Pork’s Carbon Footprint - Dr. Gregory Thoma, professor, agriculture chemical engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, from the Minnesota Pork Congress, January 20-21, 2010, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

1. National Scan-level Carbon Footprint Study for Production of US Swine Greg Thoma Jason Frank Charles Maxwell Cash East Darin Nutter Minnesota Pork Congress January 20, 2010 Minneapolis, MN

2. Why? The Economy Efficiency Resource Conservation Efficiency Manufacturing/Service Agriculture as foundation Consumers Care Establish proactive position

3. Today’s Topics LCA 101 – carbon footprint Goal & Scope for Swine LCA Functional unit Conceptual Model of System Scenario Results Uncertainty & Sensitivity National Scan Results Concluding Remarks

4. Calculating a carbon footprint requires: A full system-level accounting of greenhouse gases emitted in association with a product or service Energy consumption Manure & nutrient management The system begins with extraction from nature and includes packaging disposal Life Cycle Assessment is a systems analysis tool commonly used as a framework for these calculations

5. Life Cycle Analysis - 101 Attributes or characteristics of product or process Environmental effects of product or process

7. Identification of ‘hotspots’ for innovation

8. Product labelsExtractions from environment

9. Emerging Consensus on LCA Framework Need for comparable metrics that span sectors, industries and geographies Metrics should be grounded in scientific methodologies, namely Life Cycle Assessment Sustainability Metrics, Indicators and Indices must be transparent LCA data (LCI) should be transparent, validated, widely available, inexpensive The same LCA data and models should be used by producers, retailers, policymakers, NGOs and consumers

10. Outline of Swine LCA:defining the system Goal and Scope Determine GHG1emissionsassociated with delivery of one serving of pork to US consumer. Cradle to grave. From crop production through consumption and package disposal 1Greenhouse gases, expressed as CO2 equivalents

11. Pork Supply Chain COLOR KEY: Energy Inputs GHG effects Feed Production Live Swine Production Processing/ Packaging Transport Distribution Retail Consumer Water Refrigerants Cleaners Water Raw Materials Gas Refrigerants LP/Nat.Gas Pesticides Diesel Electricity Electricity Diesel Cooling Electricity Diesel Electricity Cooling Fertilizer Diesel Pastured Plastic wrap Styrofoam plate Consumer Distribution Retail outlet Crop Prodn Live animal Transport Abattoir/Packaging Feed/Processing &Transport Bulk Packing Export Nitrous Oxide Confined CO2 CFCs/HCFCs CFCs/HCFCs CH4 CO2 WastewaterTreatment(anaerobic) Rendering CO2 Manure Solid Waste Recycle NH3 CO2 Nitrous Oxide CO2 Landfill orMSW Combustion CH4 CH4 CH4 Energy consumed at every point in the value chain Allocation of burdens

12. Conceptual Farm Model Emissions Emissions Energy Sow Barn: Breeding; Gestation; Lactation Nursery – Finish Barn Energy Finished pigs Gilt Weaned pigs Feed Feed Manure Management Manure Management Emissions; Fertilizer Emissions; Fertilizer Material and energy flows are integrated over a sow’s productive life. The farm gate total consumption of feed and energy required to grow all the litters produced by one sow is allocated to the total finished weight of her litters.

13. Some Underlying Assumptions 9.5 piglets/litter and 3.5 litters per sow Finished live weight: 268 lb Carcass = 0.75 live weight Boneless = 0.65 carcass Typical corn, soy meal, distiller’s grain diets With supplements accounted; 82% digestibility ASABE ‘standard’ manure characteristics1 IPCC Tier 2 GHG emission factors for manure systems2 Purdue Handbook for ventilation, heating Biogenic Carbon crop sequestration & animal respiration excluded 1 American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 2005 ASAE D384.2 MAR2005. 2 Dong, H., et al. (2006) Chapter 10 6 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

14. Some Underlying Assumptions 10% waste (spoiled or uneaten) by consumers Economic allocation Feed byproducts Rendering co-products Space allocation Retail In-home

15. Results: Carbon Footprint of Pork

16. The Big Picture 2.2 lb CO2e per 4oz serving (8.8 kg CO2e/kg pork consumed) with a 95% confidence interval from 1.8 to 2.7 lb CO2e. The contribution of emission burden: 13.6%: sow barn (including feed and manure handling); 53%: nursery to finish (including feed and manure handling); 6.7%: processing and packaging; 14%: retail (electricity and refrigerants); 13%: the consumer (refrigeration and cooking).

17. A Closer Look Production scenarios

18. Network Diagram - Legend Reference Flow(quantity of material or energy) Process or Material Contributing to Footprint Connecting Line Weight is Proportional to GHG Contribution GHG contribution(cumulative kg CO2e contributed by this branch of the network)

19. Cradle to grave footprint: Base case: Deep pit This flow is a credit for avoided production of nitrogen fertilizer

20. GHG contribution: Base Case

21. Anaerobic Lagoon

22. Base Case: Anaerobic Lagoon

23. Feed Allocation Affects Results Choice of allocation is important to understand before comparing studies

24. Live Swine Production The model has 1 kg boneless pork as the comparative unit; thus 2.05 kg live animal weight must leave the farm gate.

25. Pork Processing

26. Consumption is also important

27. Results: Carbon Footprint of Pork Sensitivity and Scenario Analysis

28. Scenario Analysis Summary

29. Sensitivity Analysis (Emission Factors)

30. Uncertainty All variables have some variability Propagation of uncertainty performed by Monte Carlo simulation 600 runs, random variates from log normal pdf Pit System: 7.1 kg CO2e per kg pork consumed with a 95% confidence band from 5.8 to 8.5 kg CO2e/kg consumed. Anaerobic lagoon: 10.2 kg CO2e/kg boneless pork consumed, with 95% confidence band from 8.22 to 12.65 kg CO2e/kg consumed.

31. National GHG Impact of Swine Consumption Define regional practice scenario Climate Leaders Determine number of animals raised State level statistics (NASS) Calculate weighted sum of emissions

32. Distribution of Swine

33. Regional Variability

34. National Scale Cumulative Impact 8.8 kg CO2e/ kg consumed or 2.2 lb CO2e / 4 oz serving

35. Conclusions Manure management is a large opportunity Consumption contributes a significant fraction of the total Fuels and Electricity are important, but not the largest contributors to the overall footprint, but opportunities for increased efficiency Processing is relatively efficient per kg processed, but consumes large amounts of energy.

36. Future Directions Detailed LCA for live swine production Field to farm gate More granular evaluation of production practices Targeted questionnaire to collect production specific data Identification of opportunities for energy savings and reduction of GHG emissions Process based modules calibrated against reported information

37. Acknowledgements National Pork Board

38. Questions?

39. Ration with out DDGs Compared to diet with DDG, including necessary changes in minor components

40. Ration with DDG

41. Making Comparisons