Carbon footprint of haemoglobin and plasma powder

Tommie Ponsioen / Geert van der Velden24 November 2011

Outline

1. What is a product carbon footprint?2. Goal, scope & methods3. Production chain of haemoglobin and plasma

powder4. Carbon footprint assessment results5. Comparison with carbon footprints of

alternative products6. Conclusions

1. Methods and protocols

• Basics of product carbon footprints• System boundaries• Allocation• Standards and specifications

1.1 Definition of product carbon footprint

• footprint is a metaphor for the total impact of a product

• carbon is all the different greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming

• In short, a product carbon footprint is the full climate change impact of a product

1.2 Introduction CF. What is it about?• CF aims to systematically study the environmental impacts of

a system (product/service/etc)

Raw materialsRaw materials TransportTransport Product

ProcessingProductProcessing TransportTransport Product useProduct use

Example impact calculationkg CO2eq

CO2fossil 1 CO2biogenic 0CH4 25N2O 298

Example impact calculationkg CO2eq

CO2fossil 1 CO2biogenic 0CH4 25N2O 298

1.3 Included GHG emissions

• Carbon dioxide (fossil):– Fuel combustion for heat, electricity, transport– Fuel combustion for fuel production!

• Methane (25 kg CO2eq per kg CH4):– Enteric fermentation & manure– Methane slip from CHP systems

• Nitrous oxide (298 kg CO2eq per kg N2O):– N fertilizer production and application– N in crop residues

1.4 Carbon footprint is a type of environmental lifecycle assessment

• Environmental impact categories:– Global warming (carbon footprint)– Fossil energy depletion– Land occupation– Eutrophication– Acidification– Freshwater depletion– Et cetera

• Normalized and weighted single endpoint scores: – Ecological footprint, Eco-indicator99, ReCiPe, CML-IA, etc.

1.6 Carbon Footprint of animal fat

CO2

Manure storage

Manure application

Crop growing

CropCrop

Agro-industry

Feed materialsFeed materialsCo-products(e.g. edible oils)Co-products(e.g. edible oils)

Animal husbandry

AnimalAnimal

Slaughtering

Co-products a.o fatsCo-products a.o fats

Meat productsMeat products

Fat processing / refining

Cat 3 & foodgrade productsCat 3 & foodgrade products

1.7 Lifecycle of meatCrop cultivation

Processing

Feed formulation

Animal husbandry

Slaughtering

Rendering

Fresh meat

Retail

Consumption

Input production (seed, fertilizer, diesel, pesticides)

Fuels, electricity production

By-products

Packing, distribution

Waste treatment

Fuels, electricity production

Feed formulation

1.8 Allocation

• System expanison (difficult in food chains)• Physical criteria (mass, protein, caloric value)• Other (economic most applied and most

meaningfull in food chains )

1.9 Example Mass based allocation

Soybean meal (0.8 ton) Soybean oil (0.2 ton)

Upstream:(kg CO2eq/kg soybeans)

The allocation fraction is : 80%

The allocation fraction is : 20%

Soybeans (1 ton)

1.10 Example Energy content based allocation

Soybean meal (0.8 ton)LHV: 20 MJ/ton soybean meal =

16.1/ton soybeans

Soybean oil (0.2 ton) LHV: 37 MJ/ton soybean oil = 7.4/ton soybeans

Upstream:(kg CO2eq/kg soybeans)

The allocation fraction is : 69% (16.1/23.5)

The allocation fraction is : 31% (7.4/23.5)

Soybeans (1 ton) Total LHV: 16.1 + 7.4 = 23.5 MJ

1.11 Example Economic allocation

Soybean meal (0.8 ton)Value: €300/ton soybean

meal = €240/ton soybeans

Soybean oil (0.2 ton) Value: €800/ton soybean oil = €160/ton soybeans

Upstream:(kg CO2eq/kg soybeans)

The allocation fraction is : 60% (240/400)

The allocation fraction is : 40% (160/400)

Soybeans (1 ton) revenue: € 240+160=400

1.13 Relevant standards EU scope

Standards for lifecycle assessments

Specifications for carbon footprint assessments

Carbon footprint assessment product and sectorspecifications

ISO 14040 - 14044

PAS2050BRX…..

ISO 14067, WRI/WBSCD

Horticulture (in development)

Animal feed (to be expected)

Fats and oils for foodAnd feed (n.a.)

RED

IPCC GuidelinesIPCC GWP

2.1 Goal, scope & methods

• The goal of the study was to give insight in: – the carbon footprints of haemoglobin and

plasma powder from an EAPA production site– the contributions of different sources to the

carbon footprints

2.2 Goal, scope & methods

• The scope includes all greenhouse gas emissions in the complete production chain of haemoglobin and plasma powder and alternative products:– Fish meal (alternative for haemoglobin powder)– Soy protein concentrate, skimmed milk powder,

whey protein concentrate (80% protein) and casein (alternative for plasma powder)

2.3 Goal, scope & methods

• Following the ISO standards for lifecycle assessments (ISO14040/44: 2006)

• In line with:– British carbon footprint specification (PAS2050)– French carbon footprint specification (BP X30-323)– Draft ISO standard for product carbon footprints

(ISO14067: expected early 2012)

3.1 Production chain of haemoglobin and plasma powder

Included in the carbon footprint of haemoglobin and plasma powder

Transport

Separation process and wastewater treatment

Haemoglobin powder Plasma powder

Animal husbandry (incl. feed supply chain, transport, and manure management)

Slaughter by-products

Fresh meat

Electricity (general)

Diesel

Blood

Plasma production

Haemoglobin production

Electricity (specific)

Natural gas

Electricity (specific)

Natural gas

Slaughtering process

Electricity from grid

Natural gas

Economicalallocations

31% 69%

4.1 Carbon footprint assessment results: Haemoglobin powder

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Haemoglobin powder (porcine blood)

Carb

on fo

otpr

int

(kg

CO2e

q pe

r to

nne)

Natural gas

Electricity (specific)

Electricity (general)

Transport

Slaughtering

Pig husbandry

870

- Porcine versus Bovine- Bovine (meat) versus Bovine (milk)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Plasma powder (porcine blood)

Carb

on fo

otpr

int

(kg

CO2e

q pe

r to

nne)

Natural gas

Electricity (specific)

Electricity (general)

Transport

Slaughtering

Pig husbandry

4.2 Carbon footprint assessment results: Plasma powder

3200

5.1 Comparison with carbon footprints of alternative products (haemoglobin)• Fish meal is made from complete fish or from fish by-products

resulting in a large difference between best and worst case carbon footprints

• Carbon footprint of fish meal is larger

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Haemoglobin powder (pig)

Fish meal

Carbon footprint (kg CO2eq per kg of product)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Land use change (kg CO2eq per kg of product)

Calculated (upstream)

Calculated (transport & processing)

Best case

Worst case

- Fish meal: excluding CFP freight South America to Europe!

5.2 Comparison with carbon footprints of alternative products (haemoglobin)• Even more so when the carbon footprint is expressed

per kg of protein

0 1 2 3 4

Haemoglobin powder (pig)

Fish meal

Carbon footprint (kg CO2eq per kg of protein)

0 1 2 3 4

Land use change (kg CO2eq per kg of protein)

Calculated (upstream)

Calculated (transport & processing)

Best case

Worst case

5.3 Comparison with carbon footprints of alternative products (plasma)

• Soy protein concentrate has smaller carbon footprint, but much larger land use change footprint

• CF of whey protein concentrate depends on applied method: can be smaller and can be much larger

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Plasma powder (pig)

Skimmed milk powder

Acid casein

Whey protein concentate

Soy protein concentrate

Carbon footprint (kg CO2eq per kg of product)0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Land use change (kg CO2eq per kg of product)

Calculated (upstream)

Calculated (transport & processing)

Best case

Worst case

!

5.4 Comparison with carbon footprints of alternative products (plasma)

• The CF of acid casein and skimmed milk powder are much larger (even more when expressed per kg of protein)

• Raw milk has an extremely large CF (8 - 12 kg CO2eq/kg DM) mainly due to methane emissions from enteric fermentation

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Plasma powder (pig)

Skimmed milk powder

Acid casein

Whey protein concentate

Soy protein concentrate

Carbon footprint (kg CO2eq per kg of protein)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Land use change (kg CO2eq per kg of protein)

Calculated (upstream)

Calculated (transport & processing)

Best case

Worst case

6. Conclusions

• It is very likely that haemoglobin powder has less impact on global warming than fish meal

• It is very likely that plasma powder has less impact than the evaluated alternative dairy products (except for WPC)

• Given that:– quality aspects of the protein (digestibility and amino acid

profile) are not considered– CF of SPC depends on applied methods and data (nitrous

oxide emissions from the soil and land use change)– CF of WPC depends on allocation method

2. Goal, scope & methods (additional information)

• Economic allocation (dividing upstream emissions between co-products based on their economic value)

• Emissions from production and combustion of fuels (at production plant and electricity supplier)

• Methane emissions from animal husbandry and nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizers in the supply chain included

• Production of other inputs (e.g. chemicals) only included when expected significant contribution

• Production of capital goods not included• Land use change for crop production included