No abstract

Environmental impacts of 15 European pig farming systems were evaluated in the European Union Q-PorkChains project using life cycle assessment. One conventional and two non-conventional systems were evaluated from each of the five countries: Denmark, The Netherlands, Spain, France and Germany. The data needed for calculations were obtained from surveys of 5 to 10 farms from each system. The systems studied were categorised into conventional (C), adapted conventional (AC), traditional (T) and organic (O). Compared with C systems, AC systems differed little, with only minor changes to improve meat quality, animal welfare or environmental impacts, depending on the system. The difference was much larger for T systems, using very fat, slow-growing traditional breeds and generally outdoor raising of fattening pigs. Environmental impacts were calculated at the farm gate and expressed per kg of pig live weight and per ha of land used. For C systems, impacts per kg LW for climate change, acidification, eutrophication, energy use and land occupation were 2.3 kg CO2-eq, 44.0 g SO2-eq, 18.5 g PO4-eq, 16.2 MJ and 4.1 m2, respectively. Compared with C, differences in corresponding mean values were +13%, +5%, 0%, +2% and +16% higher for AC; +54%, +79%, +23%, +50% and +156% for T, and +4%, -16%, +29%, +11% and +121% for O. Conversely, when expressed per ha of land use, mean impacts were 10% to 60% lower for T and O systems, depending on the impact category. This was mainly because of higher land occupation per kg of pig produced, owing to feed production and the outdoor raising of sows and/or fattening pigs. The use of straw bedding tended to increase climate change impact per kg LW. The use of traditional local breeds, with reduced productivity and feed efficiency, resulted in higher impacts per kg LW for all impact categories. T systems with extensive outdoor raising of pigs resulted in markedly lower impact per ha of land used. Eutrophication potential per ha was substantially lower for O systems. Conventional systems had lower global impacts (global warming, energy use, land use), expressed per kg LW, whereas differentiated systems had lower local impacts (eutrophication, acidification), expressed per ha of land use.

No abstract

An assessment of net energy and supply potentials was performed to evaluate cassava utilization for fuel ethanol in Thailand. Just recently, the Thai government approved the construction of 12 cassava ethanol plants with the total output of 3.4 million liters per day by the next 2 years (2007 and 2008). The cassava fuel ethanol (CFE) system involves three main segments: cassava cultivation including processing, ethanol conversion, and transportation. All materials, fuels, and human labor inputs to each segment were traced back to the primary energy expense level. Positive Net Energy Value and Net Renewable Energy Value, 8.80 MJ/L and 9.15 MJ/L, respectively, found for the CFE system in Thailand proved that it is energy efficient. Without coproduct energy credits, CFE in Thailand is even more efficient than CFE in China and corn ethanol in the United States. Regarding supply potentials, about 35% of the national cassava production would be used to feed approved CFE factories. A shift of cassava to ethanol fuel rather than its current use for chip/pellet products could be a probable solution.

No abstract

Background, aim and scope After China and India, Thailand is considered another emerging market for fuel ethanol in Asia. At present, ethanol in the country is mainly a fermentation/distillery product of cane molasses, although cassava and cane juice are considered other potential raw materials for the fuel. This study aims to evaluate the environmental impacts of substituting conventional gasoline (CG) with molasses-based gasohol in Thailand. Materials and methodsThe life cycle assessment (LCA) procedure carried out follows three interrelated phases: inventory analysis, characterization and interpretation. The functional unit for the comparison is 1 l gasoline equivalent consumed by a new passenger car to travel a specific distance. ResultsThe results of the study show that molasses-based ethanol (MoE) in the form of 10% blend with gasoline (E10), along its whole life cycle, consumes less fossil energy (5.3%), less petroleum (8.1%) and provides a similar impact on acidification compared to CG. The fuel, however, has inferior performance in other categories (e.g. global warming potential, nutrient enrichment and photochemical ozone creation potential) indicated by increased impacts over CG. Discussion In most cases, higher impacts from the upstream of molasses-based ethanol tend to govern its net life cycle impacts relative to CG. This makes the fuel blend less environmentally friendly than CG for the specific conditions considered. However, as discussed later, this situation can be improved by appropriate changes in energy carriers.Conclusions The LCA procedure helps identify the key areas in the MoE production cycle where changes are required to improve environmental performance. Specifically, they are: (1) use of coal as energy source for ethanol conversion, (2) discharge of distillery spent wash into an anaerobic pond, and (3) open burning of cane trash in sugar cane production. Recommendations and perspectives Measures to improve the overall life cycle energy and environmental impacts of MoE are: (1) substituting biomass for fossil fuels in ethanol conversion, (2) capturing CH 4 from distillery spent wash and using it as an energy supply, and (3) utilizing cane trash for energy instead of open burning in fields.

No abstract

No abstract