular agriculture and compares this to extracted dairy protein from milk. The calculations of the microbially produced proteins were based on a model of a hypothetical industrial-scale facility. The purpose of the study is to examine the role relative to dairy of microbially produced milk proteins in meeting future demand for more sustainably produced protein of high nutritional quality. Methods The evaluated process considers beta-lactoglobulin production in bioreactor cultivation with filamentous fungi T. reesei and downstream processing for product purification. The model considers four production scenarios in four different locations (New Zealand, Germany, US, and Australia) with a cradle-to-gate system boundary. The scenarios consider different sources of carbon (glucose and sucrose), different options for the fungal biomass treatment (waste or animal feed) and for the purification of the product. Allocation to biomass was avoided by considering it substituting the production of general protein feed. The carbon footprint and WSF (based on AWaRe factors) modelling is compared to calculations and actual data on extracted dairy protein production in NZ. The uncertainties of modelled process were addressed with a sensitivity analysis. Results and discussion The carbon footprint of microbially produced protein varied depending on the location (energy profile) and source of carbon used. The lowest carbon footprint (5.5 t CO2e/t protein) was found with sucrose-based production in NZ and the highest (17.6 t CO2e/t protein) in Australia with the glucose and chromatography step. The WSF results varied between 88–5030 m3 world eq./t protein, depending on the location, type of sugar and purification method used. The avoided feed production had a bigger impact on the WSF than on the carbon footprint. Both footprints were sensitive to process parameters of final titre and protein yield from sugar. The results for milk protein were of similar magnitude, c.10 t CO2e/t protein and 290–11,300 m3 world eq./t protein. Conclusions The environmental impacts of microbially produced milk protein were of the same magnitude as for extracted dairy protein. The main contributions were sugar and electricity production. The carbon footprints of proteins produced by cellular agriculture have potential for significant reduction when renewable energy and more sustainable carbon sources are used and combined with evolving knowledge and technology in microbial production. Similarly, the carbon footprint of milk proteins can potentially be reduced through methane reduction technologies.

show abstract

Applying water scarcity footprint methodologies to milk production in Finland

Cited by 12 publications

References 23 publications

Evaluation of Water Scarcity Footprint for Taiwanese Dairy Farming

Evaluation of Water Scarcity Footprint for Taiwanese Dairy Farming

Carbon and water footprint of coffee consumed in Finland—life cycle assessment

Comparison of carbon footprint and water scarcity footprint of milk protein produced by cellular agriculture and the dairy industry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About