Life cycle assessment framework in agriculture on the farm level

LCA methodology

Abstract

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a method that can be used to assess the environmental impact of agriculture, but impact categories and the functional unit of classical LCA’s must be adapted to the specific agricultural production process. Serving as an example, the framework of a LCA of 18 grassland dairy farms covering three farming intensity levels and carried out in the Allgäu region in southern Germany is presented. By focussing on the chosen impact categories and the respective, suitable functional units, the specific needs and backgrounds of conducting an agricultural LCA are discussed in general.

Keywords

Agriculture eco-balance farm level functional unit impact category Life Cycle Assessment methodology 

References

  1. Audsley A, Alber S, Clift R, Cowell S, Crettaz R, Gaillard G, Hausheer J, Jolliett O, Kleijn R, Mortensen B, Pearce D, Roger E, Teulon H, Weidema B, Zeijts H van (1997): Harmonisation of environmental Life Cycle Assessment for agriculture. Final report, concerted action AIR3-CT94-2028, European commission DG VI, Brussels, Belgium, p 139Google Scholar
  2. Cederberg C, Mattsson B (1998): Life Cycle Assessment of Swedish milk production — a comparison of conventional and organic farming. In: Ceuterick, D. (Ed.): Intern, conference on Life Cycle Assessment in agriculture, agro-industry and forestry. Proceedings, 3.– 4.12.1998, Brussels, Belgium, pp 161–167Google Scholar
  3. Ceuterick D (Ed) (1996): International conference on application of Life Cycle Assessment in agriculture, food and non-food agro-industry and forestry. Proceedings, Apr. 4–5, 1996, Brussels, Belgium, p 334Google Scholar
  4. Ceuterick D (Ed) (1998): International conference on Life Cycle Assessment in agriculture, agro-industry and forestry. Proceedings, Dec. 3–4, 1998, Brussels, Belgium, p 250Google Scholar
  5. Cowell SJ, Clift R (1997): Impact assessment for LCA’s involving agricultural production. Int. J. LCA 2, 99–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diepenbrock W, Kaltschmitt M, Nieberg H, Reinhardt G (Ed) (1997): Umweltverträgliche Pflanzenproduktion — Indikatoren, Bilanzie-rungsansätze und ihre Einbindung in Ökobilanzen. Tagungsband, July 11–12, 1996, Zeller, Osnabrück, Germany, p 324Google Scholar
  7. Frieben B (1998): Verfahren zur Bestandsaufnahme und Bewertung von Betrieben des Organischen Landbaus im Hinblick auf Bio-top- und Artenschutz und die Stabilisierung des Agrarökosystems. Köster, Berlin, Germany, p 330Google Scholar
  8. Gaillard G, Hausheer J (1997): Ökobilanz des Weizenanbaus: Vergleich der intensiven, der integrierten und der biologischen Produktion. Kongreβband, VdLUFA, Darmstadt, Germany, pp 447–450Google Scholar
  9. Geier U (2000): Anwendung der Ökobilanzmethode in der Land-wirtschaft — dargestellt am Beispiel einer Prozeβ-Ökobilanz kon-ventioneller und organischer Bewirtschaftung. Ph.D. thesis, Institute of Organic Agriculture, University of Bonn, Germany, p 140Google Scholar
  10. Geier U, Köpke U (1998): Comparison of conventional and organic farming by process-life cycle assessment — a case study of agriculture in Hamburg. In: Ceuterick, D. (Ed): Intern. conference on Life Cycle Assessment in agriculture, agro-industry and forestry. Proceedings, Dec. 3–4, 1998, Brussels, Belgium, pp 31–38Google Scholar
  11. Geier U, Frieben B, Haas G, Molkenthin V, Köpke U (1998): Ökobilanz Hamburger Landwirtschaft — Umweltrelevanz ver-schiedener Produktionsweisen, Handlungsfelder Hamburger Umweltpolitik. Köster, Berlin, Germany, p 298Google Scholar
  12. Haas G, Wetterich F (1999): Ökobilanz der Umweltwirkung land-wirtschaftlicher Betriebe im Allgäu. Z. f. angewandte Umweltfor-schung, Jg. 12, H. 3, 368–377Google Scholar
  13. Haas G, Wetterich F (2000): Agrarumweltprogramm mit Ökobilanz im Allgäu zielorientiert gestalten. Berichte über Landwirtschaft 78, 92–105Google Scholar
  14. Haas G, Wetterich F, Köpke U (2000): Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in south Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, in pressGoogle Scholar
  15. Haber W, Salzwedel J (1992): Umweltprobleme der Landwirtschaft. In: Der Rat von Sachverständigen für Umweltfragen (Eds): Metzler-Pöschel, Stuttgart, Germany, p 76Google Scholar
  16. Klöpffer W, Renner I (1994): Methodology of Impact Assessment within the framework of Life-Cycle-Assessment taking into account environmental categories which cannot (or only with difficulty) be quantified (in German), p 80. In: Federal Environmental Agency (Ed.) (1995): Methodik der produktbezogenen Ökobilanzen — Wirkungsbilanz und Bewertung. Texte 23/95, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  17. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1997): Environmental Indicators for Agriculture. Paris, France, p 61Google Scholar
  18. RBS (Robert Bosch Stiftung, Ed) (1994): Für eine umweltfreundliche Bodennutzung in der Landwirtschaft — Denkschrift des Schwäbisch Haller Agrarkolloquiums zur Bodennutzung, den Bodenfunktionen und der Bodenfruchtbarkeit. Bleicher, Gerlingen, Germany, p 104Google Scholar
  19. Rudloff B, Geier U, Meudt M, Schick HP, Urfei G (1999): Development of indicators for the assessment of agricultural impacts on the environment (in German). Federal Environmental Agency, Texte 42/99, Berlin, Germany, p 252Google Scholar
  20. Wegener Sleeswijk A, Kleijn R, van Zeijts H, Reus JAWA, Meeusen van Onna MJG, Lenemann H, Sengers HHWJM (1996): Application of LCA to agricultural products. Centre of Environmental Science Leiden University, report 130, Leiden, Netherland, p 106Google Scholar
  21. Sundrum A (1997): Assessing housing conditions in terms of animal welfare — possibilities and limitations. In: Sorensen, JT (Ed.): Livestock farming systems — more than food production. Proceedings, Foulum, Denmark, EAAP (European Association for Animal Production) publication no. 89, pp 238–246Google Scholar
  22. Sundrum A, Andersson R, Postler G (Eds) (1994): Tiergerechtheits-index — 200 1994 — ein Leitfaden zur Beurteilung von Haltungs-systemen. Köllen, Bonn, Germany, p 211Google Scholar
  23. Wetterich F, Haas G (1999): Ökobilanz Allgäuer Grünlandbetriebe — Intensiv, Extensiviert, Ökologisch. Köster, Berlin, Germany, p 96Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Organic AgricultureUniversity of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations