High Accuracy Site-Specific Secondary Data for Mechanical Field Operations to Support LCA Studies

  • Marco Fiala
  • Luca NoniniEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 67)


The aim of the study was to quantify site-specific secondary data of mechanical field operations for EU barley cropping. By the model ENVIAM v2, each operation was subdivided into 13 working times and, for each of them, the amount of total consuming inputs (fuel, lubricant and AdBlue®) and emissions of exhaust gases into the atmosphere were calculated. The amount of partial consuming inputs (machinery mass) and emissions of heavy metals into the soil were also quantified. Three scenarios (S) were identified: S1 = 50 ha, S2 = 100 ha, S3 = 200 ha, with the same: agronomic conditions, operations sequence, type of machines used and cropping inputs. For each scenario, two barley ideotypes were analyzed: (i) currently in use (BarNow, 2018) and (ii) future (BarPlus, 2030). BarPlus is characterized by: (i) higher grain and straw yield, Nitrogen fertilization rate and machinery Effective Field Capacity, (ii) use of TIER 5 fuel engines, (iii) lower specific minimum fuel consumption. BarNow inputs (kg·ha−1) were: fuel = 67 ÷ 74, lubricant = 0.56 ÷ 0.73, mass = 7.9 ÷ 8.8. BarPlus inputs (kg·ha−1) were: fuel = 55 ÷ 60, lubricant = 0.53 ÷ 0.69, AdBlue® = 2.8 ÷ 3.0, mass = 7.2 ÷ 8.0. The highest fuel and mass consumptions were in both cases related to tillage operations.


Barley cultivation Mechanical field operation Working time Site-specific secondary data Environmental inventory 


  1. Achten, W. M. J., & Van Acker, K. (2016). EU-Average impacts of wheat production. A meta-analysis of life cycle assessments. Journal of Industrial Ecology 20(1), 132–144.Google Scholar
  2. Baik, B. K., & Ullrich, S. E. (2008). Barley for food: characteristics, improvement, and renewed interest. Journal of Cereal Science, 48(2), 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bengoa, X., Rossi, V., Humbert, S., Nemecek, T., Lansche, J., & Mouron, P. (2014). Methodological guidelines for the life cycle inventory of agricultural products. Version 2.0, July 2014. World food LCA database. Quantis and Agroscope, Lausanne and Zurich, Switzerland, 1–79.Google Scholar
  4. Dijkman, T. J., Birkved, M., Saxe, H., Wenzel, H., & Hauschild, M. Z. (2017). Environmental impacts of barley cultivation under current and future climatic conditions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 644–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dyer, J. A., & Desjardins, R. L. (2003). Simulated farm fieldwork, energy consumption and related greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Biosystems Engineering, 85(4), 503–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ecoinvent (2015). Ecoinvent database.
  7. European Commission (2018). Eurostat handbook for annual crop statistics, revision 2018.
  8. Fiala, M., Nonini, L., & Marveggio, D. (2019). Environmental assessment. Task 4.3 final report, project “BARPLUS–Modifying canopy architecture and photosynthesis to maximize barley biomass and yield for different end-uses”, (Internal FACCE-SURPLUS ERA-NET Project report, June 2019) (pp. 122).Google Scholar
  9. Jannick, H. S., Weidema, B. P., Munõz, I., Dalgaard, R., Merciai, S., & de Saxcé, M. (2010). 2.0 LCA Consultants.
  10. Keyes, S., Tyedmers, P., & Beazley, K. (2015). Evaluating the environmental impacts of conventional and organic apple production in Nova Scotia, Canada, through life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 104, 40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lovarelli, D., Bacenetti, J., & Fiala, M. (2016). A new tool for life cycle inventories of agricultural machinery operations. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 47(1), 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lovarelli, D., Bacenetti, J., & Fiala, M. (2017). Effect of local conditions and machinery characteristics on the environmental impacts of primary soil tillage. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 479–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lovarelli, D., Fiala, M., & Larson, G. (2018). Fuel consumption and exhaust emissions during on-field tractor activity: A possible improving strategy for the environmental load of agricultural mechanisation. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 151, 238–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marinussen, M., van Kernebeek, H., Broekema, R., Groen, E., Kool, A., van Zeist, W. J., et al. (2012). LCI data for the calculation tool feedprint for greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization.
  15. Murphy, C. W., & Kendall, A. (2013). Life cycle inventory development for corn and stover production systems under different allocation methods. Biomass and Bioenergy, 58, 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nemecek, T., & Kägi, T. (2007). Life cycle inventories of Swiss and European agricultural production systems. Final report ecoinvent V2.0 No. 15a, Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research Station ART, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich and Dübendorf, CH. Retrieved from
  17. Niero, M., Ingvordsen, C. H., Peltonen-Sainio, P., Jalli, M., Lyngkjær, M. F., Hauschild, M. Z., et al. (2015). Eco-efficient production of spring barley in a changed climate: a life cycle assessment including primary data from future climate scenarios. Agricultural Systems, 136, 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Notarnicola, B., Sala, S., Anton, A., McLaren, S. J., Saouter, E., & Sonesson, U. (2017). The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-food systems: a review of the challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ossés de Eicker, M., Hischier, R., Kulay, L. A., Lehmann, M., Zah, R., & Hurni, H. (2010). The applicability of non-local LCI data for LCA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(3), 192–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reboul, C. (1964). Temps des travaux et jours disponibles en agriculture. Economie Rurale, 61, 50–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmidt Rivera, X. C., Bacenetti, J., Fusi, A., & Niero, M. (2017). The influence of fertiliser and pesticide emissions model on life cycle assessment of agricultural products: The case of Danish and Italian barley. Science of Total Environment, 592, 745–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences – Production, Landscape, Agroenergy (DiSAA)University of MilanMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations