Life cycle assessment in Brazilian agriculture facing worldwide trends

at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 9e24

Contents lists available

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Life cycle assessment in Brazilian agriculture facing worldwide trends

Clandio F. Ruviaro a,*, Miguelangelo Gianezini a, Fernanda S. Brandão a, César A. Winck a,b,Homero Dewes a

aCenter for Research in Agribusiness, CEPAN, UFRGS, Porto Alegre, BrazilbUniversity of West of Santa Catarina, UNOESC, Joaçaba, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 15 April 2011Received in revised form25 September 2011Accepted 11 October 2011Available online 20 October 2011

Keywords:SustainabilityAgribusinessDecision-makingEnvironmentSupply chainCertification

* Correspondingauthor.UniversidadeFederaldoRioGe Pesquisas emAgronegócios (Cepan) Av. Bento Gonçalvee 1� andar, Porto Alegre e RSe Brazil e Cep.: 91.540-00

E-mail address: [email protected] (C.F.

0959-6526/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.015

a b s t r a c t

Worldwide demand to set reliable environmental criteria for food and feed products has brought LifeCycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies to agribusiness. This paper describes the results of a search forscientific literature and government documents regarding the application of LCA to agricultural productsworldwide, as a way to capture state-of-the-art technology in the field and to identify the trends anddrivers for labeling and certification requirements in international markets. Considering the status ofBrazilian agriculture, it would be necessary to adapt the LCA tools to the peculiarities of this country’senvironmental and technological context, regarding the ability to follow current trends in the applicationof LCA as a tool for analysis of the environmental impact. In Brazil, any effort to develop specificmethodologies for both Life Cycle Inventory and Life Cycle Impact Assessment is urgently needed for thecountry to remain among the leaders of food and feed exporters and would be appreciated by consumersworldwide.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the debate about environmental sustainabilityhas broadened to include the impact of agricultural production. Theincreasing worldwide demand for food, feed and renewable energysources requires new knowledge about production systems tomake them acceptable under the sustainability criteria.

Faced with such complex needs, researchers around the worldhave developed different research tools for the analysis of the lifecycle of products tomeasure the impacts caused by their respectiveproduction processes, and have proposed improvements in allstages of production to boost environmental performance asawhole (Guinée et al., 2001; Cederberg andMattson, 2000). Amongthe assessment tools currently available, the LCA is a method forintegral assessment of the environmental impact of products,processes and services (Thomassen et al., 2008).

The LCA includes analysis of the extraction and processing ofraw materials as well as, product manufacture, transport, distri-bution, use, reuse, maintenance, recycling and disposal of discards.LCA allows a comprehensive view of the various impacts on the

randedoSul, CentrodeEstudoss, 7712 - Prédio da Agronomia0. Tel./fax: þ55 51 3308 6586.Ruviaro).

All rights reserved.

environment, enabling the identification of suitable measures froma sustainable development prospective (Chehebe, 1997; Jensen,1997; Graedel, 1998).

The soaring worldwide demand to set reliable environmentalcriteria for food and feed products has brought LCA methodologiesto agribusiness as a way to support the decision-making processesregarding agriculture and food production technologies. In thissense, the Kyoto Protocol (2005), the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change, IPCC (2007), and the United Nations ClimateChange Conference, COP (2009), have played a major influence.

As a major exporter of food and feed products, Brazil is a countryhighly concerned with environmental and food safety issues ofinternational relevance associatedwith agricultural production andthe food processing industry. Brazil is the largest South Americancountry with an area of 8,514,876 km2 and with a population ofmore than 190 million (IBGE, 2010). The country leads the world inthe production of oranges, sugarcane, and coffee, and it is also oneof the major producers of soybeans, corn and beef (FAO, 2009).

This paper presents the results of a search for scientific literatureand government documents regarding the application of LCA toagricultural products worldwide, as a way to capture state-of-the-art technology in this field and to identify the trends and driversfor labeling and certification requirements in internationalmarkets. We contrasted the data on LCA for agricultural productsfrom worldwide sources with the published documents from

LCA: application to agricultural products (review 2001-2011)

Scientific literature

• Livestock

• Grains, Vegetables and Others

• Animal Products

• Brazilian

Governmental documents

12

4

28

42

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the search with the numbers of documents analyzed.

C.F. Ruviaro et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 9e2410

Brazilian sources. We found that the world literature on the subjectis still relatively scarce and refers to a limited list of products,namely dairy products, tomatoes, apples, nectarines, citrus prod-ucts, potatoes, olives, wheat, rice, soybeans, maize, sugarcane,biomass, biodiesel, biomethanol, forage, beef, fish, pigs, poultry,sheep, wool, eggs, forests and wood. The Brazilian sources refer toethanol, sugarcane, biofuels, agricultural machinery manufacture,coffee, soybeans, orange juice, poultry, aquiculture, and oysters.

1.1. Approaches to the assessment of the life cycle of agriculturaland livestock products

LCA is an important tool for environmental evaluation ofproduction chains. This methodology is widely used and recog-nized worldwide by researchers and technicians and allows manyapplications in productive systems. A comprehensive systemati-zation of the requirements and steps of the LCA is contained in thestandards ISO 14040:2006 ISO, 2006a) and ISO 14044:2006 (ISO,2006b).

In agricultural production, the application of LCA is of markedrelevance in all the production chains, and its importance can beseen in the following market externalities: a) consumers demandenvironmentally friendly products and are willing to pay more forthem, b) the producers who are not able to demonstrate that theirproduce is grown in a sustainable way, have difficulties in accessingimportant markets, and c) environmental criteria are being grad-ually added by countries to their import requirements for agricul-tural products.

Therefore, only agricultural products that have their productionchain properly managed are fully accepted in local or globalmarkets, and for management to move toward environmentalcontrol, agriculture requires objective measurements of reliableindicators similar to other production systems.

Another aspect that can be controlled by LCA methodology isthe efficiency of a production chain, which partially depends uponthe production scale, the technologies used, and the organization ofproducers facing the industry.

Because agricultural production is highly diversified worldwide,both in cultural and biophysical terms, application of a standardand widely accepted methodology for analysis of environmentalimpacts of local agricultural production is very difficult and highlycontroversial, although urgently needed.

The application of LCA in agriculture progresses worldwide,although it still has to evolve to incorporate some additionalsustainability dimensions, such as offensive odors, animal welfareand aesthetic aspects, among others.

Considering this scenario, some limitations of the LCA meth-odology can be mentioned: a) the failure to consider and/or includeall the relevant impacts on the production (use of soil and water,indirect changes in the use of the soil and the ecological competi-tion among products); b) the difficulty to consider the reduction ofsoil use when production is classified as ecological (organic,natural, biodynamic, among others); c) the lack of a broaderapproach (such as the Integrated Environmental Assessment, IEA);and d) the current inability to consider the large number of existingcategories of environmental impacts that make the decision-making process more difficult.

1.2. LCA in Brazil

According to MAPA (Ministry of Agriculture, Brazil), agribusi-ness accounts for 33% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 42% oftotal Brazilian exports (MAPA, 2010a). Recent studies show that thetotal area of crops in the country should increase from 60 millionhectares in 2010 to 70 million in 2020. Brazil will have a 37%

increase in grain production (soybeans, corn, wheat, rice andbeans), equivalent to 48 million tons by 2020. Growth is also ex-pected in the same period for meat production (38% beef, pork andchicken), sugar (48%), and milk (24%) (MAPA, 2010b). What isremarkable is that conditions exist to permit even further growth.The well-known Brazilian potential to produce food due to poten-tially arable land and the availability of water and renewable energy(such as hydroelectric power), places the country in a prominentposition in the global market as one of the major food suppliers forthe world in coming years.

However, to meet the new consumer demands for certificationand labeling of agricultural products, it is critical that Brazilianinstitutions, both academic and governmental, watch for the trendsof international markets in using the LCA methodologies and takethe needed steps to qualify local institutions to perform thoseanalytical procedures properly (Caldeira-Pires et al., 2002; Coltroet al., 2007; Barbosa et al., 2008).

In other words, the LCA of agricultural products should considerthe peculiarities of each country within its analysis context.Therefore, we must know how to apply this methodology properlyaccording to the peculiarities of the different regions of Brazil, toprovide both basic scientific knowledge and support for manage-ment and for environmental education (Souza et al., 2007; Mouradet al., 2007). Moreover, there is a need to establish institutionalpolicies with local pertinence, in terms of environment andsustainable production.

2. Methods

A preliminary document search showed that the analyticalprocedures and units used in LCA analysis differed according to theproducts and origins of the publications. Against this background,a literature review was performed on the LCA studies published inthe last ten years. The data were obtained from scientific literatureand government documents regarding the application of LCA toagricultural products worldwide. Furthermore, we contrasted theLCA data on agricultural products fromworldwide sources with thepublished documents from Brazilian sources (Fig. 1).

3. Results

Apparently, the world is a long way from establishing generalprotocols that would take into account local conditions whileproviding valuable comparisons between countries and agricultural

Table 1International applications of LCA methodology on livestock production according to the year of publication.

Country Agricultureproducts

Theme Functionalunits

Selected conclusion Year Author(s)

Ireland Milk Compare two standardmethodologies, IPCCmethod and LCA, forquantifying GHGemissions fromdairy farms

kg CO2 eq.,kg�1 milk;kg CO2 eq.,kg�1 MS;t CO2 eq., ha�1

Expressing emissions perha does not appropriatelyreflect the effect differentdairy systems can haveon milk production.The LCA approachmust be integrated intothe existing IPCCframework to identifyproduction systemswith a net reductionin global GHG emissions

2011 O’Brien et al.

Ireland Milk An evaluation ofLCA of Europeanmilk production

Undefined Simplified LCA may nothelp provide efficientmitigation strategiesfor environmentalproblems

2011 Yan et al.

New Zealand/Sweden

Milk andco-products

Investigate differentmethodologies ofhandlingco-products inLCA or CF studies

1 kg energy-corrected milk(ECM)

There was a smalldifference incalculated averageCF value at thefarm gate forNew Zealandand Swedishmilk production

2011 Flysjo et al.

Spain Milk LCA and DEAmethodologiesused to performeco-efficiencyassessment of ahigh number ofdairy farms

Dairy farm Combined LCA andDEA provided valuableresults to benchmarkboth operational andenvironmental parameters

2011 Iribarren et al.

Switzerland Integratedand organicfarming systems

Assessment ofintegrated andorganic farmingsystems for cropsand forage productionto compareenvironmentalperformance andpotentials

Cultivatedhectare peryear; currencyunit; physicalunits (kg ofdry matterand MJ netenergy)

There is considerableroom for environmentaloptimization of Swissfarming systems

2011a Nemecek et al.

Switzerland Extensive andintensiveproductionsystems

Reduction ofenvironmentalimpacts of extensivefarming systems

Cultivatedhectare peryear; currencyunit; physicalunits (Kg ofdry matterand MJ netenergy)

Detailed eco-efficiencyanalysis could help inreducing productionsystems’ environmentalimpacts

2011b Nemecek et al.

Australia Wheat, sheepmeat and wool

Global warmingcontributions

CO2 eq./kg ofwheat, sheepmeat andwoolproducedfrom mixedpasture,wheat andsub-clover

Wool GHG emissionsare higher than wheatand sheep meat. Entericand manure decompositionCH4 emissions accountedfor a significant portionof total emissions fromsub-clover and mixedpasture production,while N20 is the majoremission from wheatproduction

2010 Biswas et al.

Australia Red meat beef Accounting forwater use in redmeat production

Delivery of1 kg of HSCWmeat to theprocessingworksproduct gatefor wholesaledistribution

Approach can be appliedto other agriculturalsystems; results notsuggested as industryaverages

2010 Peters et al.

(continued on next page)

C.F. Ruviaro et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 9e24 11

Table 1 (continued )

Country Agricultureproducts

Theme Functionalunits

Selected conclusion Year Author(s)

Austria Livestock Emissions accountingfor production andconsumption oflivestock system

Carbonemissions(CO2 and CH4)

FCA and LCA methodsare effective to estimatedirect carbon emissionsfrom domestic livestockand combustion of fossilfuels in processes ofproduct manufacturingand transportation

2010 Gavrilova et al.

Canada Beef Estimation of GHGemissions frombeef production

CO2 eq. Kg�1 Following mitigation ofGHG emissions, beefproduction should focuson enteric CH4 productionfrom mature beef cows.The cowecalf productionsystem also has manyancillary environmentalbenefits, allowing useof grazing and foragelands, preserving soilcarbon reserves andproviding ecosystemsservices

2010 Bauchemin et al.

Spain Fish Combination of LCAand data envelopmentanalysis (DEA) infisheries

kg CO2 eq. Approach facilitatesinterpretation of resultsof multiple LCAs forsome fisheries andcarries synergistic effects

2010 Vázquez-Rowe et al.

United States Beef Comparison betweenmodels of differentbeef productionstrategies

GJ, GHG(tonnes CO2

eq.);eutrophyingemissions(tonnes ofPO4 eq.);ecologicalfootprint(ha)

Beef production, feedlotor pasture-based,generates lower edibleresource returns on thematerial/energyinvestment relativeto other foodproduction strategies

2010 Pelletier et al.

Brazil/USA/Canada

Soybeansand beef

GHG emissions ofsoybeans and beefproduction in theAmazon basin ofBrazil

Carbonliabilityembodied insoybeansand beef(Tg CO2 eq.)

Study requires calculatingemissions fromdeforestation, life cycleanalysis of agriculturalsystems and allocatingemissions betweenproducers and consumers

2009 Zaks et al.

Brazil/Sweden Beef LCI of GHG emissionsand use of land andenergy in Brazilianbeef production

1 kg ofBrazilianbeef at thefarm gate,as carcasseightequivalent;1 kg ofBrazilianbeef exportedas bone-freebeef

The use of energy inBrazilian beef productionis very low, a tenth ofEuropean production.Brazilian land use ishigher than in the EU

2009 Cederberg et al.

Canada Milk Environmental impactsof typical pasture andconfinement operations

1000 kg milkat farm gate

The transition to fullconfinement does notresult in environmentalbenefits

2009 Arsenault et al.

France/Greece

Fish Environmental impactsof different productionsystems of carnivorousfish

1 tonne oflive fishweight

Global warming and theavailability of fishresources, climate changeand net primary productionuse impact freshwaterraceways, sea cages andinland re-circulatingsystems

2009 Aubin et al.

New Zealand Milk Global warming andmilk production

GWP(/kg milk)

A probabilistic frameworkprovides information onthe differences betweentechnological options

2009a Basset-Mens et al.

C.F. Ruviaro et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 9e2412

Table 1 (continued )

Country Agricultureproducts

Theme Functionalunits

Selected conclusion Year Author(s)

New Zealand Milk Eco-efficiency inintensification scenarios

kg CO2 eq.;kg PO4 eq.;kg SO2 eq.; MJ;m2.year; andkg/ha

Comparison NZ � Europeanneeds validation

2009b Basset-Menset al.

Norway/UK/Canada/Chile

Fish Global-scale life cycleassessment of a majorfood commodity, farmedsalmon

Emissionsper unitproduction

Impacts were lowest forNorwegian production inmost impact categoriesand highest for UK farmedsalmon

2009 Pelletier et al.

Czech Republic Livestock Environmental andhealth impact of dairycattle livestock andmanure management

Impacts peryear, per hectareand per litermilk production

Selected characterizationfactors combined withinformation on studyregions are useful in anassessment of theenvironmental andhealth impact of dairy

2008 Havlikova et al.

European Union Livestock Life cycle assessment offeeding livestock withEuropean grain legumes

1 kg of animalproduct

Measures have to betaken to reduce theenvironmental burdenof feedstuff productionby choice of origin offeedstuffs andimprovement in theproductivity of the system

2008 Baumgartner et al.

Finland Chicken meat Life cycle phases in broilerchain by Finnish‘Eco-Benchmark’

1,000 kg Grain production hasthe higher impact onthe food chain

2008 Katajajuuri et al.

France Cow and goat Analyzes the environmentalimpacts of regional dairychains to identifyimprovement options

1000 kg milk;Ha of landoccupied

Farm operations havemore impact than farminputs. Transport ofproducts to retailershas more impact thanthose of dairy plants

2008 Kanyarushoki et al.

Global -Germany

Beef Local and global meatproduction related toenvironmental andeconomic aspects

One kilogramof ready-to-cook beef

Adoption of "Ecology ofScale" theory to supportdemand

2008 Schlich et al.

Netherland Milk Conventional and organicmilk production

kg of milk Relative performancevaries within categoriesof environmental impact

2008 Thomassen et al.

Netherland Organic eggs Integral environmentalimpact of the organicegg production chain

One kg oforganic egg

Concentrate productionis the key cluster toclimate change,eutrophication andenergy use

2008 Dekker et al.

Sweden Beef Synthesizes and expandsupon existing data on thecontribution of farmanimal production toclimate change

CO2 eq.GHGemissionsperkilogramof beef

Immediate and far-reaching changes incurrent animal agriculturepractices and consumptionpatterns are both criticaland timely if GHGs fromthe farm animal sectorare to be mitigated

2008 Koneswaran, G.& Nierenberg, D.

Japan Beef cattle Environmental impactsof beef cowecalf system

One marketedbeef calf

Shortening calving intervalsand increasing the numberof calves per cow reducedenvironmental impactsin all of the categories

2007 Ogino et al.

Canada Beef cattle Influences of handlingtreatment on nutrient levelsand mass balance estimatesof feedlot manure

Various Handling manure changesnutrient availability

2006 Larney et al.

France Pigs Uncertainty and variability g PO4 eq./kg pig; g CO2

eq./kg pig,g SO2 eq./kg pig

Farmer practices may affectthe final result more thanproduction modes

2006 Basset-Mens et al.

Ireland Beef GHG emissions fromsucker-beef production

kg CO2 kgLW yr�1

Comparing beef � dairyemissions revealed thepotential for reduction byadopting alternativemanagement

2006 Casey, J. W.& Holden, N. M.

(continued on next page)

C.F. Ruviaro et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 9e24 13

Table 1 (continued )

Country Agricultureproducts

Theme Functionalunits

Selected conclusion Year Author(s)

EuropeanUnion

Livestock Compares tools forenvironmental assessmentand recommendsindicators forbenchmarking

Kg/productor kg/ha

Organic vs. conventionalmilk production andthree pig productionsystems give differentresults, depending onthe basis of the indicators

2005 Halberg et al.

France(Bretagne)

Pig Environmental impactson the production ofconcentrated feedassociated with theproduction and on-farm delivery ofconcentrated feedfor pigs

1000 kg offeed; 1000 kgof ingredients

Decreased environmentalburdens by optimizing thefertilization of cropebasedingredients, by reducingconcentrations of Cu andZn in the feed, and byusing wheat-based ratherthan maize-based feeds

2005 van der Werf et al.

Ireland Milk GHG and the intensityof milk production

One kg ofECM; land area

Moving toward extensiveproduction could reduceemissions

2005 Casey, J. W. &Holden, N. M.

Japan Livestock Environmental impactsof concentrate feedsupply systems on industry

PA tons/year;Di tons/year;Fij MJ/tons offeed; GAj tons/MJ; Li GWh/tonsof feed; MAtons/GWh;feed i; andfuel j

Livestock industry couldjoin in emissions tradingby reducing CO2 producingequivalents

2005 Kaku et al.

Japan Beef Environmental impactsof beef-fattening systemand effects of feedinglength

One beefanimal

A shorter feeding lengthresulted in lowerenvironmental impacts,such as global warmingand acidification

2004 Ogino et al.

Sweden Dairy cattle Perform an LCI of milkproduction fromconventional andorganic dairy farms

One kg ofenergy-correctedmilk at thefarm gate

The organic farms hadlower use of fossilenergy, P and K, andpesticides, but largerland use. High productionper cow and the use ofinput resources can reducethe environmental impact

2004 Cederberg, C.& Flysjo, A.

New Zealand Milk Dairy farm, grazingand forage land

Volume ofmilk (m3)

Nitrogen fertilizer increasedproduction and economicefficiency but decreasedenvironmental efficiency

2003 Ledgard et al.

Spain Milk Total life cycle ofproduction and processingof milk to quantify theenvironmental impact

1 L ofpackagedliquid milkready to bedelivered

Applications of improvementactions in milk production canlead to a maximum reductionof the global normalized impact

2003 Hospido et al.

Sweden Milk and beef Organic milk productionwith different methodsof handling co-products

One kg ECM;One kgbone-freemeat

Milk and beef productionsystems are closelyconnected

2003 Cederberg, C.& Stadig, M.

UnitedKingdom

Pig waste Environmental benefitsof livestock manuremanagement practicesand technology

1000 kgpork weight

Using an anaerobic digestershows few overall benefitsdue to the fugitive lossesof methane. However, if thesecan be eliminated, the globalwarming potential from wastemanagement is reducedclose to zero

2003 Sandars et al.

Germany Systems ofgrasslandfarms

Environmental impactsof eighteen grasslandfarms in three different farming intensities

Whole farm Organic production promotesbiodiversity

2001 Haas et al.

C.F. Ruviaro et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 9e2414

Table 2International applications of LCA methodology on grain production, vegetables, and others according to the year of publication.

Country Agricultureproducts

Theme Functionalunits

Selected conclusion Year Author(s)

Italy Wine Evaluates theenvironmentalperformances offour high qualitywines for carbonlabeling

0.75 L bottleof wine

Vineyard-planting phasehas a significant impacton the wine CF; thus,it has to be consideredin the life cycle, while inliterature, it is frequentlyomitted. On the contrary,the pre-production phasedid not present a relevantimpact

2011 Bosco et al.

China Biodiesel Energy cost ofrapeseed-basedbiodieselalternative energyin China

MJ/kg, MJ/unit There is potential to improvethe apparently negativeenergy balance forbiodiesel from rapeseedoil in China by increasingthe average yield ofrapeseed or decreasingthe energy inputs ofnitrogen fertilizers

2011 Chen & Chen

Sweden Biomass Environmentalstudy of productionof propionic acidin a biorefinerysystem based onagricultural by-products

One kg ofpropionic acidat the factorygate

The use of industrial by-products as raw materialsin biorefinery systemsappears to be an attractiveoption to producebio-based chemicals, bothfrom an environmentaland an economicalpoint-of-view

2011 Ekman & Böejesson

Sweden Biomass Scenarios forsupply of the entiredemand of powerand heat of a ruralvillage

One yearsupply ofheat andelectricityto a modernvillage of150 households

The biomass-basedscenarios reducegreenhouse gas emissionsconsiderably comparedto the scenario basedon fossil fuel but havehigher acidifyingemissions.

2011 Kimming et al.

Spain Tomato Determine agriculturaland environmentaldifferences of fourcultivation optionscharacterized bygreenhouse oropen-field cultivationusing compost plusmineral fertilizers oronly mineral fertilizers

One tonneof commercialtomatoesproduced

Replacement of afraction of the mineralfertilizers dosage withcompost appears tobe a good agronomicalsolution for tomatocrops for growth inboth open-fieldsand greenhouses

2011 Martínez-Blanco et al.

USA Woodchipsfor bioethanol

Among the manylignocellulosicfeedstocks, woodchipsare viewed as one ofthe most promisingfeedstocks forproducing liquidtransportation fuels

Production of4 m3 ofhardwoodchips

Harvesting and woodchipsprocessing stage andtransportation to thefacility stage emit largeamount of environmentalpollutants compared toother life cycle stages ofethanol production

2011 Neupane et al.

Italy Citrus-basedproducts

Environmental impactsof citrus productionand transformationprocesses to identifythe most significantissues and suggestoptions forimprovement

1 kg ofeach finalcitrus-basedproduct

Sensible variations inenergy and environmentalperformances of finalproducts. Benefits thatstate the improvementof products’ eco-profile,by reusing purified waterused for irrigation, usingthe railway mode fordelivery of final products,and adopting efficienttechnologies inpasteurization andconcentration of juice

2010 Beccali et al.

(continued on next page)

C.F. Ruviaro et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 9e24 15

Table 2 (continued )

Country Agricultureproducts

Theme Functionalunits

Selected conclusion Year Author(s)

Italy Nectarineorchard

Application ofEcological FootprintAnalysis

gha t�1

nectarinesproduced

Validation of the system isneeded before theapplication at growerlevel. Ecological indicatorbased on EFA may providethe required introductionof an environmentalverification system forfood production

2010 Cerutti et al.

Italy Biofuel Discuss limits andconstraints of theLCA to performquantitativeassessments asrequested by thecurrent supportingpolicies in the biofuelarea

CO2 eq. (kg(MWhe)

LCA studies should alwaysprovide the bias of thecalculations because thisrange of variation in theLCA results could besignificantly greater thanthe initially setquantitative targets,and therefore, thewhole investigationwould be at risks forinconsistency

2010 Chiaramonti, D.& Recchia, L.

Chile Sunflowerand rapeseed

To quantify andcompare theenvironmentalimpacts and energyand water demandfor cultivation ofsunflower andrapeseed

One tonneof seedsper year

Evaluation of environmentalimpacts indicated that inChilean conditions,rapeseed has a betterenvironmental profile thansunflowers. Sunflowershave a higher impactin 9 of the 11 impactcategories evaluated,with values between 1.2and 39 times higher

2010 Iriarte et al.

Brazil,Denmark,China, andthe USA

Wheat Life cycle inventorymodeling of landuse induced bycrop consumptionusing wheat as anexample

Kg eq./ha Wheat consumption indifferent countries result indifferent land useconsequences due todifferences in tradepatterns, which aregoverned by transportand trade costs,among other factors

2010 Kløverpris et al.

China/Denmark

Organicsoybeans

The environmentalimpacts of organicand conventionalproduction ofsoybeans

One tonne oforganicsoybeanproduced inChina anddeliveredin Denmark

The organic soybeanhas a lowerenvironmental impactcompared to theconventional soybean

2010 Knudsen et al.

Switzerland Forest The impact ofclimatic factorson land use asdetermined by theCO2 transfersbetweenvegetation/soiland atmosphere

Carbonquantitiesper hectarefor landtransformationand landoccupationand their timeweighting

The quality of availabledata on carbon contentin vegetation and soil, oncarbon transfers to airdue to particular landuse types, and on theduration of stay ofcarbon in the air is stilllimited and needsimprovement

2010 Müller-Wenk, R.& Brandão, M.

Australia Sugarcaneproduction

Quantify theenvironmentalimpacts ofsugarcane products

One tonneof raw sugar;one tonnemolasses; onekWh electricity;and one MJanhydrous fuelethanol

Potential uncertaintycan be higher inAustralian sugarcaneproducts due to thenature of the caneprocessing system, thevariability insugarcane growing,and the approach takenfor assigning impacts tomultiple products fromsugarcane processing

2010 Renouf et al.

C.F. Ruviaro et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 9e2416

Table 2 (continued )

Country Agricultureproducts

Theme Functionalunits

Selected conclusion Year Author(s)

Germany Wood Environmentalburdens ofcultivation offast-growing treespecies onagricultural landand subsequentenergetic conversionin comparison tothe fossil energy system

One oven drytonne of poplarchips; MJ power;MJ heat; andMJ FT diesel

Utilization of the sameamount of short-rotation poplar chipsfor heat and powerproduction causesfewer environmentalimpacts than its usefor FT diesel

2010 Roedl, A.

EuropeanUnion

Rapeseed oiland palm oil

Local and globalalternative for meetingthe increasing oildemand

One tonnerefinedvegetable oil

Palm oil tends to beenvironmentallypreferable to rapeseedoil within all impactcategories exceptglobal warming,biodiversity andecotoxicity, wherethe difference is lesspronounced andwhere it is highlydependent onassumptionsregarding systemdelimitation in theagricultural stage

2010 Schmidt, J. H.

China Rice Examines theenvironmental impactof the rice productionsystem

One tonneof riceproduced

Reducing nitrogenfertilizer intensityand increasingefficiency are keypoints to control LCAenvironmental impactsof rice, decreasingresource consumptionand emissions

2010 Wang et al.

Canada Greenhousetomatoes

Explores oneapproach to assessingsocial issues insupply chain - LCA

$100 oftomatoesfrom a largegreenhouse

LCAA may serve asan aid for discussionsof how current andpopular CSR indicatorsmay be integratedinto a supply chainmodel

2009 Andrews et al.

Italy Rice Analyzesimprovementscenarios concerningalternative ricefarming and foodprocessing methods:organic and uplandfarming andparboiling

One kg ofrefined ricepacked anddelivered tothesupermarket

Organic and uplandfarming have thepotential to decreaseimpact per unit ofcultivated area. Dueto the lower grainyields, environmentalbenefits per kg ofthe final products arereduced in the caseof upland riceproduction and almostcancelled for organicrice

2009 Blengini, G.A.& Busto, M.

Brazil/Netherlands

Sugarcane Comparative LCA ongasoline andethanol as fuels,and two types ofblends of gasolinewith bioethanol,all used in amidsize car.

Power towheels for1 km drivingof a midsizecar

Driving with ethanolfuels is more economicalthan gasoline andeconomically moreattractive. The outcomesdepend on the assumedprice for crude oil andtechnological development

2009 Luo et al.

Argentina Biodiesel Environmentalimpact of soybean-based biodieselproduction forexport

1 km drivenwith dieselby a 28 ttruck

Environmental impactis influenced by landuse change, the BNF andthe use of fertilizers, aswell as applied pesticides,the soybean productionmethod, the use ofmethanol and thetransport system

2009 Panichelli et al.

(continued on next page)

C.F. Ruviaro et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 9e24 17

Table 2 (continued )

Country Agricultureproducts

Theme Functionalunits

Selected conclusion Year Author(s)

China Biomethanol The biomethanolrice straw productionprocess involvesthermodynamic,economic, andenvironmentalperformance

1000 kg ofbiomethanol

Rice straw toproduce methanolis beneficial for bothutilization ofagricultural wasteand improvement inthe environment

2009 Xiao et al.

Denmark/Argentina

Soybean meal The purposeof the studywas to estimatethe environmentalconsequences ofsoybean mealconsumptionusing aconsequentialLCA approach

One kg ofsoybean mealproduced inArgentina anddelivered toRotterdamHarbor

Consequential LCAsare quite easy tohandle, even thoughit has been necessaryto include productionof palm oil, rapeseedand spring barleybecause theseproduction systems areaffected by thesoybean oil co-product

2008 Dalgaard et al.

Belgium LCA of biofuels The environmentalbenefits of usingbiofuels

100 km coveredwith a midsizeand recent car

Rapeseed methylester allows aconsiderableimprovement inenvironmentalperformances comparedto fossil diesel, whileethanol from sugarbeets offers a morelimited benefitcompared to petrol

2008 Halleux et al.

Spain/Global Apples How theinternational tradeof fresh applesconcernedenvironmental,economic andsocial impacts

One ha oforchard; onekg of freshapples; m3/ha;kg N; kg P2O5;and Kg K2O

Multivariate analysiscan be used to selectthe most importantindicators regardingeconomic, social andenvironmental aspectsof apple productionand trade

2008 Soler-Rovira, J.& Soler-Rovira, P.

Germany Biomass Ecologicaloptimizationof biomasscultivation

Kg of harvestedproduct

There is no culturalmethod preferable forbiodiesel. Organicagriculture was betterfor integrated productionof energy using wheat,corn and soybeans

2007 Kagi et al.

Italy Sunflower oil Evaluates theuse of sunfloweroil on farms tomeet their internalenergy requirements

One ha Biofuel is not yetcompetitive becauseno free market exists forit, but it represents apractical way to avoidthe shift of economicbenefits from agricultureto industry, as occurswith biodiesel production

2006 Riello et al

France Agriculture Compares andanalyzes 12 indicator-based approaches toassessing theenvironmentalimpact at the farmlevel to propose a setof guidelines for theevaluation ordevelopment of suchmethods

Various The method should bevalidated with respect to(a) the appropriatenessof its set of objectivesrelative to its purposeand (b) its indicators

2002 van der Werf, H.M.G.& Petit, J.

C.F. Ruviaro et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 9e2418

C.F. Ruviaro et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 9e24 19

products and production systems, useful in supporting officialinternational trade, uni- or multi-lateral requirements, andconsumer decision making. Considering the status of Brazilianagriculture, it would be necessary to adapt the LCA tools to thecountry’s environmental peculiarities and technological context, tokeep up with current trends in the application of LCA methodologyfor analysis of the environmental impact of food and feed products.So far, there are only a few studies on adaptation of the descriptivefactors related to various critical categories, such as biodiversity,land use, and water use. Regarding the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI), nonational database is yet open to access, either related to agricultureor to other sectors of industrial activity, in spite of current efforts inthis direction.

Tables 1, 2 and 3 list the LCA reports according to the respectivecountry of application, agriculture products, theme, functionalunits, selected conclusion, year of publication, and authors. InTable 4, the variables include theme, goal, functional unit, selectedresults, year of publication, and authors.

Fig. 2 shows that the number of publications on LCA applied toagriculture rose markedly from the year 2007 and onwards, whengovernments and public opinion started to ask for more trans-parency of the environmental impacts of industrial activities asa result of international agreements, such as Kyoto Protocol, COPand IPCC.

Table 3International applications of LCA methodology on animal products according to the year

Country Agricultureproducts

Theme Functi

USA Organic dairy LCA of a large-scale,vertically integratedorganic dairy in the USA

One Lfluid m

Germany Organic milk Environmental impactsof different types oforganic dairy farms

Whole

New Zealand/UK Dairy Comparative energyand greenhouse gasemissions of NewZealand’s and theUK’s dairy industry

CO2 emenergy

New Zealand Dairy - lamb - apple Food Miles eComparative Energy/EmissionsPerformance ofNew Zealand’sAgriculture Industry

Energyemissiwith pand tr

4. Discussion

As in LCA studies of other industrial products and sectors, thereports on LCA of agricultural products put emphasis oncomparison of different production systems, e.g., organic versusconventional, extensive versus intensive, small versus large scale,and traditional versus advanced systems. Both the environmentalburden and productivity are referred to by LCA methodology thatuses multiple functional units to express them, such as the massof the final products (kg), the energy content of food products(kJ), the cultivation area (ha), and the unit of livestock, amongothers. In several studies, the LCA methodology is complementedby other approaches that together are more effective in evalu-ating the environmental impact of the system or the productanalyzed.

The studies and their conclusions are quite heterogeneous, asone would expect considering the extreme diversity in technolog-ical and biophysical terms of the agricultural systems analyzed. Anyextension of the conclusions of one study to another region of theworld or to another production system would be inappropriate.This is particularly relevant for Brazil compared to other countriesand considering the huge regional differences inside its borders.With the current inexistence of any Brazilian LCA inventory,interregional or international comparisons are very difficult.

of publication.

onal units Selected Conclusion Year Author(s)

of packagedilk

Improvements in dataquality with respect tofeed production andmethane emissions arerequired before moredefinitive comparisonscan be made betweenagricultural productionmethods

2011 Heller et al.

farm Environmental impactassessment analyzingonly global impactcategories of climateimpact and energyconsumption leads todifferent conclusionsthan an overall analysisthat also takes categorieswith regional and localimpact into account

2010 Müller-Lindenlaufet al.

issions;emissions

NZ is still more efficientat dairy productionthan the UK even whenother emissions areaccounted for

2007 Saunders, C.& Barber, A.

use and CO2

ons associatedroductionansport

NZ products comparefavorably with lowerenergy and emissionsper tonne of productdelivered to the UKcompared to other UKsources. In the case ofdairy, NZ is at leasttwice as efficient andfor sheep meat, fourtimes as efficient. TheCO2 emissions pertonne of applesproduced are alsohigher in the UK thanin NZ

2006 Saunders et al.

Table 4Applications of LCA methodology in Brazilian agriculture according to the year of publication.

Theme Goal Functional units Results Year Author(s)

Issues to consider,existing toolsand constraintsin biofuelsustainabilityassessments

Contributes to thedevelopment ofa framework forsustainabilityindicators as atool forperformanceassessment

Various Brazilian biofuel programsdemonstrate the feasibilityof a sustainable methodfor renewable fuelsutilization

2011 Lora et al.

Life cycleassessmentof Braziliansugarcaneproducts:GHG emissionsand energy use

Assess the lifecycle energyuse and GHGrelated to canesugar and ethanol,consideringbagasse andelectricitysurpluses as co-products

KJ/kg andCO2 eq./kg

Advantages of sugarcaneproducts compared tobeet sugar producedin Europe

2011 Seabra et al.

Comparison ofthe ecologicalfootprint anda life cycleimpactassessmentmethod for acase study onBrazilianbroiler feedproduction

Compares thedifferentinterpretationsthat can beobtained fromCML 2001 andEcological Footprint,using a case studyof four scenariosof broiler feedproduction inBrazil

Supply rationto feed broilerson farm

Ecological Footprint isnot suitable for theagricultural sectorbecause misleadingdecisions can be takenas a result of neglectingsome importantenvironmental impactsfor this economic sector

2011 Alvarenga et al.

Material flowdeterminationthroughagriculturalmachinerymanagement

Suggests anarrangement ofexisting modelsto determinematerial flowin agriculturalproduction systems

Volume andmass units

Existing models todetermine materialflow are applicable forgeneral as well as for localor specific scenariosbecause they are basedon the physical demandof agricultural mechanizedoperations

2010 Romanelli, T. L.& Milan, M.

Variability inenvironmentalimpacts ofBraziliansoybeansaccording tocrop productionand transportscenarios

Evaluates theenvironmentalimpacts of supplychains from Brazil’stwo major soybeanproduction regions

1,000 kg ofsoybeans at13% humidity

The mode of transportchosen and the distanceto be traveled stronglyinfluence environmentalimpacts. Assessmentsinvolving soybeansfrom Brazil shouldtake into account theregion of origin, asdifferent regions havedifferent levels ofenvironmental impacts

2010 Prudêncio da Silva et al.

Greenhouse gasemissions inthe life cycleof ethanol:estimation inagricultureandindustrializationstages in MinasGerais, Brazil

Estimates ofgreenhouse gasemissions (CO2, CH4

e N2O) in the stagesof agriculture andsugarcaneindustrialization forthe production ofethanol in mills

One ha ofcultivated landper year

GHG emissions in the phasesof agriculture andindustrialization of sugarcanefor ethanol production aremainly due to the burningof plants, fuel consumption,the release of N2O in the soiland the consumption oflime and fertilizer

2010 Garcia, J. C. C.& Sperling, E. von

The life cycleassessment offuel ethanolas 100% of thevehicle fuelfrom sugarcanein Brazil

LCA of the fuel ethanolfrom sugarcane inBrazil, assessing theenvironmental impactpotentials

10,000 km runin a urban areaby a car with a1600 cm3; 1000kg of ethanol

Fuel ethanol life cyclecontributes to all the impactsanalyzed. The main causesare nutrient application,burning in harvesting,and the use of diesel

2009 Ometto et al.

C.F. Ruviaro et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 9e2420

Table 4 (continued )

Theme Goal Functional units Results Year Author(s)

Energy use inthe life cycleof frozenconcentratedorange juice

Presents the aspects ofenergy use for FCOJproduced in twoorange-growing regions

1,000 kg of FCOJ The Global WarmingPotential of FCOJ isrelated to 70% of thetotal energy (non-renewable energy)

2009 Coltro et al.

Brazilian poultry:a study ofproductionand supplychains for theaccomplishmentof a LCA study

Describes two currentsupply chains ofpoultry productionemphasizing thedistance oftransportation as apredominant factor

One tonne liveweight chickenand one tonnefrozen chicken

The potential impactsof frozen chicken deliveredto the port could be quitedifferent between twochains given the distancebetween each and themain port used as aroute for export

2008 Prudêncio da Silva et al.

Life Cycleinventory fora Brazilianoyster productionsystem

Raises data of entriesand exits at all stagesof the life cycle ofthe oysters to providegrounds for a futureLCA analysis

A dozen oystersconsumed

There is a highconsumption of water(both fresh and salt), andalso high emission of CO2,high total solids (inwastewater) and solidwaste as oyster’s shells

2008 Alvarenga et al.

Sustainabledevelopmentin aquiculture:methodologyand strategies

Introduces a reflectionabout the strategiesof interconnectionof the aquaculturein the human-environmental context

Undefined LCA can be used inenvironmental licensing

2007 Eler, M.N. & Millani, T.J.

Environmentalprofile ofBrazilianGreen Coffee

Presents the LCI ofgreen coffeeproduction to obtaindetailed productioninventory data

1000 kg of greencoffee destinedfor export

Supplies results for a bettercorrelation of agriculturalpractices and potentialenvironmental impacts

2006 Coltro et al.

C.F. Ruviaro et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 9e24 21

Fig. 3 shows that so far, most of the studies have focused onEuropean agriculture. Since 2006, reports on Brazilian agriculturehave also achieved noticeable numbers with frank expansion.

The soaring number of publications on Brazilian agriculturemirrors the economic relevance of this sector for the country and thewidespread concerns regarding how the environmental impact ofthis sector affects the access of Brazilian agricultural products ininternational markets. As one can follow in several recent govern-mental, agribusiness andacademic forumsandmeetings (e.g., http://www.congressodacarne2011.com.br/; www.ciclodevida.ufsc.br/congresso, http://www.feicorte.com.br/index.php?p¼noticias_view&id¼1, http://www.biodieselbr.com/eventos/biodiesel.htm, http://www.abag.com.br/index.php?apg¼cong_visor&ncong¼2011), LCAhas been considered one of the preferential approaches to supportthe decision-making process for establishing appropriate govern-mental policies and technological choices.

Fig. 2. Evolution of publications on LCA in agricultural products for the period of2001e2011. (until August 2011)

In world reports, but not in Brazilian reports, livestockoutnumbers grains, vegetables and diversified agricultural prod-ucts (Fig. 4). This is probably a result of European concernsregarding animal greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), food safety,traceability, and production costs.

In Brazil, production and export of grains play a central role inthe formation of the national GDP, which may explain why grainLCA studies predominate. In addition, grains cover large areas ofland and form a base for the poultry and swine agro-industrial foodchains. Studies on sugarcane and biomass production, both relatedto expansion of land use and to the growing biofuel industry, tendto gain relevance in the group. Livestock production will certainlydemand more research to create an inventory on animal GHGemissions applicable to tropical and subtropical regions.

Fig. 3. Geographic distribution of LCA agricultural studies in the world (includinglivestock, grains, vegetables, animal products) 2001e2011. (until August 2011)

36%

58%

6%

World

67%

25%

8%

Grains, Vegetables and Others

Livestock

Agricultural Products

Brazil

Fig. 4. Distribution of different studies on LCA according to the type of agricultural product (world and Brazil).

C.F. Ruviaro et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 9e2422

5. Conclusions

The literature search on LCA provides a comprehensive over-view of the various environmental impacts caused by agriculturalproduction in different countries and offers the potential to help indirecting the sustainable production of food and other agriculturalproducts.

In Brazil, the application of LCA methodology in the field ofagribusiness is still in its infancy. It would be in the interest to theeconomy of the country to promote the use of such techniques forthe assessment of potential environmental impacts to meet thegrowing demand for answers to questions regarding the sustain-ability of agricultural production in food-exporting countries.

Brazil can implement solutions for environmental issues relatedto agriculture with the help of institutional arrangements amonguniversities, industries and government agencies to promotescience and innovation for a sustainable agricultural production.International research shows how much can be done. For Brazil toremain an important food and feed exporter, efforts are neededboth to adapt the methodologies of LCA and of Life Cycle ImpactAssessment, LCIA, to the peculiarities of the country and to developan LCI applicable to Brazil’s agricultural systems. There are certainlymany opportunities for local efforts to promote related advancededucation, human resources training, infra-structure, and institu-tional growth.

Acknowledgments

CAPES and CNPq, Brazil

References

Alvarenga R.A.F., Soares S.R., 2008. Prudêncio da Silva V. Life cycle inventory fora Brazilian oyster production system. 6th international Conference on LCA inthe agri-food sector November. Zurich.

Alvarenga, RAFd, da Silva Jr., V.P., Soares, S.R., 2011. Comparison of the ecologicalfootprint and a life cycle impact assessment method for a case study on Bra-zilian broiler feed production. Journal of Cleaner Production.

Andrews, E., Lesage, P., Benoit, C., Parent, J., Norris, G., Reveret, J.P., 2009. Life cycleAttribute assessment case study of Quebec greenhouse tomatoes. Journal ofIndustrial Ecology 13 (4), 565e578.

Arsenault, N., Tyedmers, P., Fredeen, A., 2009. Comparing the environmentalimpacts of pasture-based and confinement-based dairy systems in Nova Scotia(Canada) using life cycle assessment. International Journal of AgriculturalSustainability 7 (1), 19e41.

Aubin, J., Papatryphon, E., van der Werf, H.M.G., Chatzifotis, S., 2009. Assessment ofthe environmental impact of carnivorous finfish production systems using lifecycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (3), 354e361.

Barbosa Jr., A.F., Morais, R.M., Emerenciano, S.V., Pimenta, H.C.D., Couvinhas, R.P.,2008. Conceitos e aplicações de Análise do Ciclo de Vida (ACV) no Brasil. RevistaGerenciais 7 (1).

Basset-Mens, C., van der Werf, H.M.G., Durand, P., Leterme, P., 2006. Implications ofuncertainty and variability in the life cycle assessment of pig productionsystems. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11 (5), 298e304.

Basset-Mens, C., Kelliher, F.M., Ledgard, S., Cox, N., 2009a. Uncertainty of globalwarming potential for milk production on a New Zealand farm and implicationsfor decision making. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14 (7),630e638.

Basset-Mens, C., Ledgard, S., Boyes, M., 2009b. Eco-efficiency of intensificationscenarios for milk production in New Zealand. Ecological Economics 68 (6),1615e1625.

Baumgartner D.U., Baan L., Nemecek T., 2008. Life cycle assessment of feedinglivestock with European grain legumes. 6th International Conference on LCA inthe Agrifood Sector. Zurich.

Beccali, M., Cellura, M., Iudicello, M., Mistretta, M., 2010. Life cycle assessment ofItalian citrus-based products. Sensitivity analysis and improvement scenarios.Journal of Environmental Management 91 (7), 1415e1428.

Biswas, W.K., Graham, J., Kelly, K., John, M.B., 2010. Global warming contributionsfromwheat, sheep meat and wool production in Victoria, Australia e a life cycleassessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (14), 1386e1392.

Blengini, G.A., Busto, M., 2009. The life cycle of rice: LCA of alternative agri-foodchain management systems in Vercelli (Italy). Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 90 (3), 1512e1522.

Bosco, S., Bene, C., Galli, M., Remorini, D., Massai, R., Bonari, E., 2011. Greenhouse gasemissions in the agricultural phase of wine production in the Maremma ruraldistrict in Tuscany, Italy. Italian Journal of Agronomy 6 (15).

Caldeira-Pires, A., Rabelo, R.R., Xavier, J.H.V., 2002. Uso potencial da análise do ciclode vida (ACV) associada aos conceitos da produção orgânica aplicados à agri-cultura familiar. Cadernos de Ciência & Tecnologia 19 (2).

Casey, J.W., Holden, N.M., 2005. The relationship between greenhouse gas emis-sions and the intensity of milk production in Ireland. Journal of EnvironmentalQuality 34 (2), 429e436.

Casey, J.W., Holden, N.M., 2006. Quantification of GHG emissions from sucker-beefproduction in Ireland. Agricultural Systems 90 (1e3), 79e98.

Cederberg, C., Flysjo, A., 2004. In: SIK (Ed.), Life Cycle Inventory of 23 Dairy Farms inSouth-Western Sweden. The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology,Swedish.

Cederberg, C., Mattsson, B., 2000. Life cycle assessment of milk production e

a comparison of conventional and organic farming. Journal of CleanerProduction 8 (1), 49e60.

Cederberg, C., Stadig, M., 2003. System expansion and allocation in life cycleassessment of milk and beef production. International Journal of Life CycleAssessment 8 (6), 350e356.

Cederberg, C., Meyer, D., Flysjo, A., 2009. In: SIK (Ed.), Life Cycle Inventory ofGreenhouse Gas Emissions and Use of Land and Energy in Brazulian BeefProduction. The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Swedish.

Cerutti, A.K., Bagliani, M., Beccaro, G.L., Bounous, G., 2010. Application of EcologicalFootprint Analysis on nectarine production: methodological issues and resultsfrom a case study in Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (8), 771e776.

Chehebe, J.R., 1997. Análise do ciclo de vida de produtos: ferramenta gerencial daISO 14000. Qualitymark, Rio de Janeiro.

Chen, H., Chen, G.Q., 2011. Energy cost of rapeseed-based biodiesel as alternativeenergy in China. Renewable Energy 36 (5), 1374e1378.

Chiaramonti, D., Recchia, L., 2010. Is life cycle assessment (LCA) a suitable methodfor quantitative CO2 saving estimations? the impact of field input on the LCAresults for a pure vegetable oil chain. Biomass & Bioenergy 34 (5), 787e797.

Coltro, L., Mourad, A.L., Oliveira, P., Baddini, J., Kletecke, R.M., 2006. Environmentalprofile of Brazilian green coffee. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment11 (1), 16e21.

Coltro, L., Mourad, A.L., Garcia, E.E.C., Queiroz, G.C., Gatti, J.B., Jaime, S.B.M., 2007.Avaliação do Ciclo de Vida como Instrumento de Gestão. In: Campinas-Coltro, L.(Ed.), CETEA/ITAL, p. 75.

Coltro, L., Mourad, A.L., Kletecke, R.M., Mendonca, T.A., Germer, S.P.M., 2009.Assessing the environmental profile of orange production in Brazil. Interna-tional Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14 (7), 656e664.

COP, 2009. United Nations Climate Change Conference.Dalgaard, R., Schmidt, J., Halberg, N., Christensen, P., Thrane, M., Pengue, W.A., 2008.

LCA of soybean meal. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13 (3),240e254.

C.F. Ruviaro et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 9e24 23

Dekker S.E.M., De Boer I.J.M., Aarnink A.J.A., Groot Koerkamp P.W.G., 2008. Envi-ronmental hotspot identification of organic egg production. 6th InternationalConference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector. Zurich, pp. 381e389.

Ekman, A., Börjesson, P., 2011. Environmental assessment of propionic acidproduced in an agricultural biomass-based biorefinery system. Journal ofCleaner Production 19 (11), 1257e1265.

Eler, M.N., Millani, T.J., 2007. Métodos de estudos de sustentabilidade aplicadosa aquicultura. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 36 (Especial), 33e44.

FAO, 2009. Food and Agriculture commodities production. Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations.

Flysjö, A., Henriksson, M., Cederberg, C., Ledgard, S., Englund J-, E., 2011. The impactof various parameters on the carbon footprint of milk production in NewZealand and Sweden. Agricultural Systems 104 (6), 459e469.

Garcia, J.C.C., Sperling, E., 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions in the life cycle ofethanol: estimation in agriculture and industrialization stages in Minas Gerais.Engenharia Sanitária Ambiental 15 (3), 5.

Gavrilova, O., Jonas, M., Erb, K., Haberl, H., 2010. International trade and Austria’slivestock system: direct and hidden carbon emission flows associated withproduction and consumption of products. Ecological Economics 69 (4),920e929.

Graedel, T.E., 1998. Streamlined Life-Cycle Assessment. Prentice-Hall, Inc., NewJersey.

Guinee, J., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., Koning, A., et al., 2001. In:Guinee, J. (Ed.), Life Cycle Assessment: An Operational Guide to the ISO Stan-dards Netherlands.

Haas, G., Wetterich, F., Köpke, U., 2001. Comparing intensive, extensified andorganic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assess-ment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 83 (1e2), 43e53.

Halberg, N., van der Werf, H.M.G., Basset-Mens, C., Dalgaard, R., de Boer, I.J.M., 2005.Environmental assessment tools for the evaluation and improvement of Euro-pean livestock production systems 33e50.

Halleux, H., Lassaux, S., Renzoni, R., Germain, A., 2008. Comparative life cycleassessment of two biofuels ethanol from sugar beet and rapeseed methyl ester.International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13 (3), 184e190.

Havlikova, M., Kroeze, C., Huijbrets, M.A.J., 2008. Environmental and health impactby dairy cattle livestock and manure management in the Czech Republic.Science of the Total Environment 396 (2e3), 121e131.

Heller, M.C., Keoleian, G.A., 2011. Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas analysis ofa large-scale Vertically Integrated organic dairy in the United States. Environ-mental Science & Technology 45 (5), 1903e1910.

Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2003. Simplified life cycle assessment ofgalician milk production. International Dairy Journal 13 (10), 783e796.

IIBGE, 2010. Contagem da população. Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistic.IPCC, 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Iriarte, A., Rieradevall, J., Gabarrell, X., 2010. Life cycle assessment of sunflower and

rapeseed as energy crops under Chilean conditions. Journal of CleanerProduction 18 (4), 336e345.

Iribarren, D., Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2011. Benchmarking environ-mental and operational parameters through eco-efficiency criteria for dairyfarms. Science of the Total Environment 409 (10), 1786e1798.

ISO, 2006a. ISO 14040: Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment -Requirements and Guidelines. ISO copyright office, Geneva.

ISO, 2006b. ISO 14040: Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment e

Principles and Framework. ISO copyright office, Geneva.Jensen, A., 1997. Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA): A Guide to Approaches, Experiences

and Information Sources. European Environmental Agency, Copenhague.Kagi, T., Nemecek, T., Gaillard, G., 2007. Life cycle assessment of energy crops.

Agrarforschung 14 (10), 460e465.Kaku K., Ogino A., Osada T., Shimada K., 2005. Life Cycle Assessment of Concentrate

Feed Supply System for Japanese Domestic Livestock Industry. 4th AustralianLCA Conference. Sydney.

Kanyarushoki C., Fuchs F., van der Werf H.M.G., 2008. Environmental evaluation ofcow and goat milk chains in France. 6th International Conference on Life CycleAssessment in the Agri-Food Sector. Zurich.

Katajajuuri J.M., Grönroos J., Usva K., 2008. Environmental impacts and relatedoptions for improving the chicken meat supply chain. 6th InternationalConference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector. Zurich.

Kimming, M., Sundberg, C., Nordberg, A., Baky, A., Bernesson, S., Noren, O., et al.,2011. Biomass from agriculture in small-scale combined heat and powerplants e A comparative life cycle assessment. Biomass & Bioenergy 35 (4),1572e1581.

Kloverpris, J.H., Baltzer, K., Nielsen, P.H., 2010. Life cycle inventory modelling of landuse induced by crop consumption. International Journal of Life Cycle Assess-ment 15 (1), 90e103.

Knudsen, M.T., Qiao, Y.H., Luo, Y., Halberg, N., 2010. Environmental assessment oforganic soybean (Glycine max.) imported from China to Denmark: a case study.Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (14), 1431e1439.

Koneswaran, G., Nierenberg Global Farm Animal Production, D., Warming, Global,2008. Impacting and Mitigating Climate Change. Environmental HealthPerspectives, 116.

Kyoto, 2005. Kyoto Protocol.Larney, F.J., Buckley, K.E., Hao, X.Y., McCaughey, W.P., 2006. Fresh, stockpiled, and

composted beef cattle feedlot manure: nutrient levels and mass balance esti-mates in Alberta and Manitoba. Journal of Environmental Quality 35 (5),1844e1854.

Ledgard S.F., Finlayson J.D., Patterson M.G., Carran R.A., Wedderburn M.E., 2003.Effects of Intensification of Dairy Farming in New Zealand on WholesystemResource Use Efficiency and Environmental Emissions. 4th InternationalConference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector. Bygholm, Denmark.

Lora, E.E.S., Palacio, J.C.E., Rocha, M.H., Reno, M.L.G., Venturini, O.J., del Olmo, O.A.,2011. Issues to consider, existing tools and constraints in biofuels sustainabilityassessments. Energy 36 (4), 2097e2110.

Luo, L., van der Voet, E., Huppes, G., 2009. Life cycle assessment and life cyclecosting of bioethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Renewable & Sustainable EnergyReviews 13 (6e7), 1613e1619.

MAPA, 2010a. Projeções do Agronegócio. Brasil 2009/10 a 2019/20. Ministério daAgricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, Brasília.

MAPA, 2010b. Agronegócio Brasileiro: uma oportunidade de investimentos. Min-istério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, Brasília.

Martinez-Blanco, J., Munoz, P., Anton, A., Rieradevall, J., 2011. Assessment oftomato Mediterranean production in open-field and standard multi-tunnelgreenhouse, with compost or mineral fertilizers, from an agricultural andenvironmental standpoint. Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (9e10),985e997.

Mourad, A.L., Coltro, L., Oliveira, P., Kletecke, R.M., Baddini, J., 2007. A simplemethodology for elaborating the life cycle inventory of agricultural products.International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12 (6), 408e413.

Muller-Lindenlauf, M., Deittert, C., Kopke, U., 2010. Assessment of environmentaleffects, animal welfare and milk quality among organic dairy farms. LivestockScience 128 (1e3), 140e148.

Muller-Wenk, R., Brandao, M., 2010. Climatic impact of land use in LCA-carbontransfers between vegetation/soil and air. International Journal of Life CycleAssessment 15 (2), 172e182.

Nemecek, T., Huguenin-Elie, O., Dubois, D., Gaillard, G., Schaller, B., Chervet, A.,2011a. Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: II. Extensive andintensive production. Agricultural Systems 104 (3), 233e245.

Nemecek, T., Dubois, D., Huguenin-Elie, O., Gaillard, G., 2011b. Life cycle assessmentof Swiss farming systems: I. Integrated and organic farming. AgriculturalSystems 104 (3), 217e232.

Neupane, B., Halog, A., Dhungel, S., 2011. Attributional life cycle assessment ofwoodchips for bioethanol production. Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (6e7),733e741.

O’Brien, D., Shalloo, L., Buckley, F., Horan, B., Grainger, C., Wallace, M., 2011. Theeffect of methodology on estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from grass-based dairy systems. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 141 (1e2), 39e48.

Ogino, A., Kaku, K., Osada, T., Shimada, K., 2004. Environmental impacts of theJapanese beef-fattening system with different feeding lengths as evaluated bya life-cycle assessment method. Journal of Animal Science 82 (7), 2115e2122.

Ogino, A., Orito, H., Shimada, K., Hirooka, H., 2007. Evaluating environmentalimpacts of the Japanese beef cow-calf system by the life cycle assessmentmethod. Animal Science Journal 78 (4), 424e432.

Ometto, A.R., Hauschild, M.Z., Roma, W.N.L., 2009. Lifecycle assessment of fuelethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment14 (3), 236e247.

Panichelli, L., Dauriat, A., Gnansounou, E., 2009. Life cycle assessment of soybean-based biodiesel in Argentina for export. International Journal of Life CycleAssessment 14 (2), 144e159.

Pelletier, N., Tyedmers, P., Sonesson, U., Scholz, A., Ziegler, F., Flysjo, A., et al.,2009. Not all Salmon are created equal: life cycle assessment (LCA) of globalSalmon farming systems. Environmental Science & Technology 43 (23),8730e8736.

Pelletier, N., Pirog, R., Rasmussen, R., 2010. Comparative life cycle environmentalimpacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern UnitedStates. Agricultural Systems 103 (6), 380e389.

Peters, G.M., Wiedemann, S.G., Rowley, H.V., Tucker, R.W., 2010. Accounting forwater use in Australian red meat production. International Journal of Life CycleAssessment 15 (3), 311e320.

Prudêncio da Silva, V., van derWerf, H.M.G., Spies, A., Soares, S.R., 2010. Variability inenvironmental impacts of Brazilian soybean according to crop production andtransport scenarios. Journal of Environmental Management 91 (9), 1831e1839.

Prudêncio da Silva V., Soares S.R., Alvarenga R.A.F., 2008. Cradle to gate study of twodiffering Brazilian poultry production systems. 6th international Conference onLCA in the agri-food sector. Zurich, pp. 234e241.

Renouf, M., Wegener, M., Pagan, R., 2010. Life cycle assessment of Australiansugarcane production with a focus on sugarcane growing. The InternationalJournal of Life Cycle Assessment 15 (9), 927e937.

Riello, L., 2006. Life cycle assessment for evaluating on-farm energy production: thecase of sunflower oil. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 705e714.

Roedl, A., 2010. Production and energetic utilization of wood from short rotationcoppice-a life cycle assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment15 (6), 567e578.

Romanelli, T.L., Milan, M., 2010. Material flow determination through agriculturalmachinery management. Scientia Agricola 67 (4), 8.

Sandars, D.L., Audsley, E., Canete, C., Cumby, T.R., Scotford, I.M., Williams, A.G., 2003.Environmental benefits of livestock manure management practices and tech-nology by life cycle assessment. Biosystems Engineering 84 (3), 267e281.

Saunders, C., Barber, A., 2007. Comparative energy and greenhouse gas emissions ofNew Zealand’s and the UK’s dairy industry. AERU.

Saunders, C., Barber, A., Taylor, G., 2006. Food miles: comparative energy/emissionsperformance of New Zealand0s agriculture industry. AERU.

C.F. Ruviaro et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 28 (2012) 9e2424

Schlich E., Krause F., Hardtert B., 2008. Beef of Local and global provenience:a comparison in terms of energy, CO2, scale, and farm management. 6thInternational Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector. Zurich, pp. 325e331.

Schmidt, J.H., 2010. Comparative life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil.International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 15 (2), 183e197.

Seabra, J.E.A., Macedo, I.C., Chum, H.L., Faroni, C.E., Sarto, C.A., 2011. Modeling andanalysis: life cycle assessment of Brazilian sugarcane products: GHG emissionsand energy use. Biofuels, Bioproduction Biorefinary.

Soler-Rovira J., Soler-Rovira P., 2008. Assessment of Aggregated Indicators ofSustainability Using PCA: The Case of Apple Trade in Spain. 6th InternationalConference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector. Zurich.

Souza D.M., Soares S.R., Sousa S.R., Dias A.M.P., 2007. Development of a life cycleimpact assessment method for Brazil. 3rd international Conference on life cyclemanagement. Zurich.

Thomassen, M.A., van Calker, K.J., Smits, M.C.J., Iepema, G.L., de Boer, I.J.M., 2008.Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in theNetherlands. Agricultural Systems 96 (1e3), 95e107.

van der Werf, H.M.G., Petit, J., 2002. Evaluation of the environmental impact ofagriculture at the farm level: a comparison and analysis of 12 indicator-basedmethods. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 93 (1e3), 131e145.

van der Werf, H.M.G., Petit, J., Sanders, J., 2005. The environmental impacts of theproduction of concentrated feed: the case of pig feed in Bretagne. AgriculturalSystems 83 (2), 153e177.

Vazquez-Rowe, I., Iribarren, D., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2010. Combined applicationof life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis as a methodologicalapproach for the assessment of fisheries. International Journal of Life CycleAssessment 15 (3), 272e283.

Wang, M.X., Xia, X.F., Zhang, Q.J., Liu, J.G., 2010. Life cycle assessment of a riceproduction system in Taihu region, China. International Journal of SustainableDevelopment and World Ecology 17 (2), 157e161.

Xiao, J., Shen, L.H., Zhang, Y.A., Gu, J.Q., 2009. Integrated analysis of energy,economic, and environmental performance of biomethanol from rice straw inChina. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 48 (22), 9999e10007.

Yan, M.J., Humphreys, J., Holden, N.M., 2011. An evaluation of life cycle assessmentof European milk production. Journal of Environmental Management 92 (3),372e379.

Zaks, D.P.M., Barford, C.C., Ramankutty, N., Foley, J.A., 2009. Producer andconsumer responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions from agriculturalproduction-a perspective from the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental ResearchLetters 4 (4).