* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download environmental life cycle assessment of alternative protein sources
Survey
Document related concepts
Intrinsically disordered proteins wikipedia , lookup
List of types of proteins wikipedia , lookup
Rosetta@home wikipedia , lookup
Protein domain wikipedia , lookup
Homology modeling wikipedia , lookup
Protein design wikipedia , lookup
Protein moonlighting wikipedia , lookup
Protein folding wikipedia , lookup
Protein mass spectrometry wikipedia , lookup
Bimolecular fluorescence complementation wikipedia , lookup
Protein structure prediction wikipedia , lookup
Western blot wikipedia , lookup
Protein purification wikipedia , lookup
Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy of proteins wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
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!