Environmental life cycle assessment of cereal and bread production in Norway

Korsæth, Audun; Jacobsen, Anne; Roer, Anne-Grete; Henriksen, Trond Maukon; Sonesson, Ulf; Bonesmo, Helge; Skjelvåg, Arne Oddvar; Strømman, Anders Hammer

doi:10.1080/09064702.2013.783619

Cited by 21 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The selection of the types of a.is showed to have significant role for varying the scores for freshwater ecotoxicity (SI, Table S3-S5). Roer et al (2012) and Korsaeth et al (2012) reported a higher equivalent ecotoxicity than this study. The main reason was the assumed system boundary that was able to cover the emissions related to applied pesticides and use of different active ingredients compared to this study.…”

Section: Other Impact Categoriescontrasting

confidence: 59%

“…In contrast, Mondelaers et al (2009) reported a lower carbon footprint for wheat production in Europe (approximately 293 kg CO2eq/ t DM). The impact for winter wheat were even higher up to 735-879 kg CO2eq/t DM of the grain (Korsaeth et al, 2012;Roer et al, 2012), even with the straw incorporated to field. The impact calculated for the removed straw in the same study was 270 kg CO2eq/t DM.…”

Section: Other Impact Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Environmental life cycle assessments of producing maize, grass-clover, ryegrass and winter wheat straw for biorefinery

Parajuli

Kristensen

Knudsen

et al. 2017

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to assess the potential environmental impacts of producing maize, grass-clover, ryegrass, and straw from winter wheat as biomass feedstocks for biorefinery. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method included the following impact categories: Global Warming Potential (GWP100), Eutrophication Potential (EP), Non-Renewable Energy use (NRE), Potential Fresh Water Ecotoxicity (PFWTox) and Potential Biodiversity Damages (PBD). The results showed that GWP100 (in kg CO2 eq, including contribution from soil carbon change) for producing 1 ton of dry matter (t DM) was highest for ryegrass, grassclover and maize, and lowest for straw. The carbon footprints of ryegrass, grass-clover and maize were affected by including the contribution from soil organic carbon (SOC) changes. Nitrous oxide emissions and emissions related to the production of agro-chemicals (including N-fertilizer) were other hotspots in the carbon footprint. The EP calculated per t DM was highest for grass-clover, ryegrass and maize, and was lowest for straw. NRE use (MJ eq/t DM) was highest for ryegrass, grass-clover and maize and lowest for straw. Major hotspots were diesel use for field operations and agro-chemicals production. The PBD, expressed as Potentially Disappeared Fraction (PDF) showed the highest adverse impact to biodiversity in maize, followed by straw, whereas the results showed relatively lower impact for ryegrass and grass-clover. The PFWTox (CTUe/t DM), at farm level was highest for straw, followed by maize, whereas the values were significantly lower for grass-clover and ryegrass. These variations in ranking of the different biomasses productions using different impact categories for environmental performance showed that it is important to consider a wider range of impact categories for assessing environmental sustainability.

show abstract

Section: Other Impact Categoriescontrasting

confidence: 59%

Section: Other Impact Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Environmental life cycle assessments of producing maize, grass-clover, ryegrass and winter wheat straw for biorefinery

Parajuli

Kristensen

Knudsen

et al. 2017

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although some studies have indicated that diesel combustion is the major source of global warming impacts on soybean production [50,51], the results of the present LCA confirmed the impacts reported by Pelletier et al [48]. The GWP intensity of agricultural machinery production, which is the primary contributor to GHG emissions in farm capital [52], accounted for 73% of the total GWP in fixed and common costs.…”

Section: Global Warming Impact In the Modeled Farmsupporting

confidence: 86%

Optimization Model for Mitigating Global Warming at the Farm Scale: An Application to Japanese Rice Farms

Masuda¹

2016

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In Japan, greenhouse gas emissions from rice production, especially CH 4 emissions in rice paddy fields, are the primary contributors to global warming from agriculture. When prolonged midseason drainage for mitigating CH 4 emissions from rice paddy fields is practiced with environmentally friendly rice production based on reduced use of synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers, Japanese rice farmers can receive an agri-environmental direct payment. This paper examines the economic and environmental effects of the agri-environmental direct payment on the adoption of a measure to mitigate global warming in Japanese rice farms using a combined application of linear programming and life cycle assessment at the farm scale. Eco-efficiency, which is defined as net farm income divided by global warming potential, is used as an integrated indicator for assessing the economic and environmental feasibilities. The results show that under the current direct payment level, the prolonged midseason drainage technique does not improve the eco-efficiency of Japanese rice farms because the practice of this technique in environmentally friendly rice production causes large economic disadvantages in exchange for small environmental advantages. The direct payment rates for agri-environmental measures should be determined based on the condition that environmentally friendly agricultural practices improve eco-efficiency compared with conventional agriculture.

show abstract

“…Few LCA studies of bread have been carried out within the Nordic region in recent years, although there have been two. One of these, a study in Norway [13], found GHG emissions to be 0.937 kg CO 2 -eq/kg of bread from cradle to consumer. The other, a Danish study [14] of rye bread, showed a result of 0.73 kg CO 2 -eq/kg of bread from cradle to consumer.…”

Section: The Environmental Impact Of Breadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Packaging and Food Waste Prevention by Consumers on the Environmental Impact of Production and Consumption of Bread in Norway

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bread is a staple food in Norway, with a yearly per capita consumption of 52 kg. It is an important source of energy, dietary fibre and protein as well as certain minerals and vitamins. Previous studies have shown that bread has a relatively low environmental impact compared with other foods. Food waste studies, however, have shown that bread and other baked goods have a high wastage rate in Norway. On the basis of lower Norwegian wheat yields, it is therefore expected that the environmental impact of bread could be higher than in other European countries. The purpose of this study was to assess the environmental impact of bread from cradle to grave, identify environmental hotspots, examine the role of packaging in bread waste and identify possible remediation measures with a particular focus on the post-farm value chain. The results showed that for every kilogram of bread consumed, the global warming potential was 0.99 kg CO2-eq, the eutrophication potential was 7.2 g PO4-eq, the acidification potential was 8.4 g SO2-eq and the cumulative energy demand was 18 MJ. The principal uncertainty within the calculation was the use of database data for the 21 ingredients. For example, the effect of soil mineralisation, which could give significant CO2 and N2O emissions, was not included because figures have only been quantified for a few ingredients and there is no international agreement on the methodology. The primary hotspot was the production of the ingredients, principally at the agricultural stage, while bread waste took the second place. The highest potential for the reduction of post-farm environmental impact lies in reducing product wastage at the retail and consumer stages. Consumers already employ strategies to reduce wastage, such as using extra packaging and freezing and toasting bread. This study shows that other consumer packaging solutions can keep the bread fresh for longer, thus reducing wastage and the need for the abovementioned consumer strategies. Nevertheless, other researches in this subject have shown that consumer preferences and behaviours play a significant role in the creation of bread waste, and this should therefore be taken into account when planning reduction measures.

show abstract

Environmental life cycle assessment of cereal and bread production in Norway

Abstract: Norway 14We assessed the environmental cost of producing bread, as delivered to the consumer,

Cited by 21 publications

References 26 publications

Environmental life cycle assessments of producing maize, grass-clover, ryegrass and winter wheat straw for biorefinery

Environmental life cycle assessments of producing maize, grass-clover, ryegrass and winter wheat straw for biorefinery

Optimization Model for Mitigating Global Warming at the Farm Scale: An Application to Japanese Rice Farms

Effects of Packaging and Food Waste Prevention by Consumers on the Environmental Impact of Production and Consumption of Bread in Norway

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About