Greenhouse gas emissions from feed production Lisbeth Mogensen
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
Feeding on the Danish study farms Data: 21 Conventional farms 6 Organic farms
Concentrated feed SFU/year Conv. Organic Cows Heifers Cows Heifers Rapeseed cake 824 85 51 13 Concentr. mix. 794 61 1210 36 Soy bean meal 428 37 4 0 Cereals 297 23 876 58 Beet pulp pellets 161 7 0 0 Fat 58 2 0 0 Potato pulp 52 3 0 0 Molasses, beet 11 0 0 0 Grass pellets 9 0 165 10 Total 2635 225 2306 117 % of ration 37 12 34 6
Roughage SFU/year Conv. Organic Cows Heifers Cows Heifers Maize silage 2792 645 1129 134 Grass/clover silage 1525 640 2373 468 Cereal whole crop 109 120 164 258 Beet 44 14 0 0 Straw 30 51 26 23 Hay 7 21 4 5 Grass, grazed 28 176 774 803 Total 4535 1667 4470 1691 % of ration 63 86 66 89
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
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
Carbon footprint (CF) of feed by LCA Carbon footprint (CF) of feed by LCA Growing and processing Transport Land Use Change (LUC) deforestation
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
g/co 2 /kg barley 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Carbon footprint of barley - from growing and processing 181 growing (414 g CO 2 ) 132 87 14 9 N2O Fertlizer Energy Seed Processing
Carbon Footprint of feed g/co 2 /kg feed 1400 Growing Processing 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
Carbon footprint (CF) of feed by LCA Carbon footprint (CF) of feed by LCA Growing and processing Transport Land Use Change (LUC) deforestation
Emission of CO 2 from transport CO 2 -eq, g per tkm Utilization, % Ship 9 50 Lorry (40 t) 150 40 Lorry (28 t) 227 40 Lorry (16 t) 375 40 Train 40 50 Plane 1080
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 16. 570 + 785 Ship + Lorry (40t) 267 SouthAmerica 10.040 + 1154 Ship + Lorry (40t) 263 China 20.044 + 1234 Ship + Lorry (40t) 366 Sweden 98 +611 Ship + Lorry (40t)t 93
Transport of feed Feed Land of origin To DK To factory To farm Total CO 2 /kg feed, g Barley Denmark 0 9 6 15 Oats Denmark 0 9 6 15 Wheat Denmark 0 9 6 15 Grass pellets Rapeseed cake Soy bean meal Denmark 0 24 30 54 Denmark 47% Germany 53% Argentina 73% Brazil 27% 61 9 34 104 342 0 27 369
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 296 0 27 323 Potato pulp Denmark 0 3 14 17 Molasses Russia 50% Germany 50% Beet pulp pellets Denmark 50% USA 25% Russia 25% 237 0 27 264 155 15 28 198 Fat (palm oil Malaysia 365 0 27 392 Concentr. Mix Mixed - 168 27 195
Carbon Footprint of feed g/co 2 /kg feed 1400 Growing Processing 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
Carbon Footprint of feed g/co 2 /kg feed 1400 Growing Processing Transport 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
Carbon footprint (CF) of feed by LCA Carbon footprint (CF) of feed by LCA Growing and processing Transport Land Use Change (LUC): deforestation
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., 2005. World Resources Institute)
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
Method I: Direct LUC Soy bean meal from Argentina and Brazil Palm oil from Malaysia
Method I: Direct LUC Soy bean meal Direct LUC g CO 2 /kg Argentina 930 Brazil 7690 (PAS2050, BSI, 2008)
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)
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
3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 g/co 2 /kg feed 500 0 Carbon Footprint of feed Method I DIRECT LUC Growing Processing Transport Direct LUC
g/co 2 /kg feed 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Carbon Footprint of feed Method II INDIRECT LUC Growing Processing Transport Indirect LUC
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? 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Direct LUC 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Indirect LUC
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
Feeding strategies SFU/cow/year Local Import Conv. Organic Maize silage 2800 2800 2570 1100 Grass silage 900 900 1400 2300 Cereal whole crop 0 0 100 160 Grass, grazed 0 0 30 750 Rapeseed cake 1800 0 760 50 Soy bean meal 0 1800 390 0 Cereals 200 200 270 850 Concentr. mix. Grass pellets Beet pulp 0 0 880 0 0 880 730 0 150 1170 160 0
GHG emissions from feed production Ton CO 2 /farm 350 Growing Processing 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Local Import Conv. Organic
GHG emissions from feed production Ton CO 2 /farm 450 400 Growing Processing Transport 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Local Import Conv. Organic
GHG emissions from feed production Ton CO 2 /farm 800 700 600 Growing Processing Transport LUC Direct 500 400 300 200 100 0 Local LUC Direct Import LUC Direct Conv. LUC Direct Organic LUC Direct
GHG emissions from feed production 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Ton CO 2 /farm Growing Transport Processing LUC Indirect 0 Local LUC Indirect Import LUC Indirect Conv. LUC Indirect Organic LUC Indirect
GHG emissions from feed production 800 Ton CO 2 /farm Import Growing Transport LUC Indirect Processing LUC Direct 700 600 Local Conv. Organic 500 400 300 200 100 0 Local LUC Direct Local LUC Indirect Import LUC Direct Import LUC Indirect Conv. LUC Direct Conv. LUC Indirect Organic LUC Direct Organic LUC Indirect
GHG from feeding effect of strategy CO 2 g/kg ECM Local Import Conv. Organic Growing 274 266 294 307 Processing 53 54 28 38 Total 328 (100) 320 (98) 322 (98) 344 (105)
GHG from feeding effect of strategy CO 2 g/kg ECM Local Import Conv. Organic Growing 274 266 294 307 Processing 53 54 28 38 Transport 21 108 50 36 Total 349 (100) 428 (123) 372 (107) 380 (109)
GHG from feeding effect of strategy CO 2 g/kg ECM Local Import Conv. Organic Growing 274 266 294 307 Processing 53 54 28 38 Transport 21 108 50 36 LUC Direct 11 331 108 0 LUC Indirect 147 154 160 259 Total LUC Direct 360 (100) Total LUC Indirect 496 (100) 759 (211) 582 (117) 480 (133) 532 (107) 380 (106) 639 (129)
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)
Thank you for your attention Stop climate change!