Advertisement

Evaluating the carbon footprint of Chilean organic blueberry production

  • Hanna Cordes
  • Alfredo IriarteEmail author
  • Pablo Villalobos
CARBON FOOTPRINTING

Abstract

Purpose

Chile is the second largest blueberry producer and exporter worldwide. At the global level, there is a lack of information by means of field data about greenhouse gas emissions from organic cultivation of this fruit. This study obtains a resource use inventory and assesses the cradle-to-farm gate carbon footprint (CF) of organic blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) production in the main cultivation area of Chile in order to identify CF key factors and to provide improvement measures.

Methods

The method used in this study follows the ISO 14040 framework and the main recommendations in the PAS 2050 guide as well as its specification for horticultural products PAS 2050-1. Primary data were collected for three consecutive production seasons from five organic Chilean blueberry orchards and calculations conducted with the GaBi 4 software. Agricultural factors such as fertilizers, pesticides, fossil fuels, electricity, materials, machinery, and direct land use change (LUC) are included. Only three orchards present direct LUC.

Results and discussion

The direct LUC associated with the conversion from annual crops to perennial crops is a key factor in the greenhouse gas removals from the orchards. When accounting for direct LUC, the CF of organic blueberry production in the studied orchards ranges from removals (reported as negative value) of −0.94 to emissions of 0.61 kg CO2-e/kg blueberry. CF excluding LUC ranges from 0.27 to 0.69 kg CO2-e/kg blueberry. The variability in the results of the orchards suggests that the production practices have important effects on the CF. The factors with the greatest contribution to the greenhouse emissions are organic fertilizers followed by energy use causing, on average, 50 and 43 % of total emissions, respectively.

Conclusions

The CF of the organic blueberry orchards under study decreases significantly when taking into account removals related to LUC. The results highlight the importance of reporting separately the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from LUC. The CF of blueberry production could be reduced by optimizing fertilizer application, using cover crops and replacing inefficient tractors and large irrigation pumps. The identification of improvement measures would be a useful guide for changing grower practices.

Keywords

Blueberry Carbon footprint Chile Life cycle assessment Fruit GHG emissions Land use change Organic agriculture 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The present work was mainly supported by the Chilean Food Processing Research Center (Centro de Estudios en Alimentos Procesados CEAP, Chile), R09I2001. A. Iriarte thanks CONICYT (Chile)-FONDECYT Project N° 11140765 for support his work and part of this study. We thank BioAudita (Chillán, Chile) for establishing contacts with some of the growers, as well as the growers themselves for their help in providing data and their participation in this research.

References

  1. Achten W, Almeida J, Fobelets V, Bolle E, Mathijs E, Singh V, Tewari D, Verchot L, Muys B (2010) Life cycle assessment of Jatropha biodiesel as transportation fuel in rural India. Appl Energy 87:3652–3660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beccali M, Cellura M, Iudicello M, Mistretta M (2009) Resource consumption and environmental impacts of the agrofood sector: life cycle assessment of Italian citrus-based products. Environ Manage 43:707–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bessou C, Basset-Mens C, Tran T, Benoist A (2013) LCA applied to perennial cropping systems: a review focused on the farm stage. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:340–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bilalis D, Kamariari P, Karkanis A, Efthimiadou A, Zorpas A, Kakabouki I (2013) Energy inputs, output and productivity in organic and conventional maize and tomato production, under Mediterranean conditions. Not Bot Horti Agrobot Cluj-Napoca 41:190–194Google Scholar
  5. Bina S, Dowlatabadib H (2005) Consumer lifestyle approach to US energy use and the related CO2 emissions. Energ Policy 33:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blonk Consultants (2014) The direct land use change assessment tool. Gouda, The Netherlands, Available at: http://blonkconsultants.nl/en/tools/land-use-change-tool.html Google Scholar
  7. Brazelton C (2013) World blueberry acreage & production. North American Blueberry Council Available at: http://www.blueberrieschile.cl/paper/paper62.pdf
  8. Brito de Figueirêdo MC, Kroeze C, Potting J et al (2012) The carbon footprint of exported Brazilian yellow melón. J Clean Prod 47:404–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. BSI (2011) PAS 2050:2011. Specification for the assessment of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institution, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. BSI (2012) PAS 2050-1:2012. Assessment of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from horticultural products. British Standards Institution, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Cerutti A, Bagliani M, Beccaro G, Bounous G (2010) Application of ecological footprint analysis on nectarine production: methodological issues and results from a case study in Italy. J Clean Prod 18:771–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cerutti A, Bruun S, Beccaro G, Bounous G (2011) A review of studies applying environmental impact assessment methods on fruit production systems. J Environ Manage 92:2277–2286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Choo YM, Muhamad H, Hashim Z, Subramaniam V, Puah CW et al (2011) Determination of GHG contributions by subsystems in the oil palm supply chain using the LCA approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:669–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dalgaard T, Halberg N, Porter JR (2001) A model for fossil energy use in Danish agriculture used to compare organic and conventional farming. Agric Ecosyst Environ 87:51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Comité de Arándanos (2013) Regiones productoras. Santiago, Chile. Available at: http://www.comitedearandanos.cl
  16. Ecoinvent Centre (2014) The ecoinvent database. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Available at http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/database.html
  17. EPLCA (2007) Carbon footprint - what it is and how to measure it. EPLCA (European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment), Joint Research Centre-Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Ispra, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  18. FAO (2014a) Agriculture, forestry and other land use emissions by sources and removals by sinks. 1990–2011 analysis. In: Tubiello FN, Salvatore M, Cóndor Golec RD et al. (eds) Working Paper Series FAO. Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  19. FAO (2014b) FAOSTAT Database v. 2014. FAO Statistics Division. Available at http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E
  20. Finkbeiner M (2009) Carbon footprinting—opportunities and threats. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:91–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Franchetti M, Apul D (2012) Carbon footprint analysis: concepts, methods, implementation, and case studies. CRC Press, FloridaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fresh Fruit Portal (2014) International Special Edition. Blueberries 2014. Gutierres, ed, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  23. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ, Doka G, Heck T, Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M, Wernet G (2007) Overview and methodology. Ecoinvent report No. 1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  24. Gan Y, Liang C, Hamel C, Cutforth H, Wang H (2011) Strategies for reducing the carbon footprint of field crops for semiarid areas. A review. Agron Sustainable Dev 31:643–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garnett T (2006) Fruit and vegetables and greenhouse gas emissions: exploring the relationship. Working paper produced as part of the work of the Food Climate Research Network. Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of SurreyGoogle Scholar
  26. GHG Protocol (2011) Quantitative inventory uncertainty. In: World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (eds) Product life cycle accounting and reporting standard. Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Available at http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/product-standard
  27. Girgenti V, Peano C, Bounous M, Baudino C (2013) A life cycle assessment of non-renewable energy use and greenhouse gas emissions associated with blueberry and raspberry production in northern Italy. Sci Total Environ 458–460:414–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goodland R (1997) Environmental sustainability in agriculture: diet matters. Ecol Econ 23:189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R et al (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. I: LCA in perspective. IIa: Guide. IIb: Operational annex. III: scientific background. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, p 692Google Scholar
  30. Guzmán GI, Alonso AM (2008) A comparison of energy use in conventional and organic olive oil production in Spain. Agric Syst 98:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heller M, Keoleian G (2015) Greenhouse gas emission estimates of U.S. dietary choices and food loss. J Ind Ecol 19:391–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huerta JH, Muñoz E, Montalba R (2012) Evaluation of two production methods of Chilean wheat by life cycle assessment (LCA). Idesia 30:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ingwersen W (2012) Life cycle assessment of fresh pineapple from Costa Rica. J Clean Prod 35:152–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. INIA (2010) Huella de Carbono en productos de exportación agropecuarios de Chile. Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA), Servicios de Ingeniería DEUMAN Ltda, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  35. IPCC (2006a) N2O emissions from managed soils and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. Chapter 11. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, IGES Hayama, JapanGoogle Scholar
  36. IPCC (2006b) Agriculture, forestry and other land use. Introduction. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, IGES Hayama, JapanGoogle Scholar
  37. Iriarte A, Rieradevall J, Gabarrell X (2010) Life cycle assessment of sunflower and rapeseed as energy crops under Chilean conditions. J Clean Prod 18:336–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Iriarte A, Rieradevall J, Gabarrell X (2011) Environmental impacts and energy demand of rapeseed as an energy crop in Chile under different fertilization and tillage practices. Biomass Bioenergy 35:4305–4315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Iriarte A, Almeida MG, Villalobos P (2014) Carbon footprint of premium quality export bananas: case study in Ecuador, the world’s largest exporter. Sci Total Environ 472:1082–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. ISO (2006) ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaltsas AM, Mamolos AP, Tsatsarelis CA, Nanos GD, Kalburtji KL (2007) Energy budget in organic and conventional olive groves. Agric Ecosyst Environ 122:243–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kavargiris SE, Mamolos AP, Tsatsarelis CA, Nikolaidou AE, Kalburtji KL (2009) Energy resources’ utilization in organic and conventional vineyards: energy flow, greenhouse gas emissions and biofuel production. Biomass Bioenergy 33:1239–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kramer K, Moll H, Nonhebel S, Wilting H (1999) Greenhouse gas emissions related to Dutch food consumption. Energy Policy 27:203–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kroodsma DA, Field CB (2006) Carbon sequestration in California agriculture, 1980–2000. Ecol Appl 16:1975–1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lal R (2009) Challenges and opportunities in soil organic matter research. Eur J Soil Sci 60:158–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Laurent A, Olsen S, Hauschild M (2012) Limitations of carbon footprint as indicator of environmental sustainability. Environ Sci Technol 46:4100–4108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Liu Y, Langer V, Høgh-Jensen H, Egelyng H (2010) Life cycle assessment of fossil energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in Chinese pear production. J Clean Prod 18:1423–1430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Luo L, Van Der Voet E, Huppes G (2009) Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of bioethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 13:1613–1619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Meier M, Stoessel F, Jungbluth N, Juraske R, Schader C, Stolze M (2014) Environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural products—are the differences captured by life cycle assessment? J Environ Manage 149:193–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Milà i Canals L, Burnip GM, Cowell SJ (2006) Evaluation of the environmental impacts of apple production using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): case study in New Zealand. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:226–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mithraratne N, McLaren S, Barber A (2008) Carbon footprinting for the kiwifruit supply chain. Report on methodology and scoping study. Landcare Research. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  52. Mudahar M, Hignett T (1987) Energy requirements, technology, and resources in the fertilizer sector. In: Helsel ZR (ed) Energy in world agriculture. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 26–61Google Scholar
  53. Öborn I, Sonesson U, Stern S, Berg C, Gunnarsson S, Lagerkvist C (2002) Where are the weak links in a sustainable food chain? An interview survey. MAT21 Rapport. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  54. ODEPA (2013a) Inserción de la agricultura chilena en los mercados internacionales. ODEPA (Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias), Gobierno de Chile, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  55. ODEPA (2013b) Alternativas para el cultivo de arándanos. ODEPA (Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias), Gobierno de Chile, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  56. ODEPA (2013c) Evolución de las exportaciones silvoagropecuarias de Chile, 2003 - junio 2013. ODEPA (Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias), Gobierno de Chile, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  57. OECD (2001) Environmental indicators for agriculture, Vol. 3. Methods and results, vol OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). France, ParisGoogle Scholar
  58. Ossés de Eicker M, Hischier R, Hurni H, Zah R (2010) Using non-local databases for the environmental assessment of industrial activities: the case of Latin America. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30:145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Page G, Kelly T, Minor M, Cameron M (2011) Modeling carbon footprints of organic orchard production systems to address carbon trading: an approach based on life cycle assessment. HortScience 46:324–327Google Scholar
  60. Pathak H, Jain N, Bhatia A, Patel J, Aggarwal P (2010) Carbon footprints of Indian food items. Agric Ecosyst Environ 139:66–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. PE International (2014) GaBi 4 Software system and databases for life cycle engineering. Germany. Available at http://www.gabi-software.com/international/software/gabi-software/
  62. Percival D, Dias G (2014) Energy consumption and greenhouse gas production in wild blueberry production. Acta Hortic (ISHS) 1017:163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. PRé (2015) SimaPro Database Manual—methods library. PRé Consultants B.V, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  64. Renouf M, Wegener M, Nielsen L (2008) An environmental life cycle assessment comparing Australian sugarcane with US corn and UK sugar beet as producers of sugars for fermentation. Biomass Bioenergy 32:1144–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. SAG (2013) Agricultura orgánica nacional. Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG), Ministerio de Agricultura, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  66. Salami P, Ahmadi H, Keyhani A (2010) Estimating the equivalent energy for single super phosphate production in Iran. Journal of Scientific Review 2:1–10Google Scholar
  67. Schmidt JH (2007) Life assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Ph. D. thesis, part 3: life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil. Aalborg University, Aalborg, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  68. Shepherd M, Pearce B, Cormack B et al (2003) An assessment of the environmental impacts of organic farming. A review for DEFRA-funded Project OF0405, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  69. Stolze M, Piorr A, Häring A, Dabbert S (2000) Environmental impacts of organic farming in Europe. Organic farming in Europe: economics and policy. University of Hohenheim, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  70. Tan RR, Culaba AB, Purvis MR (2002) Application of possibility theory in the life‐cycle inventory assessment of biofuels. Int J Energy Res 26:737–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tukker A (2000) Life cycle assessment as a tool in environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:435–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. UNEP (2000) Agenda 21. Chapter 14: promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), New YorkGoogle Scholar
  73. Van der Werf H, Gaillard G, Biard Y, Koch P, Basset-Mens C et al (2010) Creation of a public LCA database of French agricultural raw products: Agri-BALYSE. Proceedings of LCA Food, Bari, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  74. Venkat K (2012) Comparison of twelve organic and conventional farming systems: a life cycle greenhouse gas emissions perspective. J Sustainable Agric 36:620–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Weidema B, Thrane M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Løkke S (2008) Carbon footprint: a catalyst for life cycle assessment? J Ind Ecol 12:3–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wiedmann T, Minx J (2007) A definition of carbon footprint. Ecol Econ Res Trends 2:55–65Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanna Cordes
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alfredo Iriarte
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • Pablo Villalobos
    • 5
  1. 1.International Agribusiness and Rural Development Program, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Faculty of Agricultural SciencesGeorg-August-UniversitätGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.International Agribusiness Program, Faculty of Agricultural SciencesUniversidad de TalcaTalcaChile
  3. 3.Department of Industrial Engineering (former Department of Industrial Management and Modeling), Faculty of EngineeringUniversidad de TalcaTalcaChile
  4. 4.Chilean Food Processing Research Center—CEAP (Centro de Estudios en Alimentos Procesados), R09I2001TalcaChile
  5. 5.Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural SciencesUniversidad de TalcaTalcaChile

Personalised recommendations