Sensitive parameters in local agricultural life cycle assessments: the illustrative case of cereal production in Wallonia, Belgium

  • Florence Van Stappen
  • Michaël Mathot
  • Astrid Loriers
  • Alice Delcour
  • Didier Stilmant
  • Viviane Planchon
  • Bernard Bodson
  • Angélique Léonard
  • Jean-Pierre Goffart
DATA AVAILABILITY, DATA QUALITY
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a useful tool for investigating the environmental performance of agricultural products. For many crop-based products, the agricultural production step shows substantial impacts in LCA results. Using the illustrative case of cereal production in Wallonia, Belgium, the study uses sensitivity analyses to explore the parameters to be adjusted in priority when conducting a local LCA for crop production, taking into account uncertainties tied to input and output inventory data and impact characterization factors.

Methods

The analysis investigated local specificities in the production of eight cereal crops in Wallonia. Cropping systems were modeled according to accounting data from representative farms, including areas, yields, inputs, and machinery. Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses for input parameters and methodological choices were performed. The following parameters were evaluated: the influence of the functional unit (kg, ha, €), the link between yield and LCIA results, the relevance of using up-to-date data for mineral fertilizer production, the type of mineral fertilizer, the model for direct field emission calculation, and the allocation rules.

Results and discussion

We observed that the use of several functional units embracing the multifunctional role of agriculture enables identifying crops with low impacts per kilogram, hectare, and euro at the same time. The cereal production steps with the greatest impact were mineral fertilizer production (up to 84% of the total impact, depending on crop and impact category) and emissions from the application of mineral (up to 65%) and organic (up to 94%) fertilizers. Sensitive parameters to be adjusted in priority were identified. Despite the high correlation between yield and results, simply extrapolating impacts on the basis of yield seemed mostly inappropriate. Using updated data for mineral fertilizer production reduced impacts by 6–160%. Shifting models for field emission calculation influenced acidification and eutrophication by 5–142%. Hypotheses on allocation factors affected results by 10–26%.

Conclusions and recommendations

An LCA for the production of major Walloon cereals was conducted taking into account local cropping practices and yields. The parameters relevant for conducting a regional LCA of crop production were identified and discussed in comparison with generic data and models. As LCA is an iterative process, further improvements would include the use of more specific models for direct field emission calculation. The results could serve as a reference for products using Walloon cereals and help enhance the quality of LCAs conducted for these products.

Keywords

Cereal Life cycle assessment Local data Sensitivity analysis Uncertainty analysis Wallonia 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the Walloon Agricultural Research Centre (CRA-W), which finances this research. They are grateful to the numerous farmers and agricultural advisors and experts who patiently gave their time during data collection. In particular, they thank Guy Foucart from the Centre Indépendant de Promotion Fourragère (CIPF) for his information on maize cropping practices. The comments from three anonymous reviewers have greatly improved the paper and are kindly appreciated.

References

  1. thinkstep (2014) GaBi 6Google Scholar
  2. Andersson K, Ohlsson T (1999) Life cycle assessment of bread produced on different scales. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audsley E, Alber S, Clift R, Cowell Sj, Crettaz P, Gaillard G, Hausheer J, Jolliet O, Kleijn R, Motensen B, Pearce D, Rioger E, Teilon H, Weidema B, Van Zeijts H (1997) Harmonization of environmental Life Cycle Assessment for agriculture. Final Report Concerted Action AIR3-CT94-2028. In: European Commission DG VI Agriculture (ed.). Silsoe, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  4. Avadí A, Nitschelm L, Corson M, Vertès F (2016) Data strategy for environmental assessment of agricultural regions via LCA: case study of a French catchment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:476–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bacenetti J, Fusi A, Negri M, Guidetti R, Fiala M (2014) Environmental assessment of two different crop systems in terms of biomethane potential production. Sci Total Environ 466-467:1066–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bah B, Vandenberghe C, Colinet G (2014) Analyse des résultats du contrôle APL 2013 et évolution depuis 2008 à l’échelle des masses d’eau souterraine de Wallonie. Dossier GRENeRA 14–05, 88 p. In: Vandenberghe C, De Toffoli M, Bah B, Imbrecht O, Bachelart F, Lambert R, Colinet G (2014) Programme de gestion durable de l’azote en agriculture wallonne – Rapport d’activités annuel intermédiaire 2014 des membres scientifiques de Nitrawal. Université catholique de Louvain et Université de Liège Gembloux Agro-Bio TechGoogle Scholar
  7. Belboom S (2012) Évaluation de l’impact environnemental de la production de bioéthanol à partir de canne à sucre, betterave ou froment par analyse du cycle de vie - Comparaison des utilisations biocarburant et bioplastique. PhD thesis, Faculté des Sciences Appliquées, Département de Chimie Appliquée, Laboratoire de Génie Chimique, Procédés et développement durable. Université de Liège, Liège, 239 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Berthoud A, Maupu P, Huet C, Poupart A (2011) Assessing freshwater ecotoxicity of agricultural products in life cycle assessment (LCA): a case study of wheat using French agricultural practices databases and USEtox model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:841–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bessou C, Lehuger S, Gabrielle B, Mary B (2012) Using a crop model to account for the effects of local factors on the LCA of sugar beet ethanol in Picardy Region, France. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:24–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birkved M, Hauschild MZ (2006) PestLCI—a model for estimating field emissions of pesticides in agricultural LCA. Ecol Model 198:433–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boone L, Van Linden V, De Meester S, Vandecasteele B, Muylle H, Roldan-Ruiz I, Nemecek T, Dewulf J (2016) Environmental life cycle assessment of grain maize production: an analysis of factors causing variability. Sci Total Environ 553:551–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brankatschk G, Finkbeiner M (2015) Modeling crop rotation in agricultural LCAs—challenges and potential solutions. Agric Syst 138:66–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brentrup F, Pallière C (2008) GHG emissions and energy efficiency in European nitrogen fertiliser production and use. In: The International Fertilisers Society (Ed) The International Fertiliser Society Conference. Cambridge, United Kingdom, vol 639Google Scholar
  14. Brentrup F, Pallière C (2011) Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions in European nitrogen fertilizer production and use. Fertilizers Europe Google Scholar
  15. Brentrup F, Küsters J, Kuhlmann H (2001a) Application of the life cycle assessment methodology to investigate the environmental impact of different nitrogen fertiliser application rates in a crop rotation. In: Horst WJ (ed) Plant nutrition – food security and sustainability of agro-ecosystems. Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  16. Brentrup F, Küsters J, Kuhlmann H, Lammel J (2001b) Application of the life cycle assessment methodology to agricultural production: an example of sugar beet production with different forms of nitrogen fertilisers. Eur J Agron 14:221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Charles R, Jolliet O, Gaillard G, Pellet D (2006) Environmental analysis of intensity level in wheat crop production using life cycle assessment. Agric Ecosyst Environ 113:216–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chiaramonti D, Recchia L (2010) Is life cycle assessment (LCA) a suitable method for quantitative CO2 saving estimations? The impact of field input on the LCA results for a pure vegetable oil chain. Biomass Bioenergy 34:787–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ciroth A, Fleischer G, Steinbach J (2004) Uncertainty calculation in life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:216–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Del Grosso S, Halvorson A, Parton W (2008) Testing DAYCENT model simulations of corn yields and nitrous oxide emissions in irrigated tillage systems in Colorado. J Environ Qual 37:1383–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Delcour A, Van Stappen F, Gheysens S, Decruyenaere V, Stilmant D, Burny P, Rabier F, Louppe H, Goffart J (2014) Survey on cereal resources in Wallonia according to their different uses. Biotechnol Agronomy Society Environ 18:181–192Google Scholar
  22. DGSIE (2014) Recensements agricoles de 2010, 2011, 2012 et 2013. Service Public Fédéral Economie - Direction générale Statistique et information économique. Namur, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  23. Dressler D, Loewen A, Nelles M (2012) Life cycle assessment of the supply and use of bioenergy: impact of regional factors on biogas production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:1104–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. EMEP/EEA (2009) Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook. Part B: sectoral guidance chapters; Chapter 4.D: Agriculture - Crop production and agricultural soils. 39 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. EMEP/EEA (2013a) Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook. Part B: sectoral guidance chapters; Chapter 3.B: Agriculture - Manure management. 65 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. EMEP/EEA (2013b) Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook. Part B: sectoral guidance chapters; Chapter 3.D: Agriculture - Crop production and agricultural soils. 43 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. Espinoza-Orias N, Stichnothe H, Azapagic A (2011) The carbon footprint of bread. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:351–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. European Commission (1991) Directive 91/676/EEC - Council Directive of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. Official Journal of the European Communities No L 375/1Google Scholar
  29. European Commission (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L 327/1Google Scholar
  30. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook—general guide for life cycle assessment—provisions and action steps. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  31. Fedele A, Mazzi A, Niero M, Zuliani F, Scipioni A (2014) Can the life cycle assessment methodology be adopted to support a single farm on its environmental impacts forecast evaluation between conventional and organic production? An Italian case study. J Clean Prod 69:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fertilizers Europe (2015) Industry facts and figures 2015. Available Online: http://fertilizerseurope.com/index.php?id=6, Accessed November 2016.
  33. Freiermuth R (2006) Modell zur Berechnung der Schwermetall-flüsse in der Landwirtschaftlichen Ökobilanz - SALCA-Schwermetall. Forschungsanstalt Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon (ART), 28 ppGoogle Scholar
  34. Gabrielle B, Laville P, Duval O, Nicoullaud B, Germon J, Hénault C (2006) Process-based modeling of nitrous oxide emissions from wheat-croppped soils at the sub-regional scale. Glob Biogeochem Cy 20:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Godard C, Boissy J, Suret C, Gabrielle B (2012) LCA of starch potato from field to starch production plant gate. In: Corson MS, Van der Werf HMG (ed) 8th International Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector. Saint-Malo, France, 1–4 October 2012Google Scholar
  36. Godard C, Boissy J, Gabrielle B (2013) Life-cycle assessment of local feedstock supply scenarios to compare candidate biomass sources. GCB Bioenergy 5:16–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008—a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level - First edition - Report I: Characterisation. Ruimte en Milieu - Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en MilieubeheerGoogle Scholar
  38. Goglio P, Bonari E, Mazzoncini M (2012) LCA of cropping systems with different external input levels for energetic purposes. Biomass Bioenergy 42:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Goglio P, Grant BB, Smith WN, Desjardins RL, Worth DE, Zentner R, Malhi SS (2014) Impact of management strategies on the global warming potential at the cropping system level. Sci Total Environ 490:921–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Goglio P, Smith WN, Grant BB, Desjardins RL, Mcconkey BG, Campbell CA, Nemecek T (2015) Accounting for soil carbon changes in agricultural life cycle assessment (LCA): a review. J Clean Prod 104:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Goidts E, Van Wesemael B (2007) Regional assessment of soil organic carbon changes under agriculture in southern Belgium (1955–2005). Geoderma 141:341–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn H, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. I: LCA in perspective. IIa: Guide. IIb: Operational annex. III: Scientific background. Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 1–4020–0228-9, Dordrecht, 2002, 692 ppGoogle Scholar
  43. Hayashi K, Gaillard G, Nemecek T (2006) Life cycle assessment of agricultural production systems: current issues and future perspectives. In: Hu S, Bejosano-Gloria C (eds) Good agricultural practice (GAP) in Asia and Oceania. Food and Fertilizer Technology Center, Taipei, pp 98–109Google Scholar
  44. Hedemann J, König U (2003) Technical documentation of the ecoinvent database. Final report ecoinvent 2000 No. 4. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Insititut für Umweltinformatik, Hamburg, DE, Dübendorf, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  45. Heijungs R, Lenzen M (2014) Error propagation methods in LCA—a comparison. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1445–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hellweg S, Milà I, Canals L (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 344:1109–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hong J, Shaked S, Rosenbaum RK, Jolliet O (2010) Analytical uncertainty propagation in life cycle inventory and impact assessment: application to an automobile front panel. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:499–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. IPCC (2003) Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. In: Penman J, Gytarsky M, Hiraishi T, Krug T, Kruger D, Pipatti R, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, Wagner F (Ed) IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Kanagawa, Japan, 632 pGoogle Scholar
  49. IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. In: Simon Eggleston LB, Kyoko Miwa, Todd Ngara and Kiyoto Tanabe (Ed) IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 642pGoogle Scholar
  50. IPCC (2013) Climate Change 2013—the physical science basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifith Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor MMB, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (Ed) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1535pGoogle Scholar
  51. ISO (2006a) ISO14040:2006 - Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework. Switzerland, 20pGoogle Scholar
  52. ISO (2006b) ISO14044:2006 - Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines. 46pGoogle Scholar
  53. Jolliet O, Saadé M, Crettaz P, Shaked S (2010) Analyse du cycle de vie: comprendre et réaliser un écobilan. Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Swizterland, 302pGoogle Scholar
  54. Juneja A, Kumar D, Murthy GS (2013) Economic feasibility and environmental life cycle assessment of ethanol production from lignocellulosic feedstock in Pacific northwest US. J Renew Sustain Energy 5:40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kim S, Dale BE, Jenkins R (2009) Life cycle assessment of corn grain and corn stover in the United States. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:160–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Koch P, Salou T (2013) AGRIBALYSE: Methodology report - Version 1.0. ADEME, Angers, France, 384pGoogle Scholar
  57. Lettens S, Van Orshoven J, Van Wesemael B, Muys B, Perrin D (2005) Soil organic carbon changes in landscape units of Belgium between 1960 and 2000 with reference to 1990. Glob Change Biol 11:2128–2140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Martinez-Hernandez E, Ibrahim MH, Leach M, Sinclair P, Campbell GM, Sadhukhan J (2013) Environmental sustainability analysis of UK whole-wheat bioethanol and CHP systems. Biomass Bioenergy 50:52–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Meier MS, Jungbluth N, Stoessel F, Schader C, Stolze M (2014) Higher accuracy in N modeling makes a difference. In: Schenck R, Huizenga D (eds) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, 2014 San Francisco, USA. 797–806Google Scholar
  60. Morais TG, Teixeira RFM, Domingos T (2016) Regionalization of agri-food life cycle assessment: a review of studies in Portugal and recommendations for the future. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:875–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Moreno Ruiz E, Lévová T, Bourgault G, Wernet G (2014) Documentation of changes implemented in ecoinvent Data 3.1. ecoinvent, Zurich, 70pGoogle Scholar
  62. Mouron P, Scholz RW, Nemecek T, Weber O (2006) Life cycle management on Swiss fruit farms: relating environmental and income indicators for apple-growing. Ecol Econ 58:561–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Muñoz I, Flury K, Jungbluth N, Rigarlsford G, Milà I, Canals L, King H (2014) Life cycle assessment of bio-based ethanol produced from different agricultural feedstocks. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nemecek T (2013) Estimating direct field and farm emissions. Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Zurich, Switzerland, 31pGoogle Scholar
  65. Nemecek T, Kägi T (2007) Life cycle inventories of Swiss and European Agricultural Production Systems. Final report ecoinvent V2.0 No. 15a. Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research Station ART, Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich and Dübendorf, Switzerland, 360pGoogle Scholar
  66. Nemecek T, Kägi T (2008) Ecoinvent-based extrapolation of crop life cycle inventories to new geographical areas. In: Nemecek T, Gaillard G (ed) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector - Towards a sustainable management of the Food chain. Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Zurich, Switzerland, pp 40–48Google Scholar
  67. Nemecek T, Schnetzer J (2011) Methods of assessment of direct field emissions for LCIs of agricultural production systems - Data v3.0. Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Zurich, August 2011, 34pGoogle Scholar
  68. Nemecek T, Dubois D, Huguenin-Elie O, Gaillard G (2011) Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: I. Integrated and organic farming. Agric Syst 104:217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nemecek T, Weiler K, Plassmann K, Schnetzer J, Gaillard G, Jefferies D, García-Suárez T, King H, Milà I, Canals L (2012) Estimation of the variability in global warming potential of worldwide crop production using a modular extrapolation approach. J Clean Prod 31:106–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Nemecek T, Hayer F, Bonnin E, Carrouée B, Schneider A, Vivier C (2015) Designing eco-efficient crop rotations using life cycle assessment of crop combinations. Eur J Agron 65:40–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43:4098–4104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Piazzalunga G, Planchon V, Oger R (2012) CONTASOL - Evaluation des flux d’éléments contaminants liés aux matières fertilisantes épandues sur les sols agricoles en Wallonie - Rapport final. Walloon Agricultural Research Centre CRA-W, 201p + annexesGoogle Scholar
  73. Posch M, Seppälä J, Hettelingh J-P, Johansson M, Margni M, Jolliet O (2008) The role of atmospheric dispersion models and ecosystem sensitivity in the determination of characterisation factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions in LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Potting J, Hauschild M (2006) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment: a decade of method development to increase the environmental realism of LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:11–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Prasuhn V (2006) Erfassung der PO4-Austräge für die Ökobilanzierung - SALCA-Phosphor. Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon (ART), 20pGoogle Scholar
  76. Pré Consultants (2015) SimaPro 8.0.4.30Google Scholar
  77. Rabier F, Miserque O, Pekel S, Dubois G, Noël H (2008) Guide of running costs for farm equipment: a simple tool for decision making. In: Huyghebaert B, Lorencowicz E, Uziak J (ed) Farm machinery and process management in sustainable agriculture - III International Scientific Symposium. Walloon Agricultural Research Centre, Gembloux, pp 43–50, available online at http://www.cra.wallonie.be/fr/164/Outils (in French)
  78. Richner W, Oberholzer HR, Freiermuth R, Huguenin O, Ott S, Nemecek T, Walther U (2014) Modell zur Beurteilung der Nitratauswaschung in Ökobilanzen – SALCA-NO3. Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research Station ART, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle InventoriesGoogle Scholar
  79. Roches A, Nemecek T, Gaillard G, Plassmann K, Sim S, King H, Milà I, Canals L (2010) MEXALCA: a modular method for the extrapolation of crop LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:842–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Roer AG, Korsaeth A, Henriksen TM, Michelsen O, Strømman AH (2012) The influence of system boundaries on life cycle assessment of grain production in central southeast Norway. Agric Syst 111:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Röös E, Sundberg C, Hansson PA (2011) Uncertainties in the carbon footprint of refined wheat products: a case study on Swedish pasta. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:338–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Swirsky Glod L, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild M (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:532–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Roy P, Nei D, Orikasa T, Xu Q, Okadome H, Nakamura N, Shiina T (2009) A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J Food Eng 90:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Saffih-Hdadi K, Mary B (2008) Modeling consequences of straw residues export on soil organic carbon. Soil Biol Biochem 40:594–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Snyder CS, Bruulsema TW, Jensen TL, Fixen PE (2009) Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agric Ecosyst Environ 133:247–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sonnet P, Bock L, Bogaert P, Colinet G, Delcarte E, Delvaux B, Ducarme F, Laroche J, Maesen P, Marcoen J, Wibrin M (2003) Etablissement et cartographie des teneurs bruits de fond en éléments traces métalliques (ETM) et micro-polluants organiques (MPO) dans les sols de la Région wallonne. Rapport final du groupe d’étude APP, “Application de la pédologie aux problèmes de pollution” (SPAQUE - UCL - FUSAGx - BEAGx - CAFX). UCL, Unité des sciences du sol, 124pGoogle Scholar
  87. SPW (2014) Arrêté du 13 juin 2014 du Gouvernement wallon modifiant le Livre II du Code de l’Environnement, contenant le Code de l’Eau en ce qui concerne la gestion durable de l’azote en agriculture. Service Public de Wallonie [C − 2014/27234]. MONITEUR BELGE 12.09.2014Google Scholar
  88. SPW/DAEA (2015) Farms’ accounting data (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). Walloon Public Service (SPW) – Agricultural Economic Analysis Department (DEMNA) - Direction de l’Analyse Economique Agricole (DAEA). Namur, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  89. Tailleur A, Cohan J, Laurent F, Lellahi A (2012) A simple model to assess nitrate leaching from annual crops for life cycle assessment at different spatial scales. In: Corson MS, Van der Werf HMG (Ed) Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2012). 1–4 October 2012, Saint-Malo, France. INRA Rennes, pp 903–904Google Scholar
  90. Van Oers L, De Koning A, Guinee JB, Huppes G (2002). Abiotic resource depletion in LCA -Improving characterisation factors for abiotic resource depletion as recommended in the new Dutch LCA handbook. Road and hydraulic engineering institute, Ministrie van Verkeer en Waterstaat - Directoraat-Generaal Rijkswaterstaat - Dienst Weg- en Waterbouwkunde, Delft, 75pGoogle Scholar
  91. Van Stappen F, Delcour A, Gheysens S, Decruyenaere V, Stilmant D, Rabier F, Louppe H, Burny P, Goffart J (2014) Alternative scenarios for food and non-food uses of Walloon cereals by 2030. Biotechnol Agronomy Society Environ 18:193–208Google Scholar
  92. Van Stappen F, Mathot M, Decruyenaere V, Loriers A, Delcour A, Planchon V, Goffart JP, Stilmant D (2016) Consequential environmental life cycle assessment of a farm-scale biogas plant. J Environ Manag 175:20–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wang L, Littlewood J, Murphy RJ (2013) Environmental sustainability of bioethanol production from wheat straw in the UK. Renew Sust Energ Rev 28:715–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wegener Sleeswijk A, Kleijn R, Van Zeijts H, Reus JAWA, Meeusen-van Onna MJG, Leneman H, Sengers HHWJM (1996) Application of LCA to agricultural products. 1. Core methodological issues; 2. Supplement to the 'LCA Guide'; 3. Methodological background. Centre of Environmental Science Leiden University (CML), Centre of Agriculture and Environment (CLM), Agricultural-Economic Institute (LEI-DLO), Leiden, 106 pGoogle Scholar
  95. Weidema B (2003) Market information in life cycle assessment. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Danish Ministry of the Environment, 2.-0 LCA consultants, 147pGoogle Scholar
  96. Weidema B, Meeusen MJG (2000) Agricultural data for Life Cycle Assessments Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), The HagueGoogle Scholar
  97. Weidema B, Wesnaes M (1996) Data quality management for life cycle inventories—an example of using data quality indicators. J Clean Prod 4:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Williams AG, Mekonen S (2014) Environmental performance of traditional beer production in a micro-brewery. In: Schenck RC, Huizenga D (eds) Proceedings of the 9th international conference on life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector. American Center for Life Cycle Assessment, Vashon, pp 1535–1540Google Scholar
  99. Williams AG, Audsley E, Sandars DL (2010) Environmental burdens of producing bread wheat, oilseed rape and potatoes in England and Wales using simulation and system modelling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:855–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Zaher U, Stöckle C, Painter K, Higgins S (2013) Life cycle assessment of the potential carbon credit from no- and reduced-tillage winter wheat-based cropping systems in eastern Washington State. Agric Syst 122:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florence Van Stappen
    • 1
  • Michaël Mathot
    • 2
  • Astrid Loriers
    • 2
  • Alice Delcour
    • 2
    • 3
  • Didier Stilmant
    • 2
  • Viviane Planchon
    • 2
  • Bernard Bodson
    • 4
  • Angélique Léonard
    • 5
  • Jean-Pierre Goffart
    • 3
  1. 1.Biomass, Bioproducts and Energy UnitWalloon Agricultural Research Centre (CRA-W)GemblouxBelgium
  2. 2.Farming Systems, Territory and Information Technologies UnitCRA-WLibramontBelgium
  3. 3.Crop Production Systems UnitCRA-WGemblouxBelgium
  4. 4.Crop Sciences, Gembloux Agro-Bio TechUniversity of Liège (ULg-GbxABT)GemblouxBelgium
  5. 5.Department of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of LiègeLiègeBelgium

Personalised recommendations