Advertisement

LCA of soybean meal

  • Randi Dalgaard
  • Jannick Schmidt
  • Niels Halberg
  • Per Christensen
  • Mikkel Thrane
  • Walter A. Pengue
Case Study LCA for Food Products (Subject Editor: Niels Jungbluth)

Abstract

Background, Aim and Scope

Soybean meal is an important protein input to the European livestock production, with Argentina being an important supplier. The area cultivated with soybeans is still increasing globally, and so are the number of LCAs where the production of soybean meal forms part of the product chain. In recent years there has been increasing focus on how soybean production affects the environment. The purpose of the study was to estimate the environmental consequences of soybean meal consumption using a consequential LCA approach. The functional unit is ‘one kg of soybean meal produced in Argentina and delivered to Rotterdam Harbor’.

Materials and Methods

Soybean meal has the co-product soybean oil. In this study, the consequential LCA method was applied, and co-product allocation was thereby avoided through system expansion. In this context, system expansion implies that the inputs and outputs are entirely ascribed to soybean meal, and the product system is subsequently expanded to include the avoided production of palm oil. Presently, the marginal vegetable oil on the world market is palm oil but, to be prepared for fluctuations in market demands, an alternative product system with rapeseed oil as the marginal vegetable oil has been established. EDIP97 (updated version 2.3) was used for LCIA and the following impact categories were included: Global warming, eutrophication, acidification, ozone depletion and photochemical smog.

Results

Two soybean loops were established to demonstrate how an increased demand for soybean meal affects the palm oil and rapeseed oil production, respectively. The characterized results from LCA on soybean meal (with palm oil as marginal oil) were 721 gCO2 eq. for global warming potential, 0.3 mg CFC11 eq. for ozone depletion potential, 3.1 g SO2 eq. for acidification potential, −2 g NO3 eq. for eutrophication potential and 0.4 g ethene eq. for photochemical smog potential per kg soybean meal. The average area per kg soybean meal consumed was 3.6 m2year. Attributional results, calculated by economic and mass allocation, are also presented. Normalised results show that the most dominating impact categories were: global warming, eutrophication and acidification. The ‘hot spot’ in relation to global warming, was ‘soybean cultivation’, dominated by N2O emissions from degradation of crop residues (e.g., straw) and during biological nitrogen fixation. In relation to eutrophication and acidification, the transport of soybeans by truck is important, and sensitivity analyses showed that the acidification potential is very sensitive to the increased transport distance by truck.

Discussion

The potential environmental impacts (except photochemical smog) were lower when using rapeseed oil as the marginal vegetable oil, because the avoided production of rapeseed contributes more negatively compared with the avoided production of palm oil. Identification of the marginal vegetable oil (palm oil or rapeseed oil) turned out to be important for the result, and this shows how crucial it is in consequential LCA to identify the right marginal product system (e.g., marginal vegetable oil).

Conclusions

Consequential LCAs were successfully performed on soybean meal and LCA data on soybean meal are now available for consequential (or attributional) LCAs on livestock products. The study clearly shows that consequential LCAs are quite easy to handle, even though it has been necessary to include production of palm oil, rapeseed and spring barley, as these production systems are affected by the soybean oil co-product.

Recommendations and Perspectives

We would appreciate it if the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment had articles on the developments on, for example, marginal protein, marginal vegetable oil, marginal electricity (related to relevant markets), marginal heat, marginal cereals and, likewise, on metals and other basic commodities. This will not only facilitate the work with consequential LCAs, but will also increase the quality of LCAs.

Keywords

Agriculture consequential LCA soybean meal system expansion 

References

  1. Agrocare (2002): Agro-care Chemical Industry Group. Imazethapyr. (online). Available at: http://www.agrocare.com.cn/Products/Imazethapyr.htm (accessed 14 May 2007)
  2. Altieri MA, Pengue WA (2006): La soja transgenica en America Latina. Una maquinaria de hambre, deforestacion y devastacion socioecologica. Biodiversidad. 47, 14–19, Montevideo (in Spanish)Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous (2006a): Salta: un biotipo de Sorgo de Alepo se ‘quiere escapar’. Available at: http://www.todoagro.com.ar/todoagro2/nota.asp?id=359. (accessed 14 May 2007) (in Spanish)
  4. Anonymous (2006b): Safety (MSDS) data for paraquat. Available at: http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/PA/paraquat.html (Accessed 23 June 2006)
  5. Anonymous (2005): Bekæmpelsesmiddelstatistik 2004. Orientering fra Miljøstyrelsen Nr. 6. Danish Environmental Protection Agency. 52 pp (online). Available at: http://www.mst.dk/Udgivelser/Publikationer/2005/09/87-7614-790-8.htm (accessed 14 May 2007)
  6. Anonymous (2002): Status of active substances under EU review. DG Health and Consumer protection. Plant health. Excel sheet (online). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/index_en.htm (accessed 14 May 2007)
  7. Anonymous (1996): Glyphosate fact sheet. Pesticide News 33, 28–29 (online). Available at: http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/glyphosa.htm (accessed 14 May 2007)
  8. Austin AT, Piñeiro G, Gonzalez-Polo M (2006): More is less: agricultural impacts on the N cycle in Argentina. Biogeochemistry 79, 45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Basset-Mens C, van der Werf HMG (2005): Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: The case of pig production in France. Agric Ecosyst Environ 105, 127–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Begenisic F (2003): Information on soya production practices in Argentina, Pers. Comm., Inga. Agra. Flory Begenisic, Direccion de Agricultura — SAGPyA (online). Available at: http://www.sagpya.mecon.gov.ar (accessed 14 May 2007)
  11. Benbrook CM (2005): Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs — Problems facing soybean producers in Argentina. Benbrook Consulting Service, Ag BioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper Number 8, January 2005 (online). Available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/rust-resistence-run-down-soi.pdf (accessed 14 May 2007)
  12. Borken J, Patyk A, Rheinhart GA (1999): Basisdaten für ökologishe Bilanzierungen. Friedr. Vieweg & Sons Publisher, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  13. Casson A (2003): Oil Palm, Soybeans & Critical Habitatloss — A Review Prepared for the WWF Forest Conservation Initiative. Switzerland. Available at: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/oilpalmsoybeanscriticalhabitatloss25august03.pdf (accessed 14 May 2007)
  14. Cederberg C (1998): Life Cycle Assessment of Milk Production — A comparison of Conventional and Organic Farming. SIK Report 643. ISBN 91-7290-189-6Google Scholar
  15. Cederberg C, Darelius K (2001): Livscykelanalys av griskött (Life cycle assessment of pig meat). Naturresursforum, Halland County Council, Sweden (In Swedish). Available at: http://www.regionhalland.se/dynamaster/file_archive/041011/783f1b18fe599c66cafeb5ac66d3c7fc/Rapport%20griskortt.pdf (accessed 14 may 2007)
  16. Cederberg C, Flysjö A (2004): Life Cycle Inventory of 23 Dairy Farms in South-Western Sweden. SIK Report 728, 1–59Google Scholar
  17. Cederberg C, Mattson B (2000): Life cycle assessment of milk production — A comparison of conventional and organic farming. J Clean Prod 8, 49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cederberg C, Stadig M (2003): System expansion and allocation in Life Cycle Assessment of milk and beef production. Int J LCA 8, 350–356Google Scholar
  19. Dalgaard R, Halberg N (2005): Life cycle assessment (LCA) of Danish pork. In: Proceedings from the international workshop on green pork production, Paris, France, 25–27 May 2005, pp 165–167Google Scholar
  20. Dalgaard R, Halberg N, Kristensen IS, Larsen I (2006): Modelling representative and coherent Danish farm types based on farm accountancy data for use in environmental assessments. Agric Ecosyst Environ 117(4) 223–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dalgaard T, Halberg N, Porter JR (2001): A model for fossil energy use in Danish agriculture used to compare organic and conventional farming. Agric Ecosyst Environ 87(1) 51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dros JM (2004): Managing the Soyboom: Two scenarios of soy production expansion in South America. Commissioned by WWF Forest Conversion Initiative. AIDE Environment. Amsterdam. Available at: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/managingthesoyboomenglish_nbvt.pdf (accessed 14 May 2007)
  23. de Boer IJM (2003): Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic milk production — A review. Livest Prod Sci 80, 69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. DTE (2005): Pesticide use in oil palm plantations. Down to Earth 66. Available at: http://dte.gn.apc.org/66pes.htm (accessed 14 May 2007)
  25. Ecoinvent Centre (2004): Ecoinvent data v1.1. Final reports ecoinvent 2000 (1–15). Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf 2004, CD-ROMGoogle Scholar
  26. Ekvall T, Andræ ASG (2006): Attributional and consequential environmental assessment of the shift to Lead free solders. Int J LCA 11(5) 344–353Google Scholar
  27. Ekvall T, Weidema BP (2004): System Boundaries and Input Data in Consequential Life Inventory Analysis. Int J LCA 9(3) 161–171Google Scholar
  28. Emmersen C (2005): Pers. Comm. Manager of Production at Protein — og Oliefabrikken Scanola A/S. (http://www.scanola.dk)
  29. Eriksson IS, Elmquist H, Stern S, Nybrant T (2004): Environmental Systems Analysis of Pig Production — The Impact of Feed Choice. Int J LCA 10(2) 143–154Google Scholar
  30. FAOSTAT (2006a): FAOSTAT Agriculture Data, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Key Statistics of the Food and Agricultural External Trade. Available at: http://www.fao.org/es/ess/toptrade/trade.asp (accessed 23 June 2006)
  31. FAOSTAT (2006b): FAOSTAT Agriculture Data, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Available at: http://faostat.fao.org/ (accessed 23 June 2006)
  32. FAO (2004). Fertilizer use by crop in Argentina. Available at: www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5210e/y5210e00.htm#Contents (accessed 2 January 2006)Google Scholar
  33. FAPRI (2006): Food and agricultural policy research institute. Available at: www.fapri.org (accessed 14 May 2007)Google Scholar
  34. Fearnside PM (2000): Global Warming and Tropical Land-Use Change: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Biomass Burning, Decomposition and Soils in Forest Conversion, Shifting, Cultivation and Secondary Vegetation. Climatic Change 46, 115–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gerbens-Leenes PW, Nonhebel S (2002): Consumption patterns and their effects on land required for food. Ecol Econ 42, 185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gyldenkærne S, Mikkelsen MH (2004): Projection of Greenhouse gas emission from the agricultural sector. Research notes from NERI 194. National Environmental Research Institute. Ministry of the Environment, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  37. Halberg N, Kristensen ES, Kristensen IS (1995): Nitrogen turnover on organic and conventional mixed farms. J Agric Environ Ethics 8(1) 30–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hauschild M, Potting J (2005): Spatial differentiation in Life Cycle impact assessment. The EDIP 2003 Methodology. Environmental News 80. Danish Ministry of the Environment. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.mst.dk/udgiv/publikationer/2005/87-7614-577-8/pdf/87-7614-578-6.pdf (accessed 14 May 2007)
  39. Heller MC, Keoleian GA, Volk TA (2003): Life cycle assessment of willow bioenergy cropping system. Biomass & Bioenergy 25, 147–165Google Scholar
  40. Ho MW, Ching LL (2003): The Case For A GM-Free Sustainable World. Independent Science council. Institute of Science in Society. London. 114 pp. Available at: http://www.indsp.org/A%20GM-Free%20Sustainable%20World.pdf (accessed 14 May 207)
  41. Ho MW, Cummings J (2005): Glyphosate toxic and Roundup worse. Institute of Science in Society. London. Available at: http://www.isis.org.uk/GTARW.php (accessed 14 May 2007)
  42. Houghton RA (2005): Aboveground Forest Biomass and the Global Carbon Balance. Global Change Biology 11, 945–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. IPCC (2000): Good practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Chapter 4. Agriculture. 4.1–4.83. IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/pub/guide.htm (accessed 14 May 2007)Google Scholar
  44. ISO 14044 (2006): Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Requirements and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
  45. Jensen, JD, Andersen M, Kristensen K (2001): A Regional Econometric Sector Model for Danish Agriculture. A documentation of the regionalized ESMERALDA model. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. Report 129. Available at: http://www.foi.kvl.dk/upload/foi/docs/publikationer/rapporter/nummererede%20rapporter/120-129/129.pdf (accessed 8 December 2006)
  46. Kim S, Dale BE (2005): Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for producing biofuels: Bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass and Bioenergy 29, 426–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kim S, Dale BE (2002): Allocation procedure in ethanol production system from corn grain I. System expansion. Int J LCA 7(4) 237–243Google Scholar
  48. Kristensen IS, Halberg N, Nielsen AH, Dalgaard R (2005): N-turnover on Danish mixed dairy farms. Part II. In: Bos J, Pflimlin A, Aarts F, Vertés F (eds), Nutrient management on farm scale. How to attain policy objectives in regions with intensive dairy farming. Report of the first workshop of the EGF Workshop. Plant Res Int 83, 91–109. Available at: http://www.nitrogenworkshop.org/PDF/Rapport_83_drukversie.pdf (accessed 14 May 2007)
  49. Lindeijer E (2000): Review of land use impact methodologies. J Clean Prod 8, 273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Matteucci SD, Morillo J, Rodríguez A, Mendoza, N (2004): El alto Parana encajonado argentino paraguayo. Mosaicos de paisaje y conservación regional. UNESCO, Ediciones FADU, Buenos Aires (in Spanish)Google Scholar
  51. Mattson B, Cederberg C, Blix L (2000): Agricultural land use in life cycle assessment (LCA): Case studies of three vegetable oil crops. J Clean Prod 8, 283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Milà i Canals L, Bauer C, Depestele J, Dubreuil A, Knuchel RF, Gaillard G, Michelsen O, Müller-Wenk R, Rydgren B (2007): Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int J LCA 12(1) 5–15Google Scholar
  53. Møller J, Thøgersen R, Kjeldsen AM, Weisbjerg MR, Søegaard K, Hevelplund T, Børsting CF (2000): Fodermiddeltabel. Sammensætning og foderværdier af fodermidler til kvæg. Rapport 91, Landbrugets Rådgivningscenter, Denmark (in Danish)Google Scholar
  54. Møller J, Thøgersen R, Kjeldsen AM (2003): Ajourføring af Fodermiddeltabel. Rapport 91. Available at: http://www.lr.dk/kvaeg/informationsserier/lk-meddelelser/1128.htm (accessed 14 May 2007) (in Danish)
  55. MPOB (2005): 2004 — Review of the Malaysian Oil Palm Industry. Economics and Industry Development Division, Malaysian Palm Oil Board, Kelana JayaGoogle Scholar
  56. Nielsen PH, Nielsen AM, Weidema BP, Dalgaard R, Halberg N (2003): LCA food database. Available on-line (5 December 2006). Data on fertilizer: ahttp://www.lcafood.dk/processes/industry/fertilizer.htm, data on agricultural machinery: http://www.lcafood.dk/processes/agriculture/traction.htm
  57. Nielsen AM, Nielsen PH, Jensen JD, Andersen M, Weidema BP (2004): Identification of processes affected by a marginal change in demand for food products — Two examples on Danish pigs and cheese. In: Halberg N (ed), Life cycle assessment in the agrifood sector. Proceedings from the 4th International Conference, October 5–8, 2003, Bygholm, Denmark. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, DIAS report. Animal Husbandry 61, pp 127Google Scholar
  58. Oil World (2005): Oil World Annual 2005, May 31. ISTA Mielke GmbH, Hamburg. Available at: http://www.oilworld.biz (accessed 14 May 2007)
  59. Olesen JE, Schelde K, Weiske A, Weisbjerg MR, Asman WAH, Djurhuus J (2006): Modelling greenhouse gas emissions from European conventional and organic dairy farms. Agric Ecosyst Environ 112, 207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Patyk A, Reinhardt G (1997): Düngemittel — Energie-und Stoffstromsbilanzen. Vieweg. Umweltvissenschaften. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  61. Pengue W (2006): Increasing Roundup Ready soybean export from Argentina. (Box 1.1 in chapter 1). In: Halberg N, Alrøe H, Knudsen MT, Kristensen ES (eds), Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Prospects. CABI Publishing. ISBN 1 84 593 078 9 978 1 84593 078 3, p 20Google Scholar
  62. Pengue WA (2005): Transgenic crops in Argentina: the ecological and social debt. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society. 25 (N4) 1–9, Sage Publications, August, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  63. Peoples MB, Gault RR, Lean B, Sykes JD, Brockwell J (1995): Nitrogen fixation by soyabean in commercial irrigated crops of central and southern New South Wales. Soil Biol Biochem 27(4/5) 553–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pré (2004): SIMAPRO 6.0 Pre Consultants B.V. Plotterweg 12, 3821 BB Amersfort. The Netherlands. www.pre.nlGoogle Scholar
  65. Reusser L (1994): Ököbilanz des Sojaöls. Erstellt als Diplomarbeit im Rahmen des Nachdiplomstudiums. ‘Umweltingenieurwesen’ 1993/94 der ETH LausanneGoogle Scholar
  66. SAGPyA (2006): Secretaría de Agricultura, Granadería, Pesca y Alimentos. Estimaciones Agrícolas — Oleaginosas. Available at: www.sagpya.gov.ar/http-hsi/bases/oleagi.htm (accessed 14 May 2007)Google Scholar
  67. Schmidt JH (2004): The Importance of System Boundaries for Large Material Flows of Vegetable Oils. Poster presented to the Fourth World SETAC Congress, 14th to 18th of November, 2004, Portland, Oregon. Available at: http://www.plan.aau.dk/:_jannick/Publications/Poster_SETAC_Portland.pdf (accessed 14 May 2007)
  68. Schmidt J, Weidema BP (2008): Shift in the marginal supply of vegetable oil. Int J LCA 13(3) 235–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Statistikbanken (2006): Statistics Denmark Agriculture. Available at: www.statistikbanken.dk (accessed 23 June 2006)Google Scholar
  70. Tengnäs B, Nilsson B (2003): Soybean: Where is it from and what are its uses? A report for WWF Sweden. WWF SwedenGoogle Scholar
  71. Thrane M (2006): LCA of Danish fish products. Int J LCA 11(1) 66–74Google Scholar
  72. Unilever (2004): LCI datasheets for palm oil, palm kernel oil and coconut oil. The LCI data are collected by Unilever during 1990. Provided by and interpreted in collaboration with Peter Shonfield. LCA Team Leader, Chemistry & Environmental Protection Department, Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, UnileverGoogle Scholar
  73. Van der Werf HMG, Petit J, Sanders J (2005): The environmental impacts of the production of concentrated feed: The case of pig feed in Bretagne. Agric Sys 83, 153–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wakker E (2005): Greasy palms. The social and ecological impacts of large-scale oil palm plantation development in Southeast Asia. Friends of the Earth. Available at: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/greasy_palms_impacts.pdf (accessed 14 May 2007)
  75. Weidema BP (2004): Geographical, technological and temporal delimitation in LCA. UMIP Method. København, Miljøstyrelsen. Environmental News 74. Available at: http://www.mst.dk/Udgivelser/Publications/2004/12/87-7614-305-8.htm (accessed 14 May 2007)
  76. Weidema BP, Lindeijer E (2001): Physical impacts of land use in product life cycle assessment. Final report of the EURENVIRON-LCAGAPS sub-project on land use. Lyngby, Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management, Technical University of Denmark, (IPL-033-01), revised version dated 2001.12.31Google Scholar
  77. Weidema B (2003): Market information in Life Cycle assessment. Environmental Project No. 863. Danish Ministry of the Environment. Environmental Protection Agency, available at: http://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2003/87-7972-991-6/pdf/87-7972-992-4.pdf (accessed 14 may 2007)
  78. Weidema BP (1999): System expansions to handle co-products of renewable materials. Presentation Summaries of the 7th LCA Case Studies Symposium SETAC-Europe, pp 45–48Google Scholar
  79. Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Alting L (1997): Environmental Assessments of products — Vol 1: Methodology, tools and case studies in product development. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  80. Yusoff S, Hansen SB (2007): Feasibility Study of Performing a Life Cycle Assessment on Crude Palm Oil Production in Malaysia. Int J LCA (1) 50–58Google Scholar
  81. Zah R, Hischier R (2003): Life Cycle Inventories of Detergents — Data v1.01 (2003). Ecoinvent Report 12, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Randi Dalgaard
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jannick Schmidt
    • 2
  • Niels Halberg
    • 1
  • Per Christensen
    • 2
  • Mikkel Thrane
    • 2
  • Walter A. Pengue
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Agroecology and EnvironmentUniversity of Aarhus, Faculty of Agricultural SciencesTjeleDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Development and PlanningAalborg UniversityAalborg EastDenmark
  3. 3.GEPAMA, Landscape Ecology GroupUniversity of Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations