Showing posts with label low carbon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label low carbon. Show all posts

Tuesday, 30 October 2018

Why does organic milk have a higher carbon footprint?


Why does organic milk have a higher carbon footprint?


The Oxford English Dictionary defines a carbon footprint as “the total amount of greenhouse gases produced to directly and indirectly support human activities, usually expressed in equivalent tons of carbon dioxide (CO2).”

So why does organic milk have a higher carbon footprint?



Lower yields.


It takes 80% more land to produce one unit of milk than conventional production does. Whilst energy is saved by the avoidance of synthetic fertiliser applications, this is actually being offset by the significantly lower yields and greater mechanical field inputs. These low yields create a negative environmental knock-on effect because an organic dairy farm needs a larger area to produce less milk than a conventional farm.

Higher on-farm energy consumption.


The energy consumption per functional unit in the on-farm process is around 20% higher on an organic model than it is on a conventional one.
On-farm primary energy use in the organic system is 15.8% 5 higher than the conventional system, while organic milk required 33.9% 6 more fuel per thousand litres of milk.
Furthermore, the organic systems requires approximately a third more man hours than conventional systems. The longer man hours include machinery hours and therefore creating a greater consumption of fossil fuels, in the form of diesel and electricity, increasing organic milk’s carbon footprint.

Synthetic vs Organic Fertilizer.


The organic system can require the spreading of up to 20 tonnes/ha of manure, and the average conventional farm applies around 1100 kg/ha of synthetic fertiliser That is around 20 times the weight difference in transport and management every year. This figure is staggering when you consider the difference in power and machinery hours needed to load, transport and spread up to 20 t/ha of manure compared to a meagre 1.1 t/ha of synthetic fertiliser, having implications on fossil fuel consumption and the carbon footprint. Furthermore, in many cases when an organic farm has insufficient solid manure from its own cows it is actually forced to import organic manure from other organic farms.

Higher methane emissions.


Methane gas is twenty three times more potent than carbon dioxide. It is estimated that cows in the UK alone produce up to 500 litres, per cow, of methane every day, a figure so high that they account for 3% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
Organic milk’s methane contribution is 18% higher than conventional milk. In the UK showed the figure to be 70% methane in the organic system, compared to 52% on the conventional system.
The reason for the higher production of Methane is that organic cows eat more roughage, this takes to longer to digest than the diet of an animal in an intensive system. Grass is rich in cellulose and other tough components; symbiotic bacteria living in her gut help break down this tough food. Unfortunately, these bacteria emit huge amount of methane while doing this job.  Since and organic cow needs more time to digest, she produces more methane than a conventional cow.

Supplementary Organic Cattle Feed.

A commercial dairy cow cannot exist solely on a grass fed diet. The additional protein requirements for organic dairy cows create a large carbon footprint in themselves, as the produce cannot be grown in temperate/cool climates. The standards set by the UK’s organic bodies forbid the use of GMO feeds which would lower the amount of carbon used.  Something that is often overlooked is that Soya meal, a key protein rich ingredient is sourced from farms in Asia, South America and the US. These imports are fuelling slash and burn techniques and further deforestation in areas of South America. This shatters the food mile argument from much further down the supply chain, before the manufacturing process of feeds begins and even before feed is synthesised into milk. Whilst Soya meal is not present in all cattle feeds, the environmental impact of long distance goods importation must not be underestimated.


SOURCES:


Does the carbon footprint of organic milk production negate its environmental benefits?
Henry J.W. Robertson Oxford Brookes University

What's the environmental impact of milk?

Is Organic Milk Better for the Environment ? Not Really …



Waste Transfer Station Permit

Google Maps Ranking

Friday, 9 December 2016

Carbon Footprint of Cycling per Mile

Carbon Footprint of Cycling per Mile - Intro


Many basic graphs that compare cycling with other modes of transport rate cycling as "zero" impact.

This is fine as like walking cycling is one of the lowest carbon forms of transport available. However, when we consider the fuel that the cyclist uses i.e. the food they eat in order to gain the calories burnt in cycling does this change anything?

Carbon Footprint of Cycling per Mile - grams of CO2 per mile for a Car

Our benchmark for our CO2 per mile will be that described in "The Ecologist" of 168g/CO2/mile, for a car. 




Carbon Footprint of Cycling per Mile - grams of CO2 per mile for a Bicycle

Now consider the calories burnt cycling 1 mile on a Bicycle, this varies base don the speed and the weight of the rider, but a conservative figure might be 50 calories per mile. How does the cyclist get those calories . . . ?



Eating meat, is carbon intensive. . . a meat rich diet creates over double the CO2 footprint of a vegan diet. 



So if we we were to cycle 1 mile on a vegan diet, vegetarian or "all in" dirt we would create different emissions. 

gCO2 per mile by Diet 


So if we then apply our 50 calorie per mile number to the CO2 per calorie we get:

CO2 per mile by diet - Bicycle


Remember a mile in a car creates 168 gCO2, from burning fossil fuels.

Carbon Footprint of Cycling per Mile - Making a Comparison


Now the average person burns 68 calories per hour whilst sitting. On a single carriage way the driver of a car will burn 1.4 calories per mile. So we can add this CO2 burden to that produced by the fuel. Sp if we add in the metabolic co2 impacts we get. 

CO2 per mile by diet - Car

Carbon Footprint of Cycling per Mile - Conclusion

Cycling would appear to only save carbon if you eat a low meat diet. Please note this post is restricted to operational impacts only, and does not consider manufacturing impacts or infrastructure impacts. 


Monday, 25 April 2011

Carbon Accounting and Emisssions Factors. Whats that?

Carbon Accounting: As I understand it this is the umbrella term for embodied carbon and operational carbon. It depends on what project you are building as to which is the most important consideration. For a pumping station you may which to consider lavishing you budget on some efficient pumps, as you operational carbon use will be high otherwise, in comparison spending an unnecessary amount on low carbon building materials will only save small amounts, so it is more efficient use of money, in terms of carbon (and in the case money) to put you budget in to efficient pumps. A store shed on the other hand will have low operational carbon, so green building materials may be a viable option here.

Emissions Factors: These are the basis of all carbon accounting; they tell you how damaging a process is in term of emissions per unit volume. It is important to use a standardized Emissions factors set, and a presume this is why, DEFRA have released a booklet (downloadable) with lots of emissions factors in it. However, so emissions factors are still on the drawing board, SWW get some of theirs from research groups.

Environmental Consultants
Environmental Permitting
Desktop Study
Sustainability Consultants
Compliance Consultants