Carbon footprint and air emissions inventories for US honey production: case studies

Kendall, Alissa; Yuan, Juhong; Brodt, Sonja

doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0487-7

Cited by 29 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A previous study examined life cycle air emissions for several commercial beekeeping operations in the continental United States to model U.S. honey production (Kendall et al. ). This honey LCA was used to develop a pollination service LCI based on economic allocation between the two products.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life Cycle–based Assessment of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Almond Production, Part I: Analytical Framework and Baseline Results

Kendall¹,

Marvinney²,

Brodt³

et al. 2015

J of Industrial Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThis first article of a two-article series describes a framework and life cycle-based model for typical almond orchard production systems for California, where more than 80% of commercial almonds on the world market are produced. The comprehensive, multiyear, life cycle-based model includes orchard establishment and removal; field operations and inputs; emissions from orchard soils; and transport and utilization of co-products. These processes are analyzed to yield a life cycle inventory of energy use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, criteria air pollutants, and direct water use from field to factory gate. Results show that 1 kilogram (kg) of raw almonds and associated co-products of hulls, shells, and woody biomass require 35 megajoules (MJ) of energy and result in 1.6 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 -eq) of GHG emissions. Nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation water are the dominant causes of both energy use and GHG emissions. Co-product credits play an important role in estimating the life cycle environmental impacts attributable to almonds alone; using displacement methods results in net energy and emissions of 29 MJ and 0.9 kg CO 2 -eq/kg. The largest sources of credits are from orchard biomass and shells used in electricity generation, which are modeled as displacing average California electricity. Using economic allocation methods produces significantly different results; 1 kg of almonds is responsible for 33 MJ of energy and 1.5 kg CO 2 -eq emissions. Uncertainty analysis of important parameters and assumptions, as well as temporary carbon storage in orchard trees and soils, are explored in the second article of this two-part article series. Keywords:agriculture agroecosystems energy footprint food production life cycle assessment (LCA) orchards Supporting information is available on the JIE Web site

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life Cycle–based Assessment of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Almond Production, Part I: Analytical Framework and Baseline Results

Kendall¹,

Marvinney²,

Brodt³

et al. 2015

J of Industrial Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For GHG emissions caused by the production of foods that are part of the Swedish diet, but are not included in the datasets of Moberg et al [26], land-specific data were collected in the following order of priority based on availability: data from the World Food LCA Database [33] (available through the Ecoinvent database [34]); peer-reviewed LCA studies [35][36][37][38]; LCA reports [39][40][41].…”

Section: Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking the Swedish Diet Relative to Global and National Environmental Targets—Identification of Indicator Limitations and Data Gaps

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To reduce environmental burdens from the food system, a shift towards environmentally sustainable diets is needed. In this study, the environmental impacts of the Swedish diet were benchmarked relative to global environmental boundaries suggested by the EAT-Lancet Commission. To identify local environmental concerns not captured by the global boundaries, relationships between the global EAT-Lancet variables and the national Swedish Environmental Objectives (SEOs) were analysed and additional indicators for missing aspects were identified. The results showed that the environmental impacts caused by the average Swedish diet exceeded the global boundaries for greenhouse gas emissions, cropland use and application of nutrients by two- to more than four-fold when the boundaries were scaled to per capita level. With regard to biodiversity, the impacts caused by the Swedish diet transgressed the boundary by six-fold. For freshwater use, the diet performed well within the boundary. Comparison of global and local indicators revealed that the EAT-Lancet variables covered many aspects included in the SEOs, but that these global indicators are not always of sufficiently fine resolution to capture local aspects of environmental sustainability, such as eutrophication impacts. To consider aspects and impact categories included in the SEO but not currently covered by the EAT-Lancet variables, such as chemical pollution and acidification, additional indicators and boundaries are needed. This requires better inventory data on e.g., pesticide use and improved traceability for imported foods.

show abstract

“…Melathopoulos et al 3 and others consider managed pollinators to more closely resemble an agricultural input, because in most parts of the world these managed pollinators are often non-native 4 , have only a temporary dependence on the habitat surrounding the fields they pollinate 3 , and instead are highly dependent on manufactured food substances (such as sucrose and processed plant proteins) and chemical inputs such as miticides and antibiotics 14,15 . It is precisely this strong human dependence that allows these species to function in highly intensified agro-ecological landscapes that would otherwise not support comparable levels of pollination ecosystem services.…”

Section: Managed Pollmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are managed pollinators ultimately linked to the pollination ecosystem service paradigm?

Veldtman¹

2018

S. Afr. J. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crop pollination performed by wild pollinators is arguably the best understood animal-based ecosystem service. Pollination by wild pollinators originating from natural habitats is recognised as an important ecosystem service; in contrast, managed pollinators-overwhelmingly represented by Apis mellifera (the European honey bee)-are regarded by most as an agricultural input. 1-3 Globally, both wild and managed insect pollinators are important for crops requiring pollination. 2,4-6 The principal difference between these two pollination services is that wild pollinators are residents while managed pollinators are imported for crop pollination (Figure 1). However, there are cases in which managed honey bee hives are kept at permanent locations. These managed honey bees, akin to resident wild pollinators, follow the available forage resources found within flying distance.

show abstract

Carbon footprint and air emissions inventories for US honey production: case studies

Cited by 29 publications

References 7 publications

Life Cycle–based Assessment of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Almond Production, Part I: Analytical Framework and Baseline Results

Life Cycle–based Assessment of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Almond Production, Part I: Analytical Framework and Baseline Results

Benchmarking the Swedish Diet Relative to Global and National Environmental Targets—Identification of Indicator Limitations and Data Gaps

Are managed pollinators ultimately linked to the pollination ecosystem service paradigm?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About