The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 20, Issue 9, pp 1243–1253 | Cite as

Life cycle greenhouse gas, energy, and water assessment of wine grape production in California

  • Kerri L. Steenwerth
  • Emma B. Strong
  • Rachel F. Greenhut
  • Larry Williams
  • Alissa Kendall



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.


Carbon 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.


  1. Ardente F, Beccali G, Cellura M, Marvuglia A (2006) POEMS: a case study of an Italian wine-producing firm. Environ Manag 38:350–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bessou C, Basset-Mens C, Tran T, Benoist A (2012) LCA applied to perennial cropping systems: a review focused on the farm stage. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:340–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosco S, Di Bene C, Galli M, Remorini D, Massai R, Bonari E (2011) Greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural phase of wine production in the Maremma rural district in Tuscany, Italy. Ital J Agron 6:e15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosco S, Di Bene C, Galli M, Remorini D, Massai R, Bonari E (2013) Soil organic matter accounting in the carbon footprint analysis of the wine chain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:973–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. British Standards Institution (2011) PAS2050:2011 specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse as emissions of goods and services. LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. California State Assembly (2006) Assembly bill 32: global warming solutions act of 2006. SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlisle EA, Steenwerth KL, Smart DR (2006) Effects of land use on soil respiration: conversion of oak woodlands to vineyards. J Environ Qual 35:1396–1404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CDFA (2014a) California grape acreage report 2013 crop. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed Nov. 7 2014
  9. CDFA (2014b) California grape crush report preliminary 2013. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Nov. 7 2014
  10. 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
  11. Christ KL, Burritt RL (2013) Critical environmental concerns in wine production: an integrative review. J Clean Prod 53:232–242. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CIMIS (2015) California irrigation management information system. California Department of Water Resources. 2015
  13. 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
  14. Colman T, Päster P (2009) Red, white, and ‘green’: the cost of greenhouse gas emissions in the global wine trade. J Wine Res 20:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ecoinvent Centre (2010) Ecoinvent data v2.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Assessment, DuebendorfGoogle Scholar
  16. Gadema Z, Oglethorpe D (2011) The use and usefulness of carbon labelling food: a policy perspective from a survey of UK supermarket shoppers. Food Policy 36:815–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garland GM, Suddick E, Burger M, Horwath WR, Six J (2011) Direct N2O emissions following transition from conventional till to no-till in a cover cropped Mediterranean vineyard (Vitis vinifera). Agric Ecosyst Environ 141:234–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gazulla C, Raugei M, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2010) Taking a life cycle look at crianza wine production in Spain: where are the bottlenecks? Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:330–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Google Inc., Daft Logic (2011) Google maps distance calculator. Accessed 06/2011
  20. 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
  21. Herath I, Green S, Singh R, Horne D, van der Zijpp S, Clothier B (2013) Water footprinting of agricultural products: a hydrological assessment for the water footprint of New Zealand’s wines. J Clean Prod 41:232–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Kaluza P, Kolzsch A, Gastner MT, Blasius B (2010) The complex network of global cargo ship movements. J Royal Soc 7:1093–1103Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Lal R (2004) Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304:1623–1627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2011) U.S. life-cycle inventory database. GoldenGoogle Scholar
  31. Neto B, Dias AC, Machado M (2012) Life cycle assessment of the supply chain of a Portuguese wine: from viticulture to distribution. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:590–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. NRCS (2014) Web Soil Survey. Natural Resource Conservation Service. Scholar
  33. Point E, Tyedmers P, Naugler C (2012) Life cycle environmental impacts of wine production and consumption in Nova Scotia, Canada. J Clean Prod 27:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Rugani B, Vázquez-Rowe I, Benedetto G, Benetto E (2013) A comprehensive review of carbon footprint analysis as an extended environmental indicator in the wine sector. J Clean Prod 54:61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steenwerth K, Belina KM (2008a) Cover crops and cultivation: impacts on soil N dynamics and microbiological function in a Mediterranean vineyard agroecosystem. Appl Soil Ecol 40:370–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Steenwerth K, Belina KM (2008b) Cover crops enhance soil organic matter, carbon dynamics and microbiological function in a vineyard agroecosystem. Appl Soil Ecol 40:359–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Steenwerth K, Belina K (2010) Vineyard weed management practices influence nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide emissions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 123:127–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Synder RL, Pruitt WO (1992) Evapotranspiration data management in California. In: Water forum, EE, HY, IR, WR DIV/ASCE, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. UC SAREP (2012) SAREP cover crops. University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program.
  43. Urrestarazu LP, Burt CM (2012) Characterization of pumps for irrigation in Central California: potential energy savings. J Irrig Drain Eng 138(9):815–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vázquez-Rowe I, Villanueva-Rey P, Iribarren D, Teresa Moreira M, Feijoo G (2012) Joint life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis of grape production for vinification in the Rías Baixas appellation (NW Spain). J Clean Prod 27:92–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vázquez-Rowe I, Rugani B, Benetto E (2013) Tapping carbon footprint variations in the European wine sector. J Clean Prod 43:146–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Villanueva-Rey P, Vazquez-Rowe I, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2014) Comparative life cycle assessment in the wine sector: biodynamic vs. conventional viticulture activities in NW Spain. J Clean Prod 65:330–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. Williams LE (2010) Interaction of rootstock and applied water amounts at various fractions of estimated evapotranspiration (ETc) on productivity of Cabernet Sauvignon. Aust J Grape Wine Res 16:434–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Williams LE (2014) Determination of evapotranspiration and crop coefficients for a chardonnay vineyard located in a cool climate. American J Enol Vitic 65:215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wine Institute (2014) 2013 California and U.S. wine sales. Accessed Nov. 7 2014

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kerri L. Steenwerth
    • 1
  • Emma B. Strong
    • 2
  • Rachel F. Greenhut
    • 1
  • Larry Williams
    • 3
  • Alissa Kendall
    • 2
  1. 1.USDA/ARS Crops Pathology and Genetics Research UnitDavisUSA
  2. 2.Civil and Environmental Engineering DepartmentU. C. DavisDavisUSA
  3. 3.Viticulture and Enology DepartmentU. C. DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations