Carbon footprint of haemoglobin and plasma powderTommie Ponsioen / Geert van der Velden24 November 2011

OutlineWhat is a product carbon footprint?Goal, scope & methodsProduction chain of haemoglobin and plasma powderCarbon footprint assessment resultsComparison with carbon footprints of alternative productsConclusions

1. Methods and protocolsBasics of product carbon footprintsSystem boundariesAllocationStandards and specifications

1.1 Definition of product carbon footprintfootprint is a metaphor for the total impact of a productcarbon is all the different greenhouse gases that contribute to global warmingIn short, a product carbon footprint is the full climate change impact of a product

1.2 Introduction CF. What is it about?CF aims to systematically study the environmental impacts of a system (product/service/etc)

Raw materialsTransportProductProcessingTransportProduct useExample impact calculationkg CO2eqCO2fossil 1 CO2biogenic 0CH425N2O298

1.3 Included GHG emissionsCarbon dioxide (fossil):Fuel combustion for heat, electricity, transportFuel combustion for fuel production!Methane (25 kg CO2eq per kg CH4):Enteric fermentation & manureMethane slip from CHP systemsNitrous oxide (298 kg CO2eq per kg N2O):N fertilizer production and applicationN in crop residues

1.4 Carbon footprint is a type of environmental lifecycle assessmentEnvironmental impact categories:Global warming (carbon footprint)Fossil energy depletionLand occupationEutrophicationAcidificationFreshwater depletionEt ceteraNormalized and weighted single endpoint scores: Ecological footprint, Eco-indicator99, ReCiPe, CML-IA, etc.

1.5 Carbon Footprint of crude vegetable oilN-fertilizerCrop growingCropAgro-industryCrude oil Co-products(e.g. meals/expellers)LuLuc

1.6 Carbon Footprint of animal fatManure storageManure applicationCrop growingCropAgro-industryFeed materialsCo-products(e.g. edible oils)Animal husbandryAnimalSlaughteringCo-products a.o fatsMeat productsFat processing / refiningCat 3 & foodgrade products

1.7 Lifecycle of meatCrop cultivationProcessingFeed formulationAnimal husbandrySlaughteringRenderingFresh meatRetailConsumptionInput production (seed, fertilizer, diesel, pesticides)Fuels, electricity productionBy-productsPacking, distributionWaste treatmentFuels, electricity productionFeed formulation

1.8 Allocation

System expanison (difficult in food chains)Physical criteria (mass, protein, caloric value)Other (economic most applied and most meaningfull in food chains )

1.9 Example Mass based allocation

1.10 Example Energy content based allocation

1.11 Example Economic allocation

1.12 Global GHG emissions (IPCC)

1.13 Relevant standards EU scope

2.1 Goal, scope & methodsThe goal of the study was to give insight in: the carbon footprints of haemoglobin and plasma powder from an EAPA production sitethe contributions of different sources to the carbon footprints

2.2 Goal, scope & methodsThe scope includes all greenhouse gas emissions in the complete production chain of haemoglobin and plasma powder and alternative products:Fish meal (alternative for haemoglobin powder)Soy protein concentrate, skimmed milk powder, whey protein concentrate (80% protein) and casein (alternative for plasma powder)

2.3 Goal, scope & methodsFollowing the ISO standards for lifecycle assessments (ISO14040/44: 2006)In line with:British carbon footprint specification (PAS2050)French carbon footprint specification (BP X30-323)Draft ISO standard for product carbon footprints (ISO14067: expected early 2012)

3.1 Production chain of haemoglobin and plasma powderEconomicalallocations31%69%

4.1 Carbon footprint assessment results: Haemoglobin powder870 Porcine versus Bovine Bovine (meat) versus Bovine (milk)

4.2 Carbon footprint assessment results: Plasma powder3200

5.1 Comparison with carbon footprints of alternative products (haemoglobin)Fish meal is made from complete fish or from fish by-products resulting in a large difference between best and worst case carbon footprintsCarbon footprint of fish meal is larger

- Fish meal: excluding CFP freight South America to Europe!

5.2 Comparison with carbon footprints of alternative products (haemoglobin)Even more so when the carbon footprint is expressed per kg of protein

5.3 Comparison with carbon footprints of alternative products (plasma)Soy protein concentrate has smaller carbon footprint, but much larger land use change footprintCF of whey protein concentrate depends on applied method: can be smaller and can be much larger !

5.4 Comparison with carbon footprints of alternative products (plasma)The CF of acid casein and skimmed milk powder are much larger (even more when expressed per kg of protein)Raw milk has an extremely large CF (8 - 12 kg CO2eq/kg DM) mainly due to methane emissions from enteric fermentation

6. ConclusionsIt is very likely that haemoglobin powder has less impact on global warming than fish meal It is very likely that plasma powder has less impact than the evaluated alternative dairy products (except for WPC)Given that:quality aspects of the protein (digestibility and amino acid profile) are not consideredCF of SPC depends on applied methods and data (nitrous oxide emissions from the soil and land use change)CF of WPC depends on allocation method

2. Goal, scope & methods (additional information)Economic allocation (dividing upstream emissions between co-products based on their economic value)Emissions from production and combustion of fuels (at production plant and electricity supplier)Methane emissions from animal husbandry and nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizers in the supply chain includedProduction of other inputs (e.g. chemicals) only included when expected significant contributionProduction of capital goods not includedLand use change for crop production included

CO2 equivalenten zijn global warming potentials: de conversiefactoren van 25 kg CO2eq en 298 kg CO2eq zijn gebaseerd op de potentiele impact die de gassen kunnen hebben op global warming in een periode van 100 jaar (deze getallen worden door de IPCC bepaald (zie volgende slide)***Lifecycle is in principe van het begin tot het eind, maar je kan ook een partial lifecycle assessment (carbon footprint doen), die gaat tot de gate van een producent. Bij co-productie wordt een verdeelsleutel gehanteerd om de broeikasgasemissies die in de processen vrijkomen te verdelen: in geval van processing (zoals rendering) en slaughtering lijkt economische allocatie de enige oplossing*Dit plaatje komt uit de 4th assessment report van de UN organizatie Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (die geven ook guidelines hoe je emissies moet berekenen)*Met in line with bedoel ik grotendeels overeenkomend. Er zijn een aantal verschillen, maar uiteindelijk zal de ISO14067 leidend wordenAchteraan de presentatie heb ik een sheet toegevoegd met een aantal details over hoe we een aantal aspecten hebben ingevuld*Hopelijk is deze leesbaar, anders kan ik het nog aanpassen of vereenvoudigen**CF van WPC is zeer gevoelig voor de allocatiemethode: reken je de emissies van de melkveehouderij mee of niet en zo ja, welke verdeelsleutel gebruik je*Er kunnen misschien vragen komen over nitrous oxide emissions from the soil and land use change: het eerste heeft te maken met dat de IPCC in 1996 nog N2O emissies van biologische N fixatie (wat alleen bij peulvruchten en verwanten voorkomt) meerekende en in 2006 om foutieve reden weg heeft gehaald. De Nederlandse overheid telt dit onderdeel nog wel mee (tegen het advies van de IPCC in). Land use change kan op verschillende manieren: BMA heeft een eigen methode, die overigens binnenkort wordt gepubliceerd in de Journal of Cleaner Production (kortgeleden geaccepteerd) een belangrijk wetenschappelijk tijdschrift voor LCAs en carbon footprints.*