Download environmental life cycle assessment of alternative protein sources

ENVIRONMENTAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
OF ALTERNATIVE PROTEIN SOURCES
– CONSTRAINTS AND POTENTIALS
By Marie Trydeman Knudsen & John E. Hermansen
Alternative feed protein potentials in Nordic Bioeconomy
Aarhus University, Foulum, 16th June 2015
Overall idea
Global warming
European alternative protein sources
Nutrient enrichment
Toxicity
Imported soy
Land use change
Biodiversity
Resource use:
Fresh water depletion
Phosphorous depletion
Land use
Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA)
Global warming
European alternative protein sources
Nutrient enrichment
Toxicity
Imported soy
Land use change
Biodiversity
Resource use:
Fresh water depletion
Phosphorous depletion
Land use
Introduction
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Our food consumption is responsible approx. 1/3 of our total environmental
impact – and feed production for livestock is a major part of this
One of the major concerns of the import of soymeal to Europe, is
environmental issues – and increasing global demand for soybeans
Alternative protein sources are needed and suggested; such as protein from
marine, agricultural or insect biomass or single cell protein – but how to
assess the alternatives?
Life cycle assessments (LCA) are product-oriented environmental
assessments – they are widely used and one of the preferred methods to
estimate environmental impacts
LCA’s are integrated in EU’s policy instruments (EC’s PEF, Food SCP
Roundtable, ILCD handbook) and in private companies’ environmental
information system
Thus, need for environmental LCA’s of alternative protein sources
However, what has been done so far? What are the research needs?
Todays talk
Aim:
•
•
•
Give a short introduction to LCA methodology
Review on LCA’s of alternative protein sources
Discuss constraints and potentials
Life Cycle Assessment methodology
Assessing environmental impacts
Global warming
Nutrient enrichment
Bio refinery: Energy + feed + materials
Other high value components
Dyes
Flavourings
Aromatics
Drug components
Other compounds
Oil
C6
Bio
refinery
Harvest
Storage
Transport
C5
Chemicals
Materials
Syngas
Fuel/energy
Toxicity
Fibre
Lignin
Leftovers
Soil improvement
Fertilizer
Land use change
Food
Feed (protein)
Leftovers
Biodiversity
Reactor
Biogas
Syngas
Resource use:
Fresh water depletion
Phosphorous depletion
Land use
LCA methodology
Emissions to air (CO2, N2O, CH4, NH3)
INPUT
OUTPUT
Materials
Crop yield
Organic fertilizer
Residues /co-products
FARM
Mineral fertilizer
N2 fixation
(fate of crop residues)
Seeds or seedlings
Energy
Fuel (field operations)
Natural gas
Electricity
Chemicals
Pesticides
Other
Emissions to soil and water (NO3-, PO43-)
Land use
Water use
transport
Production
of inputs
transport
Agricultural
production
transport
Processing
transport
Packaging
Loc al feed
company
Land use changes (dLUC and iLUC)
direct Land Use Changes:
takes places in the occupied land
indirect Land Use Changes:
Displaced production
somewhere else in the world
iLUC ranging from 140 to 600 g CO2 eq./m2
Review: LCA studies on alternative
protein sources
Marine biomass
•
•
Very few LCA studies on marine biomass for protein.
Algae: Few studies focused on biofuel
Mussels: Few studies focused on fertiliser or food
•
•
Defatted algae:
Sills et al. (2013) and de Boer et al. (2014):
•
•
•
•
Defatted algae (after extraction of oil for biofuel)
Impact category: Global Warming Potential (GWP)
Approx. 550-950 g CO2 eq./kg dried product (mainly the drying
process)
•
Mussels:
Spångberg et al. (2013) and Iribarren et al. (2010):
•
•
•
For fertilizer or food: 1000-5000 g CO2 eq./kg DM (no drying)
Removing nutrients from sea – decreasing eutrophication
Agricultural biomass
•
•
•
•
Many LCA studies on agricultural biomass for protein (grain legumes,
sunflower meal – but not on grasses/forage legumes for monogastrics
(biorefinery)
Grain legumes:
•
Carbon footprint: 150-500 g CO2 eq./kg DM (no transport, no LUC)
Sunflower seed meal (de Boer et al. 2014):
•
Carbon footprint: 627 g CO2 eq./kg DM
Grasses and forage legumes (for monogastrics)
•
•
Protein extraction (biorefinery)
Few LCA studies found focused on bioenergy and chemicals (Cherubini et
al. 2010, Ahlgren et al. 2015, Karlsson et al. 2014)
Insects and single cell proteins
•
•
•
•
Very few studies
Meal worms (Oonincx & de Boer et al. 2012, and de Boer et al. 2014)
•
•
•
•
Fed on carrots and mixed grains (not organic waste of by-products)
Heating needed for their development (energy consuming)
Drying of meal worms (energy consuming)
Carbon footprint >1000 g CO2 eq./kg DM
House fly larvae (van Zanten et al. 2014)
•
•
Fed on organic waste
Carbon footprint: 770 g CO2 eq./kg DM
Single-cell protein (de Boer et al. 2014)
•
•
Natural gas – no published studies yet
Carbon footprint >1000 g CO2 eq./kg DM
Carbon footprint of protein sources
Replacement scenario
Carbon footprint excl. LUC
(g CO2 eq./kg DM)
Soybean meal (South America)
595
Soybean meal (Netherlands)
580
Soybean meal (Eastern Europe)
592
High protein sunflower seed meal
627
DDGS (distiller’s dried grains with solubles)
626
Insects (mealworms)
>717
Defatted algae
>611
Bacterial single-cell protein
>644
Based on de Boer et al. (2014)
Constraints and potentials
Constraints and potentials
•
•
•
Very few LCA studies have been conducted on alternative
proteins, like marine, insect or single cell protein
Thus, clearly a need for more LCA studies in order to make fair
comparisons – and improve and optimise the production
Preliminary results from the few studies:
For wet processes: the drying process is a hotspot and very
energy consuming. Thus, solutions should be explored such
as e.g. more efficient drying techniques or wet feeding
•
•
For insect protein (very few studies): very high carbon
footprint due to high energy requirement during rearing and
the drying step thereafter. Feedstock should be waste instead
of feed ingredients
Constraints and potentials
•
Need for methodological development:
•
•
Availability of input/output and emission data is challenging
since new and developing area, but essential for the LCA
LCA methodology needs development
All relevant impact categories needs to be included, but
some are currently being developed and discussed, such
as land use change, biodiversity and water footprint
•
•
•
Some of the impact categories has more local or regional
impact, such as eutrophication, biodiversity etc. – the
geographical distribution of emissions should be taken
into account
Some processes have multiple outputs (such as in
biorefineries) – the LCA methodology should be able to
handle this
Conclusion
Conclusion
•
•
•
•
•
•
Since our food production are responsible for approx. 1/3 of global
environmental impact – and feed production are a major contributor – it is
important to explore possibilities to reduce this impact
For comparing and improving the environmental impact of alternative
protein sources – life cycle assessments (LCA) are one of the preferred
and widely used tool (in European Commission and private companies)
Only few LCA studies have so far been conducted on alternative protein
sources
A few hotspots have been identified, such as drying process and high
rearing temperature for some insects. Using waste or sidestreams are
preferable
Huge need for more LCA studies on alternative protein sources – to
compare and develop the processes
Also need for methodological development of LCA for the new processes
and product chains
Thank you!