Carbon footprint: an ecological indicator in food production

• Autorzy: Wiek A. , Tkacz K.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Decreasing energy resources, world population growth, and the development of societies based on the principle of sustainable development are the main factors increasing the importance of ecological aspects of production and consumption. One of the proposals taking into account the ecological aspect is the introduction of an ecological indicator – carbon footprint – characterized by all kinds of products and services. The proposed methodology for determining the value of carbon footprint does not include some important elements. Identified problems in this work are an unreliable estimation of greenhouse gas emissions and differences in the value of the carbon footprint (depending on the farming techniques used and the manner of its expression). The aim of our study was to analyze the available literature data on the size of its carbon footprint during the production of animal materials. The tool used to determine the CFP value was life cycle analysis (LCA). A study of the literature showed that the CFP value in the production of pork in various agricultural systems ranges from the 2.06 kg CO₂ eq/kg (good agricultural practice) to 3.97 kg CO₂ eq/kg (organic agricultural production).

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: 22
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.53-61,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Wiek A.

• Department of Industrial Commodity Science, Bases of Technique and Energy Management, University of Warmia and Mazury, 10-726 Olsztyn, Poland

autor

Tkacz K.

• Department of Industrial Commodity Science, Bases of Technique and Energy Management, University of Warmia and Mazury, 10-726 Olsztyn, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. EEA 2010. The European environment – state and outlook 2010: Synthesis. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 2010 [In Polish].
• 2. Directive 2008/1/EC. Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control. Official Journal of the European Union L24, pp. 8-29, 2008.
• 3. PAS 2050: 2008. Specification for the assessment of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services, Carbon Trust, DEFRA and British Standards Institution, London, 2008.
• 4. WIEDMANN T., MINX J. A Definition of 'Carbon Footprint'. In: C. C. Pertsova, Ecological Economics Research Trends: Chapter 1. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge NY, USA, 4, 2008.
• 5. Document Information AEE. The annual inventory of greenhouse gas emissions of the European Community from 1990 to 2007. The inventory report, May 2009.
• 6. STEINFELD H., GERBER P., WASSENAAR T., CASTEL V., ROSALES M., DE HAAN C. Livestock’s Long Shadow. Environmental issues and options. FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2006.
• 7. IPCC. Fourth Assessment Report, 2007.
• 8. EESC 3.2.2009. Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The link between climate change and agriculture at European level’. Official Journal of the European Union C27, pp. 59-65, 2009.
• 9. SOLOMON S.D., QIN M., MANNING Z., CHEN M., MARQUIS K.B., AVERYT M.T., MILLER H.L. (Eds.) Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2007.
• 10. HERTWICH E.G., PETERS G.P. Carbon footprint of nations: A global, trade-linked analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 6414, 2009.
• 11. GERLACH T.M. Present-day CO₂ emissions from volcanoes. Eos Trans. AGU, 72, (23), 249, 1991.
• 12. PIETRZAK S. N and P budget in selected dairy farms in view of changes in Polish agriculture. WATER – ENVIRONMENT - RURAL AREAS 4, 1, (10), 159, 2004 [In Polish].
• 13. DE BACKER E., AERTSENS J., VERGUCHT S., STEURBAUT W. Assessing the ecological soundness of organic and conventional agriculture by means of life cycle assessment (LCA): A case study of leek production. British Food Journal, 111, (10), 1046, 2009.
• 14. WEIDEMA B.P., THRANE M., CHRISTENSEN P., SCHMIDT J., LOKKE S. Carbon footprint a catalyst for Life Cycle Assessment? Journal of Industrial Ecology 12, (1), 3, 2008.
• 15. ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 2006.
• 16. ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 2006.
• 17. ISO/CD 14067-1. Carbon footprint of products - Part 1: Quantification, International Organization for Standardization, 2010.
• 18. ISO/CD 14067-2. Carbon footprint of products - Part 2: Communication, International Organization for Standardization, 2010.
• 19. WRI/WBCSD. The greenhouse gas protocol, Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard: e-reader version. World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), USA, September 2011.
• 20. PAS 2060. WHITE PAPER, PAS 2060, THE FIRST STANDARD FOR CARBON NEUTRALITY, CARBON CLEAR, January 2011.
• 21. EL-HAGE SCIALABBA N., HATTAM C. (Eds) Organic Agriculture, Environment and Food Security, Environment and Natural Resources Service, Sustainable Development Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Online document, http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4137e/y4137e00.htm. Accessed February 12, Chapter 2, 2009.
• 22. STOLZE M., PIORR A., HÄRING A., DABBERT S. The environmental impacts of organic farming in Europe. Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, 6, 1, 2000.
• 23. DE ALVARENGA R.A.F., DA SILVA JÚNIOR V.P., SOARES S.R. Comparison of the ecological footprint and a life cycle impact assessment method for a case study on Brazilian broiler feed production. Journal of Cleaner Production 28, 28, 2012.
• 24. BASSET-MENS C., VAN DER WERF H.M.G. Scenariobased environmental assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 105, 127, 2005.
• 25. MOURON P., NEMECEK T., SCHOLZ R.W., WEBER O. Management influence on environmental impacts in an apple production system on Swiss fruit farms: combining life cycle assessment with statistical risk assessment. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 114, 311, 2006.
• 26. CHARLES R., JOLLIET O., GAILLARD G., PELLET D. Environmental analysis of intensity level in wheat crop production using life cycle assessment. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 113, 216, 2006.
• 27. VAN DER WERF H.M.G., TZILIVAKIS J., LEWIS K., BASSET-MENS C. Environmental impact of farm scenarios according to five assessment methods. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 118, 327, 2007.
• 28. BERLIN D., UHLIN H.E. Opportunity cost principles for life cycle assessment: toward strategic decision making in agriculture. Progress in Industrial Ecology, An International Journal, 1, 187, 2004.
• 29. SCHAU E.M., FET A.M. LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations. International Journal of LCA, 13, (3), 255, 2008.
• 30. FLYSJÖ A., CEDERBERG C., HERIKSSON M., LEDGARD S. How does co-product handling affect the carbon footprint of milk? Case study of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16, 421, 2011.
• 31. BASSET-MENS C., KELLIHER F.M., LEDGARD S., COX N. Uncertainties of global warming potential for milk production on a New Zealand farm and implications for decision making. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14, 630, 2009.
• 32. CEDERBERG C., MATTSSON B. Life cycle assessment of milk production – a comparison of conventional and organic farming. J. Clean Prod. 8, 49, 2000.
• 33. ARSENAULT N., TYEDMERS P., FREDEEN A. Comparing the environmental impacts of pasture-based and confinement-based dairy systems in Nova Scotia (Canada) using life cycle assessment. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 7, (1), 19, 2009.
• 34. THOMASSEN M.A., VAN CALKER K.J., SMITH M.C.J., IEPEMA G.L., DE BOER I.J.M. Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands. Agricultural Systems 96, 96, 2008.
• 35. CEDERBERG C., FLYSJÖ A. Life cycle Inventory of 23 Dairy Farms in South-Western Sweden. Report No. 728. SIK, the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2004.
• 36. GERBER P., VELLINGA T., OPIO C., HENDERSON B., STEINFELD H. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Dairy Sector, A Life Cycle Assessment. FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Animal Production and Health Division, Rome, 2010.
• 37. CEDERBERG C., STADIG M. System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8, (6), 350, 2003.
• 38. FLYSJÖ A., CEDERBERG C., HERIKSSON M., LEDGARD S. The interaction between milk and beef production and emissions from land use change – critical considerations in life cycle assessment and carbon footprint studies of milk. Journal of Cleaner Production 28, 136, 2012.
• 39. HATFIELD J.L., FOLLETT R.F. (Eds.) Nitrogen in the Environment: Sources, Problems, and Management, Second edition. Transformation and transport processes of nitrogen in agricultural systems. Amsterdam, Boston, Academic Press, Chapter 2, 2008.
• 40. MARQUER P. Pig farming in the EU, a changing sector. Agriculture and fisheries. Statistics in focus – Eurostat, 8, 2010.
• 41. IWAN B. Tendencies in changes in the consumption of dairy and meat products in Poland. Roczniki Naukowe SERiA 4, 25, 2007 [In Polish].
• 42. EL-HADIDI Y.M., AL-TURKI A.I. Organic fertilizer and biogas production from poultry wastes. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 5, (1), 228, 2007.
• 43. JUNGBLUTH N., TIETJE O., SCHOLZ R.W. Food purchases: impacts from the consumers’ point of view investigated with a modular LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 5, 134, 2000.
• 44. FRANKS J.R., HADINGHAM B. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture: Avoiding trivial solutions to a global problem. Land Use Policy 29, 729, 2012.
• 45. TUROWSKI J., TKACZ K. The carbon footprint – an innovative index of the environmental impact of the food chain. Journal of Management and Finance, Quality and product safety and environmental protection in the agri-food sector. 2, (1), 399, 2010 [In Polish].
• 46. MAILLOT M., DARMON N., DARMON M., LAFAY L., DREWNOWSKI A. Nutrient-Dense food groups have high energy costs: an econometric approach to nutrient profiling. The Journal of Nutrition 137, (7), 1815, 2007.
• 47. SMEDMAN A. Nutrient density of beverages in relation to climate impact. Food and Nutritional Research 54, doi:10.3402/fnr.v54i0.5170, 2010.
• 48. PAYRAUDEAU S., VAN DER WERF H.M.G. Environmental impact assessment for a farming region: a review of methods. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 107, 1, 2005.