Dr. Sirpa Kurppa Professor MTT Agrifood Research,  Finland  E -mail : sirpa.kurppa@mtt.fi 17.12.11 Ecological Footprint of...
Land use  Energy Toxic waste Solid waste Liquid waste and nutrients Landscape Stakeholders administrative Local people Pub...
17.12.11 The ‘‘decision-making pyramid’’.  Stoeglehner,Gernot; Narodoslawsky,Michael Implementing ecological footprinting ...
Feed N-fixaton Fertilisers Milk Meat Vegetable crops fodder manure N and P surplus Losses of NH 3 , NO 3 (aq),  N 2 O and ...
Unit process Product(s) and by-products Air emissions Water emissions Solid waste etc INPUTS (material, energy) Mass- and ...
Process of supply network integrated LCA Use of primary data from field Modified from orig.fig. Juha-Matti Katajajuuri Ini...
Allocation in LCA is critical <ul><li>physical/weight allocation </li></ul><ul><li>fysiological allocation </li></ul><ul><...
Orig.fig. Juha-Matti Katajajuuri LCA profile Total primary energy (MJ) of 1000 kg cheese 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Da...
GWP of 1000 kg cheese 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Dairy farm inputs Concentrates Feed prod. in farm Cattle, cowho...
LCA profile through different product chains
LCA profile through different product chains
17.12.11 Active components GWP of different product groups Results from the Finnish Environmental responsibility reporting...
17.12.11 GWP per Basic Price Euro Results from the Finnish Environmental responsibility reporting of food sector  Ketjuvas...
Variation as a source for improvement <ul><li>Variation between production chains </li></ul><ul><li>Variation inside a pro...
17.12.11 GWP Pork , Chicken  and Eggs Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle asses...
17.12.11 GWP  Beef and milk Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments. M....
17.12.11 Benchmarking environmental and operational parameters through eco-efficiency criteria for dairy farms. Diego Irib...
Benchmarking environmental and operational parameters through eco-efficiency criteria for dairy farms. Diego Iribarren, Al...
CH 4  and Nitrous Oxide Global Emissions - IPCC Source:  IPCC SRES - emissions represent mid-point of range. Global N2O Em...
A plate model <ul><li>The example lunch represented a nutritional whole according to recommendations for  1/3 of the energ...
Climate change impact per a food portion 17.12.11 % 27, 4 kg CO 2  ekv + I kg I kg I kg +
17.12.11 % The lunch plates comprised a main dish, salad, bread and a drink Eutrophication impact per a food portion,  spe...
17.12.11 Climate change impact per nutrient density
Thank you so much! <ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>17.12.11
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Kurppa.ecol.footprint

309

Published on

Ecological footprint of ruminant production.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
309
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 17.12.11
  • 17.12.11
  • Kurppa.ecol.footprint

    1. 1. Dr. Sirpa Kurppa Professor MTT Agrifood Research, Finland E -mail : sirpa.kurppa@mtt.fi 17.12.11 Ecological Footprint of livestock production Sirpa Kurppa MTT Biotechnology and Food Research
    2. 2. Land use Energy Toxic waste Solid waste Liquid waste and nutrients Landscape Stakeholders administrative Local people Public media NGOs Zitizens Product owners Transport How ecological footprint is being formed. Graph: Pasi Voutilainen Water Surface water 17.12.11 Input industry Feed production Feed industry Milk farm Dairy factory Trade Consumers
    3. 3. 17.12.11 The ‘‘decision-making pyramid’’. Stoeglehner,Gernot; Narodoslawsky,Michael Implementing ecological footprinting in decision-making processes Land Use Policy 25 (2008) 421–431 The three dimensions of Ecological Footprint
    4. 4. Feed N-fixaton Fertilisers Milk Meat Vegetable crops fodder manure N and P surplus Losses of NH 3 , NO 3 (aq), N 2 O and P aq) Accumulation in soil Dairy Nutrient balance – farmgate Orig.fig. Juha-Matti Katajajuuri Dairy /beef system
    5. 5. Unit process Product(s) and by-products Air emissions Water emissions Solid waste etc INPUTS (material, energy) Mass- and energy balances Towards LCA approach Orig.fig. Juha-Matti Katajajuuri
    6. 6. Process of supply network integrated LCA Use of primary data from field Modified from orig.fig. Juha-Matti Katajajuuri Initiatives Negotiating participation Commitment building Initial supply web modelling Drawing action plans and questionnairies Data collection and process modelling Final report Improvements, applications, lessons learnt, future plans FULL-LCA INVENTORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (WEIGHTING) FLOW SHEETS Data verifications and iterations allocations BASIC LCA- PROCESS INTERPRETATION SCOPING Interim reporting Critical expert panels and adjustments CRITICAL REVIEW
    7. 7. Allocation in LCA is critical <ul><li>physical/weight allocation </li></ul><ul><li>fysiological allocation </li></ul><ul><li>economic allocatio </li></ul>Critical issues in LCA Attributional – consequential approach in LCA is critical
    8. 8. Orig.fig. Juha-Matti Katajajuuri LCA profile Total primary energy (MJ) of 1000 kg cheese 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Dairy farm inputs Concentrates Feed prod. in farm Cattle, cowhouse Milk delivery Production of cheese Packagings Delivery & retail MJ primary energy Unspecified Nuclear Hydro Fossil Biomass
    9. 9. GWP of 1000 kg cheese 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Dairy farm inputs Concentrates Feed prod. in farm Cattle, cowhouse Milk delivery Prod. of cheese Packagings Delivery & retail kg CO2-eqv. CH4 N2O CO2 Orig.fig. Juha-Matti Katajajuuri LCA profile
    10. 10. LCA profile through different product chains
    11. 11. LCA profile through different product chains
    12. 12. 17.12.11 Active components GWP of different product groups Results from the Finnish Environmental responsibility reporting of food sector Ketjuvastuu Product group CH 4 CO 2 -fos N 2 O PFC (CO 2 ekv) 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%
    13. 13. 17.12.11 GWP per Basic Price Euro Results from the Finnish Environmental responsibility reporting of food sector Ketjuvastuu Production chain kg CO 2 eq/€ Production chain kg CO 2 eq/€ Meat products 2.7 Mean of primary production + processing + import 1.8 Milk products 2.4 Mean of primary production + processing + end use 2.0 Grain products 1.8 Mean of all production 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
    14. 14. Variation as a source for improvement <ul><li>Variation between production chains </li></ul><ul><li>Variation inside a profile </li></ul><ul><li>Variation between unit processes </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on functional unit is critical </li></ul><ul><li>Life cycle cost assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Cost/benefit assessment </li></ul>17.12.11
    15. 15. 17.12.11 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
    16. 16. 17.12.11 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
    17. 17. 17.12.11 Benchmarking environmental and operational parameters through eco-efficiency criteria for dairy farms. Diego Iribarren, Almudena Hospido, María Teresa Moreira, Gumersindo Feijoo Science 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 homogenous entity whose input/output conversion undergoes assessment is named Decision Making Unit (DMU).
    18. 18. Benchmarking environmental and operational parameters through eco-efficiency criteria for dairy farms. Diego Iribarren, Almudena Hospido, María Teresa Moreira, Gumersindo Feijoo Science of the Total Environment 409 (2011) 1786–1798 <ul><li>average reductions of up to 38% were found for input consumption levels, </li></ul><ul><li>leading to impact reductions above 20% for every environmental impact category </li></ul><ul><li>the economic savings arising from efficient farming practices were also estimated. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>17.12.11
    19. 19. CH 4 and Nitrous Oxide Global Emissions - IPCC Source: IPCC SRES - emissions represent mid-point of range. Global N2O Emissions 16.2 Tg N/yr 2153 MMTCE/yr 598 Tg CH4/yr 3425 MMTCE/yr
    20. 20. A plate model <ul><li>The example lunch represented a nutritional whole according to recommendations for 1/3 of the energy need and nutrients for daily food consumption. </li></ul><ul><li>A plate model - the principle of dividing a plate into three parts; </li></ul><ul><ul><li>half of the plate consists of vegetables, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>one quarter of protein and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>one quarter of carbohydrate. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The portion is completed with bread and milk or water. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Shares of energy from proteins, fats and carbohydrates </li></ul><ul><ul><li>protein should be 10–20 %, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>from fat 25–35 % and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>from carbohydrates 50–60 %. </li></ul></ul>17.12.11
    21. 21. Climate change impact per a food portion 17.12.11 % 27, 4 kg CO 2 ekv + I kg I kg I kg +
    22. 22. 17.12.11 % The lunch plates comprised a main dish, salad, bread and a drink Eutrophication impact per a food portion, specific for Nordic conditions and in terms of th Baltic Sea 9,6 g PO 4 ekv I g I g I g + +
    23. 23. 17.12.11 Climate change impact per nutrient density
    24. 24. Thank you so much! <ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>17.12.11
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×