Conducting an Agricultural Life Cycle Assessment: Challenges and Perspectives

Caffrey, Kevin R; Veal, Matthew W.

doi:10.1155/2013/472431

Cited by 67 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CO 2 is fixed through photosynthesis of plants and excreted by the animals as a result of animal metabolism. Nevertheless, the CO 2 emission must be observed along the whole food chain and assessments must be based on the burning of fossil carbon during feed production and land use changes (Caffrey and Veal, 2013;Hergoualch and Verchot, 2011;Kim et al, 2009).…”

Section: Carbon Footprintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invited review: Resource inputs and land, water and carbon footprints from the production of edible protein of animal origin

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The objective of this review is to analyze crucial factors in the output from the production of proteins in food of animal origin, such as milk, meat and eggs. We then consider inputs such as land, water, fuel, minerals and feed, as well as characterize emissions. Finally, we estimate footprints for land (land footprint, LF), water (water footprint, WF) and greenhouse gas emissions (i.e., carbon footprint, CF) during the production process. The wide range of different land and water inputs per unit feed between various studies largely influences the results. Further influencing factors are species and categories of animals that produce edible protein, their yields and the feeding of animals. Coproducts with no or low humanly edible fractions and grassland as feed contribute to a lower need for arable land and lower LF, WF and CF. The most efficient land use or the lowest LF per kilogram of edible protein was estimated for higher milk and egg yields; the highest LF values were calculated for beef, followed by pork. The lowest WF and CF were calculated for edible protein of chicken meat and eggs. Edible protein from ruminants is mostly characterized by a higher CF because of the high greenhouse gas potential of methane produced in the rumen. A key prerequisite for further progress in this field is the harmonization of data collection and calculation methods. Alternatives to partial or complete replacement of protein of terrestrial animals, such as marine animals, insects, cell cultures, single-cell proteins or "simulated animal products" from plants, as well as changing eating patterns and reducing food losses are mentioned as further potential ways for more efficient feed production. For all those dealing with plant or animal breeding and cultivation and all those who are working along the whole food production chain, it is a major challenge to enhance the production of more food for more people with, at the same time, less, limited resources and lower emissions.

show abstract

Section: Carbon Footprintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invited review: Resource inputs and land, water and carbon footprints from the production of edible protein of animal origin

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus the hotspot analysis presented here shows that growing system scales retain key hotspots, such as machinery use, but they also add new ones, with no clear trend perceivable. Beyond the impact categories discussed, there are environmental problems in agriculture that are not well described by the common impact categories (for example impacts on biodiversity, soil quality, and water availability; Caffrey and Veal, 2013). Such impacts are beginning to be addressed by emerging categories, but are not yet fully integrated in the available life cycle databases or are just difficult to quantify by a broad method such as life cycle assessment.…”

Section: Synopsis Of Hot Spots and Mitigation Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, a wide variety of stakeholders is active in agriculture and agroindustry, with varying options and challenges to mitigate environmental impacts in their sphere of influence. As a wellestablished decision support tool, the method of life-cycle assessment is a quantitative way to estimate the potential environmental impacts of products and services in general, and of agricultural process chains and products in particular (Caffrey and Veal, 2013). This can be used to identify environmentally critical processes along a process chain (hot spot analysis) and to identify opportunities to improve the environmental performance of products or services at various points in their life cycle (ISO 14040, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental hot spot analysis in agricultural life-cycle assessments � three case studies

Piringer¹,

Bauer²,

Gronauer³

et al. 2016

JCEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Present-day agricultural technology is facing the challenge of limiting the environmental impacts of agricultural production -such as greenhouse gas emissions and demand for additional land -while meeting growing demands for agricultural products. Using the well-established method of life-cycle assessment (LCA), potential environmental impacts of agricultural production chains can be quantified and analyzed. This study presents three case studies of how the method can pinpoint environmental hot spots at different levels of agricultural production systems. The first case study centers on the tractor as the key source of transportation and traction in modern agriculture. A common Austrian tractor model was investigated over its life-cycle, using primary data from a manufacturer and measured load profiles for field work. In all but one of the impact categories studied, potential impacts were dominated by the operation phase of the tractor's life-cycle (mainly due to diesel fuel consumption), with 84.4-99.6% of total impacts. The production phase (raw materials and final assembly) caused between 0.4% and 12.1% of impacts, while disposal of the tractor was below 1.9% in all impact categories. The second case study shifts the focus to an entire production chain for a common biogas feedstock, maize silage. System boundaries incorporate the effect of auxiliary materials such as fertilizer and pesticides manufacturing and application. The operation of machinery in the silage production chain was found to be critical to its environmental impact. For the climate change indicator GWP100 (global warming potential, 100-year reference period), emissions from tractor operation accounted for 15 g CO 2 -eq per kg silage (64% of total GWP100), followed by field emissions during fertilizer (biogas digestate) application with 6 g CO 2 -eq per kg silage (24% of total GWP100). At a larger system scale that includes a silage-fed biogas plant with electricity generated by a biogas engine, silage cultivation operations are no longer the largest contributor; the most important contributor (49.8%) is methane slip from the exhaust of the biogas engine. In the third case study, the biogas plant model is 1732 incorporated into an even larger system, where the existing waste management and energy system in an Alpine municipality of Western Austria is expanded to include a hypothetical system that uses mainly hay from currently unused alpine grassland in a local biogas plant. Here, the relative environmental impacts depend strongly on the fossil fuels that are assumed to be displaced by the local biogas plant; methane slip emissions from the exhaust dominate the impact of the hypothetical local biogas scenario. Taken together, the case studies demonstrate the potential and limitations of LCA as a technique to support decisions of agricultural stakeholders at a variety of scales. Choosing the proper system scale is key to a successful application of this method. 477Journal of Central European Agriculture, 2016, 17(2), p.477-492 DOI: 1...

show abstract

“…They have also been modified or called Ecological Footprint (EF), Eco-Balances (EB), Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) or Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). In all cases the term means a summarized parameter for all gaseous emissions with greenhouse gas potential to sensitize producers and consumers, e.g., [57]; [58]; [59], to an efficient use of fossil carbon sources and to reduce GHG emissions per product (see also [60]. CF or LCA are used as a tool for estimating environmental effects caused by products or processes.…”

Section: Foodmentioning

confidence: 99%