Carbon Footprint Project Lundberg Family Farms · Part 2 – Lundberg Case Study Analysis ... pilot programs by working closely with industry partners. Developing In addition to identifying

SYSTEMATIC THOUGHT LEADERSHIP FOR INNOVATIVE BUSINESS

Green 2.0

Greg TurcotteBrian Hider

May 2008

Carbon Footprint Project

Case StudyLundberg Family Farms

Green 2.0Table of Contents

© SAP 2008 / Project Green 2.0 - Footprint / Page 2

Part 1 - IntroductionSAP Green 2.0 Project OverviewLundberg Family FarmsCarbon Emission AnalysisCarbon TrustEconomic Input Tables

Part 3 – ConclusionsFinal Results and AnalysisFood For ThoughtSuggested Methodology Improvements

Part 2 – Lundberg Case Study AnalysisProcess MapsBenchmark ComparisonLundberg Data Analysis

Green 2.0SAP Green 2.0 Project Overview


Understand carbon emission methodologyPAS 2050 standard first hand

Test the methodology by a concrete casestudy

Develop an understanding of industryrequirements

Expand SAP offerings for environmentalmanagement software

Investigate and develop new environmentalaccounting solutions

Anticipate future environmental softwarerequirements and identify opportunities forSAP

Green 2.0 ObjectivesGreen 2.0 Objectives Green 2.0 and LundbergGreen 2.0 and Lundberg

Green 2.0


SAP Project Overview

Green 2.0 is focused exploring, identifying, anddeveloping next generation environmentalmanagement solutions for SAP.

Identifying

Market forces are driving a rising interest inenvironmental management. Green 2.0 is taskedwith recognizing ways of providing this growingdemand with relevant and effective solutions.

Exploring

Green 2.0 must also explore possible softwaresolutions first hand to cultivate an expertise for newbusiness solutions. Additionally, Green 2.0 mustinvestigate possible software solutions by utilizingpilot programs by working closely with industrypartners.

Developing

In addition to identifying and exploring possiblesoftware solutions, Green 2.0 is also interested indeveloping new components to existing SAP ERPsoftware and implementing the feedback gainedfrom working with industry partners.

Carbon emission study with Lundberg FamilyFarms

Green 2.0 has identified that carbon emissionanalysis is an area gaining a lot attention in thecurrent market place. Currently many top fortune500 companies including Mars Corporation,Wal*Mart, and PepsiCo are investigating ways totrack and reduce carbon emissions across theirsupply chains.

Green 2.0 has contracted with Lundberg FamilyFarms to explore carbon emission analysis andutilize the insight gained from the Lundberg FamilyFarms case study. Green 2.0 will also use thefeedback from Lundberg to understand generalindustry requirements for future solutions.

Green 2.0

Founded in 1937

1960 direct sales topublic

Sustainability focus

Family owned

Lundberg Family FarmsRice Manufacturer – Richmond, CA


10% annual growth

56 million lbs rice

International sales

IsraelJapanChinaSouth Africa

History at a glanceHistory at a glance Lundberg todayLundberg today

Green 2.0


Introduction to Lundberg

Established in 1937 following the migration of theLundberg Family from the Midwest, Lundberg FamilyFarms has grown steadily until recently becoming thelargest rice manufacturer in California. Ever since the1930’s Lundberg has maintained family ownershipand a sense of stewardship for the environment.

Why Lundberg was selected for case study

Lundberg Family Farms was selected for carbonemission analysis for several important reasons.

The location to Chico State enabled closeinteraction with the project team

The manufacturing aspect of Lundberg FamilyFarms was predicted to provide a rich source ofemission data

Lundberg’s interest in understanding their carbonemissions

Two products selected

Two products were selected for analysis in theLundberg Family Farms case study.

8.5 oz Lightly Salted Rice Cakes

Approximately 30% of Lundberg’s overall ricecake sales

2lb Organic Short Grain Brown Rice

Approximately 23% of Lundberg’s annual ricesales

Lundberg’s rice cakes and organic short brown ricewere selected primarily because they consist of alarge percentage of Lundberg’s annual productsales. Additionally, the two products involve asignificant portion of Lundberg’s overall supplychain. The last main reason for selecting lightlysalted rice cakes and organic short grain brown ricefor analysis is that prior to the project Lundbergmaintained significant data on the two productsselected which would facilitate carbon emissionanalysis.

Green 2.0Carbon Emission Analysis


DisposalRaw Materials Distribution Consumer Use1

Product Life Cycle

CO2 N2O CH4 HFCsCO2 N2O CH4 HFCs

Carbon Emission Analysis:

Tracks GHG emissions for selected phasesalong the product life cycle

Tracks mass-in versus mass-out for majorprocesses in the form of “Mass Balance“equation

CO2eCO2e

Mass Balance EquationMass Balance Equation Key PointsKey Points

Internal Processes

1Consumer Use phase not considered in Lundberg study, see also PAS 2050

Green 2.0


Objective of carbon foot printing

The overall objective in carbon foot printing is tomeasure greenhouse gas emissions associated withthe manufacturing of products or the rendering ofservices along their respective life cycles. A sampleoverview of a product life cycle is shown above.

Depending on the methodology being used, certainphases along the product life cycle may be omitted.Additionally, the methodology being used determinesthe depth and granularity of the measurements for agiven phase.

Carbon Emission Equivalents

After identification of the gases associated directlywith the production of a product or service, thesegases are then converted to CO2 equivalents (CO2e)using coefficient factors1. A coefficient represents aconversion factor which multiplies a particular gasmeasurement into a CO2 equivalent value. The CO2equivelent value measures the 100 year GlobalWarming Potential (GWP)2 value for a particular gas.

Tracking mass in carbon emission analysis

The mass balance equation provides a simplemodel at the process level for tracking massthroughout the product life cycle.

Without tracking mass, measured emissions cannotbe accurately assigned to the product since loss ofdirect product mass along the supply chain reducesthe accuracy of a final emission figure.

For example, an input of 20 kg of material into amill must result in a corresponding 20kg of materialoutput. Some of the output can be in the form ofwaste which would then not proceed along theproduct life cycle.

Consumer Use

Consumer use is not currently measured in CarbonTrust’s PAS 2050 v1.3 methodology but is currentlybeing discussed for implementation in futureCarbon Trust methodologies.

1See the Appendix for full carbon emission index2Source: Intercontinental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC)

Green 2.0Carbon Trust


Carbon Trust’s PAS 2050 is aleading standard for assessingGreen House Gas (GHG)emissions

Encompasses entire product lifecycle1

Carbon Trust is working towardsan international standard withBritish Standards Institute (BSI)and International Organization forStandardization (ISO)

Key PointsKey Points

1With exception of “Consumer Use” life cycle phase

Green 2.0


Introduction to the Carbon Trust

The Carbon Trust1 is a U.K. based organizationformed by the UK government in 2001 tasked withimplementing the UK’s carbon neutral economy goal2.The Carbon Trust is accomplishing their purpose in anumber of ways including investments in alternativefuels, executive training programs, and carbonemission methodology development2.

PAS 2050 as a benchmark

Scope boundaries – the methodology clearlyframed that the entire life cycle from rawmaterials to disposal must be measured for CO2eemissions

Clear definitions – The PAS 2050 standardcontained clear definitions of what constitutesecondary inputs, ultimate raw materials, anddirect processes3

Future of the PAS 2050 Standard

The Carbon Trust is working with the BritishStandards Institute (BSI) and World ResourcesInstituted (WRI) standard agencies to push foradoption of their PAS 2050 carbon emissionmethodology as a global standard. Globalstandardization would enable:

Real and meaningful carbon emissioncomparisons across different industry sectors

One global standard rather than many localstandards would prevent consumers frombeing confused and misled from many differentlabels

Carbon LabelSince 2005, Carbon Trust has been developing acarbon label which displays the carbon emissionsof a particular product in terms of grams of CO2equivalent gases emitted. The CO2e value on theCarbon Label is derived using the PAS 2050standard developed by Carbon Trust.

1http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/default.ct2http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/about/about/3see Appendix for details

http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/default.ct

http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/about/about/

Green 2.0Economic Input Output Tables


Wassily Leontief

Invented by Wassily Leontief ofHarvard University

Data obtained from U.S.Department of Commerce

Nobel Prize 1973

Continues to be used for macroeconomic planning

HistoryHistory

Adaptation and UseAdaptation and Use

Carnegie Mellon Green DesignInstitute adapted the tables to estimatecarbon emissions

Used as a benchmark in the study forLundberg

Used by the team to estimateemissions outside of Lundberg’scontrol

Green 2.0

What are Economic Input Output tables (EIO)?

EIO tables allow one to take a certain value ofeconomic activity in dollars and compute thecorresponding economic activity required for 1 milliondollar output. For example, using the EIO tables1 onecan see the necessary economic activity across theindustry sectors needed to produce a finished auto.million dollars of economic activity in the Americanauto industry requires .528 million in automanufacturing costs and .060 million in auto repair.

EIO-LCA adapted to estimate Emissions

Carnegie Mellon University1 took the concept of theEconomic Input Output tables and modified the EIOmodel to create the “Economic Input-Output - LifeCycle Assessment” tool2. This tool connects U.S.economic activity with estimated emissioncontributions by economic sector.

As a result of Carnegie Mellon’s efforts1 milliondollars of economic activity can estimate globalwarming gases across industry sectors a particularindustry is dependent upon.

EIO-LCA at Lundberg

Economic input output tables were used as asecondary data source to help estimate the carbonemissions of the products under analysis. By utilizingthe EIO-LCA tool developed by Carnegie MellonUniversity, the carbon footprint project team could usethe total sales of Lundberg Family Farms’ riceproducts to determine a rough baseline of theircarbon emissions. A more detailed breakdown of thiscomparison can be found on page 18 of this report.

Using the EIO-LCA tables from Carnegie MellonUniversity was especially valuable in the Lundbergstudy considering fossil fuels were an important rawmaterial in the products being analyzed at Lundberg.Once an economic value was generated for the dollaramount of fuel consumed, an estimate of theemissions associated with fuel was calculated acrossall processes being analyzed for carbon emissionsusing EIO-LCA tables when primary data fromLundberg was not available.


1http://www.eiolca.net/2http://www.cmu.edu/academics/index.shtml

http://www.eiolca.net/

http://www.cmu.edu/academics/index.shtml



Part 1 - IntroductionGreen 2.0 Project OverviewLundberg Family FarmsCarbon Emission AnalysisCarbon TrustEconomic Input Tables



Green 2.0


Process Maps

Carbon Emission Analysis StepsCarbon Emission Analysis StepsProcess Map Creation ProcessProcess Map Creation Process

Select Methodology

Select Product

Process Mapping

Process 1 Process 2

1See page 52 “Terms and Definitions” for complete descriptions

PAS2050

Rice, RiceCakes

Steps required tomakeproduct charted

Primary and secondarydata referenced

Major MajorNon-Major

Processes placed into process groups and Major emissionprocesses are aggregated

Greater than1% of product

emissions

Less than 1%of productemissions

Greater than1% of product

emissions

Less than 1%of productemissions

Non-Major

Green 2.0

Process Maps helps define scope

Clear and concise process maps are essential for theaccuracy of a carbon footprint. The process mapsoutline all the processes relevant to a particularphase along a product’s life cycle. The total amountof data that can be measured for carbon emissions isimmense. Creating process maps narrows the focusof data to only the data that is directly relevant to theproduct itself.

Four general steps to Process Map creation

Collecting secondary data – gathering data fromother information sources such as the UnitedStates government and other organizationsoutside of the company under analysis helps tounderstand what processes are relevant

Process owner meeting – gathering informationfrom individuals in charge of specific processes inthe productssupply chain. This step allows theproject team to concretely define what processesare significant and what processes are not.

Process Map creation – Once the processes havebeen outlined by interviewing process owners anddata has been checked against secondarysources, these processes are mapped. In mostmethodologies, the processes are mapped usingflowcharts for each segment being measured inthe products supply chain.

Process Map revisions – once the process mapflowcharts have been created, additional revisionsare undertaken with feedback from the processowner.

The importance of process maps

Mapping processes is a crucial first step in carbonfootprint analysis for several reasons:

Limiting collection of unnecessary data

Identifying processes with carbon emissionsgreater than 1%Processes less than 1% overall contribution toproduct’s carbon footprint were not considered infinal carbon footprint of products


Green 2.0


Process MapsOrganic Short Grain

Green 2.0

Process map layout for Lundberg Family Farms

The case study at Lundberg Family Farms groupedmajor and non-major processes into two main parentgroups:

Manufacturing

Distribution

Of these two parent groups, manufacturing was sub-divided into further process groups in the case of theOrganic Short Grain Rice. The manufacturing maingroup for the 2 lb Rice product contained the subgroups:

Sprint Cultivation

Harvest

Post Harvest

Milling

Process Maps were helpful in mapping the stepsrequired to manufacture the finished goods underanalysis. However, process maps do not necessarily

.

need to determine the way emissions are ultimatelyaggregated. The Lundberg team eventuallyaggregated processes and data points by geographiclocation in addition to function and not just by functionexclusively.

Some processes were excluded from finalanalysis

All processes were recorded during process mapcreation even if they were later measured to be Non-Major , or less than 1% of the total carbon footprint ofa product.

Some processes and data points that were excludedfrom the Lundberg study include Waste, Raw MaterialTransport, and Bordeaux Mix Dispersal.

Ultimate Raw Materials

According to the PAS 2050 standard, Ultimate RawMaterials refers to the most basic components of aproduct that do not emit carbon. Process mapcreation follows the processes required to create aproduct to its ultimate raw material components.


Green 2.0Benchmark ComparisonIdentifying the Primary Sources Using Economic Activity1

Nitrogenousfertilizer

manufacturing23%

Rice milling13%

Phosphaticfertilizer

manufacturing11%

Trucktransportation

11%

Powergeneration and

supply42%

GrainFarming

81 %

By far, Grain Farming is the largest contributor to thecarbon footprint associated with Rice Milling

Nitrous oxide is the dominant greenhouse gassesassociated with Grain Farming

Rice farming practices differ from generic Grain Farming,with methane comprising a larger percentage of emissions


Greenhouse GasComposition

N20 = 87%CH4 = 4%CO2 = 8%


1Source: Carnegie Mellon Design Institute, EIO-LCA

Green 2.0

National grain farming benchmark

Grain farming constitutes approximately 80% of thetotal amount of carbon emissions emitted within theUnited States for agriculture. The analysis ofLundberg Family Farms’ rice products confirmed this.A majority of the greenhouse gas emissionsassociated with producing the rice products underanalysis came directly from growing the paddy rice inthe field. The Carbon Footprint Project team used theCarnegie Mellon Green Design Institute as asecondary source to derive emissions for PaddyRice2.

The primary emissions associated with grain farminginclude:

N2O (Nitrous Oxide)

CH4 (Methane)

When compared with other grains, Rice is anespecially high emitter of CH4 as a result ofmaintaining flooded fields during its growing process.

Considerations for Lundberg

Of the processes besides Grain Farming, PowerGeneration and Supply constitutes nearly half of theemissions. Alternative energy sources directly affectthis emission source and can be a source for directlyreducing emissions.

Even though grain farming emits a sizeable amount ofGreenhouse Gases (GHG), the rice growing processalso consumes a certain amount of CO2e during thegrowing process; this consumption was calculated asan offset for Lundberg. This aspect will be explainedwith greater detail later in this report.


1 Source: Carnegie Mellon Green Design Institute2 Raw rice harvested directly from the field without any processing

Green 2.0Lundberg Data AnalysisOverview of Emissions Calculating Process

Calculate the amount of fuel andelectricity consumed by processeswithin the boundary of the company

Use emission coefficients to convertenergy use into Metric Tons of CO2Equivalents (MTCO2e)1

For fossil fuels, estimate emissionsresulting from extraction, refinement,and distributution2

Sum the results from steps 2 and 3for total emissions from energyconsumed by a given process

1http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html2http://www.eiolca.net/

Step 1Quantify

Step 2Direct Emissions (Use)

Step 3EIO Table (Make)

Step 4Total MTCO2e

Calculate the amount of greenhousegas compounds released during theprocess

Use emission coefficients to convertgreenhouse gas compounds intotheir CO2 equivalent value

For raw materials, such as fertilizersor plastics, estimate the emissionsrelated to their manufacturing2

Sum the results from steps 2 and 3for total greenhouse gas compoundsreleased by a given process

Electricity and FuelConsumption

Electricity and FuelConsumption

Accounting for OtherSources

Accounting for OtherSources


http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html

http://www.eiolca.net/

Green 2.0


General Lundberg calculation process

Normalizing data into CO2 emission equivalentsfollowed four distinct steps

Quantity consumed

Emissions from use

Emissions from the pre-consumption life-cycle

Calculating total emissions coefficient

The four step process first calculates the quantity ofenergy expended or consumed directly by theprocess step and then calculates the emissionsresulting from this activity. Finally, emissions areaggregated to generate total CO2e.

The sources of emissions fell under two categories:

‘Use’ - Emissions resulting by use (i.e. dieselfuel combustion)

‘Make’ - Emissions associate with upstreamprocesses (i.e. fossil fuel extraction andrefinement)

The concept of Make and Use is found in theeconomic input-output tables released by theUnited States Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is thebasis for calculating value added in the USeconomy. Use activities refer to those directlyinvolved with building the components of theproduct while Make activities are those that resultfrom actually assembling the product.

EIO-LCA in calculation process

Using CMU’s EIO-LCA model, Make emissionsinclude all steps in the supply chain, starting withthe raw material level and ending at the point ofuse. In this study, the EIO-LCA model was used togenerate all of the ‘make’ data required in Step 3.For energy and fuel consumption, Use data wasobtained from the United States Energy InformationAgency (EIA). The EIA provides a comprehensivelist of emissions by fuel type. For most fuels,emission data is already available in the form ofCO2 equivalents.

Green 2.0


Lundberg Data AnalysisTracking CO2e emissions at the process level (Metric Tons)

PAS 2050 provides another view of looking at existing data

Fertilizer and plant respiration data was derived from secondary sources

UC Davis study combined with reporting tools provided by the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC)


Raw Materials Manufacturing Distribution

Green 2.0


Natural processes in future methodologies

Currently, Carbon Trust is considering whether ornot natural processes should be included whenestimating carbon footprints. For the purpose of thisstudy, we found it highly beneficial to acknowledgenatural processes to promote inquiry in this area.

Most methodologies that do measure naturalprocesses take into account the CO2e gases thatwould naturally be produced by a given area as anoffset to the emissions calculated in a productscarbon footprint. The reasoning for this is that theoffsetting emissions would be naturally produced byecology native to the area regardless of humancultivation.

Aggregated emissions by process groups

In the case of Lundberg Family Farms, it waspossible to categorize individual processes intogroups for ease of accounting. It proved practical togroup processes by physical locations such asbuildings. Estimates of emissions by building werethen generated using natural gas and electricitybilling statements provided by the local utilitycompany PG&E. An example of one of the groupsformed by building include the “Milling” and “RiceCake Manufacturing” process groups.

Practicality of Building grouping

Measuring emissions by building enabled theLundberg project team to assign emissions bygroup rather than aggregating individual processeswhich saved considerable time.

If the project team had to measure emissionswithout measuring by building, each machineassociated with the production of the productsunder analysis would have to be measured.

1 http://www.pge.com/index.html

Green 2.0Lundberg Data AnalysisModel CO2e emissions released during rice growing

Raw Material

N20*310 + [CH4*21 - CO2] = Net Balance

NitrogenousFertilizer N20 Organic

Material(Rice Straw)

CH4CO2

N


http://www.pge.com/index.html

Green 2.0


Rice growing model at Lundberg

Rice, or any grain for that matter, is both a sourceand a sink for greenhouse gas emissions. Riceabsorbs CO2 while growing, but also emits othergreen house gases at the same time. Workconducted to quantify these emissions has beencarried out by the Universities of California Irvineand Davis. Results from these studies were used toquantify emissions for Lundberg and provided thesecondary data found in the study. In summary:

Nitrogen fertilization leads to nitrous oxideemissions (Iowa State University, 2001).Approximately 42.3 pounds of N2O per acre.

For Rice, organic material in the soil increasesthe methane emitted by anaerobic bacteria inthe soil from approximately 20g/m2/year to40g/m2/year (IPCC), or by a factor of 2.

Plant growth captures carbon dioxide throughplant respiration, which offsets CH4 emissionsby 31% (Journal of Geophysical Research,2007).

Net Balance equation for Rice Growing Process

Growing rice results in a quantifiable amount ofGreenhouse Gas emissions. The conversionfactors for the major greenhouse gas emittersinclude:

Methane (CH4) - 40g/m2 * (21)

Nitrous oxide (N2O) – 5.4g/m2 * (310)

Carbon dioxide gas (CO2) - 260g/m2(1)

The total CO2e emissions resulting from the growthof rice equals the methane (CH4) emitted, minusthe CO2 absorbed, plus the (N20) from fertilizerused.

Emissions from Fertilizer ManufacturingAvoided

Lundberg does not use chemical fertilizers in theirrice growing model. Instead, they use a nitrogenfixing crop and other organic fertilizers. As a result,no emissions were associated with the making ofLundberg’s fertilizer source, but Lundberg still hademissions for the use of natural fertilizers.

Green 2.0Lundberg Data AnalysisActual CO2e emissions released during rice growing

Step 1Quantity of Compound

Step 2Emission Coefficient

Step 3Fertilizer Manufacturing

Step 4Total MTCO2e

1.53 MT N2O 11.34 MT CH4 74 MT CO2

N/A2

638 MTCO2e

Farming70 Acres 1

NitrogenousFertilizer Methane CO2

Sequestered-+

474 MTCO2e 238 MTCO2e -74 MTCO2e

1Sample field of 70 acres247 MTCO2e were saved through use of organic fertilizers3Data obtained using UC Davis Cost Study and IPCC guidelines.

× 310 × 21

Nitrous Oxide74%

Methane26%

Raw Material


Green 2.0


Rice growing as a natural process at Lundberg

A sample 70 acre field was used in the Lundbergcase study to derive an estimate of the emissionsassociated from growing and farming Lundberg’sRice. Using this data, an attempt was made toquantify emissions, the results of which can beseen in the diagrams above and below.

Industrial Fertilizer Vs Organic Fertilizer

According to the PAS 2050 standard, raw materialsthat are the bi-products of other products are notconsidered in carbon emission analysis. IndustrialFertilizer is specifically made for the purpose of afertilizer and therefore emissions associated withmaking must be counted in carbon emissionanalysis.

However, organic fertilizer requires minimal, if any,processing and are often considered co-products incarbon emission analysis.

The Lundberg project team therefore compared theMake and Use emissions of industrial fertilizer with

the Use emissions of organic fertilizer used atLundberg Family Farms.

Make emissions for industrial fertilizer wereestimated at 47 MTCO2e per 70 acres (CMUGreen Design Institute, EIOLCA) and Useemissions for fertilizer were estimated at 474MTCO2e per 70 acres.

Use Emissions for decomposing vegetative matter(organic fertilizer) were estimated at 119 MTCO2eper 70 acres1,2 (IPCC).

From strictly a carbon emissions perspective, it isbetter to use organic fertilizers for rice as itapproximately 402 MTCO2e less than industrialfertilizers.

According to a recent Stanford University study,one explanation for the considerably lower footprintof organic farming techniques is that they promotehigher concentrations of denitrifying bacteria whichactually consume N20 and convert it into N2; whichis a non greenhouse gas.

1 With minimal chicken manure input2This is a conservative estimate according to the IPCC

Green 2.0Lundberg Data AnalysisActual CO2e emissions released during rice farming

Raw Material

Step 1Energy Usage


Step 3Fossil Fuel Extraction

Step 4Total MTCO2e

864 gal 82 gal 10220 kWh

8.7 MTCO2e 0.80 MTCO2e 2.83 MTCO2e

1.25 MTCO2e

13.66 MTCO2e

Diesel Jet Fuel Electricity

Diesel72%

Electricity21%

Jet 7%

1Sample field of 70 acres, 2007 yield2Figures are based on primary data gathered at Lundberg Family Farms

Farming70 Acres 1


Green 2.0


Farming operation breakdown

Three primary components were considered atLundberg Family Farms for carbon emissionanalysis:

Diesel

Jet Fuel

Electricity

Diesel composed a fairly significant amount ofemissions. The primary source for dieselconsumption was the farm equipment necessary forthe cultivation and harvesting of the rice.

Jet Fuel was the smallest component of fuelemissions since the only source included theplanes responsible for seeding and pestmanagement.

Electricity consumption was significant, and may bea potential area for emissions reduction. Thepumps used in flooding the fields consumeelectricity.

During initial flooding, it is necessary to run thesepumps continuously for 72 hours. During theremaining growing season, pumps are run in 2hours intervals when needed to maintain waterlevels. However, most of the water table balancingis done by latticing the fields in such a way thatgravity irrigates the fields with minimal input fromwater pumps.

Alternative energy

It is important to note that an carbon emissionoffset must be directly associated withmanufacturing the product. Most carbon emissionanalysis methodologies do not consider any indirectalternative fuel offsets such as planting trees.

For instance, Lundberg runs two solar arrays thatcombine for approximately 687,826 kWh/yr. Thisgenerates around 15-20% of their overall powerneeds and is a direct offset to their carbon footprintsince the solar energy from these panels is directlyused to power the facilities producing the productunder analysis.

Green 2.0Lundberg Data AnalysisComparing Results from Rice Growing and Farming Operation

Total Emissions for 70 acres = 652 MTCO2e


Methane Released(CH4 minus CO2sequestered)25%

NitrogenContained inFertilizers (N2O)73%

Petroleum FuelsConsumed byFarm Equipment1.66%

ElectricityConsumed byPumps for Flooding0.43% Grain

Farming81%

N20 = 87%CH4 = 4%CO2 = 8%

By combining primary data gathereddirectly from Lundberg Family Farmswith secondary data from UC Davis,results are similar to estimatesgenerated using the EIO-LCA model

Methane plays a much larger role inthe carbon footprint of paddy ricewhen compared with typical grainsdue to flooding of the rice fields


1 Source: Carnegie Mellon Green Design Institute, http://www.ce.cmu.edu/GreenDesign/

EIO-LCA model1

http://www.ce.cmu.edu/GreenDesign/

Green 2.0


Rice growing and farming breakdown

Comparing rice growing and rice farming betweenLundberg and the EIO-LCA model yieldedsimilarities and differences:

The results generated using the EIO-LCAmodel was not rice specific

CH4 in not nearly as significant in non-floodedcrops such as wheat or corn

Both results show the N20 from fertilizers is theprimary contributor to the carbon footprint

Fossil Fuel consumed during harvesting is onlya small contributor when compared with thenatural processes associated with farming

Comparing Lundberg with EIO-LCA predictions

By combining primary data from energyconsumption with the secondary data ofcompounds released during rice growing, a chartsimilar to what was predicted by CMU’s EIO-LCAtables can be produced.

However, there were some differences:

Lundberg’s EIO-LCA estimation has 2% lowerCO2e in the form of N20 than the standard USrice farming benchmark

Lundberg has 21% more CO2e than thestandard US rice farming benchmark forMethane (CH4) emissions as a result of tillingchopped rice straw back into the soil afterharvesting

Green 2.0Lundberg Data AnalysisCO2e Emissions – Drying & Storage1

Manufacturing

Step 1Energy Usage


Step 3Fossil Fuel Extraction

Step 4Total MTCO2e

2815 gal 2026 gal 505,000 kWh

29 MTCO2e 18 MTCO2e 140 MTCO2e

43 MTCO2e

639 MTCO2e

Diesel Gasoline ElectricityDrying &

Storage Natural Gas

4534 Therms

248 MTCO2e

CO2Fumigation

161 MTCO2e

161 MTCO2e

Natural Gas43%

Electricity22%

Diesel 6%

Gasoline 4%

CO2Fumigation

25%


1 2007 production including all varieties of rice

Green 2.0


Drying and storing emissions at Lundberg

Unlike rice growing, it was not necessary to gathersecondary data to estimate emissions for theDrying and Storage phase of Rice manufacturing.Primary data was gathered from process ownersand energy bills provided by PG&E.

Drying and storing emissions breakdown

During the Drying and Storage phase, severalemission sources were identified:

Diesel

Gasoline

Electricity

Natural Gas

CO2 Fumigation

CO2 Fumigation

Of the processes listed, the most divergent fromprevious CO2e emission collection was the CO2fumigation. CO2 fumigation is an organic pest andbacteria control technique whereby raw CO2 isflushed into the grain storage areas. The raw CO2is hazardous to pests and prevents them fromspoiling the grain. Unfortunately, it also causes adirect CO2 addition to the carbon footprint of therice product.

Green 2.0Lundberg Data AnalysisGHG Protocol Short Ton Mile


10 products at 10,000 miles10,000 products at 2,500 miles10,000 products at 2,500 miles

How do we aggregate volume of productshipped, distance traveled, andtransportation method used?

The Big QuestionThe Big Question

Distribution

Green 2.0


Distribution is a difficult area for data collection

Distribution comprises approximately 13-15% ofmost carbon footprints. Unfortunately it is also oneof the more difficult components to track in carbonemission analysis. There are a wide variety ofaspects to distribution that pose some seriousissues with regards to data collection:

Different fuel consumption rates for vehiclesand ships

Identifying distribution routes deep in thedistribution chain

Addressing distance traveled versus amount ofproduct shipped

It is typical for most companies to have a widevariety of trucks in their distribution fleet. This canbe problematic from a general carbon footprintperspective. It means that the different fuelconsumption rates will either have to bestandardize among all companies to use the samerate or that a

Standardized way of averaging fuel consumptionacross all trucks would have to be developed.Additionally, any sort of averaging would have to beweighted to account for the frequency the truck isused within a supply chain.

Another issue regarding distribution data is thatmost companies do not track distribution routesbeyond the first distributor along the supply chain.This is problematic when trying to achieve anaccurate footprint because the product oftenundergoes more transportation beyond the firstdistributor.

The last issue regarding distribution data is trying toweight the amount of product shipped versus thedistance the product was shipped. Taking a simpleaverage of distance traveled and amount of productshipped for all distribution routes results in highlyskewed data since some routes will have outlyingvalues for either distance traveled or amount ofproduct shipped. A solution to this problem isproposed later in this report.

1 Source: Carnegie Mellon Green Design Institute, http://www.ce.cmu.edu/GreenDesign/

Green 2.0Lundberg Data AnalysisGHG Protocol Short Ton Mile - Calculating Short Ton Mile


Units Volume25 lb bags

24 lb cases

6.4 lb cases

152,984

32,560

88,277

3,824,600

781,440

569,293

Total Pounds1912

391

285

Short Tons

25 lb Cases64%

24 lb Cases25%

6.4 lb Pack11%

89% of product weight shipped was rice

11% of product weight shipped was ricecakes

More actual product in units wasshipped in rice cakes


Distribution

http://www.ce.cmu.edu/GreenDesign/

Green 2.0


Finding the solution

The World Resources Institute (WRI) hasdeveloped a series of tools for a Greenhouse Gas(GHG) Protocol. The Lundberg case study used astandard developed by the WRI known as the ShortTon Mile to track distribution.

What is a Short Ton?

A Short Ton is equivalent to the common ton (2,000lbs). Calculating the Short Ton requires the totalweight of product shipped during the year beinganalyzed. In the case of Lundberg Family Farms,the project team calculated the total weight ofproduct shipped for 2 lb Organic Short Grain Riceand 8.5 oz Organic Short Grain Rice Cakes. Theproject team also identified the total weight ofproduct shipped to each first distributor in thedistribution chain.

Mass Balance and the Short Ton Mile

Carbon Emission analysis must correspond to agiven time frame. The case study of LundbergFamily Farms measured product activity for theyear 2006-2007. However, the amount of productshipped during 2007 may have included rice fromthe 2005 harvest. Therefore it is important thatmass balance must be measured in order to avoidcalculating more Short Tons of product shippedthan were produced in the year under analysis.

If proper mass balance is maintained, the totalamount of Short Tons shipped should not exceedthe total amount of Short Tons produced for theyear under study.

Green 2.0Lundberg Data AnalysisTotal Distribution Emissions


Short Ton Miles

745,021745,021

2,926,4192,926,419

Emission Factors

.0146.0146

.1033.1033

Tons Miles67,45367,453

375,292375,292

132132

2,4542,454

2,926,419

11

302

Shipping has 20% Short TonMiles, but only 4% of MetricTons CO2

Trucking largest contributor toCO2 emissions

Emission Factors affirmed byIPCC

No inter-model transportationtracked

25 lb bags excluded from finalcarbon footprint


Distribution

Green 2.0


What is a Short Ton Mile?

A Short Ton Mile is the product of the milestraveled multiplied by the total Short Tons of theproduct shipped to a specific destination.

Emission Factors

The WRI provides a set of emission factors usingfigures provided by the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC). The emission factorsmeasure the average CO2e for emissionsassociated with transporting one ton, one mileusing a given form of transportation.

Generating carbon emissions using Short TonMile

Estimated emissions using the Short Ton Milesystem can be generated by multiplying the ShortTon Miles of a product by a respective carbonemission factor.

Short Ton Miles X Emission Factor = CO2e

Intermodal transportation

Intermodal transportation refers to anytransportation that involves multiple forms oftransportation for one specific distribution route, i.e.one route using both ship and truck. Where two ormore transportation methods are used for onedistribution route, emissions using Short Ton Milesusing one mode of transportation can be calculatedseparately from another mode of transportation andthen averaged together to form an averageemission value for a particular route.

Benefits of the Short Ton Mile

The Short Ton Mile weights the amount ofproduct shipped versus distance

Most companies already have the informationrequired to calculate emissions based on ShortTons

Short Ton Miles is supported by WRI withplans of making it an international standard

Green 2.0


Lundberg Data AnalysisTracking Product Mass: Manufacturing

Mass Balance1 identifies:

Waste

Co-Products

Where to Assign Emissions

Manufacturing


1Carbon Trust Methodology PAS 2050

Manufacturing

Green 2.0


Farming Drying &Storage Milling

153,100 cwt 132,200 cwt 95,200 cwt

Lundberg Data AnalysisProduct: Organic Short Grain Brown

Raw Materials Manufacturing Manufacturing

24% of total manufacturing output is Organic Short Grain Brown (OS Rice)

OS Rice is assigned 24% of the emissions from Drying & Storage andMilling processes

This same process was followed for tracking the mass of Rice Cakes




Part 1 - IntroductionGreen 2.0 Project OverviewLundberg Family FarmsCarbon Emission AnalysisCarbon TrustEconomic Input Tables



Green 2.0Final Results and AnalysisTotal Carbon Footprint (CO2e) Without Natural Processes


Packaging105g, 23%

Milled Rice120g, 26%

Distribution228g, 51%

Milled Rice19g, 7%

Packaging96g, 37%


Manufacturing100g, 38%

8.5 oz Lightly Salted Rice Cakes8.5 oz Lightly Salted Rice Cakes2lb Organic Short Grain Brown Rice2lb Organic Short Grain Brown Rice

453g 262g

Key PointsKey Points1 1

1not endorsed by the Carbon Trust andintended for demonstration purposes only

Additional process for Rice Cakes

Differences in distribution result ofsupply chain

Differences in milled rice result ofproduct weight

Green 2.0


The Carbon Trust Label

The final results using the PAS 2050 methodologyfor Lundberg are displayed above using a labelsimilar to the official Carbon Trust label. In the nearfuture labels such as the ones above might appearon a product after its life cycle has been analyzedusing a methodology similar to PAS 2050. Thelabel demonstrates the highest carbon emissioncoefficient measured for this product. It wasincluded in the final results of the Lundberg casestudy for demonstration purposes.

Explaining the results

The conclusions of the study introduced severalareas of inquiry.

Distribution

The distribution component for both products wasdisproportionally higher for the rice than the ricecakes. This was the result of rice being more widelydistributed than rice cakes and rice cakes weighingless than the 2lb rice bag.

Manufacturing

Manufacturing was a process unique only to RiceCakes. It added an entirely new component to thecarbon emission figure associated with Rice Cakes.

Rice Milling

Rice milling had somewhat disparate results mainlybecause of the units being compared. The 2 lb ricebag contained more rice than the 8.5 oz rice cakepackage. As a result, more emissions wereassociated with the 2 lb rice bag than the rice cakes

Absence of natural processes

Natural processes constitute a significant overallcontribution to carbon emissions. Currently, theCarbon Trust is considering whether to discountnatural processes from carbon emission analysis.The main argument for this is that companies aresomewhat limited in how much they can changenatural processes.

Green 2.0Final Results and AnalysisTotal Carbon Footprint (CO2e) With Natural Processes

Packaging105g, 3%

Milled Rice3,850g, 92%


Milled Rice619g, 72%

Packaging96g, 11%

Distribution47g, 5%

Manufacturing100g, 12%

8.5 oz Lightly Salted Rice Cakes8.5 oz Lightly Salted Rice Cakes2lb Organic Short Grain Brown Rice2lb Organic Short Grain Brown Rice

4183g 862g

1 1

1not endorsed by the Carbon Trust andintended for demonstration purposes only


Huge natural process component

Difference more severe for cakes

Natural processes should beaddressed by future carbonanalysis methodologies


Green 2.0


Including natural processesWith natural processes included, the carbonfootprint of:

Rice is increased by 923%

Rice Cakes is increased by 329%.

Including natural processes, the carbon footprint ofthe 2lb Rice product goes up much more as aresult of containing more actual rice in the finishedproduct.

Major Benefit of Carbon Emission Analysis

An indirect benefit realized from the generalprocess of carbon emission analysis includes theoptimizing of supply chain processes. This occursfrom the fact that a reduction in CO2e emissions isgenerally a reduction in the amount of energyconsumed or used in creating or transporting theproduct. Reducing energy at any stage along aproduct’s life cycle generally results in economicsavings that would have been used to procure oruse the energy that would have been expended.

Looking into the future

Including natural processes rises the footprint ofagricultural products in general, but rice is anespecially high emitter of natural process CO2eemissions.

This poses an interesting dilemma for future carbonlabels. From a strictly CO2e emissions perspective,Rice would be viewed as a negative product.However, there are many other categories whererice demonstrates its superiority over other grains.It produces an extremely high volume of food peracre and is relatively easy to grow. Unfortunately, Ifproducts are compared strictly from a CO2eperspective, consumers may be encouraged to buyproducts which may have low carbon emissions,but high overall negative environmental impact.

Green 2.0


Food For ThoughtConsiderations for the future

SequestrationSequestration

Acts as a carbon sink with CO2 beingsequestered during plant growth.

For example, use as building materialwould lock away the sequestered CO2

Release Through CombustionRelease Through Combustion

Quantity of CO2 taken-in during plant growthoffsets burning

Regulations generally prevent/discouragewidespread burning for air quality reasons

Possible use as second generation bio fuel

DecompositionDecomposition

Decomposing organic material in the soilgenerates methane

Tilling and flooding increase anaerobicactivity, increasing methane emissions

Rice StrawSignificant EmissionsSignificant Emissions

7.98% Power Generation81%

Growing

There are certain areas that generatesignificant portions of emissions

Growing

Power Generation

Direct clean power generation such assolar panels is excellent for lowering powergeneration

Most methodologies do not consider offsets

Legislation is quickly approaching wherecompanies will have to account foremissions


Areas of Focus

CO2

CO2

Green 2.0


Ways of mitigating natural CO2e

An enormous amount of CO2e is generated fromthe production of rice. Seeking ways to mitigate theamount of CO2e released by rice farming will havea great effect on the carbon footprint of a productcontaining a fairly significant amount of rice. Ricestraw is a byproduct of growing rice and is a largecontributor to the CO2e in the rice growing process.

There are several ways to deal with rice straw:

Sequestration

Combustion/Burning

Decomposition

Sequestration refers to anything that locks or sealsaway the rice straw; therefore eliminating thepossibility of the rice straw leaking the CO2e itconsumed while growing in the field. From anemissions perspective, sequestration is a great wayof preventing CO2e from entering the

atmosphere. However, if rice straw is processed inthis manner, a farmer will have to seek alternativeways of fertilizing their field that do not involve ricestraw.

In a 70 acre field of rice, burning rice straw wouldgenerate approximately 74 MTCO2 (UC Davis,Cost to Grow Rice 2007) whereas decomposingRice straw in the field would generate 119 MTCO2efrom micro bacteria activity. Burning rice strawwould save approximately 45 MTCO2e fromentering the atmosphere annually and can act as amild fertilizer.

However, despite its dramatically higher emissiontotal, retiling rice straw back into the soil and lettingit decompose is a much better fertilizer than ash.Therefore a company must choose between higheremission totals but richer fertilizer, or less carbonemission totals and the need for conventionalfertilizers.

Burning rice straw is generally prohibited by airquality standards, reflecting the impact on otherenvironmental parameters.

Green 2.0Suggested Methodology Improvements


SolutionsSolutions

Secondary Data is not standardizedor incredibly reliable

ProblemsProblems

What constitutes a representativesample of a particular product’slife cycle is not explicitly definedby PAS 2050 or any other currentmethodology

The energy required to use orconsume a product is not currentlyconsidered by PAS 2050

Consumer misinformation aboutproduct purchasing decisions

More stringent guidelines aboutwhat data sources can be usedneed to be developed so thatfuture methodologies are using thesame metrics

Creating an average energyexpenditure standard for ageographical region

A total pollution label for morethan just emissions

Whatever produces the mostemissions must be chosen as asample

Green 2.0


Improvements to future methodologies

Secondary Data

It is important in future methodologies to establish aset of standardized data so different project teamstake their measurements with assurance that thesemeasurements are accurate, reliable, andcomparable.

Consumer misinformation

Products already display many labels. More labelscan cause consumers to become informationdesensitized to the products they purchase.

Additionally, companies can use carbon labeling tomislead consumers by making claims that theirproduct is better just because it has a lower carbonfootprint. There are many other factors that aconsumer should consider before making apurchase besides a carbon label.

For example, some organic foods can have highercarbon footprints than non-organic foods.

Yet organic foods are generally moreenvironmentally friendly than non-organic foods. Asolution to this problem is to create a much broaderpollution label with carbon emissions as acomponent of this label.

Consumer Use energy

Future methodologies should consider the amountof energy consumers must expend to prepare oruse a product. Many products generate a relativelysignificant amount of CO2e emissions in their useor preparation that should not be ignored. Apossible solution to this problem is developing aglobal or regional standard which identifies lifetimeusage durations for certain products and the fuelsthese products require.

Sampling within the Supply Chain

Future methodologies should also address whatconstitutes a representative sample within acompanies supply chain. To encourage companiesto reduce their carbon footprint and seek highestvalue added, they should be forced to choose theirhighest carbon emitting samples.

Green 2.0Acknowledgements, further information andcontact

Info:The Green2.0 project is and SAP Research effortfocused on next generation of environmentalmanagement software, including the topics:

Environmental AccountingLifecycle Assessment / Product Lifecyclemanagement andEco asset management

For more info, see:https://wiki.sdn.sap.com/wiki/x/FOQ

Contact:Andreas VogelSAP Research Palo [email protected]+1 415 341 3438

Funding:Funding for this project was provided through anSAP Research grant. Thanks to Paul Hoffmann forhis support.

California State University Chico:We would like to thanks CSU Chico faculty andstaff for their support, specifically Ray Boykin,Angela Caster, Kendyl Dunivan.

Lundberg Family Farms:This project wouldn’t have been possible withoutthe support from Lundberg Family Farms. ThanksJessica Lundberg, Grant Lundberg, TimothySchultz and many members of Lundberg staff fortheir interest, help and patience with the projectteam.

OthersCarbon Trust / Carbon Label team

Green 2.0 Info and ContactGreen 2.0 Info and ContactAcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Green 2.0

Brian Hider graduated from California State University Chico in December of2007 with a degree in Business Management Information Systems and aminor in Managing for Sustainability. During his college experience, Brianinvolved himself in many clubs and organizations local to his University. Hewas a founding member and subsequent president of the Net Impactundergraduate chapter at Chico State. Net Impact is a national societywhich focuses on developing best practices for sustainable business andpreparing students for careers in sustainability. Brian was also the outreachcoordinator for one of the largest sustainability conferences in NorthAmerica. Chico State's "This Way to Sustainability III". Upon graduatingfrom Chico State, Brian was hired by SAP in December 2007 to conduct acarbon footprint analysis of Lundberg Family Farms which was successfullyfinalized March 27th 2008. Brian is currently an intern with SAP Researchworking out of Palo Alto.

Contact:Brian HiderSAP Research Palo [email protected]+1 530 828 4114

Greg Turcotte is currently a student at California State University Chicostudying Environmental Economics. He was recognized as a distinguishedscholar by SAP in 2007 when he wrote a business case for sustainability.Greg was hired along with Brian Hider by SAP Research in December of2007 to conduct a carbon emission analysis of two rice products producedby Lundberg Family Farms. Upon completion of the Lundberg project,Greg accepted an offer from Lundberg Family Farms to be their firstSustainability Manager where he is now working diligently to optimizeLundberg's carbon footprint.

Contact:Greg TurcotteLundberg Family [email protected]+1 530 277 4676

Greg TurcotteGreg TurcotteBrian HiderBrian Hider

Authors

https://wiki.sdn.sap.com/wiki/x/FOQ

mailto:[email protected]



Green 2.0Special Thanks

VP Administration , Lundberg Family Farms

Tim was crucial in embracing the project at a high level and establishing asense of legitimacy and priority for the case study at all levels of thecompany. It was his open acceptance and backing of the projectwhich really brought the other process owners on board andestablished a solid foundation that the benefits of which the projectteam enjoyed throughout the duration of the study.

Director of Raw Materials Rice Production, Lundberg Family Farms

Lance’s involvement in the project was critical to its success. After informingLance of our intentions, he gathered and prepared voluminousamounts of highly relevant data. Furthermore, it was Lance whichreally shaped the project team’s understanding of the Rice growingprocess and Lundberg’s general supply chain. Even after Lanceexceeded our expectations with regards to the information heprovided, he continued to be an invaluable resource throughout theproject providing timely feedback for various questions and acting asan inside motivator for the case study in general.

VP Manufacturing, Lundberg Family Farms

Like Lance Benson, Kurt provided the project team with large amounts ofcomplete and highly valuable data for the manufacturing proceduresassociated with the two Rice products under analysis. It was his inputwhich really shaped the success of the later stage of the project.

Sustainability Manager, Patagonia

Though not associated directly with the Lundberg project, Elissa’s inputregarding the calculation of distribution phase emissions wasessential in the Lundberg case study. Her feedback provided theproject team with a simple, effective, and globally recognizedstandard for calculating this otherwise complex emissions phase.


Timothy SchultzTimothy Schultz Kurt NathanKurt Nathan

Lance BensonLance Benson Elissa LoughmanElissa Loughman

Green 2.0AppendixSources

PAS 2050 – “Specification for the measurement of the embodiedgreenhouse gas emissions in products and services.” While thisstandard is currently a working draft, it’s pretty much therulebook for what we’re doing. It provides a basic outline fortracking emissions and product mass across a supply chain. Thegoal of this methodology is to accurately quantify the amount ofemissions embodied by a single product, accounting foremissions generated during its production and throughout itsintended lifespan.

Carbon Trust Methodology – A methodology developed by theCarbon Trust, a British corporation the government establishedto manage the countries carbon reductions. In large part, thismethodology is identical to PAS 2050.

Expanding upon PAS 2050, the Carbon Trust has created acertification process, which results in a product being labeledwith an estimated carbon emission value. The Carbon Trustlabel would ideally then be used to compare carbon emissionsacross products. In some ways, this label is similar to organiccertification, something Lundberg is already familiar with.

The economic benefit of labeling has brought Lundberg is likelyan incentive for them to participate in a study such as this.

EIA – “Energy Information Agency.” This has been our primarysource for energy data. The EIA has compiled a list of emissioncoefficients for various fuel types, encompassing all fuels used atLundberg.

IPCC – “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Recentlyawarded half of a Nobel Prize for their work, the IPCC hascreated numerous standards for monitoring and reporting GHGemissions. Particularly useful for this project is their standard forconverting green-house-gasses such as methane, nitrous oxide,and CFCs into a unit of measurement based on the 100 yearheating potential of a metric ton of carbon dioxide. 1 MTCO2 isgiven a value of 1 GWP, or global warming potential. This is theunit of measurement we are using in our study.

BSI – “British Standards Institute.” Recognized as the worlds firststandards organization, the British Standards Institute passes awide range of standards across industries. Currently, BSI isworking with the Carbon Trust to develop official procedures forcarbon footprinting.

ISO – “International Organization for Standardization.”Headquartered in Geneva Switzerland and founded in 1947, theInternational Organization for Standardization is aconglomeration of many world wide standard organizations. TheCarbon Footprint Project and many other carbon footprintinginitiatives use ISO standards to identify and define terms withintheir methodologies.


Green 2.0AppendixTerms and Definitions


Coefficient - A number that is constant for a given substance,body, or process.

Co-product – Any two or more products from the same unitprocess.

Direct Processes – Processes that involve the actual product orits primary components.

Dockage – Any material collected during the Rice harvestingprocess which cannot be utilized for value by harvesting entity.Dockage commonly includes mud, rocks, weeds, and insects.

First Distributor – A retailer or distributor that first receives aproduct from the manufacturing entity.

Paddy Rice – Rice that has been harvested and experienced noprocessing. Paddy Rice is often mixed with considerableDockage.

Primary Data – Data that is received directly from directobservation or stakeholder records.

Secondary Inputs – materials and components of a product orservice that are not directly embodied in the finished product orservice but still necessary for its creation. Common secondaryinputs include gasoline and cleaning agents.

Second generation bio fuel – A bio-fuel that does not divertsignificant production away from food products and has agreater net carbon emission reduction than traditional ethanolproduction.

Sequestration – A biochemistry term that refers to the lockingaway of a compound or metabolite.

Secondary Data – Data that is received from entities outsidecarbon emission contract. Examples of secondary datasources include Intercontinental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) and World Resources Institute (WRI)

Ultimate raw materials – materials directly involved in themanufacturing or rending of a service that do not have anemission factor in and of themselves and are not the result ofprocesses or materials that have a measurable emissionfactor.

Green 2.0


AppendixProcess Maps – OS Lightly Salted Rice Cake

Green 2.0


AppendixProcess Maps – OS Ultimate Raw Materials

Green 2.0


AppendixProcess Maps – OS Cakes Ultimate Raw Materials

Green 2.0AppendixMajor Green House Gas Coefficient Table


1

1 Carbon Trust, http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/envrp/pdf/conversion-factors.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/envrp/pdf/conversion-factors.pdf

Documents

Carbon Footprint Project Lundberg Family Farms · Part 2 – Lundberg Case Study Analysis ... pilot programs by working closely with industry partners. Developing In addition to identifying