Kurppa.ecol.footprint

Dr. Sirpa Kurppa

Professor

MTT Agrifood Research, Finland

E-mail: [email protected]

Ecological Footprint of livestock production

Sirpa Kurppa MTT Biotechnology and Food Research 11.04.23 1

Land use

Input industryInput industryFeed productionFeed production

Feed industryFeed industry

Milk farmMilk farm

Dairy factoryDairy factory

TradeTrade

ConsumersConsumers

Energy

Toxic waste

Solid waste

Liquid waste and nutrients

LandscapeStakeholders

administrativeLocal people

Public mediaNGOs

ZitizensProduct owners

Transport

How ecological footprint is being formed.

Graph: Pasi Voutilainen

Water

Surface water

11.04.23 2

11.04.23 3

The ‘‘decision-making pyramid’’. Stoeglehner,Gernot; Narodoslawsky,MichaelImplementing ecological footprinting in decision-making processesLand Use Policy 25 (2008) 421–431

The three dimensions of Ecological Footprint

Feed

N-fixaton

Fertilisers

Milk

Meat

Vegetable crops

foddermanure

N and P surplusLosses of NH3, NO3(aq),

N2O and P aq)

Accumulation in soil

Dairy Nutrient balance – farmgate

Orig.fig. Juha-Matti Katajajuuri

Dairy /beef system

Unit process

Product(s) and by-

products

Air emissions

Water emissions

Solid waste

etc

INPUTS

(material,

energy)

Mass- and energy balances

Towards LCA approach


InitiativesNegotiating participation

Commitment building

Initial supply web modelling

Drawing action plansand questionnairies

Data collection andprocess modelling

Final report

Improvements, applications,lessons learnt, future plans

FULL-LCA

INVENTORY

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

(WEIGHTING)

FLOW SHEETS

Data verifications and iterationsallocations

BASIC LCA-PROCESS

INTERPRETATION

SCOPING

Interim reporting

Critical expert panels and adjustments

CRITICAL REVIEW

Process of supply network integrated LCA

Use of p

rimary

data from fie

ld

Modified from orig.fig. Juha-Matti Katajajuuri

Allocation in LCA is critical

• physical/weight allocation• fysiological allocation• economic allocatio

Critical issues in LCA

Attributional – consequential approach in LCA is critical

Total primary energy (MJ) of 1000 kg cheese

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Dairy f

arm

inpu

ts

Conce

ntra

tes

Feed

prod

. in fa

rm

Cattle

, cow

hous

e

Milk

deli

very

Produ

ction

of c

hees

e

Packa

gings

Delive

ry &

reta

il

MJ

prim

ary

ener

gy

Unspecified

Nuclear

Hydro

Fossil

Biomass


LCA profile

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Dairy f

arm

inpu

ts

Conce

ntra

tes

Feed

prod

. in fa

rm

Cattle

, cow

hous

e

Milk

deli

very

Prod.

of c

hees

e

Packa

gings

Delive

ry &

reta

il

kg C

O2-

eqv.

CH4

N2O

CO2

GWP of 1000 kg cheese


LCA profile

LCA profile through different product chains

LCA profile through different product chains

11.04.23

12

Product group CH4 CO2-fos N2OPFC

(CO2ekv)

Meat products 31% 27% 41% 2%

Milk products 36% 27% 37% 0%

HoReCa 21% 55% 23% 2%

Grain products 5% 40% 55% 0%

Vegetables 5% 67% 28% 0%

Beer and soft drinks 4% 56% 40% 0%

Fruits and vegetables 12% 61% 26% 1%

Alcohol 4% 56% 40% 0%

Fish products 4% 86% 9% 0%

Active components GWP of different product groups

Results from the Finnish Environmental responsibility reporting of food sector Ketjuvastuu

11.04.23

13

Production chain kg CO2 eq/€ Production chain kg CO2 eq/€

Meat products 2.7Mean of primaryproduction +processing + import

1.8

Milk products 2.4Mean of primaryproduction +processing + end use

2.0

Grain products 1.8 Mean of allproduction chains 1.3

Vegetables 1.5 Beef production 4.2

Fish production 1.0 Pork production 3.3

Beer and soft drinks 1.0 Milk production 2.7

HoReCa 0.6 Poultry production 2.1

Fruits and vegetables 0.9 Egg production 6.3

Alcohol 0.9 Other animals 11.1

GWP per Basic Price Euro

Results from the Finnish Environmental responsibility reporting of food sector Ketjuvastuu

Variation as a source for improvement

• Variation between production chains

• Variation inside a profile

• Variation between unit processes

• Focus on functional unit is critical

• Life cycle cost assessment

• Cost/benefit assessment

11.04.23 14

11.04.23 15

GWP Pork , Chicken and Eggs

Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments.M. de Vries, I.J.M. de Boer Livestock Science 128 (2010) 1–11

11.04.23 16

GWP Beef and milk

Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments.M. de Vries, I.J.M. de Boer Livestock Science 128 (2010) 1–11

11.04.23 17

Benchmarking environmental and operational parameters through eco-efficiency criteria for dairy farms. Diego Iribarren, Almudena Hospido, María Teresa Moreira, Gumersindo FeijooScience of the Total Environment 409 (2011) 1786–1798

DEA is a linear programming methodology used to quantify in an empirical manner the comparative productive efficiency of multiple similar entities (Cooper et al., 2007). Each homogenousentity whose input/output conversion undergoes assessment is named Decision Making Unit (DMU).

Benchmarking environmental and operational parameters through eco-efficiencycriteria for dairy farms.Diego Iribarren, Almudena Hospido, María Teresa Moreira, Gumersindo Feijoo Science of the Total Environment 409 (2011) 1786–1798

• average reductions of up to 38% were found for input consumption levels,

• leading to impact reductions above 20% for every environmental impact category

• the economic savings arising from efficient farming practices were also estimated.

• economic savings of up to 0.13€ per liter of raw milk were calculated, which means extra profits of up to 40% of the final raw milk price.

11.04.23 18

CH4 and Nitrous Oxide Global Emissions - IPCC

Global CH4 Emissions (Mt)

Animal Waste &Enteric

Fossil Fuel

Landfills &Sewage

Rice

Biomass

Natural Sources

Source: IPCC SRES - emissions represent mid-point of range.

Soils &ManureOther

BiomassBurningNatural

Global N2O Emissions

16.2 Tg N/yr2153 MMTCE/yr

598 Tg CH4/yr3425 MMTCE/yr

11.04.23 20

A plate modelA plate model

The example lunch represented a nutritional whole according to recommendations for 1/3 of the energy need and nutrients for daily food consumption.

The example lunch represented a nutritional whole according to recommendations for 1/3 of the energy need and nutrients for daily food consumption.

• A plate model - the principle of dividing a plate into three parts;

• half of the plate consists of vegetables,

• one quarter of protein and • one quarter of carbohydrate.

The portion is completed with bread and milk or water.

• Shares of energy from proteins, fats and carbohydrates

• protein should be 10–20 %, • from fat 25–35 % and • from carbohydrates 50–60

%.

• A plate model - the principle of dividing a plate into three parts;

• half of the plate consists of vegetables,

• one quarter of protein and • one quarter of carbohydrate.

The portion is completed with bread and milk or water.

• Shares of energy from proteins, fats and carbohydrates

• protein should be 10–20 %, • from fat 25–35 % and • from carbohydrates 50–60

%.

11.04.23 21

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Normalised global warming impacts of a Finn (Eco-Benchmark)Broad bean patty with mashed potatoes (veget.) home

Soy bean patty with mashed potatoes (vegetarian), homeBeetroot patty with barley, home

Soy bean patty with mashed potatoes (ovo-lactoveget.) homeVegetable casserole, home

Minced meat-macaroni casserole, ready-to-eatRainbow trout casserole, ready-to-eat

Chicken-pasta casserole, ready-to-eatHam casserole, ready-to-eat

Vegetable casserole, ready-to-eatBarley porridge with berry fool, ready-to-eat

Minced chicken meat-macaroni casserole, homeFrankfurter and mashed potatoes, home

Barley porridge with berry fool, homeRainbow trout casserole, home

Chicken sauce with wholemeal pasta, homeChicken sauce with wholemeal rice, home

Chicken casserole, homeChicken in cream sauce with rice, ready-to-eat

Ham casserole, homeMinced meat-macaroni casserole, home

Global warming impact of the case lunch plates in relation to normalised daily global warming impact of an average Finn

27, 4 kgCO2 ekv

+

I kgI kg I kg

+

%

Climate change impact per a food portion

11.04.23 22

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Normalised eutrification impacts of a Finn (Eco-Benchmark)Soy bean patty with mashed potatoes (vegetarian) home

Broad bean patty with mashed potatoes, homeBeetroot patty with barley, home

Chicken-pasta casserole, ready-to-eatVegetable casserole, home

Soy bean patty with mashed potatoes (ovo-lactoveget.) homeVegetable casserole, ready-to-eat

Minced meat-macaroni casserole, ready-to-eatMinced chicken meat-macaroni casserole, home

Ham casserole, ready-to-eatFrankfurter and mashed potatoes, home

Barley porridge with berry fool, ready-to-eatChicken sauce with wholemeal pasta, home

Chicken in cream sauce with rice, ready-to-eatChicken sauce with wholemeal rice, home

Chicken casserole, homeBarley porridge with berry fool, home

Ham casserole, homeRainbow trout casserole, ready-to-eat

Minced meat-macaroni casserole , homeRainbow trout casserole, home

Eutrophication impact of the case lunch plates in relation to normalised daily eutrophication impact of an average Finn

%The lunch plates comprised a main dish, salad, bread and a drink

9,6 gPO4 ekv

I gI g I g+ +

Eutrophication impact per a food portion,

specific for Nordic conditions and in terms of th Baltic Sea

11.04.23 23

Climate change impact per nutrient density

11.04.23 24

Thank you so much!

[email protected]

Devices & Hardware

Kurppa.ecol.footprint