Greenhouse gas emissions from feed production. Lisbeth Mogensen

Transcription

1 Greenhouse gas emissions from feed production Lisbeth Mogensen

2 Outline Actual feeding on Danish study farms in the project Climate-friendly milk production Carbon footprint (CF) of feed by LCA Growing and processing Transport Land Use Change (LUC) deforestation Effect of different feeding strategies Take home messages

3 Feeding on the Danish study farms Data: 21 Conventional farms 6 Organic farms

4 Concentrated feed SFU/year Conv. Organic Cows Heifers Cows Heifers Rapeseed cake Concentr. mix Soy bean meal Cereals Beet pulp pellets Fat Potato pulp Molasses, beet Grass pellets Total % of ration

5 Roughage SFU/year Conv. Organic Cows Heifers Cows Heifers Maize silage Grass/clover silage Cereal whole crop Beet Straw Hay Grass, grazed Total % of ration

6 Conv. Concentrate mixture % of kg 4,9 13,4 5,9 11,8 20,7 16,6 Rapeseed cake Cereals Soya bean meal Sun flower meal Beet pulp, dried 14,7 Maize Wheat bran 12,1 Others

7 Organic Concentrate mixture % of kg 6,5 8,4 3 6,3 12,4 Rapeseed cake Cereals 15,8 47,6 Soya bean meal Sun flower meal Field beans Grass pellets Others

8 Carbon footprint (CF) of feed by LCA Carbon footprint (CF) of feed by LCA Growing and processing Transport Land Use Change (LUC) deforestation

9 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT Emissions to air (N 2 O, NH 3, CO 2 etc.) INPUT Materials e.g. fertilizer Energy e.g. fuel Chemicals e.g. pesticides Other Barley OUTPUT Crop yield Residues or coproduct Emissions to soil and water (NO 3-, pesticides etc.) transport transport transport Production of inputs Agricultural production Processing Dairy farm

10 g/co 2 /kg barley Carbon footprint of barley - from growing and processing 181 growing (414 g CO 2 ) N2O Fertlizer Energy Seed Processing

11 Carbon Footprint of feed g/co 2 /kg feed 1400 Growing Processing

12 Carbon footprint (CF) of feed by LCA Carbon footprint (CF) of feed by LCA Growing and processing Transport Land Use Change (LUC) deforestation

13 Emission of CO 2 from transport CO 2 -eq, g per tkm Utilization, % Ship 9 50 Lorry (40 t) Lorry (28 t) Lorry (16 t) Train Plane 1080

14 Transport: import to Denmark Country Km Transport by CO 2, g/kg feed Germany 765 Lorry (40t) 115 Ukraine 1958 Lorry (40t) 294 Netherlands 785 Lorry (40t) 118 Russia 2395 Lorry (40t) 359 Italy 2031 Lorry (40t) 305 Malaysia Ship + Lorry (40t) 267 SouthAmerica Ship + Lorry (40t) 263 China Ship + Lorry (40t) 366 Sweden Ship + Lorry (40t)t 93

15 Transport of feed Feed Land of origin To DK To factory To farm Total CO 2 /kg feed, g Barley Denmark Oats Denmark Wheat Denmark Grass pellets Rapeseed cake Soy bean meal Denmark Denmark 47% Germany 53% Argentina 73% Brazil 27%

16 Transport of feed Feed Land of origin Soy bean hulls Argentina 73% Brazil 27% To DK To factory CO 2 /kg feed, g To farm Total Potato pulp Denmark Molasses Russia 50% Germany 50% Beet pulp pellets Denmark 50% USA 25% Russia 25% Fat (palm oil Malaysia Concentr. Mix Mixed

17 Carbon Footprint of feed g/co 2 /kg feed 1400 Growing Processing

18 Carbon Footprint of feed g/co 2 /kg feed 1400 Growing Processing Transport

19 Carbon footprint (CF) of feed by LCA Carbon footprint (CF) of feed by LCA Growing and processing Transport Land Use Change (LUC): deforestation

20 World GHG emissions 3,6 16,2 18,2 Land use change (Deforestation) Agriculture 13,5 Transport (energy) 24,6 Indutry (energy) 10,4 13,5 Electricity and heat Waste Other (Baumert et al., World Resources Institute)

21 Method I: Direct LUC I: Direct link between (LUC) land use change and food production: For example, for palm oil: Some of this come from where forest has been convented to palm oil plantation, and the emissions from the conversion of forest to plantation are allocated to the palm oil Produced on that land

22 Method I: Direct LUC Soy bean meal from Argentina and Brazil Palm oil from Malaysia

23 Method I: Direct LUC Soy bean meal Direct LUC g CO 2 /kg Argentina 930 Brazil 7690 (PAS2050, BSI, 2008)

24 Method II: Indirect LUC II: Indirect effect of land use change (LUC) on all feeds Based on the view that the global food system is highly connected - indirect effects must be considered. As the global demand for food increases, there will be increased pressure on land and thereby land use change somewhere in the world. The burden of deforestation caused by food production is shared by all feed production (indirect LUC) (Audsley et al., 2009)

25 Method II: Indirect LUC Step 1 Total LUC emissions 8.5 GtCO 2 e/year Step 2 Step 3. Proportion caused by agriculture Common LUC emissions factor per hectare of land 58% 1,43 tco 2 e/ha (143 g CO 2 /m 2 ) Step 4. Step 5. Calculate land requirement for each feed Multiply LUC factor by land requirement 3 * 4

26 g/co 2 /kg feed Carbon Footprint of feed Method I DIRECT LUC Growing Processing Transport Direct LUC

27 g/co 2 /kg feed Carbon Footprint of feed Method II INDIRECT LUC Growing Processing Transport Indirect LUC

28 Barley Oats Wheat Grass pellets Rapeseed cake Soy bean meal Soy bean hulls Potato pulp Molasses, beet Beet pulp Fat (palm oil) Concentrate mix Barley Oats Wheat Grass pellets Rapeseed cake Soy bean meal Soy bean hulls Potato pulp Molasses, beet Beet pulp pellets Fat (palm oil) Concentrate mix Including LUC which method? Direct LUC Indirect LUC

29 Outline Actual feeding on climate study farms Carbon footprint (CF) of feed by LCA Growing and processing Transport Land Use Change (LUC) deforestation Effect of different feeding strategies Conclusions take home messages

30 Feeding strategies SFU/cow/year Local Import Conv. Organic Maize silage Grass silage Cereal whole crop Grass, grazed Rapeseed cake Soy bean meal Cereals Concentr. mix. Grass pellets Beet pulp

31 GHG emissions from feed production Ton CO 2 /farm 350 Growing Processing Local Import Conv. Organic

32 GHG emissions from feed production Ton CO 2 /farm Growing Processing Transport Local Import Conv. Organic

33 GHG emissions from feed production Ton CO 2 /farm Growing Processing Transport LUC Direct Local LUC Direct Import LUC Direct Conv. LUC Direct Organic LUC Direct

34 GHG emissions from feed production Ton CO 2 /farm Growing Transport Processing LUC Indirect 0 Local LUC Indirect Import LUC Indirect Conv. LUC Indirect Organic LUC Indirect

35 GHG emissions from feed production 800 Ton CO 2 /farm Import Growing Transport LUC Indirect Processing LUC Direct Local Conv. Organic Local LUC Direct Local LUC Indirect Import LUC Direct Import LUC Indirect Conv. LUC Direct Conv. LUC Indirect Organic LUC Direct Organic LUC Indirect

36 GHG from feeding effect of strategy CO 2 g/kg ECM Local Import Conv. Organic Growing Processing Total 328 (100) 320 (98) 322 (98) 344 (105)

37 GHG from feeding effect of strategy CO 2 g/kg ECM Local Import Conv. Organic Growing Processing Transport Total 349 (100) 428 (123) 372 (107) 380 (109)

38 GHG from feeding effect of strategy CO 2 g/kg ECM Local Import Conv. Organic Growing Processing Transport LUC Direct LUC Indirect Total LUC Direct 360 (100) Total LUC Indirect 496 (100) 759 (211) 582 (117) 480 (133) 532 (107) 380 (106) 639 (129)

39 Take home message Green house gas emission from feed production has significant impact on CF of milk: Important factors: Growing and processing of feed Transport of feed (how more important than how long) Land Use Change (LUC) deforestation (The used method will affect the conclusions)

40 Thank you for your attention Stop climate change!