• Save
Dr. Gregory Thoma - Pork’s Carbon Footprint
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Dr. Gregory Thoma - Pork’s Carbon Footprint

on

  • 3,442 views

Pork’s Carbon Footprint - Dr. Gregory Thoma, professor, agriculture chemical engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, from the Minnesota Pork Congress, January 20-21, 2010, Minneapolis, ...

Pork’s Carbon Footprint - Dr. Gregory Thoma, professor, agriculture chemical engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, from the Minnesota Pork Congress, January 20-21, 2010, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,442
Views on SlideShare
3,427
Embed Views
15

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 15

http://www.slideshare.net 14
http://www.onlydoo.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Why are we doing the study?What are the system characteristics – what is usedWhat are the impacts associated with each phase (multi faceted)Interpretation of the results into understanding of system in support of action to improve it
  • Given all of the work in different areas in both LCA we must begin coordinating efforts to make sure that different measurements and standards are comparable.
  • Need to see this to follow calculaiton
  • The width of the connecting lines represents the relative contribution from the particular unit to the whole ghgemisssion. The contribution shown in each box is the cumulative contribution from all of the network nodes upstream in the supply chain plus the contribution occurring at that node.
  • Interesting: feed and retail/consumption are significant; MMS dominates on –farm ghg
  • Mention comparison to Dalgaard work ==2kg/kg live or about 2.7 kg /dressed carcass; EU 3 ~ 5 kg/kg carcass25% from manure (with credit for avoided inorganic N)
  • Allocation based on economic research service sector level activity; data from aggregated industry sources
  • 2 points: 1 consumption is >15% of footprint; electricity slightly less efficient than natural gas – grilling seems to be the best.
  • How sensitive is the result to EF for MMS (ch4 & n2o) & B0Base case is IPCC recommended mean value; high and low 20-50% change depending on parameterRange of EF leads to about 0.75 kg co2e variation or about25%
  • Northeast same as NC but 8C mean temperature
  • Differences in manure management and electricity
  • This is larger then epareoprt national report: it includes crop produciton and processing -> disposal
  • Have to be cautious in making comparisons with LCAresults; vertical bars 95% CI => statistically indistinguishable

Dr. Gregory Thoma - Pork’s Carbon Footprint Dr. Gregory Thoma - Pork’s Carbon Footprint Presentation Transcript

  • National Scan-level Carbon Footprint Study for Production of US Swine
    Greg Thoma
    Jason Frank
    Charles Maxwell
    Cash East
    Darin Nutter
    Minnesota Pork Congress
    January 20, 2010 Minneapolis, MN
  • Why?
    The Economy
    Efficiency
    Resource Conservation
    Efficiency
    Manufacturing/Service
    Agriculture as foundation
    Consumers Care
    Establish proactive position
  • Today’s Topics
    LCA 101 – carbon footprint
    Goal & Scope for Swine LCA
    Functional unit
    Conceptual Model of System
    Scenario Results
    Uncertainty & Sensitivity
    National Scan Results
    Concluding Remarks
  • Calculating a carbon footprint requires:
    A full system-level accounting of greenhouse gases emitted in association with a product or service
    Energy consumption
    Manure & nutrient management
    The system begins with extraction from nature and includes packaging disposal
    Life Cycle Assessment is a systems analysis tool commonly used as a framework for these calculations
  • Life Cycle Analysis - 101
    Attributes or characteristics of product or process
    Environmental effects of product or process
  • Life Cycle Analysis
    Releases to environment
    Releases to environment
    Extractions from environment
    Outputs
    Inputs
    • An accounting of inputs and outputs for all stages of a product
    • Identification of ‘hotspots’ for innovation
    • Product labels
    Extractions from environment
  • Emerging Consensus on LCA Framework
    Need for comparable metrics that span sectors, industries and geographies
    Metrics should be grounded in scientific methodologies, namely Life Cycle Assessment
    Sustainability Metrics, Indicators and Indices must be transparent
    LCA data (LCI) should be transparent, validated, widely available, inexpensive
    The same LCA data and models should be used by producers, retailers, policymakers, NGOs and consumers
  • Outline of Swine LCA:defining the system
    Goal and Scope
    Determine GHG1emissionsassociated with delivery of one serving of pork to US consumer.
    Cradle to grave. From crop production through consumption and package disposal
    1Greenhouse gases, expressed as CO2 equivalents
  • Pork Supply Chain
    COLOR KEY: Energy Inputs GHG effects
    Feed Production
    Live Swine Production
    Processing/ Packaging
    Transport
    Distribution
    Retail
    Consumer
    Water
    Refrigerants
    Cleaners
    Water
    Raw Materials
    Gas
    Refrigerants
    LP/Nat.Gas
    Pesticides
    Diesel
    Electricity
    Electricity
    Diesel
    Cooling
    Electricity
    Diesel
    Electricity
    Cooling
    Fertilizer
    Diesel
    Pastured
    Plastic wrap Styrofoam plate
    Consumer
    Distribution
    Retail outlet
    Crop Prodn
    Live animal Transport
    Abattoir/Packaging
    Feed/Processing &Transport
    Bulk Packing
    Export
    Nitrous
    Oxide
    Confined
    CO2
    CFCs/HCFCs
    CFCs/HCFCs
    CH4
    CO2
    WastewaterTreatment(anaerobic)
    Rendering
    CO2
    Manure
    Solid
    Waste
    Recycle
    NH3
    CO2
    Nitrous
    Oxide
    CO2
    Landfill orMSW Combustion
    CH4
    CH4
    CH4
    Energy consumed at every point in the value chain
    Allocation of burdens
  • Conceptual Farm Model
    Emissions
    Emissions
    Energy
    Sow Barn:
    Breeding; Gestation; Lactation
    Nursery – Finish Barn
    Energy
    Finished pigs
    Gilt
    Weaned pigs
    Feed
    Feed
    Manure Management
    Manure Management
    Emissions; Fertilizer
    Emissions; Fertilizer
    Material and energy flows are integrated over a sow’s productive life. The farm gate total consumption of feed and energy required to grow all the litters produced by one sow is allocated to the total finished weight of her litters.
  • Some Underlying Assumptions
    9.5 piglets/litter and 3.5 litters per sow
    Finished live weight: 268 lb
    Carcass = 0.75 live weight
    Boneless = 0.65 carcass
    Typical corn, soy meal, distiller’s grain diets
    With supplements accounted; 82% digestibility
    ASABE ‘standard’ manure characteristics1
    IPCC Tier 2 GHG emission factors for manure systems2
    Purdue Handbook for ventilation, heating
    Biogenic Carbon
    crop sequestration & animal respiration excluded
    1 American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 2005 ASAE D384.2 MAR2005.
    2 Dong, H., et al. (2006) Chapter 10 6 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
  • Some Underlying Assumptions
    10% waste (spoiled or uneaten) by consumers
    Economic allocation
    Feed byproducts
    Rendering co-products
    Space allocation
    Retail
    In-home
  • Results: Carbon Footprint of Pork
  • The Big Picture
    2.2 lb CO2e per 4oz serving (8.8 kg CO2e/kg pork consumed)
    with a 95% confidence interval from 1.8 to 2.7 lb CO2e.
    The contribution of emission burden:
    13.6%: sow barn (including feed and manure handling);
    53%: nursery to finish (including feed and manure handling);
    6.7%: processing and packaging;
    14%: retail (electricity and refrigerants);
    13%: the consumer (refrigeration and cooking).
  • A Closer Look
    Production scenarios
  • Network Diagram - Legend
    Reference Flow(quantity of material or energy)
    Process or Material Contributing to Footprint
    Connecting Line Weight is Proportional to GHG Contribution
    GHG contribution(cumulative kg CO2e contributed by this branch of the network)
  • Cradle to grave footprint: Base case: Deep pit
    This flow is a credit for avoided production of nitrogen fertilizer
  • GHG contribution: Base Case
  • Anaerobic Lagoon
  • Base Case: Anaerobic Lagoon
  • Feed Allocation Affects Results
    Choice of allocation is important to understand before comparing studies
  • Live Swine Production
    The model has 1 kg boneless pork as the comparative unit; thus 2.05 kg live animal weight must leave the farm gate.
  • Pork Processing
  • Consumption is also important
  • Results: Carbon Footprint of Pork
    Sensitivity and Scenario Analysis
  • Scenario Analysis Summary
  • Sensitivity Analysis (Emission Factors)
  • Uncertainty
    All variables have some variability
    Propagation of uncertainty performed by Monte Carlo simulation
    600 runs, random variates from log normal pdf
    Pit System: 7.1 kg CO2e per kg pork consumed with a 95% confidence band from 5.8 to 8.5 kg CO2e/kg consumed.
    Anaerobic lagoon: 10.2 kg CO2e/kg boneless pork consumed, with 95% confidence band from 8.22 to 12.65 kg CO2e/kg consumed.
  • National GHG Impact of Swine Consumption
    Define regional practice scenario
    Climate Leaders
    Determine number of animals raised
    State level statistics (NASS)
    Calculate weighted sum of emissions
  • Distribution of Swine
  • Regional Variability
  • National Scale Cumulative Impact
    8.8 kg CO2e/ kg consumed or
    2.2 lb CO2e / 4 oz serving
  • Conclusions
    Manure management is a large opportunity
    Consumption contributes a significant fraction of the total
    Fuels and Electricity are important, but not the largest contributors to the overall footprint, but opportunities for increased efficiency
    Processing is relatively efficient per kg processed, but consumes large amounts of energy.
  • Future Directions
    Detailed LCA for live swine production
    Field to farm gate
    More granular evaluation of production practices
    Targeted questionnaire to collect production specific data
    Identification of opportunities for energy savings and reduction of GHG emissions
    Process based modules calibrated against reported information
  • Acknowledgements
    National Pork Board
  • Questions?
  • Ration with out DDGs
    Compared to diet with DDG, including necessary changes in minor components
  • Ration with DDG
  • Making Comparisons