LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND

DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES

Integrated Dairy Life Cycle by Despina Messologitis

Summer 2013 University New Hampshire

Katerina Messologitis Undergraduate Student Environmental Engineering ‘15

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 1 Table of Contents

I. List of Tables ...... 4 II. List of Figures ...... 4 III. Introduction ...... 5 Inclusive Analysis: The Triple Bottom Line ...... 5 Complexity of Sustainability as a Concept ...... 6 The Dilemma: Eliminate Environmental Impacts ...... 7 LCA Relative to Other Impact Assessment Tools ...... 8 Environmental Impact Tools ...... 8 Social Impact Tools ...... 8 Impacts from Economic Activity ...... 10 Social Metabolism ...... 11 IV. Life Cycle Assessment ...... 13 Purpose ...... 13 LCA Main Flow ...... 14 Goal Definition and Scope ...... 15 Inventory Analysis ...... 17 Impact Assessment ...... 18 Improvement Assessment ...... 22 Application of Social and Economic Impact Assessment ...... 23 V. Senior Project: Life Cycle Analysis of Organic Milk Production ...... 24 Summary ...... 24 Suggestions ...... 25 VI. Life Cycle Assessment in Literature ...... 27 Benchmarking environmental and operational parameters through eco-efficiency criteria for dairy farms ...... 27 The carbon footprint of dairy production through partial life cycle assessment ...... 27 Comparison of twelve organic and conventional farming systems: A life cycle greenhouse gas emissions perspective ...... 28 Environmental assessment tools for the evaluation and improvement of European livestock production systems ...... 29 Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic milk production ...... 29

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 2 Evaluation of indicators to access the environmental impact of dairy production systems ...... 30 Life cycle assessment of a representative dairy farm with limited irrigation pastures ...... 30 Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas analysis of a large-scale vertically integrated organic dairy in the United States ...... 31 Life cycle assessment (LCA) as a framework for addressing the sustainability of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) ...... 32 VII. Discussion and Conclusion ...... 33 Education and Communication ...... 33 Decrease Consumption, Decrease Pollution ...... 34 Trade-Offs ...... 35 Concluding Remarks ...... 35 VIII. Acknowledgements ...... 36 IX. References...... 37

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 3 List of Tables

Table 1: Impact Categories and Descriptions (EPA 2006) ...... 20 Table 2: Midpoints and Endpoints (EPA 2006) ...... 21

List of Figures

Figure 1: Triple Bottom Line Concept (Hart 2010) ...... 5 Figure 2: Weak vs. Strong Sustainability (Hart 2010) ...... 6 Figure 3: The ‘metabolism’ of cities: towards sustainability (adapted from Girardet and Rogers) (R.C. Doughty and P. Hammond 2004) ...... 11 Figure 4: Steps of LCA (EPA 2006) ...... 15 Figure 5: Malley's Triangle ...... 33

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 4 Introduction

Increasing awareness of sustainable human activity on the economic, social and environmental fabric of modern society has created a demand for methodologies to assess the individual impacts of production processes. Life cycle Assessment (LCA) has become established as one inclusive, but complex method for making such assessments. The purpose of this paper is to review the LCA method, to place this approach in the context of other assessment tools, and to explore the application of LCA and related methodologies to organic and conventional dairy systems. Throughout this review, the controversial word “sustainability” will be used in the context of a maintainable, renewable, and viable concept.

Inclusive Analysis: The Triple Bottom Line During the mid-1990s, John Elkington made a large contribution to a comprehensive framework for assessing human burdens by creating the Triple Bottom Line concept, which integrates social, economic, and environmental concerns. The motivation for the TBL was to increase interest in sustainability as a global concern. Economic models have quantitative weight, whereas environmental and social challenges may not. To distinguish between social and economic factors, social factors consider the community’s values and culture, whereas economic factors are the response to societal activity shown in capital. Questions to consider may include: To what standard is the quality of water or air determined? How is that quality valued in relation to social and economic concerns? Perhaps the biggest challenge is: How do we normalize environmental impacts compared against economic and social impacts (e.g. Figure 1)?

Figure 1: Triple Bottom Line Concept (Hart 2010)

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 5 Complexity of Sustainability as a Concept

There are many factors that need to be considered in order to achieve sustainability. In previous years, sustainability was thought to be that the impacts of a particular system on the environment, society, and economy should be limited to ensure there are enough resources for the future generations to have the same privileges we have today. Additionally, both intra- and intergenerational equity need to be considered when analyzing the feasibility of a system. But is achieving an eco-friendly process for today’s generation and future generations the best option? For example, increased efficiency in production may lead to increased consumption (the Jevons Paradox) (Huesemann 2004). How can decision makers predict future outcomes? It seems to be unrealistic. Therefore, sustainability essentially depends on societal values, economic demand, human demand, and the spatial environmental conditions.

In the 1970s, Robert Solow and John Hartwick defined two ways of describing sustainability termed “weak” and “strong” (Solow 1974 and Hartwick 1977). Weak sustainability is the idea that there will always be a solution through the use of technology and artificial products because the economy, society, and environment are independent of each other. Once a resource is depleted there will be replacement products to counteract the loss. Strong sustainability is the idea that the economy and society are dependent on the environment, where resources are limiting; therefore, it is important to conserve the Earth’s resources for current and future generations.

Figure 2: Weak vs. Strong Sustainability (Hart 2010)

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 6 Disciplinary examples of the application of strong sustainability include Green Chemistry and Green Engineering. Paul Anastas from Yale University defines Green Chemistry as a multidisciplinary field, which integrates science, engineering, business, and law (Anastas 2003). Green Engineering follows a similar approach which identifies twelve principles that need to be considered when analyzing a system’s ecological efficiency: inherent rather than circumstantial; prevention rather than treatment; design for separation; maximize mass, energy, space, and time efficiency; output-pulled versus input-pushed; conserve complexity; durability rather than immortality; meet need, minimize excess; integrate local material diversity; integrate local material and energy flows; design of commercial afterlife; and renewable rather than depleting (Anastas 2003). These characteristics form a baseline for a reliable, long-lasting system that strives to limit environmental challenges.

The Dilemma: Eliminate Environmental Impacts

Environmental concern and awareness has been growing in the United States for decades, with the first Earth Day in 1970 capturing the imagination of the country and acting as a catalyst for the formation of the EPA and the enactment of the first round of air and water quality statutes and standards. One outcome of this concern is a shift in consumer demand towards more environmentally-friendly processes, such as “organic” food production. As a result, the United States organic food sector has grown 15-20% every year throughout the past decade (Heller 2008). While the general attribute of “organic” can convey a sense that a process is more reliable, can its sustainability be quantified and compared with other processes? Using organic processes might cause unforeseen environmental problems either socially, economically, or environmentally.

Controversy over conventional and organic dairy farming has grown with increased demand for organic food products. On the surface, it seems as though organic must be better just because it is “organic” because this method does not us synthetic fertilizers or pesticides. However, when the life cycles of each production method are analyzed the results show varying support for both sides due to the increased land, energy, and water use. Upon analyzing the environmental burdens of the two methods, the deciding factor may lie in answering the following questions: What are the economic and social impacts of these different methods for dairy production? Which provides more jobs and higher economic gain, and on what basis do economic and social impacts trump environmental impacts?

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 7 Robert Araujo teaches his Industrial Ecology: Sustainable Enterprise Management course for Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute that there is no life cycle that eliminates environmental burdens because all materials are a product of energy and raw material use, and consequently contributes to global climate change and depletion of resources. Therefore, the only objective humans can achieve at this time, is not how to eliminate environmental impacts, but how we can reduce our wastes and emissions. Life cycle assessment allows for these burdens to be examined separately and summed into a single index. As society and its decision-makers choose which methods have the most negative impact, life cycle assessment provides an approach for quantifying each burden. It provides a valuation system that can pinpoint the most detrimental steps in a production process.

LCA Relative to Other Impact Assessment Tools Environmental Impact Tools

A number of tools are used in environmental analyses. Each one has a singular, unique purpose (CML, 1996). The tools often target a specific environmental impact, including risk assessment (RA), environmental impact assessment (EIA), substance flow analysis (SFA), technology assessment (TA), and environmental audit (EA). Although life-cycle assessment is similar to these environmental tools, there are some factors that set it apart. LCA is complex method that takes a “cradle-to-grave” analyzing multiple impacts throughout the life cycle. For example, SFA looks at nitrogen flows through an ecosystem, whereas LCA analyzes the end result of nitrogen sinks.

Social Impact Tools

Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is a specific form of LCA that analyzes the influences of a product on an identified community. For example, how can a conventional dairy farm compare to an organic dairy farm in relation to the community? Will the startup of a conventional farm push the organic one out of business? Will the strict regulations and increasing desire for organic farming influence large milk distributers to go organic, and how will that affect the local conventional or organic farms?

SIA can predict the outcomes presented by through analyzing people’s way of life, their culture, community, political systems, environment, health and wellbeing, personal and property rights, fears and aspirations. The wide diversity of ethnic cultures, social classes, and religious views

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 8 produces varying results across the world. Therefore, social impact assessment needs to be done on a case-to-case basis, especially when studying a specific problem in international or diverse communities.

Other guidelines and principles for performing SIA include identifying and continuously assessing the social consequences of development, by involving stakeholders at every step as well as considering the technical impacts on the environment. The public should be involved at all possible times in order to ensure an equitable system without any violations of the region’s human rights. SIA practitioners also need to collaborate with engineers and other professional to establish monitoring and mitigation programs, identify data sources, and account for gaps in data.

The following steps should be followed in order to bring the SIA to completion (Vanclay 2003):

1. Public involvement through developing an effective plan to involve all potentially affected parties 2. Describe proposed action or policy change and reasonable alternatives 3. Describe the relevant human environment/area of influence and baseline conditions 4. After obtaining a technical understanding of the proposal, identify the full range of probable social impacts that will be addressed based on discussion with affected parties (Scope). 5. Projection of estimated effects through investigation of the probable impacts. 6. Predicting responses to impacts by determining the significance to the identified social impacts 7. Estimate subsequent impacts and cumulative impacts 8. Recommended new or changed alternatives and estimate or project their consequences 9. Develop a mitigation plan 10. Develop a monitoring program

When thinking about the agricultural sector, global food security is also under the microscope when discussing socio-economic and environmental impacts of the production line, specifically in developing communities. Climate change is consistently affecting the food sector in poverty- ridden areas, and therefore may need to be analyzed when deciding whether organic or conventional farming is better in the long-run. Analysis of the environmental and social cycles

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 9 and flows may identify where improvement needs to be made. Preventing or mitigating climate change can help reduce the challenges that will affect the agricultural food sector.

On a smaller scale, it might be worth thinking about the impacts of introducing organic farming into communities that are centered on the farm they have owned for decades. If a conventional dairy farm has been located on a plot of land, but society is favoring organic dairy farming, it could hurt the already existing community in the sense of a commercialized organic farm taking over the economy. But, which is better: more money or community?

Impacts from Economic Activity

The third tier of sustainability is to account for the economics of production. With strong sustainability in mind, the economy depends on the society and environment. Therefore, economic input-output LCA (EIO-LCA) (Carnegie Mellon) is another LCA tool to quantify how the economy affects environmental and social aspects of a life cycle. The base economic model feeds into the local economy through local businesses using industrial products to make their own product. So, the input-output model identifies the emissions as well as the material and energy needs for inter-industry production. Inter-industry production focuses on the trade between different businesses, such as the computer, cellular, and automobile industries. Each one needs steel, plastic, glass, etc. To make the product.

The US Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (US BEA 2013) defines the Region Input-Output Modelling System (RIMS II) method as an economic impact assessment tool for inter-industry relationships. This model uses data from all different countries to compare input-output multipliers for specific regions.

EIO-LCA software programs can be found online, such as the Carnegie Mellon EIO-LCA (http://www.eiolca.net/). This tool calculates the impacts caused from economical activities within a regional sector based on how much money is put into a specific product. Economic models are used for the United States, Germany, Canada, and Spain with the latest data from 2002. EIO-LCA calculates the impacts in relation to economic activity, greenhouse gases, energy, hazardous waste (RCRA), conventional air pollutants, toxic releases, water withdrawals, transportations, land use, or TRACI impact Assessment.

A significant issue that lies beneath the surface of all economics is how to price goods. Full cost accounting takes the hidden costs of production and applies them to the overall cost of whichever

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 10 product is being sold (Carnegie Mellon). This is an important idea that is beginning to break the surface because of the increasing focus on environmental burdens. The additional costs that are transferred into higher pricing would include the necessary externalities that are affected, such as habitat loss, a person’s quality of life, water shortages in a drought-prone area, etc. Full cost accounting should be considered because at the end of the day, someone needs to pay for the impacts. Although the idea of full cost accounting establishes a baseline for holding consumers accountable for the life cycles of products they are purchasing, there are definitely difficulties that policy- and decision-makers run into when discussing the realistic applicability of this approach.

Social Metabolism

Material flows of ecosystems, including those from production, determine the social metabolism of products in a region. Social metabolism is the rate at which consumers use materials and energy that affect environmental and economic cycles. Before emphasis was put on sustainability and system thinking, linear metabolism was used in many processes, taking waste and putting it out of sight, out of mind. Now, circular metabolism emphasizes the recycling of materials wherever possible. Figure 3 shows the difference between linear and circular metabolisms. The circular or renewable model decreases the amount of waste and pollution outputs by reusing and recycling a portion of the “waste” materials.

Figure 3: The ‘metabolism’ of cities: towards sustainability (adapted from Girardet and Rogers) (R.C. Doughty and P. Hammond 2004)

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 11 Linear and renewable metabolisms can be seen in a comparison of organic and conventional dairy farming. They have similar materials flows, except the strict regulations in organic farming force a larger emphasis on recycling. Recycling materials within a process seems to be a great use of waste materials; however, the energy use for transportation and other processes need to be considered. Therefore, when introducing new ideas into a process to make it more eco-friendly, looking at the entire life cycle and burden shifting needs to be accounted for to decide if recycling is this best way to minimize environmental challenges.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 12 Life Cycle Assessment

Life-cycle assessment is a frequently used “cradle-to-grave” approach for assessing environmental impacts from the beginning of production to the final disposal. Which method of production, use and disposal is best will depend on how a product is made, where it goes, how it is disposed of, can it be recycled, and how those factors compare across the board.

Three major phases of a life-cycle assessment study are deciding on a methodology, acquiring data, and analyzing the data through use of a software program. Defining the methodology is the most important part of LCA because it states how the study is going to be carried out by defining specific guidelines and boundaries. Collecting and calculating data requires the largest amount of time due to the various sources of data, some of which may need to be found in literature and organized from outside sources. The use of commercially-available software is not required, but can aid in the organization of data, calculations, and results as opposed to using spreadsheets.

Purpose

The primary purpose of LCA is to establish an unbiased methodology for assessing the environmental impacts during each stage of a products life cycle and to compare impacts of multiple systems. Industrial, consumer, commercial, governmental and non-governmental organizations use these studies to modify their production lines, as a foundation for eco-labeling, or to set regulations and limits on emissions. Companies use them to isolate different parts of the production line to increase environmental sustainability, while researchers and engineers use LCA to modify a procedure, such as benchmarking dairy farming methods. “Life cycle” studies depend on the system boundaries that are considered and defined by inputs of raw material extraction and use, energy, and all outputs of atmospheric emissions, waterborne wastes, solid wastes, co-products, and other release (EPA, 1993).

LCA should not be used as a single determination of the “best” method for a product, process, or service in terms of cost analysis and efficiency. It should be used as one component of multiple determinations, as LCA studies can only provide the degree of environmental impacts.

Four stages of LCA are: 1) Definition of goal and scope of the study, 2) Life cycle inventory analysis, 3) Life cycle impact assessment, and 4) Improvement assessment. Depending on the specific goal and scope definition of the study, the level of intensity for each phase of LCA

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 13 vastly differs. The simplest form of LCA is estimating environmental impacts of a product or function to pinpoint where in the life cycle the largest improvement is needed. However, the data gathered in performing a life cycle analysis to enhance a particular product will need to be case- specific. Comparing one product with another is the most intensive type of LCA because the demand of data is now doubled, tripled, etc. (data depends on the number of products, processes, or services being compared) and requires precise information about each process.

LCA is intended to be an iterative process where each step builds upon previous determinations and uses a significant amount of refining throughout the study. Various roadblocks could arise, such as limited availability of data, requiring a change in the scope of the study.

LCA Main Flow

LCA is organized into nineteen sub-steps of the four phases defined in Section 2.1 (Figure 4). The first phase of LCA organizes and plans what will be determined in the study through defining the purpose, systems boundaries, specificity and organization, scope, and general rules for the study to follow. The purpose of the inventory analysis is to plan, gather and organize data, which includes a flow diagram to track each stage of the life cycle. Impact assessment defines the impact categories, scales the data to appropriate for the varying levels of emissions, and calculate the results.

Figure 4 represents the four stages of LCA in a flow chart. To account for the iterative process of these studies, the double ended arrows reminds the practitioner to check back to the previous phases, and the upward arrow is a reminder to constantly check back to the goal, scope, and system boundaries to refine and abide by the general rules (EPA 2006).

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 14 The framework of life cycle assessment

Impact assessment Goal definition and scope 10. DEFINE IMPACT CATEGORIES 1. DEFINE GOAL Inventory 11. analysis CLASSIFICATION

2. DEFINE SYSTEM 6. 12. BOUNDARIES FLOW DIAGRAM CHARACTERIZATION Improvement assessment 3. 13. SPECIFICITY 7. NORMALIZATION AND DATA 17. ORGANIZATION COLLECTION IDENTIFY OF DATA PLAN SIGNIFICANT 14. ISSUES GROUPING 8. 4. 18. COLLECT DATA DEFINE SCOPE 15. EVALUATION WEIGHTING

5. 19. 9. DEFINE 16. FINAL PROCESS DATA GROUND RULES PROCESS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS

Figure 4: Steps of LCA (EPA 2006)

Goal Definition and Scope

The goal and scope definition states the purpose and focus of the study, including the intensity and determination of how the depth of the study will change the outcome of results.

Define Goal

The motivation for the study must be identified to set the stage. Scientific, social, and economic diving forces and the level of importance of each aspect of the LCA should be clearly stated. The LCA practitioner should identify specific public policies and certifications that might affect data collection or interpretation of the results. The purpose of defining the goal is to say what is going to be accomplished at the completion of the study.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 15 Define Scope and System Boundaries

Defining the scope of the study answers the questions of what is actually being assessed by the LCA, including the raw material extraction, manufacturing, use, reuse, maintenance, recycle, and waste management. The type of LCA needs to be stated in scope definition to determine if the LCA will be a consequential or attributable, and if it will be comparative or analytical. Factors within the life cycle that do not contribute a significant amount should be left out of the study which may be determined through a sensitivity analysis.

Boundaries need to be defined by separating the system under study from the environment, other related systems, and relevant and irrelevant processes (CML, 1996). Creating a boundary between the proposed study and environment shows which inputs and outputs affect the environment as opposed to the natural cycles that occur within the environment itself. A boundary needs to be defined in order for only one product’s life cycle to be analyzed. For example, in a company or farm that has multiple functions, such as milk and meat production, one system needs to be targeted in order to perform the LCA on one specific operation. Lastly, a boundary between the relevant and irrelevant processes must be determined in order to save time. For instance, in the comparison between organic and conventional farming, would it be worthwhile to get the data on the production of the tractors on each site? Probably not because both farms need to use tractors, but the boundary would be set at the tractor use, such as how much diesel gas is needed. The final stages of distribution and end of life should be included in the system boundaries if they are going to be under the LCA microscope.

Specificity and Organization of Data

How specific the data needs to be will be determined in this phase. The purpose of doing so is to identify if the study will be analyzing a general or company specific process or operation. The audience will also need to be identified in order to determine the translation of information to the appropriate stakeholders. This step will also determine if the data can be average or specific data. If a comparative LCA were being done, specific information needs to be acquired, whereas a general process may suffice with using overall numbers across the board.

To efficiently organize gathered data, a functional unit must be used. A functional unit is the amount of studied product that will be analyzed. Under this unit, all of the inputs will need to be in terms of one liter of milk, including but not limited to electricity, water depletion, diesel, etc.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 16 For example, the functional unit of milk production could be one pound of milk, one pound of butter fat, one pound of energy-corrected milk, or one acre of land use. These functional units are used by taking each input and output, such as diesel fuel used and dividing it by the amount of the functional unit produced in a period of time.

Define Ground Rules

Because every situation has its own ramifications and specific characterizations, all of the assumptions must be made clear in the goal and scope of the study to let the readers know how these results were determined. Without proper statement of assumptions can lead to a vast range of false interpretations. Quality assurance of the data and results must also be sated in order to hold true to the goal and scope of the study. For example, if the scope of the study was to perform a life cycle assessment on dairy farming in New England, but the data set in the LCA software was gathered in the Netherlands, there will be some uncertainty. Reporting requirements and procedure must to be detailed and made clear to the reader.

Inventory Analysis

Inventory analysis is the stage of life cycle assessment where the data are quantified based on the chosen inputs and outputs of data.

Flow Chart

Create a flow chart to organize all of the material, energy, and transportation inputs, as well as non-hazardous and hazardous wastes, finished products, distribution, and end-of-life outputs for each process within the system boundaries. The flow chart should be organized in an easy-to- read way such that all information is concise and flows in a logical manner. Looking at each process as subsystems allows the practitioner to analyze every part in terms of its own inputs and outputs.

Data Collection Plan

Once the flow chart has been completed, a data collection plan will help to further organize what data needs to be gathered and how it will be recorded. Data quality analysis should answer specificity questions such as precision, completeness, representativeness, consistency, and reproducibility (EPA 2006). Data sources and recording also need to be planned, such as which data bases will be used within the LCA software and/or site-specific data, such as US

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 17 Government databases or self-recorded data. Spreadsheets will be helpful throughout data collection as well as LCA impact assessment, improvement assessment, and presenting the data.

Collect Data

Data is collected for the appropriate processes within the flow chart. All inventories, data sheets, and product composition must be included in order to be complete, especially in product comparison. If there are no data on a specific process or product, it may be possible to find information in the literature for a similar process. However, the literature may have different conditions, so it is necessary to pay close attention to the information that is used. International Organization Standards (ISO) should be referenced throughout the study, but is most useful during this stage.

Due to multiple uses of production lines, data allocation needs to be quantified. For example, milk from dairy cows can be used for milk, cheese, ice cream, or butter. Therefore, if the milk is being used for multiple purposes, all of the inputs and outputs need to have the correct allocation for the chosen functional unit; percentage of overall inputs and outputs goes towards one liter of milk. International Organization Standards (ISO) suggest avoiding allocation if possible, however, if it is not possible to do so, ISO 14040:2006 standards need to be followed (http://www.iso.org/).

Processing Data

The life cycle assessment inventory report needs to clearly demonstrate the methodology up to this point, including the goal and scope definition, data collection, assumptions, and general ground rules set at the beginning of the study. Based on the audience and parameters of the study, data results need to be organized in a tabular and graphical manner for complete comprehension of all environmental sinks. Inputs and outputs to material, energy, and transportation flows should be represented in this report to set the stage for the third stage of the LCA process. By analyzing the data collected and revisiting the goal and scope of the study, it will be apparent as to which path to take in impact assessment.

Impact Assessment

Life cycle impact assessment takes the data collected and scales the impacts based on various human health and environmental impact categories as well as the designated goal and scope of the study. These impact categories suggest possible levels of burdens, where risk cannot be

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 18 specifically analyzed. Midpoint and endpoint modelling methods quantify the environmental impacts in the life cycle. The midpoint method quantifies the emission potentials such as global warming, ozone depletion, eutrophication, etc. Whereas the endpoint method quantifies the end results of those impacts, such as cancer causing effects, habitat loss, human impairments, etc. Endpoint methods have much more uncertainty because they are predicting the end results of these impacts, but midpoint methods state factual impacts that result from carbon emissions or increased discharge of nutrients into waterways. Defining the impact categories, classification, characterization, and evaluation of results are mandatory steps in the ISO standards, whereas normalization, grouping, and weighting are not. Use of the optional steps depends on the goal and scope that were defined in the first stage of LCA and will also strengthen the conclusions made from life cycle impact assessment.

Define Impact Categories

Impact categories should be defined to target specific effects on the environmental and human health in support of the LCA goal and scope. In order to have a complete data set to analyze the impact categories, the categories need to be chosen at the beginning of the study. A table of possible impact categories can be seen in Table 1.

Classification

The data sets collected in phase two need to be organized into different classifications based on the impact categories that are defined. Possible classifications are listed in Table 1. If the data collected only affects only one impact category, the organization is simple. However, in many cases various environmental and human health impacts are intertwined and may need to be strategically organized. For example, electricity generation will be emitting CO2e emissions while increasing terrestrial and aquatic ecotoxicity. With the goal and scope in mind, coordinate the data into the correct impact categories.

Characterization

The basic concept of characterization is to convert each classification into a comparable form to quantify the environmental or human health impact potentials. These indices establish equivalents among different substances or emissions in terms of their impact on the category. Table 1 lists midpoint impacts (characterization factor) and the corresponding equivalents. Table 2 describes possible endpoint impacts for each midpoint.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 19 Table 1: Impact Categories and Descriptions (EPA 2006)

Impact Characterization Scale Classification Description of CF Category Factor (CF) Global Warming Global Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Global Warming CO2 equivalents (CO2e) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Potential Methane (CH4) Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) Methyl Bromide (CH3Br) Stratospheric Global Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) Ozone Depletion Trichlorofluoromethane Ozone Depletion Hydrochlorofluorocarbons Potential (CFC-11) equivalents (HCFCs) Halons Methyl Bromide (CH3Br) Acidification Regional Sulfur Dioxides (SOx) Acidification Hydrogen ion (H+) Local Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Potential equivalents Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) Hydroflouric Acid (HF) Ammonia (NH4) Eutrophication Local Phosphate (PO4) Eutrophication Phosphate (PO4) Nitrogen Oxide (NO) Potential equivalents Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Nitrates Ammonia (NH4) Photochemical Local Non-methane Hydrocarbon Photochemical Ethane (C2H6) Smog (NMHC) Oxidant creation equivalents Potential Terrestrial Local Toxic chemicals with reported LC50 Multimedia modelling Toxicity lethal concentration to rodents and exposure pathways for equivalents Aquatic Toxicity Local Toxic chemicals with reported LC50 Multimedia modelling lethal concentration to fish and exposure pathways for equivalents Human Health Global Total releases to air, water, and LC50 Multimedia modelling Regional soil and exposure pathways Local for equivalents Resource Global Quantity of minerals used Resource Depletion Ratio of quantity of Depletion Regional Quantity of fossil fuels used Potential resource used versus Local quantity of resource left Land Use Global Quantity disposed of in a Land Availability Mass of solid waste into Regional landfill or other land volume using estimated Local modifications density Water Use Regional Water depleted Water Shortage Ratio of quantity of Local Potential resource used versus quantity of resource left

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 20 Table 2: Midpoints and Endpoints (EPA 2006)

Scale Midpoint Endpoint Global warming Polar melt, soil moisture loss, longer seasons, forest loss/change, change in wind/ocean patterns

Global Ozone depletion Increased ultraviolet Resource depletion Decreased resources for future generations Photochemical smog Decreased visibility, “smog,” eye irritation, respiratory tract and lung irritation, and vegetation damage Acidification Building corrosion, water body acidification, vegetation effects, and soil

Regional effects Human health Increased illness and death Terrestrial toxicity Decreased production and biodiversity and decreased wildlife for hunting or viewing

Aquatic toxicity Decreased aquatic plant and insect production/biodiversity, and decreased commercial or recreational fishing Local Eutrophication Increased amount of nutrients into water bodies causing excessive plant growth and oxygen depletion Land use Loss of terrestrial habitat for wildlife and decreased landfill space Water use Loss of available water from groundwater and surface water sources

Normalization

Once classification and characterization is complete, normalization includes comparing the impact of system against global or regional totals for impacts by all processes. The difference between classification and normalization is that classification is the process of quantifying each input and output within the life cycle, whereas normalization is the equivalents of all impact categories in order to compare each midpoint or endpoint to each other to identify which has the largest burden and/or sink. When normalization is done, a reference value is chosen to standardize the values to. For example, if characterization showed global warming potential has the largest impacts on the overall life cycle, then, all of the values are normalized to the global warming potential to see how each compares.

Grouping

Grouping further organizes the results by characteristics that support the goal and scope of the study. For example, indicators may be grouped by types of emissions, a ranking system of high to low, or a global, regional, or local scale. By revisiting the goal and scope of the LCA, an appropriate grouping method is chosen.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 21 Weighting/Valuation

The last step for impact indicators is valuation, or weighting, which quantifies each process to identify the largest overall burden through process contribution. The goal and scope of the LCA will help in determination for the most accurate weighting system. This step is very controversial because many believe that it is based on judgment. Because each LCA will be performed slightly differently depending on the location and time, the weighting process needs to be clearly documented and described to avoid confusion. Weighting is the most challenging step due to it being the least scientific and most disputed as it relies on the values of stakeholders. For example, the Great Bay in New Hampshire has been targeted by environmental scientists and engineers to mitigate the ever-higher nutrient contamination. Therefore, a weighting system for eutrophication would determine the highest burden. However, if the same study was performed in Sweden, acidification potential might be of more concern.

Process Results

Once the results are analyzed, this step is to combine all of the findings and make a decision on which part of the process needs improvement based on the highest environmental and human health burdens. All methodology needs to be documented and results need to be presented and explained with the use of graphs to complement each conclusion.

Improvement Assessment

The improvement assessment concludes the LCA study and determines which process produces the highest environmental impact and how it can be improved. It targets specific parts of the life cycle to suggest improvements that can decrease negative burdens on the environment and human health. However, in order to make a sound conclusion, an uncertainty analysis must be performed to check the completeness, sensitivity, and consistency of the LCA.

Problem shifting may occur when an “improvement” is made on a process making it seems as though it is more eco-friendly, when in reality, the environmental impact was just moved into a different part of the life cycle. LCA software does take two out of the three problem shifting affects into account, shifting from one stage to another and shifting from one location to another (CML, 1996) by refining the study as changes are made. However, LCA cannot account for problem shifting from one product to the next.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 22 A well-written improvement assessment requires the practitioner to revisit the goal and scope of the study and the previous steps to make changes where necessary and assure consistency. It will also recommend possible solutions for improvement depending on the values of stakeholders and the level of importance of specific impact categories. All methodology must be thoroughly explained and address all aspects of the study where judgment can affect the quality of conclusions.

Application of Social and Economic Impact Assessment Within many LCA software programs a social impact assessment option is available. In this case, the results of the SIA may be analyzed alongside the environmental LCA. However, it is best to do a separate SIA to assure a thorough assessment has been done and all of the societal assumptions and data are correct for the specific region under study. As for the economic input- output life cycle assessment, it is best to use one of online tools described in Section 1.2.3 to achieve optimal results.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 23 Senior Project: Life Cycle Analysis of Organic Milk Production

Each year, the University of New Hampshire (UNH) requires that undergraduate seniors complete a senior project assignment over the duration of the spring semester and present at the Undergraduate Research Conference. In May 2013, a group of four students completed a life- cycle assessment of UNH’s Organic Dairy Research Farm (ODRF) to satisfy this requirement.

Summary

The goal of this study was to compare the life cycles of conventional versus organic dairy farming from cradle-to-farm gate.

Organic and conventional dairy farming at UNH raise different cows, Jerseys and Holsteins, respectively. The major difference between the cows is Jersey cows produce less milk, but higher butterfat and protein content, whereas Holstein cows produce more milk with less butterfat and protein. Depending on the purpose of the LCA, possible functional units include one pound of butterfat, energy corrected milk, liquid milk, or one acre of land. In this case, milk production was under assessment; therefore, the functional unit used was one pound of milk.

The four students used a life-cycle assessment program, Simapro, which is widely used in to perform LCA studies. They collected data from various sources to create a complete and accurate analysis of each farm. The data sets were split into three categories: feed, bedding, and emissions. Within feed and bedding categories, fuel and electricity values were calculated, while emissions calculated the nitrogen fluxes and methane production.

The results of this study suggested that organic dairy farming has significantly more environmental impacts than conventional farming. However, that could be due to the fact that the amount of milk produced varies depending on the type of cattle raised. Production of feed and electricity were found to have the largest environmental impacts for organic farming. Additional research on farm, such as Matthew Smith’s UNH- Doctoral research on an aerobic digester for compost, is moving towards reducing the

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 24 impacts of organic farming by creating rich fertilizer and using the heat produced as a clean hot water system to disinfect milk.

Because of the land requirements of organic farming, cows need to be grazing for at least 120 days out of the year. In addition, animal bedding and grain production for organic dairy farming requires much more land in order to satisfy the regulations. Therefore, conventional dairy farming has shown to be favored in all three of these aspects.

In addition, ongoing research on the ODRF of nitrogen fluxes and enteric emissions may have some importance in further LCA studies for site specific data.

Suggestions

After reviewing the life cycle analysis on organic milk production, it was clear that agricultural LCA studies are extremely difficult to perform. In addition, the available data for New England agriculture is limited, which restricts the accuracy of datasets used in the programs.

One of the main focuses of an LCA study is to move towards being more environmentally friendly. Therefore, the best way to move forward is to perform a specific LCA on the organic dairy to specify the areas that need improvement, opposed to a comparative study that only relates to the differences between two farming methods.

The organic certification states that no synthetic materials can be used in products supplied to the farm. Therefore, the land use due to organic grain production increases the agricultural land occupation enormously. When the students analyzed the product contribution for organic feed production, grain production had the largest impact. However, it was found that between the organic and conventional dairies, there was double the amount of feed need for conventional farms than organic, yet the impacts shown in Simapro identify the organic feed process as having a larger burden. This concept was shown through images from the Simapro software, but was not discussed within the senior capstone report, neglecting to mention an integral part of organic dairy farming.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 25 It might be beneficial to input the data from research done by Alix Contosta, a post- doctoral research associate for the earth systems research center at unh, for a baseline of the environmental impacts of nitrogen fluxes and enteric gases for the farm. The USDA has a couple of computer models called DairyGHG and integrated farm systems models (IFSM) that look at the greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts. With these models, it is possible to use this data as other databases in Simapro for more accurate results.

Through using updated data from Contosta and Smith’s research, a follow up LCA should be performed. As time was a serious limitation in the preliminary study, the next study should be executed over a longer period of time to account for the delays of data collection.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 26 Life Cycle Assessment in Literature

LCA has been applied to dairy farming and related activities in a number of different ways, and in a number of places. The purpose of this section is to review some of the recent literature on this topic.

Benchmarking environmental and operational parameters through eco-efficiency criteria for dairy farms

Life cycle assessment can be used as a comparative approach to identify the largest burden in the dairy farming industry. A study by Iribarren et al. (2011) targets multiple dairy farms in Galicia, Spain to assess both environment and economic factors.

The method of combining life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis (LCA+DEA) is to benchmark 72 conventional and organic dairy farms in Galicia based on each farm’s inputs and outputs. In addition to assessing the environmental impacts through LCA, the combined methodology approximates the economic efficiency. LCA + DEA address two of the triple bottom line’s sustainability objectives. Efficiency scores are allocated to specific processes, such as feeding method, raw milk, metabolizable energy intensity, etc. for iterative purposes and to show which farms practice the most effective farming methods.

An analysis performed by Iribarren et al. Of milk production methods states that by reducing environmental impacts throughout the life cycle of dairy farming, higher profits can be achieved. He also points out that while LCA + DEA should be integrated into policy making, this methodology needs improvement to identify the correlation between environmental hot spots and efficiency.

The carbon footprint of dairy production through partial life cycle assessment

Concern over greenhouse gas emissions has prompted many experts to assess the rate at which agricultural processes release these gases. Rotz et al. (2010) perform ed a partial life cycle assessment targeting the dairy sector in Pennsylvania and California.

DairyGHG is a model used to calculate the total greenhouse gas emissions from the farm. Primary and secondary emissions were identified and organized into inputs and outputs based on the system boundaries of cradle-to-farm gate. Primary emissions

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 27 include enteric fermentation, manure, feed production, and on-farm machinery fuel use. Secondary emissions are defined as the emissions from production of resources. A set of calculations are used to determine the net sinks and sources of the primary and secondary emissions using the appropriate allocations for milk and animal production.

Rotz et al. conclude that partial life cycle assessment is useful when targeting an explicit environmental impact. He compared DairyGHG and each component of the model to previous studies and publications to prove this model is an accurate estimation of the carbon footprint in milk production.

Comparison of twelve organic and conventional farming systems: A life cycle greenhouse gas emissions perspective

As organic farming is catching the interest of consumers, it is important to understand that the environmental impacts of organic farming are different for each product. Venkat (2012) compares organic, organic-transitional, and conventional farming of twelve different crops in California using life cycle assessment. This study provides useful information on the LCA process of farming and identifies a mitigation technique to rising greenhouse gas emissions through transitional organic farming.

Venkat uses FoodCarbonScope, the life cycle assessment model with pas 2050:2008 standards which excludes employee transport, human energy input, and animal labor. Within this study he uses CarbonScopData as the corresponding life cycle inventory to provide data for specific regions in North America.

Based on the results of the LCA, Venkat concludes that organic farming generally has a lower yield of greenhouse gas emissions and performs better than conventional faming. However, the results can be variable when considering the impacts of problem shifting that may not be seen in the LCA initially. For example, organic farming eliminates the use of fertilizers, therefore needing more land and fuel in order to satisfy the food and energy demands. These results agree with numerous papers regarding organic versus conventional dairy farming because higher land- and fuel-use is required to satisfy the regulations of organically grown produce. Transitional organic farming was shown to have the lowest impacts overall.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 28 Environmental assessment tools for the evaluation and improvement of European livestock production systems

Many environmental indicator tools have been developed that address the ongoing challenge of developing sustainable agricultural systems. Halberg et al. (2005) discuss and apply a number of these tools to an example system; p-surplus pig farms and milk production in the Netherlands. Tools are categorized by function and orientation.

The authors compile and present information about several environmental assessment tools. The European environmental agency uses indicator reporting on the integration of environmental concerns into agricultural policy (IRENA) and driving-force-pressure- state-impact-response (DPSIR) to aid in classification. Other tools reviewed include Ecopoints (EP), environmental management for agriculture (EMA), dialete (DIA), LCA for environmental farm management (LCAE), and ecological footprint (EF). Each of these is fully described and related back to DPSIR. LCA is discussed in terms of why it is used, but not much detail is given on the methodology. Halberg et al. also address the importance of accurately benchmarking systems to improve the efficiency of a process. The tables presented provide a great deal of easily accessible information that helps compare these different assessment tools.

Based on this thorough review of a number of different assessment tools, Halberg et al. conclude that both multiple indicators and benchmarking should be used to reach a specific conclusion. They also point out that while assessments need to be as comprehensive and accurate as possible, political considerations will play a role in final decision-making.

Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic milk production

The comparison of conventional and organic milk production has been under the microscope of the agricultural field due to the varying environmental impacts of each. Boer et al. (2003) describes each part of a life cycle assessment study on conventional and organic dairy farming in Sweden, Netherlands, and Germany.

Boer et al. used previous case studies in his comparison of farming methods. Global warming potential, eutrophication potential, and acidification potential were the main environmental impacts discussed. However, ecotoxicity, energy use, and land use were also compared when data allowed.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 29 Boer et al. states that LCA studies from different regions cannot be compared to one another due to the varying conditions. The results on which is more eco-efficient will definitely differ across boundaries because of the environmental situations. This needs to be noted when considering problem shifting because organic may prove to be better in one climate, where as conventional may succeed in another. Therefore, he concludes LCA comparisons on such intricate systems need to be performed locally.

Evaluation of indicators to access the environmental impact of dairy production systems

The copious amount of environmental indicators that have been developed over the years can leave a researcher or farm manager wondering which is the best model to calculate environmental impacts is. Boer et al. (2005) gathered eight different organic commercial farms in the Netherlands to analyze three environmental indicators, input- output accounting, ecological footprint analysis, and life cycle assessment. These indicators were analyzed based on their individual purpose, reliability, and availability of data.

Input-output accounting provides the stakeholders with annual estimates of nh3/ha farm area, kg of surplus n/ha farm area, and kg of surplus p/ha farm area. Ecological footprint analysis provides biologically productive area (BPA)/kg of fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM). Life cycle assessment provides environmental impacts per a functional unit such as hectare land use/kg FPCM, MJ of fossil fuel/kg FPCM, global warming potential equalized to kg co2/kg FPCM, eutrophication potential equalized to kg no3- per ha of farm or total area, or g no3-/kg FPCM, and acidification potential equalized to kg so2 per ha of farm or total area, or g so2/kg FPCM.

Boer et al. concluded that input-output accounting and life cycle assessment are more accurate environmental indicators because they provide the stakeholders with more relevant higher quality, and the data is more readily available opposed to ecological footprint analysis.

Life cycle assessment of a representative dairy farm with limited irrigation pastures

With the increasing demand on organic dairy farming and large number of dairy farms in Queensland, Australia, a life cycle assessment was performed to identify the areas

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 30 with the highest environmental impacts for a farm with a limited irrigation pasture. Chen et al. (2005) chose to use one liter of raw milk as the functional unit and use Simapro 5.1 software to carry out the cradle-to-farm gate study.

In this study, three environmental impact categories were considered including resources (fossil fuels, land and mineral uses), ecological quality (climate change, acidification/eutrophication, radiation, depletion of stratospheric ozone, and eco- toxicity), and human health (carcinogens, and respiratory organics and inorganics). There were several assumptions made in this study and the model did not account for co-production allocation, such as cow meat; small-scale contributions were not accounted for; no artificial drying, silage and processing was used; and this was performed for a hypothetical farm.

Chen concludes that farmers’ focus should be on fertilizer use and energy use of irrigation pumps. A third key environmental burden lies in cow methane emissions 1.

Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas analysis of a large-scale vertically integrated organic dairy in the United States

The organic dairy sector has increased 16-34% in past years, which accounts for approximately 13.8% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. Heller et al. (2011) performed a life cycle assessment at six aurora organic dairy farms (AOD) to represent large-scale organic dairy farming to benchmark greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption.

Heller et al. used the functional unit of 1 liter of package fluid milk and completed a cradle-to-grave assessment using Simapro 7.1.6. AOD production, feed production, fuel cycles, co-production allocation, and greenhouse gas emissions were analyzed. Organic and conventional dairy farming were compared and economics were also addressed here.

The results of this LCA show that feeding, enteric fermentation and transportation have the largest environmental burdens when analyzing the greenhouse gas emissions and

1 Research at UNH is looking into the use of various feeds that may reduce cow methane emissions and an aerobic composting method to reduce additional methane emissions and synthetic fertilizers.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 31 energy consumption. The authors identify the need for more specific and accurate data for feed production across the U.S. it is also suggested that the use of renewable electricity may reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions by 12% and 4.7%, respectively, and the use of 100% biodiesel would reduce those emissions by 18% and 8.7%. As a conclusion, Heller et al. State that there is not a huge difference between conventional and organic dairy farming for AOD farms due to the observation that agronomic parameters contribute the most to total energy use and GHG emissions than organic certification.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) as a framework for addressing the sustainability of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)

Concentrated animal feeding operations contribute to various environmental burdens, such as the discharge of high concentrations of nutrients that cause eutrophication and degradation of water, air and land; discharge of high concentrations of heavy metals into the environment causing land and water degradation; and the discharge of high concentrations of antibiotics that cause degradation of water, land and air. Doby et al. (2005) performed this LCA in Cincinnati, Ohio to identify stages in the life cycle where reductions in environmental emissions from CAFOs could be achieved.

Doby et al. reviewed LCA literature on CAFOs and found that these studies are unique in that the concentrations are so high that special waste treatment is needed rather than land application. Treatment facilities that dealt with the CAFO waste was also analyzed. The following scenarios were taken into account: animal and municipal solid waste with optimized manure handling, animal and municipal solid waste without optimized manure handling, and only animal waste to test the efficiency of biogas production.

Based on this review, it is suggested that a combined process of waste treatment be used to reduce the high concentrations of macro- and micronutrients and heavy metals. Doby et al. also suggest that transfer of recovered nutrients to other processes may reduce the impact of CAFOs.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 32 Discussion and Conclusion

Life-cycle assessment is an innovative tool to quantify multiple environmental impacts of a specific product or process. However, LCA should not be used as the only environmental tool for decision-making due its limitations. Depending on the goal and scope of the study, the practitioner may use other tools instead of LCA, or combine the LCA with impact assessments that enable analyses of all three tiers of sustainability.

Education and Communication

LCA and impact tools are used to quantify the challenges that lie in production systems; however, the way this knowledge is to be communicated to the public has not been completely effective thus far. Quite frankly, that is the most important part of sustainability; getting people to care. Dr. James Malley, a professor of environmental engineering at UNH, presents the “Malley Triangle” to his class to demonstrate the level of influence of three tiers of the TBL. Increasing people’s awareness of the issues that lie within cradle-to-cradle, cradle-to-end of life, or cradle-to-farm gate is important because the people and politics are usually the decision- makers. Therefore, if the engineer or practitioner does not have an effective way of presenting the results to company or farm, or the functional unit was manipulated to promote a product, the LCA was essentially done without a purpose.

P Political

E Economic T Technical

Foundation

Figure 5: Malley's Triangle

Communication across disciplines is also a necessary step towards improvement. All ecosystems and productions lines are closely interconnected. Therefore, multidisciplinary groups need to be formed when dealing with LCA studies and impact assessments. The point of views from all

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 33 fields will contribute to an efficient working community so people’s strengths are exploited and put to use rather than re-inventing the wheel each time someone has to learn a new subject.

In addition to communication, educating students at a younger age is another key aspect of lessening our impact on the environment because they are going to be the future decision- makers. If students are taught the ideas of conservation of water, energy, and materials early in elementary school, they are more apt to apply these values moving towards less consumption and impact on the environment. Educating young students emphasizes the use of strong sustainability and a more efficient social metabolism. Education and communication will provide a stronger foundation for moving forward and finding a solution to prevent pollution rather than treating it.

Decrease Consumption, Decrease Pollution

Organic versus conventional dairy farming has a huge influence on the agricultural sector and contributes a significant amount to greenhouse gases and environmental burdens because of the demand of dairy and beef products across the world. As demand increases, land use increases proportionally to environmental burdens.

Dairy products not only contain calcium and protein necessary for a healthy lifestyle, but also unhealthy components such as fat and cholesterol. Cheese, milk, ice cream, yogurt, etc. Should be consumed in moderation. Moving towards a vegetarian or partial vegan lifestyle would decrease these impacts as demand decreases. However, the downside to this, is that consumption drives the economy and society. Tim Jackson addresses the issue of how much to consume in the article, Live Better by Consuming Less? He concludes his paper with a very logical and truthful conclusion that it is up to the society to take his ideas into account and consider how much to consume based on their values.

Through the use of greener technologies, less pollution is emitted and accounted for; therefore, fewer costs are associated with treating the pollution occurring from the processes. For example, sending manure to a landfill from a farm is more expensive than treating it onsite because not only are there greenhouse gas emissions from transportation of the manure to the landfill, but also with paying the facility to take the waste. The only situation that it may be more beneficial is if the landfill is located close to the farm operations. Sustainability incentives are also set by governments that industries, companies, or individuals may benefit from to increase the use of renewable technologies.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 34 Trade-Offs

The textbooks and scientific papers clarified the need to identify the possible areas where problem shifting can occur during an LCA study. This is one of the most important aspects of an LCA study because problem shifting can easily be overlooked and decrease the quality of the study. In order to reduce the possibility of this, combining environmental, social, and economic tools with LCA is a good way to avoid some, or even all, of problem shifting.

In addition, it is not possible to compare agriculture studies across different areas due to the variation of climates, nutrients, processes, etc. Therefore, agricultural studies for specific areas need to be performed independently. An issue that was found with using foreign LCA software in the United States is the datasets are generated in terms of the native countries procedures. So, using these datasets on U.S. processes can decrease the quality of the study.

Concluding Remarks

Because LCA studies analyze multiple environmental impacts within a certain process, these assessments can be used to identify problems with a specific procedure and ultimately benchmark the processes that work the best in terms of environmental, economic, and social impacts. LCA has created an increased emphasis on looking at a production process as part of a larger production ecosystem, but therein lays a significant need for further research and continuous data gathering in order to perform these studies accurately.

As LCA research becomes more prevalent in American technology, improvements are being made on the current partial LCA software, such as DairyGHG. Therefore, it will be useful to discuss these issues with other researchers to increase their range of assessment.

Aside from the continuous research on LCA and its applications, the most important strategy of a successful LCA that needs to be mastered is material presentation. Being unable to explain how and why an LCA study was performed could divert the attention of the audience, in turn diverting them away from improvement. Using efficient community involvement and communication between technical professionals and decision-makers will accomplish the complex goal of overcoming the challenges of an environmentally, socially, and economically sound system.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 35 Acknowledgements

Dr. John Aber was my faculty advisor and was an enormous help through understanding the processes in dairy farming and agriculture, and introducing me to closed-loop systems on the farm. He is a continuous inspiration to carry out research in the environmental fields. Dr. Kevin Gardner and Deanna Auliso teach ENE 751: Introduction to Sustainable Engineering, which was an enormous help through the duration of writing this paper because of their expertise on the concept and use of life cycle assessment software. Dr. James Malley has also greatly helped me in analyzing problems in real life situations through the eyes of an engineer. He emphasizes the need to “know your client,” which was the basis of some ideas in this paper.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 36 References

Anastas, P.T., and Zimmerman, J.B. 2003. Design through the Twelve Principles of Green Engineering. Environmental Science Tech. 37(5). 94A-101A. Araujo, R. Industrial Ecology: Sustainable Enterprise Management Course. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Carnegie Mellon University: Conway-Schempf, Noellette. Full cost accounting: A course module on incorporating environmental and social costs into traditional business accounting systems. CML, Centre of Environmental Science, Novem, Netherlands Agency for Energy and the Environment, RIVM, Research for Man and Environment, and UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme. 1996. Life Cycle Assessment: What it is and how to do it. Paris: UNEP. COWI Consulting Engineers and Planners AS, Denmark. 2000. Cleaner production assessment in dairy processing. Paris: UNEP. Doby, T., M. Gonzalez, and M. Curran. 2006. Life cycle assessment (LCA) as a framework for addressing the sustainability of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). World Environmental and Water Resource Congress 2006. 1-9. Doughty, Mark R. C. and P. Hammond, Geoffrey. 2004. Sustainability and the built environment at and beyond the city scale. University of Bath, Calverton Down, Bath, UK. EIO-LCA: Free, Fast, Easy Life-Cycle Assessment. Carnegie Mellon University: Economic Input-Output Impact Assessment. Gerber, P. G. Vellinga, C. Opio, B. Henderson, and H. Steinfeld. 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector: A life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Animal Production and Health Division. Rome, Italy. Guangnan, C., S. Orphant, S.J. Kenman, and R.G. Chataway. 2005. Life cycle assessment of a representative dairy farm with limited irrigation pastures. 4th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment, Sydney, Australia. Halberg, N., H.M.G. van der Werf, C. Basset-Mens, R. Dalgaard, J.M.deB. Imke. 2005. Environmental assessment tools for the evaluation and improvement of European livestock production systems. Livestock Production Science. 96. 33-50. Hartwick, John M. 1977. Intergenerational equity and the investment of rents from exhaustible resources. American Economic Review. 972-74. Heller, M., S. Cashman, K. Dick, D. Przybylo, W. Walter, and G. Keoleian. 2008 Life-cycle energy and greenhouse gas analysis of a large-scale vertically integrated organic dairy. U.S. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector, Zurich, November 12-14. 286-294. Huesemann, M.H. 2004. The failure of eco-efficiency to guarantee sustainability: future challenges for industrial ecology. American Institute of Chemical Engineers.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 37 Imke J.M de Boer. 2003. Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic milk production. Livestock Production Science. 80. 69-77. Iribarren, D., A.Hospido, M.T. Moreira, and G. Feijoo. 2011. Benchmarking environmental and operational parameters through eco-efficiency criteria for dairy farms. Science of the Total Environment. 409. 1786-1798. Jackson, Tim. 2005. Live better by consuming less? Is there a “double dividend” in sustainable consumption? Centre of Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey. McCowan, M., J. Evancic, D. Estochen, and S.Uhlman. 2013. Life cycle analysis of organic milk production: Senior Project assignment. Tech. Durham: University of New Hampshire. McGeough, E.J., S.M. Little, H.H. Janzen, T.A. McAllister, S.M. McGinn, and K.A. Beauchemin, 2012. Life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from dairy production in Eastern Canada: A case study. Journal of Dairy Science. 95. 5164-5175. Orsato, Renato J. 2006. Competitive Environmental Strategies: When does it pay to be green? California Management Review. 48 (2). Rotz, C.A., F. Montes, D.S. Chianese. 2010. The carbon footprint of dairy production systems through partial life cycle assessment. Journal of Dairy Science. 93. 1266-1282. Slaper, T.F., and T.J. Hall. 2013. The Triple Bottom Line: What is it and how does it work? Indiana University Kelley School of Business, Indiana Business Research Center. Solow, Robert M. 1974. Intergenerational equity and exhaustible resources. Review of Economic Studies, Symposium. 29-46. Thomassen, M.A., K.J. van Calker, M.C.J. Smits, G.L. Iepema, and I.J.M. de Boer. 2008. Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands. Agricultural Systems. 96. 95-107. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2013. Regional Multipliers from the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II): A Brief Description. Vanclay, Frank. 2003. International principles for Social Impact Assessment. International Association for Impact Assessment. Venkat, K. 2012. Comparison of twelve organic and conventional farming systems: A life cycle greenhouse gas emissions perspective. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 36. 620-649. Wilbey, R A. 2007. The guide on life cycle assessment towards sustainability in the dairy chain. International Journal of Dairy Technology. 60. 154-155.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: THE PROCESS AND DAIRY FARM CASE STUDIES – SUMMER 2013 38