Customised life cycle assessment tool for sugarcane (CaneLCA)—a development in the evaluation of alternative agricultural practices
- 102 Downloads
To promote eco-efficient sugarcane products, there is a need for life cycle assessment (LCA) methods that enable rapid assessment of the environmental implications of alternative agricultural practices. In response, a customised LCA method for sugarcane growing was developed and operationalized in the CaneLCA tool. The aim of the paper was to describe the CaneLCA method in detail and to test the effectiveness of the tool’s parameterisation for evaluating the environmental implications of cane growing practice alternatives.
CaneLCA (Version 1.03) was developed over 6 years (2011–2017) in conjunction with the Australian sugarcane sector. The LCA process was customised for sugarcane growing by focusing on ‘cradle to farm gate’ operations and relevant impact categories, and by parameterising practice variables. To evaluate the effectiveness of the tool, we used it to assess a case study of actual practice changes in the Wet Tropics region of Australia, in terms of the scope of practice variables and environmental implications that can be accounted for.
Results and discussion
The case study results generated by CaneLCA were consistent with those generated by past studies using LCA software. The parameterisation of practice variables allowed for all the practice changes represented in the case study to be assessed. It is suitable for evaluating such known practice alternatives, but less suited to evaluating very innovative practice alternatives, as it is constrained by the underlying algorithms and factors. Most of the environmental implications could be considered, except for effects on soil quality. This will be an area for future tool development to understand the full implications of agricultural practice change, along with the introduction of dynamic models to better estimate emissions.
CaneLCA makes the LCA process more rapid for evaluating alternative sugarcane growing practices, thereby speeding up progress towards devising more eco-efficient sugarcane products. It provides a model that could be adapted for other sugarcane growing regions, and for other perennial cropping systems. The novelty of the method is the detailed parameterisation of practice variables so that a wide range of alternative practices can be evaluated.
KeywordsAgricultural systems Eco-efficiency Environmental impact Parameterisation Perennial crops Streamlined LCA Sustainable agriculture
CaneLCA was developed in a project conducted by the University of Queensland (UQ) and the (then) Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations with funding from the Australian Sugar Research and Development Corporation, now subsumed into Sugar Research Australia (SRA), between July 2011 and March 2013 (Project UQ045). CaneLCA is owned by UQ and distributed via Uniquest Pty Ltd. (eshop.uniquest.com.au/canelca). We acknowledge the following people who contributed to the development of the original version: steering committee (Bianca Cairns, Bernard Milford, Jonathan Pavetto, Sharon Denny, Phil Moody and Phil Hobson), testers of the pilot version (Brad Hussey, Peter McGuire, Andrew Barfield, Ian and Di Dawes and Robert Quirk), technical input (Jeff Tullberg; Guangnan Chen; Melanie Shaw; Joe Lane; Cam Whiteing, Stéphane Guillou), interface development (Eve McDonald), tool evaluators (Michael Waring, David Sudarmana, Guangnan Chen, and others who participated anonymously).
The case study application of the tool was conducted as part of another SRA-funded project led by the Queensland Government’s Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF) (Project 2014/015), for which the lead author was engaged through Life Cycles Pty Ltd., and CaneLCA was used under licence from Uniquest. We acknowledge the farmers, DAF officers (Matthew Thompson and Caleb Connolly) and members of the technical steering group who provided assistance throughout the project.
The work was documented while the lead author was employed by Ecole Supérieure d’Agricultures in France, as part of the FACROLCA project (Fast-tracking eco-conception in agricultural crops with streamlined environmental life cycle assessment tools), funded by the Pays de la Loire region through the Cap Aliment – Food for Tomorrow scheme. The authors also acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
- Antille DL, Chamen WCT, Tullberg, JN, Lal R (2015) The potential of controlled traffic farming to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and enhance carbon sequestration in arable land: A critical review. Transactions of the ASABE 58(3):707–731. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.58.11049
- AusLCI (2017) AusLCI Unit Processes database, Version 1.27 edn. Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society, www.auslci.com.au
- Bloesch PM, Rayment GE, Pulsford JS (1997) Regional total phosphorus budgets for sugar production in Queensland. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol 19:213–220Google Scholar
- Bonsucro (2016) Bonsucro Production Standard. Version 4.01. Bonsucro Better Sugarcane Initiative, bonsucro.com/site/production-standard
- Chapman LS, Hayson MBC, Usher JF (1995) Canegrowers accept biodunder as a plant nutrient source at Mackay. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol 17:199–206Google Scholar
- Chen G, Baillie C (2007) Development of EnergyCalc—a tool to assess cotton on farm energy uses. National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture. University of Southern Queensland, ToowoombaGoogle Scholar
- DEE (2016) Australian National Greenhouse Accounts. National Inventory Report 2014. Volume 1. Department of Envirnment and Energy, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- Fukushima Y, Chen SP (2009) A decision support tool for modifications in crop cultivation method based on life cycle assessment: a case study on greenhouse gas emission reduction in Taiwanese sugarcane cultivation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(7):639–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0100-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Goglio P, Smith WN, Worth DE, Grant BB, Desjardins RL, Chen W, Tenuta M, McConkey BG, Williams A, Burgess P (2018) Development of Crop.LCA, an adaptable screening life cycle assessment tool for agricultural systems: a Canadian scenario assessment. J Clean Prod 172:3770–3780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Guinee JB et al (eds) (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Parts 1–3. Eco-efficiency in industry and science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- Heijungs R et al. (1992) Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Vol I: Guide and Vol. II: Backgrounds. Centre for Environmental Studies (CML), Leiden University, LeidenGoogle Scholar
- Herndl M et al (2015) Abschlussbericht FarmLife. Life cycle assessment of Austrian farms. Agroscope, ww.raumberg-gumpenstein.atGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (2006) IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse gas Inventories. Volume 4: agriculture, forestry and other land uses. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) IGES, JapanGoogle Scholar
- ISO (2006) ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Keating BA, Carberry PS, Hammer GL, Probert ME, Robertson MJ, Holzworth D, Huth NI, Hargreaves JNG, Meinke H, Hochman Z, McLean G, Verburg K, Snow V, Dimes JP, Silburn M, Wang E, Brown S, Bristow KL, Asseng S, Chapman S, McCown RL, Freebairn DM, Smith CJ (2003) An overview of APSIM, a model designed for farming systems simulation. Eur J Agron 18(3-4):267–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(02)00108-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T, Brandão M, Civit B, Margni M, i Canals LM, Saad R, de Souza DM, Müller-Wenk R (2013) UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1188–1202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0579-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Milford BJ, Pfeffer J (2002) Canegrower survey. Unpublished data. Queensland Canegrowers, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
- Myhre G et al (2013) Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In: Stocker TF et al. (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,, Cambridge and New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Nemecek T, Schnetzer J (2011) Methods of assessment of direct field emissions for LCIs of agricultural production systems. Data v3.0 (2012). Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ARTGoogle Scholar
- Ouyang D, Bartholic J (2001) Web-based GIS application for soil erosion prediction. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Soil Erosion Research for the 21st century, Honolulu, USA, 3-5 JanGoogle Scholar
- Rebitzer G, Ekvall T, Frischknecht R, Hunkeler D, Norris G, Rydberg T, Schmidt WP, Suh S, Weidema BP, Pennington DW (2004) Life cycle assessment: part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ Int 30(5):701–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2003.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Renouf MA, Allsopp PG (2013) Development of a streamlined life cycle assessment (LCA) tool for assessing the environmental benefits of progressive sugarcane growing. Final Report—RDC Project UQ045. Volumes 1 and 2. Sugar Research and Development Corporation. https://sugarresearch.com.au/,
- Renouf MA et al (2015) Best practice guide for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) in Australia. Version 2. Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society, www.alcas.asn.au
- Renouf MA, Renaud-Gentie C, Perrin A, Kanyarushoki C, van der Werf H, Jourjon F (2018) Effectiveness criteria for customised agricultural life cycle assessment tools. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/jclepro201712170
- Renouf MA, Schroeder BL, Price N, Allsopp PG (2014) Assessing the environmental benefits of practice change using the CaneLCA eco-efficiency calculator. Int Sugar J 116:755–765Google Scholar
- Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ (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(7):532–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0038-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sanchez Moore CC, Nogueira AR, Kulay L (2017) Environmental and energy assessment of the substitution of chemical fertilizers for industrial wastes of ethanol production in sugarcane cultivation in Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(4):628–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1074-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sandell GR, Prestwidge DB (2004) Harvest haul model - the cost of harvesting paddocks of sugarcane across a sugar milling region. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 26:10 ppGoogle Scholar
- Schmidt Rivera XC, Bacenetti J, Fusi A, Niero M (2017) The influence of fertiliser and pesticide emissions model on life cycle assessment of agricultural products: the case of Danish and Italian barley. Sci Total Environ 592:745–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schroeder B et al (2008) SmartCane principles of best management practice. BSES Limited, Canegrowers and Queensland Government Environmental Protection Agency, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
- Wells C (2001) Total energy indicators of agricultural sustainability: dairy farming case study. Technical Paper 2001/3. University of Otago, DunedinGoogle Scholar
- Whiteing C, Giddy L, Norris C (2017) A cane loss measuring system for machine-harvest sugarcane. Int Sugar J 119:638–644Google Scholar