Skip to main content

Life-cycle assessment of the soybean-sunflower production system in the Brazilian Cerrado

Abstract

Purpose

In the “Cerrado” (Brazilian savanna), sunflower comes mostly from a cropping system where its seeding follows soybean harvest. Soybean has a much higher economic value, but this association with sunflower reduces the environmental impacts from both crops by sharing resources. This study performed a life-cycle assessment (LCA) of the soybean-sunflower cropping system, identified its hotspots, and compared its environmental performance with two hypothetical monocultures, in order to corroborate its benefits.

Methods

Soybean-sunflower cropping system inventory used data from farms of the Parecis region, consolidated by experts. Inventories for soybean and sunflower monocultures were estimated from the cropping system inventory. LUC (land-use changes) were calculated from CONAB (2015), FAOSTAT (2012), and Macedo et al. (P Natl Acad Sci USA 109:1341–1346, 2012). Emissions estimation followed Nemecek and Schnetzer (2011), Milà i Canals (2003), and EC (2010). Land occupation, land-use changes, and liming were allocated by occupation time, but a sensitivity analysis was performed for yield and gross margin as allocation criteria. ReCiPe Midpoint (H) v1.12/World ReCiPe H was the impact assessment method, and some categories were disregarded as not relevant. We used pedigree matrix to estimate uncertainties for inventory and Monte Carlo method for impact uncertainty analysis as in Goedkoop et al. (2008). We used SimaPro 8.0.5.13.

Results and discussion

The soybean-sunflower cropping system generate relevant human toxicity, freshwater toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, climate change, and terrestrial acidification impacts, related to emissions derived from nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers and emissions generated by LUC. Sunflower-soybean cropping system has better environmental performance when compared to the combination of monocultures because of a number of synergies made possible by sharing land use and other resources. Changing the allocation criteria altered the relative performance of some categories, but in all categories the environmental impacts of the cropping system were lower than those of the corresponding monoculture impacts, regardless of the allocation criteria implemented.

Conclusions

We concluded that the environmental performance of the soybean-sunflower cropping system can be improved by optimizing the use of chemical fertilizers. Climate change impacts, which are mostly driven by LUC, could be reduced by production intensification, preventing the clearing of native vegetation for agricultural purposes. This study confirmed the environmental benefits of cropping systems when compared to monocultures and the advantages of association of nitrogen-fixing legumes with other plant species in a production system.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    As stated in ISO 14044, “wherever possible, allocation should be avoided by […] dividing the unit process to be allocated into two or more sub-processes and collecting the input and output data related to these sub-processes […]. Where allocation cannot be avoided, the inputs and outputs of the system should be partitioned between its different products or functions in a way that reflects the underlying physical relationships between them; i.e. they should reflect the way in which the inputs and outputs are changed by quantitative changes in the products or functions delivered by the system” (ISO 2006).

  2. 2.

    Actually, gross margin for sunflower production can be as low as zero (or less) if you consider production costs and prices for sunflower seeds. Sunflower producers get positive gross margin from sunflower oil production and commercialization.

References

  1. AMM - Associação Mato-Grossense dos Municípios (2014) Campo Novo do Parecis: maior produtor de girassol do país. http://www.amm.org.br/amm/constitucional/noticia.asp?iId=272829&iIdGrupo=6233. Accessed October, 2014

  2. ANDA (2014) Anuário Estatístico 2014. http://anda.org.br/multimidia/INDICE- %20ANUARIO-ESTATISTICO-2014.pdf. Accessed November, 2015

  3. Brankatschk G, Finkbeiner M (2015) Modeling crop rotation in agricultural LCAs. Agr Syst 138:66–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Claudino ES, Talamini E (2013) Análise do ciclo de vida (ACV) aplicado ao agronegócio – uma revisão de literatura. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental (Agriambi) 17:77–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. CONAB - Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. Séries Históricas (2015) http://www.conab.gov.br/conteudos.php?a=1252&t=&Pagina_objcmsconteudos=3#A_objcmsconteudos. Accessed January 2015

  6. EC - Comissão Européia (2010) Decisão da Comissão de Junho de 2010. Directrizes para o cálculo das reservas de carbono nos solos para efeitos do anexo V da Directiva 2009/28/CE [notificada com o número C(2010) 3751] (2010/335/UE). Jornal Oficial da União Européia, Bruxelas, pp L151/19–L151/41, 17

    Google Scholar 

  7. FAOSTAT (2012) Agriculture data. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. http://faostat.fao.org/. Accessed January 2012

  8. Figueiredo MCB, Potting J, Serrano LAL, Bezerra MA, Barros VS, Gondim RS, Nemecek T (2016) Environmental assessment of tropical perennial crops: the case of the Brazilian cashew. J Clean Prod 112:131–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Goedkoop M, Schryver A, Oele M (2008) Introduction to LCA with SimaPro 7. PRé Consultants, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hayer F, Bonnin E, Carrouée B et al. (2010) Designing sustainable crop rotations using Life Cycle Assessment of crop combinations. 9th European IFSA Symposium Vienna (Austria), pp 903–911

  11. ISO (2006) Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines

  12. Macedo MN, DeFries RS, Morton DC, Stickler CM, Galford GL, Shimabukuro YE (2012) Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon during the late 2000s. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:1341–1346

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Milà i Canals L (2003) Contributions to LCA methodology for agricultural systems. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Tesis

    Google Scholar 

  14. MAPA – Ministério de Agricultura Pecuária e Abastecimento (2014) http://www.agricultura.gov.br/vegetal/culturas/soja. Accessed October, 2014

  15. Nemecek T, Gaillard G (2010) Challenges in assessing the environmental impacts of crop production and horticulture. Environmental assessment and management in the food industry – Life cycle assessment and related approaches, In, pp 98–116

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nemecek T, Schnetzer J (2011) Methods of assessment of direct field emissions for LCIs of agricultural production systems. Agroscope Reckenholz - Tänikon Research Station Art

  17. Nemecek T, Frick C, Dubois D et al. (2001) Comparing farming systems at crop rotation level by LCA. Proceedings of the International Conference on LCA in Foods, pp 65–69

  18. Nemecek T, Richthofen J, Dubois G et al (2008) Environmental impacts of introducing grain legumes into European crop rotations. Eur J Agron 28:380–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nemecek T, Hayer F, Bonnin E et al (2015) Designing eco-efficient crop rotations using life cycle assessment of crop combinations. Eur J Agron 65:40–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rizzardi MA, Milgiorança ME (1993) Reação de cultivares de girassol à época de semeadura no planalto médio rio-grandense. Reunião Nacional de Pesquisa de Girassol 10:55–56

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marília I. S. Folegatti Matsuura.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Alejandro Pablo Arena

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Matsuura, M.I.S.F., Dias, F.R.T., Picoli, J.F. et al. Life-cycle assessment of the soybean-sunflower production system in the Brazilian Cerrado. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22, 492–501 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1089-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Allocation criteria
  • Brazilian savanna
  • Crop rotation systems
  • Impact assessment