Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Exploring variability in methods and data sensitivity in carbon footprints of feed ingredients
Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Sveriges tekniska forskningsinstitut, SIK – Institutet för livsmedel och bioteknik.
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, The Netherlands.
INRA, France; Agrocampus Ouest, France.
Show others and affiliations
2013 (English)In: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, ISSN 0948-3349, E-ISSN 1614-7502, Vol. 18, no 4, p. 768-782Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Purpose: Production of feed is an important contributor to life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, or carbon footprints (CFPs), of livestock products. Consequences of methodological choices and data sensitivity on CFPs of feed ingredients were explored to improve comparison and interpretation of CFP studies. Methods and data for emissions from cultivation and processing, land use (LU), and land use change (LUC) were analyzed. Method: For six ingredients (maize, wheat, palm kernel expeller, rapeseed meal, soybean meal, and beet pulp), CFPs resulting from a single change in methods and data were compared with a reference CFP, i.e., based on IPCC Tier 1 methods, and data from literature. Results and discussion: Results show that using more detailed methods to compute N2O emissions from cultivation hardly affected reference CFPs, except for methods to determine leaching (contributing to indirect N2O emissions) in which the influence is about -7 to +12 %. Overall, CFPs appeared most sensitive to changes in crop yield and applied synthetic fertilizer N. The inclusion of LULUC emissions can change CFPs considerably, i.e., up to 877 %. The level of LUC emissions per feed ingredient highly depends on the method chosen, as well as on assumptions on area of LUC, C stock levels (mainly aboveground C and soil C), and amortization period. Conclusions: We concluded that variability in methods and data can significantly affect CFPs of feed ingredients and hence CFPs of livestock products. Transparency in methods and data is therefore required. For harmonization, focus should be on methods to calculate leaching and emissions from LULUC. It is important to consider LUC in CFP studies of food, feed, and bioenergy products.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013. Vol. 18, no 4, p. 768-782
Keywords [en]
Food Engineering, Carbon footprint, Feed ingredients, Feed production, Inventory data, Livestock products, Methods
Keywords [sv]
Livsmedelsteknik
National Category
Food Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ri:diva-8742DOI: 10.1007/s11367-012-0521-9Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84876416538OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ri-8742DiVA, id: diva2:966615
Available from: 2016-09-08 Created: 2016-09-08 Last updated: 2020-12-02Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus
By organisation
SIK – Institutet för livsmedel och bioteknik
In the same journal
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Food Science

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 148 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf