Helping sugarcane farmers make carbon abatement decisions - a life cycle assessment (LCA) based eco-efficiency calculator CaneLCA Marguerite Renouf SRDC Project No. UQ045 Investigators: UQ Marguerite Renouf, Nicole Price BSES Peter Allsopp, Bernard dsh Schroeder Contributors: BSES Peter McGuire, Brad Hussey DERM Phil Moody Growers Andrew Barfield (Mackay), Ian Dawes (NSW), Robert Quirk (NSW) Industry review: Canegrowers Bernard Milford, Jonathan Pavetto ASMC Sharon Denny DERM Phil Moody Reef Catchments Rob Cocco, Robyn Bell SRI@QUT Phil Hobson
Content 1. About the CaneLCA Eco efficiency Calculator 2. Using CaneLCA to inform practice change in cane growing 3. Assessing carbon abatement using CaneLCA 4. Future developments
About CaneLCA Key features Streamlined environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) Outputs are eco efficiency ratings of sugarcane production practices Helps users compare practices and identify eco efficient practices Users: Extension advisors / farmers
About CaneLCA energy use carbon footprint water use water quality eutrophication ecotoxicity
CaneLCA Map DATA INPUT (Sheets 1 8) About CaneLCA RESULTS (Sheet 10) INPUT SUMMARY (Sheet 9) ENVIRONMENTAL Describing cane growing Eco efficiency Cane growing parameters IMPACTS practices indicators data input by the user calculated by the tool calculated by the tool calculated by the tool (per area) (per t cane) (not reported) (as a % of industry ranges) Soil work transport effort (tkm) Non renewable details of soil work: shipping energy input ENERGY USE row width rail and road frieght (MJ/t cane) tractor operations farm vehicle use CARBON FOOTPRINT implements used shipping WATER USE Nutrient management application rates for: machinery operation (MJ/kWh) Greenhouse gas emissions WATER QUALITY fertilisers fuel / electricity use for: (kg CO 2eq/t cane) eutrophication ameleorants tractors, harvesters Carbon footprint minerals farm vehicles WATER QUALITY nutrients pumps ecotoxicity Eutrophication potential Pest management machinery production (kg) (kg PO 4eq/t cane) application rates for: tractors, harvesters herbicides pumps insecticides irrigation pipework fungicides Ecotoxicity pesticides water use (L) potential for f irrigation i (kg 1,4DCBeq/t 14DCB cane) Harvesting agro chemical inputs (kg) type of harvesting urea, DAP, Granam, KCl harvesting efficiency pesticide active ingredients Water use residue management lime, dolomite, gypsum (kl/t cane) Water footprint Irrigation water application rates pumping details machinery operations for irrigation emissions (kg) N2O to air (direct & indirect) NH4 to air N & P to water COD (sugar) to water
Eco efficiency Rating (for harvested sugarcane) About CaneLCA The bars in the graph shows the eco efficiency ratings (from 1 10) for the assessed scenario for five environmental aspects. The eco efficiency ratings represents how the assessed scenario compares with sugar industry ranges (1=least eco efficient, efficient 10=most eco efficient). efficient) Farm name: Scenario: Mackay Hypothetical B class Eco efficiency rating 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Fossil fuel use Carbon footprint Water use Water quality eutrophication potential Water quality ecotoxicity potential 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Environmental impacts relative to industry maximums Soil management Tractor operation for soil work Irrigation (and dewatering) Pumping Nutrient management N 2 O emissions (to air) Tractor operation associated with irrigation Nutrient emissions (to water) Extraction of water from managed water resources Production of fertilisers and minerals Other farm operations Tractor operation for slashing Tractor operation for applying fertilisers, ameliorants and minerals Farm vehicle operation Truck operations for applying ameliorants and minerals Production of farm assets Pesticide management Emissions (to water) from herbicide application Water heating for treating seed cane Emissions (to water) from insecticide application Transport Transport of fertilisers (shipping from overseas) Emissions (to water) from fungicide application Transport of fertilisers and minerals (domestic freight) Production of pesticides Transport of fertilisers and minerals (local delivery to the farm) Tractor operation for applying pesticides Transport of pesticides (shipping, domestic freight and local freight Harvesting Emissions (to air) from cane burning Organic emissons (to water) from sugar loss Cane harvester operation Harvester operation for fallow crops
Informing practice change A class B class C class D class Cultivation Nutrient management Pest management Irrigation Informed by the industry s ABCD best practice framework Harvest and haulout Residue management
Informing practice change Category Type of practice change Agronomic benefits Expected environmental benefits Cultivation controlled traffic (wider row width) fewer, larger tractors / implements lower tillage less compaction better soil drainage better soil health / yields less fossil fuel use less capital goods less GHG (N 2 O) yield benefits Nutrient management use of mill mud, dunder precision application sub surface application lower N costs less GHG (N 2 O) less nutrients to waterways less impacts from fertilisers Pest non residual l pesticides id more efficient i control of less l pesticide id towaterwayst management precision application weeds, insects, disease application methods will loss Irrigation irrigation amount to match soil type regular l water efficiency i checks tailings recovery (where possible) better crop response less water use less l energy impacts for pumping Harvesting / residue management harvesting green instead of burnt trash retention (where possible) improved i dharvesting efficiency i water retention less sediment loss N N cycling better soil health / yields avoided air emissions from burning less l sediment, N, P and COD to waterways
Eco efficiency Rating (for harvested sugarcane) About CaneLCA The bars in the graph shows the eco efficiency ratings (from 1 10) for the assessed scenario for five environmental aspects. The eco efficiency ratings represents how the assessed scenario compares with sugar industry ranges (1=least eco efficient, efficient 10=most eco efficient). efficient) Farm name: Scenario: Mackay Hypothetical C class Eco efficiency rating 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Fossil fuel use Carbon footprint Water use Water quality eutrophication potential Water quality ecotoxicity potential 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Environmental impacts relative to industry maximums Soil management Tractor operation for soil work Irrigation (and dewatering) Pumping Nutrient management N 2 O emissions (to air) Tractor operation associated with irrigation Nutrient emissions (to water) Extraction of water from managed water resources Production of fertilisers and minerals Other farm operations Tractor operation for slashing Tractor operation for applying fertilisers, ameliorants and minerals Farm vehicle operation Truck operations for applying ameliorants and minerals Production of farm assets Pesticide management Emissions (to water) from herbicide application Water heating for treating seed cane Emissions (to water) from insecticide application Transport Transport of fertilisers (shipping from overseas) Emissions (to water) from fungicide application Transport of fertilisers and minerals (domestic freight) Production of pesticides Transport of fertilisers and minerals (local delivery to the farm) Tractor operation for applying pesticides Transport of pesticides (shipping, domestic freight and local freight) Harvesting Emissions (to air) from cane burning Organic emissons (to water) from sugar loss Cane harvester operation Harvester operation for fallow crops
Eco efficiency Rating (for harvested sugarcane) About CaneLCA The bars in the graph shows the eco efficiency ratings (from 1 10) for the assessed scenario for five environmental aspects. The eco efficiency ratings represents how the assessed scenario compares with sugar industry ranges (1=least eco efficient, efficient 10=most eco efficient). efficient) Farm name: Scenario: Mackay Hypothetical B class Eco efficiency rating 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Fossil fuel use Carbon footprint Water use Water quality eutrophication potential Water quality ecotoxicity potential 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Environmental impacts relative to industry maximums Soil management Tractor operation for soil work Irrigation (and dewatering) Pumping Nutrient management N 2 O emissions (to air) Tractor operation associated with irrigation Nutrient emissions (to water) Extraction of water from managed water resources Production of fertilisers and minerals Other farm operations Tractor operation for slashing Tractor operation for applying fertilisers, ameliorants and minerals Farm vehicle operation Truck operations for applying ameliorants and minerals Production of farm assets Pesticide management Emissions (to water) from herbicide application Water heating for treating seed cane Emissions (to water) from insecticide application Transport Transport of fertilisers (shipping from overseas) Emissions (to water) from fungicide application Transport of fertilisers and minerals (domestic freight) Production of pesticides Transport of fertilisers and minerals (local delivery to the farm) Tractor operation for applying pesticides Transport of pesticides (shipping, domestic freight and local freight Harvesting Emissions (to air) from cane burning Organic emissons (to water) from sugar loss Cane harvester operation Harvester operation for fallow crops
Eco efficiency Rating (for harvested sugarcane) About CaneLCA The bars in the graph shows the eco efficiency ratings (from 1 10) for the assessed scenario for five environmental aspects. The eco efficiency ratings represents how the assessed scenario compares with sugar industry ranges (1=least eco efficient, 10=most eco efficient) efficient). Farm name: Scenario: Bundaberg Hypothetical C class Eco efficiency rating 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Fossil fuel use Carbon footprint Water use Water quality eutrophication potential Water quality ecotoxicity potential 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Environmental impacts relative to industry maximums Soil management Tractor operation for soil work Irrigation (and dewatering) Pumping Nutrient management N 2 O emissions i (to air) i) Tractor operation associated with ihirrigationi i Nutrient emissions (to water) Extraction of water from managed water resources Production of fertilisers and minerals Other farm operations Tractor operation for slashing Tractor operation for applying fertilisers, ameliorants and minerals Farm vehicle operation Truck operations for applying ameliorants and minerals Production of farm assets Pesticide management Emissions (to water) from herbicide application Water heating for treating seed cane Emissions (to water) from insecticide application Transport Transport of fertilisers (shipping from overseas) Emissions (to water) from fungicide application Transport of fertilisers and minerals (domestic freight) Production of pesticides Transport of fertilisers and minerals (local delivery to the farm) Tractor operation for applying pesticides Transport of pesticides (shipping, domestic freight and local freight) Harvesting Emissions (to air) from cane burning Organic emissons (to water) from sugar loss Cane harvester operation Harvester operation for fallow crops
Eco efficiency Rating (for harvested sugarcane) About CaneLCA The bars in the graph shows the eco efficiency ratings (from 1 10) for the assessed scenario for five environmental aspects. The eco efficiency ratings represents how the assessed scenario compares withsugarindustry industry ranges (1=leasteco efficient eco efficient, 10=mosteco efficient) efficient). Farm name: Scenario: Bundaberg Hypothetical B class Eco efficiency rating 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Fossil fuel use Carbon footprint Water use Water quality eutrophication potential Water quality ecotoxicity potential 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Environmental impacts relative to industry maximums Soil management Tractor operation for soil work Irrigation (and dewatering) Pumping Nutrient management N 2 O emissions (to air) Tractor operation associated with irrigation Nutrient emissions (to water) Extraction of water from managed water resources Production of fertilisers and minerals Other farm operations Tractor operation for slashing Tractor operation for applying fertilisers, ameliorants and minerals Farm vehicle operation Truck operations for applying ameliorants and minerals Production of farm assets Pesticide management Emissions (to water) from herbicide application Water heating for treating seed cane Emissions (to water) from insecticide application Transport Transport of fertilisers (shipping from overseas) Emissions (to water) from fungicide application Transport of fertilisers and minerals (domestic freight) Production of pesticides Transport of fertilisers and minerals (local delivery to the farm) Tractor operation for applying pesticides Transport of pesticides (shipping, domestic freight and local freight) Harvesting Emissions (to air) from cane burning Organic emissons (to water) from sugar loss Cane harvester operation Harvester operation for fallow crops
Future developments To help farmers participate in CFI Disaggregate on farm from whole of life carbon abatement Data feed from farm data management systems Integrate with profitability assessment
CaneLCA available from early 2013 from BSES Website For more information Dr. Marguerite Renouf University of Queensland (07) 3365 1432 m.renouf@uq.edu.au Dr. Peter Allsopp BSES, Indooroopilly (07) 3331 3316 pallsopp@bses.org.au BSES Bulletin, Issue 33, Pg22 24