Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of aquatic productsbeijer.kva.se/ftp/WIOAQUA/Henriksson.pdf ·  ·...

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of aquatic products Patrik Henriksson1,2 1Department of System Ecology, Stockholm University, Sweden

2Beijer Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

•  Mankind’s energy use has been increasing faster than the global population increase since 1970

•  About 60% of worldwide biomass production is used by humans •  This, however, does only meet 64% of human needs, the rest is

derives from fossil energy •  19% of these fossil fuels are in the U.S. used for food production,

in China 25% •  If available sources of renewable energy were expanded to cover

20-26% of the world’s land area, they would only cover half of our current need of fossil fuels

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) In food production systems

•  Five calories of human energy for each calorie consumed in an average diet in developed countries

•  Equals 770 liters of combusted oil per year •  Protein sources are more energy demand to produce •  Very few food products make an energy surplus,

some extensive carp farms have 1:1 energy return •  Energy consumption in capture fisheries have increased six-fold

during the last two centuries •  Greenhouse gas emissions due to food consumption increased

by 48 percent in China between 1990 and 2006 •  Proximal environmental concerns are driving aquaculture in

developed countries towards closed systems, ecosystem services are being replaced by energy intensive human processes

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) In food production systems

•  Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), “Cradle to grave” approach. Takes all production stages including waste management into account

•  Traditionally developed in the 1970s for manufactured products, later applied to food products

•  Provide information that could improve efficiency and environmental performance as well as providing consumers with information on how products are being produced

•  Impact categories: Energy use, global warming potential, ozone depletion, biotic resources, abiotic resources, acidification, water use, eutrophication, ecotoxicological impacts, photochemical oxidant formation and human work environment

•  ISO 14040, 14041 and 14044 •  LCA software, PAS2050, Water Footprint

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Flow chart of the production processes in fisheries with the energy consuming steps identified

Fishing phase

Fuel Machine oil etc.

Environmental implications

Energy

Labor

Packaging material Market

Waste treatment

Processing

Consumption

Equipment and infrastructure

Labor

+10%

+25%

Labor

Energy

Flow chart of the production process in aquaculture with the energy consuming

steps identified

Labor

Aquaculture production

phase

Wild stocking

Nutrients

Energy

Chemicals

Energy Labor Feed

Energy & labor

Environmental implications

Byproducts from animal

production etc.

Hatchery

Equipment and infrastructure

Energy

Labor

Processing of fish meal

Agriculture

Energy

Labor

Packaging material Market

Waste treatment

Processing

Consumption

Fertilizers

Capture fisheries

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Cumulative energy demand for production of 1 tonne of Milkfish in extensive farming, Philippines

?

1 000 kg CO2 eq.

? kg CO2 eq.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Allocation

1.  Wherever possible, allocation should be avoided by: -Increasing the level of detail -Expanding the system

2.  Environmental loads should be partitioned between the system’s different products and functions in a way that reflects the underlying physical relationships

3.  Allocation by other relationships, such as economic value or system expansion

Alloca&on  factor Data  

availability Sta&c Market  oriented

Weight Good Yes No

Value Average No Yes

Mortality Average No No

Energe&c  content,  kcal Average Yes No

System  expansion Poor Some&mes Some&mes

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Allocation

Allocation of finprint

Weight

Allocation of finprint Energetic content, calories

99% 1%

Finprint, basis for allocation Value

99% 1%

Carbon neutral?

From: Thrane 2006

Life Cycle Assessment difficulties: Co-product allocation

 Danish fisheries used 0.14 liter of diesel per kg landed “mixed fish”

 The difference between Norway lobster and mussels are a factor of 500 when system expansion is applied, 120 when mass allocation is applied and 50 according to economical allocation.

Labour The annual productivity of one employee in different production systems

From: Tyedmers 2000

Industrial energy inputs in salmon and carp aquaculture

Figure A: Source of industrial energy inputs to produce Atlantic salmon in intensive cage culture

Figure B: Source of industrial energy inputs to produce silver and bighead carps in semi-intensive pond culture

Atlantic salmon 40-50 J input/output Carp 1-9 J input/output

Environmental impacts from different farming methods of one tonne of salmon

Food  produc)on  system EROI  J  input  /  J  output

Carp – extensive pond culture 100-111% 100-111%

Chicken (U.S.) 25%

Milkfish extensive 24%

Milkfish intensive 16%

Commercially caught pink salmon (B.C.) 14%

Milkfish semi-intensive 14%

Pangasius intensive – small scale tidal fed 14%

Commercially caught chum salmon (B.C.) 13%

Tilapia – extensive pond culture (Indonesia) 13%

Atlantic salmon – marine net-pen culture (B.C.) 11%

Commercially caught sockeye salmon (B.C.) 11%

Mussel – longline culture (Scandinavia) 10-15%

Turkey (U.S.) 10%

Atlantic salmon – marine bag culture (B.C.) 9.3%

Gillnet fishery for salmon (B.C.) 9.0%

Troll fishery for salmon (B.C.) 8.9%

Commercially caught chinook salmon (B.C.) 8.7%

Global fisheries 8.0%

Commercially caught coho salmon (B.C.) 7.4%

Milk (U.S.) 7.1%

Swine (U.S.) 7.1%

Beef – pasture based (U.S.) 5.0%

Catfish – intensive pond culture (U.S.) 4.0%

Atlantic salmon – land-based saltwater flow-through culture (B.C.) 3.1%

Eggs (U.S.) 2.5%

Beef – feedlot (U.S.) 2.5%

Tilapia – intensive cage culture (Zimbabwe) 2.5%

Pangasius intensive – large scale pump fed 2.1%

Lamb (U.S.) 1.8%

Shrimp – intensive culture (Thailand) 1.4%

Arctic char – land-based freshwater recirculating culture (N.S.) 0.01%

•  Quantification leads to generalizations •  The outcome of a LCA is highly influenced by the

practitioner’s aim, ambition and methodology •  No one right way for allocating •  Labor is not included in most LCA studies •  Great tool, if interpreted correctly •  Energy intensive systems are more sensitive to

increasing oil prices

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Conclusion

Thanks