Dr. Gregory Thoma - Pork’s Carbon Footprint
2 likes970 views
The document discusses a national carbon footprint study for U.S. swine production, focusing on life cycle assessment (LCA) to account for greenhouse gas emissions throughout the pork supply chain. It details production scenarios, carbon footprint results, and identifies opportunities for improved energy efficiency and reduced emissions. Ultimately, it highlights that manure management and consumer practices significantly impact the overall carbon footprint of pork.
Dr. Gregory Thoma - Pork’s Carbon Footprint
- 1. National Scan-level Carbon Footprint Study for Production of US Swine Greg ThomaJason Frank Charles Maxwell Cash EastDarin NutterMinnesota Pork CongressJanuary 20, 2010 Minneapolis, MN
- 2. Why?The EconomyEfficiencyResource ConservationEfficiencyManufacturing/ServiceAgriculture as foundationConsumers CareEstablish proactive position
- 3. Today’s TopicsLCA 101 – carbon footprintGoal & Scope for Swine LCAFunctional unitConceptual Model of SystemScenario ResultsUncertainty & SensitivityNational Scan ResultsConcluding Remarks
- 4. Calculating a carbon footprint requires:A full system-level accounting of greenhouse gases emitted in association with a product or serviceEnergy consumptionManure & nutrient managementThe system begins with extraction from nature and includes packaging disposalLife Cycle Assessment is a systems analysis tool commonly used as a framework for these calculations
- 5. Life Cycle Analysis - 101Attributes or characteristics of product or processEnvironmental effects of product or process
- 6. Life Cycle AnalysisReleases to environmentReleases to environmentExtractions from environmentOutputsInputsAn accounting of inputs and outputs for all stages of a product
- 7. Identification of ‘hotspots’ for innovation
- 8. Product labelsExtractions from environment
- 9. Emerging Consensus on LCA FrameworkNeed for comparable metrics that span sectors, industries and geographiesMetrics should be grounded in scientific methodologies, namely Life Cycle AssessmentSustainability Metrics, Indicators and Indices must be transparentLCA data (LCI) should be transparent, validated, widely available, inexpensiveThe same LCA data and models should be used by producers, retailers, policymakers, NGOs and consumers
- 10. Outline of Swine LCA:defining the systemGoal and ScopeDetermine GHG1emissionsassociated with delivery of one serving of pork to US consumer.Cradle to grave. From crop production through consumption and package disposal1Greenhouse gases, expressed as CO2 equivalents
- 11. Pork Supply ChainCOLOR KEY: Energy Inputs GHG effectsFeed ProductionLive Swine ProductionProcessing/ PackagingTransportDistributionRetailConsumerWaterRefrigerantsCleanersWaterRaw MaterialsGasRefrigerantsLP/Nat.GasPesticidesDieselElectricityElectricityDieselCoolingElectricityDieselElectricityCoolingFertilizerDieselPasturedPlastic wrap Styrofoam plateConsumerDistributionRetail outletCrop ProdnLive animal TransportAbattoir/PackagingFeed/Processing &TransportBulk PackingExportNitrousOxideConfinedCO2CFCs/HCFCsCFCs/HCFCsCH4CO2WastewaterTreatment(anaerobic)RenderingCO2ManureSolid WasteRecycleNH3CO2NitrousOxideCO2Landfill orMSW CombustionCH4CH4CH4Energy consumed at every point in the value chainAllocation of burdens
- 12. Conceptual Farm ModelEmissionsEmissionsEnergySow Barn:Breeding; Gestation; LactationNursery – Finish BarnEnergyFinished pigsGiltWeaned pigsFeedFeedManure ManagementManure ManagementEmissions; FertilizerEmissions; FertilizerMaterial 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.
- 13. Some Underlying Assumptions9.5 piglets/litter and 3.5 litters per sowFinished live weight: 268 lbCarcass = 0.75 live weightBoneless = 0.65 carcassTypical corn, soy meal, distiller’s grain dietsWith supplements accounted; 82% digestibilityASABE ‘standard’ manure characteristics1IPCC Tier 2 GHG emission factors for manure systems2Purdue Handbook for ventilation, heatingBiogenic Carboncrop sequestration & animal respiration excluded1 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.
- 14. Some Underlying Assumptions10% waste (spoiled or uneaten) by consumersEconomic allocationFeed byproductsRendering co-productsSpace allocationRetailIn-home
- 15. Results: Carbon Footprint of Pork
- 16. The Big Picture2.2 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).
- 17. A Closer LookProduction scenarios
- 18. Network Diagram - LegendReference Flow(quantity of material or energy)Process or Material Contributing to FootprintConnecting Line Weight is Proportional to GHG ContributionGHG contribution(cumulative kg CO2e contributed by this branch of the network)
- 19. Cradle to grave footprint: Base case: Deep pit This flow is a credit for avoided production of nitrogen fertilizer
- 20. GHG contribution: Base Case
- 21. Anaerobic Lagoon
- 22. Base Case: Anaerobic Lagoon
- 23. Feed Allocation Affects ResultsChoice of allocation is important to understand before comparing studies
- 24. Live Swine ProductionThe model has 1 kg boneless pork as the comparative unit; thus 2.05 kg live animal weight must leave the farm gate.
- 25. Pork Processing
- 26. Consumption is also important
- 27. Results: Carbon Footprint of PorkSensitivity and Scenario Analysis
- 29. Sensitivity Analysis (Emission Factors)
- 30. UncertaintyAll variables have some variabilityPropagation of uncertainty performed by Monte Carlo simulation600 runs, random variates from log normal pdfPit 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.
- 31. National GHG Impact of Swine ConsumptionDefine regional practice scenarioClimate LeadersDetermine number of animals raisedState level statistics (NASS)Calculate weighted sum of emissions
- 34. National Scale Cumulative Impact8.8 kg CO2e/ kg consumed or2.2 lb CO2e / 4 oz serving
- 35. ConclusionsManure management is a large opportunityConsumption contributes a significant fraction of the totalFuels 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.
- 36. Future DirectionsDetailed LCA for live swine productionField to farm gate More granular evaluation of production practicesTargeted questionnaire to collect production specific data Identification of opportunities for energy savings and reduction of GHG emissionsProcess based modules calibrated against reported information
- 38. Questions?
- 39. Ration with out DDGsCompared to diet with DDG, including necessary changes in minor components
- 40. Ration with DDG
Editor's Notes
- #6: 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
- #8: 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.
- #11: Need to see this to follow calculaiton
- #17: 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.
- #19: Interesting: feed and retail/consumption are significant; MMS dominates on –farm ghg
- #23: 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)
- #24: Allocation based on economic research service sector level activity; data from aggregated industry sources
- #25: 2 points: 1 consumption is >15% of footprint; electricity slightly less efficient than natural gas – grilling seems to be the best.
- #28: 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%
- #30: Northeast same as NC but 8C mean temperature
- #32: Differences in manure management and electricity
- #33: This is larger then epareoprt national report: it includes crop produciton and processing -> disposal
- #40: Have to be cautious in making comparisons with LCAresults; vertical bars 95% CI => statistically indistinguishable