• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Eric Boles - Healthy Animals = Healthy Planet

Eric Boles - Healthy Animals = Healthy Planet



Healthy Animals = Healthy Planet - Eric Boles, University of Arkansas, from the 2012 Annual Conference of the National Institute for Animal Agriculture, March 26 - 29, Denver, CO, USA. ...

Healthy Animals = Healthy Planet - Eric Boles, University of Arkansas, from the 2012 Annual Conference of the National Institute for Animal Agriculture, March 26 - 29, Denver, CO, USA.

More presentations at: http://www.trufflemedia.com/agmedia/conference/2012-decreasing-resources-increasing-regulation-advance-animal-agriculture



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



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.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • 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. <br />
  • The question defines the LCI stage; ours was to define the national scale impacts of fluid milk production. Or: what activities (and associated emissions) are induced by consumption of milk? This is a bit different than defining the footprint of a single farming operation. <br /> So starting with feeds …. <br />
  • Note Water availability does not always mean places where there is plentiful water <br /> The Water Stress Index (WSI) represents the competition for water, as a function of use/availability <br />
  • Some background of terminology <br /> All of these are important , because the right methodology for Dairy must take into account not just the volume of water, but also the local water stress index, the source of water and quality of water post production. <br /> Blue water: water withdrawn from surface or groundwater that won’t return to the same watershed (direct economic costs) <br />
  • What activities required to get the feed to the animal’s trough? <br />
  • Need to see this to follow calculaiton <br />
  • The width of the connecting lines represents the relative contribution from the particular unit to the whole ghg emisssion. 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. <br />
  • Mention comparison to Dalgaard work ==2kg/kg live or about 2.7 kg /dressed carcass; EU 3 ~ 5 kg/kg carcass <br /> 25% from manure (with credit for avoided inorganic N) <br />
  • Allocation based on economic research service sector level activity; data from aggregated industry sources <br />
  • 2 points: 1 consumption is &gt;15% of footprint; electricity slightly less efficient than natural gas – grilling seems to be the best. <br />
  • Interesting: feed and retail/consumption are significant; MMS dominates on –farm ghg <br />
  • Per unit greenhouse gas emissions were adversely impacted by a steady rise in nitrogen application during the period 1987 through 1995 <br /> Since 1995 nitrogen application has moderated and carbon emissions have improved considerably <br /> Strong adoption of no-till over the past decade has also helped reduce net carbon emissions <br />

Eric Boles - Healthy Animals = Healthy Planet Eric Boles - Healthy Animals = Healthy Planet Presentation Transcript

  • Eric Boles Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department University of Arkansas eboles@uark.edu Marty Matlock Greg Thoma Healthy Animals: Healthy Planet
  • Everything is Connected 2
  • Everything is changing 3
  • The rate of change is incomprehensible 4
  • The rate of change is incomprehensible 5
  • The rate of change is incomprehensible 6
  • The rate of change is incomprehensible 7
  • The rate of change is incomprehensible 8
  • The rate of change is incomprehensible 9
  • The rate of change is incomprehensible 10
  • The rate of change is incomprehensible 11
  • The rate of change is incomprehensible 12
  • A.D. 2000 A.D. 1000 A.D. 1 1000 B.C. 2000 B.C. 3000 B.C. 4000 B.C. 5000 B.C. 6000 B.C. 7000 B.C. 1+ million years 8 7 6 5 2 1 4 3 Old Stone Age New Stone Age Bronze Age Iron Age Middle Ages Modern Age Black Death — The Plague 9 10 11 12 A.D. 3000 A.D. 4000 A.D. 5000 1800 1900 1950 1975 2000 2100 Future Billions Source: Population Reference Bureau; and United Nations, World Population Projections to 2100 (1998). World Population Growth Through History 13
  • A.D. 2000 A.D. 1000 A.D. 1 1000 B.C. 2000 B.C. 3000 B.C. 4000 B.C. 5000 B.C. 6000 B.C. 7000 B.C. 1+ million years 8 7 6 5 2 1 4 3 Old Stone Age New Stone Age Bronze Age Iron Age Middle Ages Modern Age Black Death — The Plague 9 10 11 12 A.D. 3000 A.D. 4000 A.D. 5000 1800 1900 1950 1975 2000 2100 Future Billions Source: Population Reference Bureau; and United Nations, World Population Projections to 2100 (1998). World Population Growth Through History 14
  • Sustainability 2050: The Challenge 15
  • Sustainability 2050: The Challenge 16
  • Sustainability 2050: The Challenge What we do in the next 10 years will shape Earth and Humanity for the next 100 years When technology and culture collide technology prevails, culture changes 17
  • Billions 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 Less Developed Regions More Developed Regions Source: United Nations, World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision (medium scenario), 2005. We are all in this together 18
  • Human Activities Dominate Earth Croplands and pastures are the largest terrestrial biome, occupying over 40% of Earth’s land surface 19
  • Meeting Food Needs by 2050 Jason Clay The role of research 20
  • Measuring Sustainability: Metrics: Quantifiable phenomena to measure an endpoint Index: Aggregation of metrics to a single number, requires normative criteria for integration of metrics with different units Baseline: Benchmark used to measure change over time Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): One method for measuring the inputs and outputs in a process in a step towards quantifying sustainability Is there a standard method for LCAs? • ISO 14040 and 14044 Standards • PAS 2050 for greenhouse gasses • No standard for Life Cycle Inventory • No guidelines for most other metrics 21
  • Sustainability is Multi-metric Rockström et al., Nature 2009 Asks the question: So What? Multiple Metrics Indexed 22
  • Stages of a life cycle assessment
  • Why LCA? • The Economy – Efficiency • Resource Conservation – Efficiency • Consumers Care – Establish proactive position
  • Life Cycle Analysis to Understand and Manage Supply Chain Processes 25
  • LCA allows for impact assessment from cradle to grave Raw Material A Raw Material A Raw Material B Raw Material B Product 1 Product 1 26
  • LCA allows for impact assessment from cradle to grave Raw Material A Raw Material A Raw Material B Raw Material B Product 1 Product 1 Boundaries matter 27
  • Life Cycle Assessment Allocation 28 By Mass? = + + + By Value? Kg CO2e per kg
  • Life Cycle Assessment: Reconciling Functional Units CO2 CH4 N2O Green House Gas Potentials 1 g CO2-equiv. / g CO2 21 g CO2-equiv. / g CH4 310 g CO2 -equiv. / g NO2 29
  • 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 – guards against burden shifting • Sustainability Metrics and Life Cycle Inventory data (LCI) should be transparent, validated, widely available, and inexpensive • The same LCA data and models should be used by producers, retailers, policymakers, NGOs and consumers
  • 40 Major Challenges in the Food System • Consumers are far removed from producers. • Complexity of the supply chain results in ineffective feedback systems and irrational decisions. • Volatility of food prices create immediate human suffering and political instability, especially for the bottom billion. • The future prosperity of humanity depends on increasing prosperity for the bottom billion.
  • The Food Marketing Chain Production Processing Distribution RetailDirect Mktg Wholesale Consumption Safety Security Stability
  • Carbon Footprint of Fluid Milk in the US Funded by the Dairy Research Institute Greg Thoma Darin Nutter Rick Ulrich Marty Matlock Jennie Popp Dae Soo Kim Cashion East Nathan Kemper Zara Niederman University of Arkansas David Shonnard Felix Adom Charles Workman Michigan Technological University
  • 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 (cradle to grave) • Life Cycle Assessment is a systems analysis tool commonly used as a framework for these calculations
  • 35 • ISO 14044 compliant, with external review • Goal: Determine GHG emissions associated with consumption of one gallon of milk to US consumer. • Scope: Cradle to grave. Specifically including pre-combustion burdens for primary fuels and disposal of packaging. LCA Methodology
  • Life Cycle Assessment Case Study: Carbon Equivalent GHG in Dairy Production Processing DistributionConsumption
  • Overview of LCA of milk supply system
  • 38 Life Cycle Inventory – Data Drives the Work Surveys: 1) Dairy Producer (~535; 9% response rate) 2) Farm to processor transportation data (~211,000 round trips – 2007 only) 3) Milk Processor (50 plants responded) Published Literature: 1) Peer Reviewed Literature a) Enteric Methane, Nitrogen and Methane from manure management b) Life cycle inventory data for crop production (NASS, Budgets, USLCI) 2) Other Publications (e.g. IPCC, EPA) 3) Expert opinion (e.g., hay production budgets from Ag Extension)
  • Major Assumptions • Infrastructure excluded • Biogenic carbon – Sequestration not included; nor respiration • Economic allocation as base case – Biological / causal model for milk : beef – Milk solids model for cream : fluid milk • IPCC Tier 2 models for manure management • Product loss: 12% retail + 20% consumer (ERS food availability study) 39
  • 1 Gal Fluid Milk GHG emissions 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • GHG Emissions from Milk: The Big Picture 43 17.6 lb CO2e/ gallon 95% confidence band : 15.3 to 20.7 lb CO2e/ gallon Farm Gate
  • Overall Takeaways • Do more with less – Improving efficiency – Innovation –manure and nutrient management – Technology transfer • Operations with smaller carbon footprint have generally adopted better management practices and have higher feed conversion • A ‘one size fits all’ solution does not exist – Opportunities exist to improve across the spectrum • Strive for continuous improvement by adopting better management practices and utilizing decision support tools 44
  • Need to put water in context Water Stress •Is a function of the amount of water use and the amount of water available (water use/water availability) •Predictor of direct economic costs Virtual Water •Only calculates the total volume of water used to produce good/service regardless of type of water Water is different than GHG
  • Two Major Categories of Water Blue Water •Water withdrawn from surface or groundwater for consumption •Direct Economic Costs Green Water •Soil moisture from precipitation •“Free”
  • Evaluating the Water Footprint in the Production of Liquid Milk Dr. Matlock Center for Agriculture and Rural Sustainability
  • • Goal: Understanding the (geographical) hotspots for dairy operations with regard to water consumption • To place the dairy sector in the larger context of water consumption and availability Dairy Farm Water Use: Context & Potential for Impact
  • Total Water Use In Liquid Milk Life Cycle Phases
  • USGS Basins and Watersheds
  • Current Climate WaSSI & Dairy Herd Demographics Most impacts are from crops rather than direct use
  • Direct Dairy Water Use Watershed with highest direct use for dairy is Central Valley in California
  • Dairy Water Use to USGS Total Agricultural Water Use Compared to total agricultural use, dairy direct use is very low. Therefore, where the feed is grown matters more than where the cattle are grown.
  • Summary Findings • Diary water use is largely water embodied in the crops used to feed cows • Water quality impacts from the dairy industry is largely associated with feed production (fertilizer) • Climate change impacts on dairy will be on water availability for feed
  • National Scan-level Carbon Footprint Study for Production of Swine Greg Thoma Jason Frank Charles Maxwell Cash East Darin Nutter Funded by the National Pork Board
  • Goal and ScopeGoal and Scope Determine GHG1 emissions associated with delivery of one serving of pork to US consumer. Cradle to grave. From crop production through consumption and package disposal 1 Greenhouse gases, expressed as CO2 equivalents Outline of Swine LCA: defining the system
  • Energy consumed at every point in the value chain Pork Supply Chain Crop Prodn Confined Live animal Transport Consumer Pesticides Fertilizer Water Nitrous Oxide Diesel CO2 Pastured Manure Electricity Diesel Landfill or MSW Combustion Diesel CO2 Plastic wrap Styrofoam plate Cleaners Cooling Water Electricity Raw Materials Electricity Diesel Gas CO2 Cooling Solid Waste Feed Production Live Swine Production Processing/ PackagingTransport Distribution Retail Consumer CH4 CO2 Recycle CFCs/ HCFCs Abattoir/ Packaging Distribution Feed/Processing &Transport Electricity COLOR KEY: Energy Inputs GHG effects CFCs/ HCFCs CH4 CH4 Retail outlet Refrigerants Refrigerants LP/Nat.Gas Bulk Packing Export Nitrous Oxide NH3 CO2 Wastewater Treatment (anaerobic) CH4 Rendering
  • 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 • IPCC Tier 2 GHG emission factors for manure systems2 – 1kg of manure=2kg methane • 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
  • Conceptual Farm Model Finished pigs Nursery – Finish Barn Manure Management Feed Energy Emissions; Fertilizer Weaned pigs Emissions Sow Barn: Breeding; Gestation; Lactation Manure Management Feed Gilt Emissions; Fertilizer Emissions Energy 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.
  • 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 1.95 to 2.55 lb CO2e. • The contribution of emission burden: • 10.3%: sow barn (including feed and manure handling); • 54.3%: nursery to finish (including feed and manure handling); • 7.4%: processing (6.4%) and packaging (1.1%); • 12%: retail (electricity and refrigerants); • 15.9%: the consumer (refrigeration and cooking).
  • Network Diagram - Legend 1 kg In Home 2.08 1 kg Overall 7.82 2.05 kg Finish Barn 3.4 Reference Flow (quantity of material or energy) GHG contribution (cumulative kg CO2e contributed by this branch of the network) Process or Material Contributing to Footprint Connecting Line Weight is Proportional to GHG Contribution
  • 8.09 MJ electricity, 1.73 0.519 m3 Natural gas, 1.18 3.95 kg Corn Feed 1.5 0.904 lfdays Retail 1.2 1 kg In Home 1.13 1 kg Overall 7 2.49 kg Corn Grain 0.661 1.07 kg Corn Grain 0.369 0.825 kg DDGS 0.553 0.0328 kg N Fertilizer 0.362 2.05 kg Finish Barn 3.52 0.0927 kg Sow Barn 0.572 0.922 kg Deep Pit 1.02 1.54 kg Processing 0.494 0.000187 kg Referigerant 0.563 7.49 MJ Electricity 1.74 0.491 m3 Natural Gas 1.18 1.19 kg Soybean Meal 0.49 1 kg Cooking 0.898 Cradle to grave footprint: Base case: Deep pit This flow is a credit for avoided production of nitrogen fertilizer
  • 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 0.125 m3 Natural gas, 0.286 3.95 kg Corn Feed 1.5 0.904 lfdays Retail 1.2 1 kg In Home 1.49 1 kg Overall 7.35 2.49 kg Corn Grain 0.661 1.07 kg Corn Grain 0.369 0.825 kg DDGS 0.553 2.05 kg Finish Barn 3.52 0.0927 kg Sow Barn 0.572 0.922 kg Deep Pit 1.02 1.54 kg Processing 0.494 0.000187 kg Referigerant 0.563 12.9 MJ Electricity 2.99 0.117 m3 Natural Gas 0.281 1.19 kg Soybean Meal 0.49 1 kg Cooking 1.25
  • Detailed View of Relative Contribution to Footprint
  • GHG contribution: Base Case
  • Relative Contribution to Footprint
  • Uncertainty • All variables have some variability • Propagation of uncertainty performed by Monte Carlo simulation
  • Conclusions • Estimated GHG emissions consistent with international studies • Pork footprint is comparable to other protein sources. • Manure management is a large opportunity • Consumption contributes a significant fraction of the total footprint • Fuels and Electricity are important, while not the largest contributors to the overall footprint, still present opportunities for increased efficiency • Processing is relatively efficient per kg processed • Transportation is less of a contributor than expected
  • Sustainability Initiatives 73
  • Agricultural Sustainability Metric Initiatives Field to Market – The Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture • Focused on commodity agriculture • Metrics are outcomes based, technology neutral (undefined) • Metrics are regional to national in scale The Sustainability Consortium • Focused on supply chain • Metrics are outcomes based, technology neutral • Metrics are local to global scale 74
  • 40 Field to Market Alliance • Field to Market is a collaborative stakeholder group of producers, agribusinesses, food and retail companies, and conservation organizations that are working together to develop a supply-chain system for agricultural sustainability. • We are developing outcomes-based metrics – We will measure the environmental, health, and socioeconomic impacts of agriculture first in the United States – We began with national scale environmental indicators for corn, soy, wheat, and cotton production in the U.S.
  • 76 Field To Market Steering Committee Members and Participants • American Farm Bureau Federation • American Soybean Association • Bayer CropScience • Bunge • Cargill • Conservation International • Conservation Technology Information Center • Cotton Incorporated • CropLife America • CropLife International • DuPont • Fleishman-Hillard • General Mills • Grocery Manufacturers of America • John Deere • Kellogg Company • Land O’Lakes • Manomet Center for Conservation Science • Mars, Incorporated • Monsanto Company • National Association of Conservation Districts • National Association of Wheat Growers • National Corn Growers Association • National Cotton Council of America • National Potato Council • Syngenta • The Coca-Cola Company • The Fertilizer Institute • The Nature Conservancy • United Soybean Board • World Resources Institute • World Wildlife Fund • University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture • University of Wisconsin-Madison College of Agricultural and Life Sciences
  • Definition of Sustainable Agriculture 1. Meeting the needs of the present while enhancing the ability of future generations to meet their needs 2. Increasing productivity to meet future food demands 3. Decreasing impacts on the environment 4. Improving human health 5. Improving the social and economic well-being of agricultural communities “Feeding 9.25 billion people without one hectare more of land or one drop more of water” 77
  • • Total annual energy use increased by 28 percent • Water use increased by 17 percent • Greenhouse gas emissions increased by 34 percent. • Soil loss decreased by 33 percent. 78 Corn Sustainability Metrics
  • 79 • Total annual soil loss decreased by 11 percent • Climate impact increased by 15 percent • Total energy use decreased by 29 percent • Total water use increased by 39 percent. Soybean Sustainability Metrics
  • • Total annual soil loss and climate impact did not change. • Total energy use decreased by 45 percent • Total water use decreased 26 percent. 80 Cotton Sustainability Metrics
  • Wheat Sustainability Metrics 81 • Total annual soil loss decreased by 54 percent. • Climate impact increased 5 percent • Total energy use decreased by 18 percent • Total water use decreased 11 percent.
  • The Sustainability Consortium The Sustainability Consortium was organized in 2009 by The University of Arkansas and Arizona State University in collaboration with the Walmart Foundation. TSC is an independent organization of diverse global participants who work collaboratively to build a scientific foundation that drives innovation to improve consumer product sustainability through all stages of a product's life cycle. 83
  • What TSC Does The Sustainability Consortium drives scientific research and the development of standards and IT tools, through a collaborative process, to enhance the ability to understand and address the environmental, social, and economic implications of products. 84
  • SMRS Approach 85
  • Category Sustainability Profile 86
  • Choosing Metrics, Setting Goals 87 Benchmarking Goal Setting
  • Support farmers and their communities More than a billion people rely on agriculture for subsistence. By the end of 2015 in emerging markets, Walmart will help many small and mid-sized farmers gain access to markets by: 1. selling $1 billion in food sourced from 1 million small and medium farmers; 2. providing training to 1 million farmers and farm workers in such areas as crop selection and sustainable farming practices -- the company expects half of those trained to be women; and 3.increasing the income of the small and medium farmers it sources from by 10 to 15 percent. In the U.S., Walmart will double its sale of locally sourced produce and increase its purchase of select U.S. crops. Sustainable Agriculture Initiatives 88
  • Produce more food with fewer resources and less waste Walmart has one of the world’s largest food supply chains and is committed to reducing and optimizing the resources required to produce that food and driving more transparency into its supply chain. The goals include: 1. accelerating the agricultural focus of the Sustainability Index, beginning with a Sustainable Produce Assessment for top producers in its Global Food Sourcing network in 2011; 2. investing more than $1 billion in its global fresh supply chain in the next five years; and, 3. reducing food waste in its emerging market stores and clubs by 15 percent and by 10 percent in stores and clubs in its other markets by the end of 2015. Sustainable Agriculture Initiatives 89
  • Sustainably source key agriculture products Walmart will focus on two of the major contributors to global deforestation, palm oil and beef production. Require sustainably sourced palm oil for all Walmart private brand products globally by the end of 2015. Sourcing sustainable palm oil for our U.K. and U.S. private brand products alone will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 million metric tons by the end of 2015. Expand the already existing practice of Walmart Brazil of only sourcing beef that does not contribute to the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest to all of our companies worldwide by the end of 2015. It is estimated that 60 percent of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is related to cattle ranching expansion. Sustainable Agriculture Initiatives 90
  • We shall never achieve harmony with land, any more than we shall achieve absolute justice or liberty for people. In these higher aspirations, the important thing is not to achieve but to strive. - Aldo Leopold Sustainability Ethic
  • Green water = free Blue water = $ Water withdrawn for consumptionGreen water = soil moisture from precipitation Water withdrawn by humans Evaporated Integrated Not returned to same into product watershed Blue water = surface water and groundwater withdrawn for consumption Water returned to same watershed Surface water Groundwater