Life cycle greenhouse gas, energy, and water assessment of wine grape production in California
- 1k Downloads
This study assesses life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy use, and freshwater use in wine grape production across common vineyard management scenarios in two representative growing regions (Napa and Lodi) of the US state of California. California hosts 90 % of US grape growing area, and demand for GHG emissions estimates of crops has increased due to consumer interest and policies such as California’s Global Warming Solutions Act.
The study’s scope includes the annual cycle for wine grape production, beginning at raw material extraction for production of vineyard inputs and ending at delivery of wine grapes to the winery gate, and excludes capital infrastructure. Two hundred forty production scenarios were modeled based on data collected from land owners, vineyard managers, and third-party vineyard management companies. Thirty additional in-person interviews with growers throughout Napa and Lodi were also conducted to identify the diversity of farming practices, site characteristics, and yields (among other factors) across 90 vineyards. These vineyards represent a cross-section of the regional variability in soil, climate, and landscape used for wine grape production.
Results and discussion
Energy use and global warming potential (GWP) per metric ton (t) across all 240 production scenarios range between 1669 and 8567 MJ and 87 and 548 kg CO2e. Twelve scenarios were selected for closer inspection to facilitate comparison of the two regions and grower practices. Comparison by region shows energy use, GWP, and water use for typical practices were more than twice as great in Napa (6529 MJ/t, 456 kg CO2e/t, and 265 m3 H2O/t) than Lodi (2759 MJ/t, 203 kg CO2e/t, and 141 m3 H2O/t), but approximately 16 % greater on a per hectare basis. Hand harvest (versus mechanical harvesting) and frost protection processes in Napa contributed to higher values per hectare, and lower yields in Napa account for the even larger difference per metric ton. Hand harvesting and lower yields reflect the higher value of Napa wine grapes.
The findings underscore the regional distinctions in wine grape production, which include different management goals, soils, and climate. When vineyards are managed for lower yields, as they are in Napa, energy, water, and GWP will likely be higher on a per mass basis. Strategies to reduce emissions in these regions cannot rely on increasing yields (a common approach), and alternative strategies are required, for example developing high-value co-products.
KeywordsCarbon footprint Energy footprint Fertilizer Grape LCA Pesticide Vineyard Wine
The California Department of Food and Agriculture Specialty Crops Block Grant, SCBG 09042 funded the technicians and students. The authors would like to thank Allen Hollander, who conducted the PAM analysis used in this study, and all the cooperating growers who generously provided time and data for this study.
- British Standards Institution (2011) PAS2050:2011 specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse as emissions of goods and services. LondonGoogle Scholar
- California State Assembly (2006) Assembly bill 32: global warming solutions act of 2006. SacramentoGoogle Scholar
- CDFA (2014a) California grape acreage report 2013 crop. California Department of Food and Agriculture. www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Grape_Acreage/201404gabtb00.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7 2014
- CDFA (2014b) California grape crush report preliminary 2013. California Department of Food and Agriculture. www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Grape_Crush/Reports/201302gcbtb00.pdfAccessed Nov. 7 2014
- Chapman DM, Matthews MA, Guinard J-X (2004) Sensory attributes of Cabernet Sauvignon wines made from vines with different crop yields. Am J Enol Vitic 55:325–334Google Scholar
- CIMIS (2015) California irrigation management information system. California Department of Water Resources. www.cimis.water.ca.gov/. 2015
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2006) Chapter 11: N2O emissions from managed soils and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. In: 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, volume 4: agriculture, forestry and other land use. Cambridge, pp 11.11-11.54Google Scholar
- Ecoinvent Centre (2010) Ecoinvent data v2.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Assessment, DuebendorfGoogle Scholar
- Google Inc., Daft Logic (2011) Google maps distance calculator. http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm. Accessed 06/2011
- Guerra B, Steenwerth K (2011) Influence of floor management technique on grapevine growth, disease pressure, and juice and wine composition: a review. Am J Enol Vitic 64:515–521Google Scholar
- PE International (2014) GaBi 6.4.1 professional database. Leinfelden-Echterdingen Pelletier N et al (2009) Not all salmon are created equal: life cycle assessment (LCA) of global salmon farming systems. Environ Sci Technol 43:8730-8736Google Scholar
- Kaluza P, Kolzsch A, Gastner MT, Blasius B (2010) The complex network of global cargo ship movements. J Royal Soc 7:1093–1103Google Scholar
- Kaufman L, Rousseeuw PJ (1987) Clustering by means of medoids. In: Dodge Y (ed) Statistical data analysis based on the L1-norm and related methods. Elsevier, New York, pp 405–416Google Scholar
- Klonsky KM, De Moura RL, Verdegaal PS (2008) Sample costs to establish a vineyard and produce winegrapes: cabernet sauvignon, San Joaquin Valley North, Crush District 11 of San Joaquin and Sacramento Counties. UC Cooperative Extension, DavisGoogle Scholar
- Kruse CJ, Protopapas A, Olson LE, Bierling DH (2009) A modal comparison of domestic freight transportation effects on the general public. Texas Transportation Institute, College StationGoogle Scholar
- McElrone AJ, Shapland TM, Calderon A, Fitzmaurice L, Paw UKT, Snyder RL (2013) Surface renewal: an advanced micrometeorological method for measuring and processing field-scale energy flux density data. J Vis Exp 82:e50666Google Scholar
- Myhre G, Shindell D, Bréon F-M, Collins W, Fuglestvedt J, Huang J, Koch D, Lamarque J-F, Lee D, Mendoza B, Nakajima T, Robock A, Stephens G, Takemura T, Zhang H (2014) Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 659–740. doi: 10.1017/ CBO9781107415324.018
- National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2011) U.S. life-cycle inventory database. GoldenGoogle Scholar
- NRCS (2014) Web Soil Survey. Natural Resource Conservation Service. websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspxGoogle Scholar
- Recycled Organics Unit (2006) Table 5.3 In: Life cycle inventory and life cycle assessment for windrow composting systems. Department of Environment and Conservation New South WalesGoogle Scholar
- Suddick EC, Steenwerth K, Garland GM, Smart DR, Six J (2011) Discerning agricultural management effects on nitrous oxide emissions from conventional and alternative cropping systems: a California case study. In: Guo L, Gunasekara AS, McConnell LL (eds) Understanding greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural management, vol 1072. ACS Symposium Series, pp 203-226Google Scholar
- Synder RL, Pruitt WO (1992) Evapotranspiration data management in California. In: Water forum, EE, HY, IR, WR DIV/ASCE, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- Taylor RG, Scanlon B, Döll P, Rodell M, van Beek R, Wada Y, Longuevergne L, Leblanc M, Famiglietti JS, Edmunds M, Konikow L, Green TR, Chen J, Taniguchi M, Bierkens MFP, MacDonald A, Fan Y, Maxwell RM, Yechieli Y, Gurdak JJ, Allen DM, Shamsudduha M, Hiscock K, Yeh PJ-F, Holman I et al (2013) Ground water and climate change. Nat Clim Chang 3:322–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- UC SAREP (2012) SAREP cover crops. University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/database/covercrops
- Verdegaal PS, Klonsky KM, De Moura RL (2008) Sample costs to establish a vineyard and produce winegrapes, cabernet sauvignon, San Joaquin Valley North 2008, Crush District 11 of San Joaquin and Sacramento Counties. UC Cooperative Extension, DavisGoogle Scholar
- Wada Y, Wisser D, Eisner S, Flörke M, Gerten D, Haddeland I, Hanasaki N, Masaki Y, Portmann FT, Stacke T, Tessler Z, Schewe J (2013) Multimodel projections and uncertainties of irrigation water demand under climate change. Geophys Res Lett 40:4626–4632Google Scholar
- Weber EA, Klonsky KM, De Moura RL (2009) Sample costs to produce organic wine grapes: cabernet sauvignon, North Coast region, Napa County. UC Cooperative Extension, DavisGoogle Scholar
- Wine Institute (2014) 2013 California and U.S. wine sales. www.wineinstitute.org/files/2013_Wine_Sales_WI.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7 2014