An LCA of Organic and Conventional Viticulture for Global Warming and Land Use

Running Head: AN LCA OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL VITICULTURE

An LCA of Organic and Conventional Viticulture for Global Warming and Land Use Emily T.C. Fitzsimmons GEOG 4523 University of Oklahoma

AN LCA OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL VITICULTURE

Fitzsimmons 2

Goal Definition Lingering memories of the American Dust Bowl, Ireland’s Great Famine, and other agrarian disasters illustrate not only the important role farmers play in national well-being but also the extensive environmental impact of agriculture. Though the weight of such responsibility cannot be placed solely on the shoulders of our farmers, the power of their influence also cannot be ignored, particularly as the natural environment continues to spiral into utter degradation due to human actions. In this global context, the local agricultural union has commissioned a life cycle assessment of local viticulture, which will collect data on the inputs and outputs of the viticulture life cycle while evaluating their environmental impacts. Chosen impact categories include global warming potential and land use change; the database and calculator consist of the ecoinvent 3 library and the ReCiPe 2016 midpoint calculator, respectively. The goal of this study is to compare analyses of conventional and organic viticulture to illustrate how our local winegrowers can reduce their environmental impact while maintaining the quality of their product. The proposed solution consists of shifting entirely – or at least partially – to organic viticulture practices.

Scope Definition According to a similar study, viticulture is one of the most impactful phases in wine production; therefore, this study’s scope includes only the viticulture phase, which excludes the actual wine production process, packaging, and transportation to clients (Ferrara & De Feo, 2018). Though this limits the results to just a fraction of the wine production system, this choice better tailors the study to the intended audience, local winegrowers. The LCA is comparative, analyzing both organic and conventional viticulture in two environmental impact categories: global warming potential and land use change. These categories were chosen to exhibit local

AN LCA OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL VITICULTURE

Fitzsimmons 3

farmers’ influence on one of the most dangerous global issues as well as their influence on a concern that is more tangible and personal to winegrowers. However, this LCA does include limitations and assumptions, including exclusion of social and economic impacts, exclusion of the long-term benefits of organic viticulture and long-term disadvantages of conventional viticulture, lack of data specific to local geography, the inability to measure taste, as well as nonrepresentative assumptions throughout. Such assumptions were made and information omitted either because the data was unavailable or because it would overly complicate the LCA. Both the functional unit and the reference flow are 1 kg of grapes.

Life Cycle Inventory Using available data in the ecoinvent 3 database, the LCA conductor achieved results with the ReCiPe 2016 midpoint calculator to make a consequential LCI model. The life cycle inventory of organic viticulture includes the compost and fertilizer, land use changes, fuels, vehicles, and groundwater pollution solely in the viticulture phase of wine production. Likewise, the life cycle inventory of conventional viticulture includes largely chemical fertilizers, herbicide, insecticide, and fungicide as well as fuel, vehicles, land use changes, and groundwater pollution within the viticulture phase. Notably, allocation between conventional and organic viticulture differ, for 20% of the 1 kg of organic grapes is directed to composting. Even so, this does not noticeably change the impact indicator results.

AN LCA OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL VITICULTURE

Fitzsimmons 4

Figure 1. Life Cycle Inventory Table Organic Viticulture Flow/Process

Amount

Input/Output Type Input from the Technosphere: Materialsl/Fuels

Compost {CH}| treatment of biowaste, industrial composting | APOS, S

2 kg

Horn meal {GLO}| market for | APOS, S

1 kg

Transport, freight, lorry 3.5-7.5 metric ton, EURO5 {RoW}| transport, freight, lorry 3.5-7.5 metric ton, EURO5 | Conseq, S Land use change, perennial crop {IT}| market for land use change, perennial crop | Conseq, S Diesel {GLO}| market group for | Conseq, S

1.248E-6 tkm

Grape, organic(80% allocation)

0.8 kg

Compost from grapes

0.2 kg

Phosphate(groundwater)

5.3E-5 kg

Ammonium, ion(groundwater)

6.7E-5 kg

Emissions to Water

Nitrate(groundwater)

7.4E-2 kg

Emissions to Water

Input from the Technosphere: Materialsl/Fuels Input from the Technosphere: Materialsl/Fuels

Conventional Viticulture Flow/Process

Amount

Phosphate fertiliser, as P2O5 {RoW}| diammonium phosphate production | Conseq, S Triazine-compound, unspecified {RoW}| production | Conseq, S Pyrethroid-compound {RoW}| production | Conseq, S

4.6E-2 kg

5.3E-2 kg

8.0E-4 kg

Input/Output Type Input from the Technosphere: Materials/Fuels Input from the Technosphere: Materials/Fuels Input from the Technosphere: Materials/Fuels

2.861E-7 ha

Input from the Technosphere: Materialsl/Fuels

Mancozeb {RoW}| production | Conseq, S

5.6E-1 kg

Input from the Technosphere: Materials/Fuels

5E-4 kg

Input from the Technosphere: Materialsl/Fuels Output to the Technosphere: Products and CoProducts Output to the Technosphere: Products and CoProducts Emissions to Water

Boric oxide {GLO}| production | Conseq, S

2.0E-4 kg

Manganese(III) oxide {RoW}| production | Conseq, S

7.6E-2 kg

Input from the Technosphere: Materials/Fuels Input from the Technosphere: Materials/Fuels

Horn meal {GLO}| market for | APOS, S

1 kg

Input from the Technosphere: Materials/Fuels

Transport, freight, lorry 3.5-7.5 metric ton, EURO5 {RoW}| transport, freight, lorry 3.5-7.5 metric ton, EURO5 | Conseq, S Land use change, perennial crop {IT}| market for land use change, perennial crop | Conseq, S Diesel {GLO}| market group for | Conseq, S

1.248E-6 tkm

Input from the Technosphere: Materials/Fuels

2.861E-7 ha

Input from the Technosphere: Materials/Fuels

5E-4 kg

Grape, conventional(100% allocation)

1 kg

Phosphate(groundwater)

1.2E-4 kg

Ammonium, ion(groundwater) Nitrate(groundwater)

1.4E-4 kg

Input from the Technosphere: Materials/Fuels Output to the Technosphere: Products and CoProducts Emissions to Water Emissions to Water Emissions to Water

5.66E-1 kg

AN LCA OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL VITICULTURE Figure 2. Organic Viticulture System Boundary

Figure 3. Conventional Viticulture System Boundary

Fitzsimmons 5

AN LCA OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL VITICULTURE

Fitzsimmons 6

Life Cycle Impact Assessment After calculating the data for the flows and processes listed in the inventory, the following figures were produced. The chosen calculator typically assesses eighteen midpoint indicators and three endpoint indicators. Midpoint indicators represent impacts from individual environmental issues, including global warming potential, stratospheric ozone depletion, ionizing radiation, human ozone formation, terrestrial acidification, fine particulate matter formation, terrestrial ozone formation, freshwater eutrophication, marine eutrophication, terrestrial ecotoxicity, freshwater ecotoxicity, marine ecotoxicity, human carcinogenic toxicity, human non-carcinogenic toxicity, land use, mineral resource scarcity, fossil resource scarcity, and water consumption. These eighteen characterization factors are then organized into the three endpoint indicators: damage to resource availability, ecosystem health, and human health (“LCIA,� 2018).

This LCA emphasizes only two of the midpoint indicators in illustrating environmental impact.

Figure 4. Organic v. Conventional Viticulture Life Cycle Impact, Allocation Not Accounted For

AN LCA OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL VITICULTURE

Fitzsimmons 7

Figure 5. Organic v. Conventional Viticulture Life Cycle Impact, Corrected Allocation

Figure 6. Conventional Viticulture Global Warming Potential

As shown in Figure 6, the conventional grape life cycle indicates a negative 100% impact in the stratospheric ozone depletion category, which suggests an improvement to stratospheric

AN LCA OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL VITICULTURE

Fitzsimmons 8

ozone depletion. This result occurred because of the use of the consequential ecoinvent 3 library from the very beginning of the LCA. Overall, the organic viticulture has significantly less environmental impact compared to conventional viticulture. Figure 5 also illustrates that the greatest dangers of both organic and conventional viticulture are toxins released in the soil and water as well as both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxins to humans with marine ecotoxicity far in the lead. Notably, however, the slender slivers that embody the impacts of organic viticulture versus conventional viticulture several towering bars indicate the major difference in impact severity.

Figure 7. Conventional Viticulture Land Use

Narrowing down to the characterization factors for each farming practice clearly reveals the most influential components of conventional and organic viticulture in the context of land use and global warming. Figures 6 and 7 demonstrate which processes within conventional viticulture impact the global warming potential and land use characterization factors the most.

Each characterization factor measures different effects: The first depends on the amount of

AN LCA OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL VITICULTURE

Fitzsimmons 9

greenhouse gas emissions, associated temperature changes, and the quantifiable harm to human and ecosystem health as measured by species loss in PDF m3 year and by Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY), and the latter measures land consumption and changes in soil quality in PDF m3 year (Hauschild et al., 2012). For conventional viticulture, both characterization factors were most affected by mancozeb production, a synthetic fungicide. Considering global warming potential, mancozeb can exude sulfur, nitrogen, and carbon, which can react to create greenhouse gases that advance global warming as well as cause various health effects, including respiratory issues, thyroid defects, and cancer (“Pesticide Information Profile: Mancozeb,” 1993; “Nitrogen – N,” 2020). As for land use, mancozeb can contaminate soil easily and for a lengthy period, for its ingredient maneb has a long soil half-life of sixty days. Mancozeb also degrades plant vitality, which lowers soil quality either through the release of toxins or eventual erosion from lack of plant life (“Pesticide Information Profile: Maneb,” 1993).

Likewise, Figure 8 and Figure 10 present the most impactful aspects of organic viticulture for both global warming potential and land use, respectively. For both characterization factors, the greatest contributor was the treatment of biowaste and industrial composting. This process augments global warming and land use impact because of greenhouse gas emissions – including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane – as well as the large amounts of land required for lengthy amounts of time to compost such massive amounts of waste that in turn can produce leachate (Risse & Faucette, 2017; Sánchez et al., 2015). Notably, however, compared to the alternative of anaerobic decomposition in landfills, composting emits 90% less greenhouse gases (Dessing, 2016). Even with the corrected allocation that reserves 20% of the grapes for compost, the end results shown in Figures 9 and 11 do not noticeably differ from Figures 8 and 10: Organic practices still have much less impact than conventional viticulture. If anything, this

AN LCA OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL VITICULTURE

Fitzsimmons 10

affirms the assertions of this LCA, as organic viticulture produces less yet still has low impact.

Figure 8. Organic Viticulture Global Warming Potential, Allocation Not Accounted For

Figure 9. Organic Viticulture Global Warming Potential, 80% Allocation

AN LCA OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL VITICULTURE Figure 10. Organic Viticulture Land Use, Allocation Not Accounted For

Figure 11. Organic Viticulture Land Use, 80% Allocation

Fitzsimmons 11

AN LCA OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL VITICULTURE

Fitzsimmons 12

Figures 12, 13, 14, and 15 are Sankey diagrams, which depict how much each flow contributes by the width of the connecting arrows as well as the bars that hug the right side of each box. Similar to Figures 6 and 7, mancozeb production claims the highest bar and the thickest arrow by far, thus supporting the fact that mancozeb yields the most global warming and land use impact for conventional viticulture. Likewise, Figures 14 and 15 represent the flows in organic viticulture most prevalent to the chosen characterization factors. As in Figures 9 and 11, the composting flow contributes still has the greatest impact due to greenhouse gas emissions and land needs. Notably, however, while compost far outstrips any other category in the Sankey diagram for land use, it barely exceeds horn meal, an organic fertilizer consisting of cattle hooves and horns, in the Sankey diagram for global warming potential (Ferguson, n.d.).

Figure 12. Sankey Diagram of Conventional Viticulture Global Warming Potential

Figure 13. Sankey Diagram of Conventional Viticulture Land Use

AN LCA OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL VITICULTURE

Figure 14. Sankey Diagram of Organic Viticulture Global Warming Potential

Figure 15. Sankey Diagram of Organic Viticulture Land Use

Fitzsimmons 13

AN LCA OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL VITICULTURE

Fitzsimmons 14

Interpretation and Discussion Though this data only paints a fraction of the picture, organic farming practices remain a clear choice for winegrowers in reducing environmental impact. The conclusion is clear from Graph 1 and reiterated by the succeeding figures, which bring into consideration the processes and products that impact the environment most: a synthetic fungicide versus composting. One harms human and plant life even in the short-term; the other requires plentiful land and emits greenhouse gas – notably, less than 10% of the amount emitted by landfills (Dessing, 2016).

Undoubtedly, the best choice is to convert the local viticulture from conventional to organic; not only is this method considerably less environmentally detrimental, it is also less dangerous to living organisms. Notably, farmers must practice strict organic practices for three consecutive years on the same land before advertising their products as organic. Such a swift change may be impossible for some farmers, in which cases I recommend transitioning to organic over time.

This alternative will obviously lengthen the time until the produce can be labeled organic, but, above all, the goal is to curtail agricultural impacts on the natural environment, which will occur even with some organic practices in place.

AN LCA OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL VITICULTURE

Fitzsimmons 15

References Deesing, B. (2016). Comparing greenhouse gases from composting and landfilling [PDF].

Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/etcfi/Downloads/1698-6419-1-PB.pdf.

Ferrara, C. & De Feo, G. (2018). Life cycle assessment application to the wine sector: A critical review. Sustainability, 10, 1-16.

Ferguson, J. (n.d.). John’s corner organic fertilizers and nutrients 32: Hoof and horn meal.

Nature’s Way Resources. Retrieved from https://www.natureswayresources.com/nl/101OrganicFertilizer32.pdf.

Hauschild, M. Z., Goedkoop, M., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., Jolliet, O.,…Pant, R. (2012). Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 683-697.

LCIA: The ReCiPe Model (2018). Retrieved from https://www.rivm.nl/en/life-cycle-assessmentlca/recipe.

Nitrogen – N (2020). Retrieved from https://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/n.htm.

Pesticide Information Profile: Mancozeb (1993). Retrieved from http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/haloxyfop-methylparathion/mancozebext.html.

Pesticide Information Profile: Maneb (1993). Retrieved from http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/haloxyfop-methylparathion/manebext.html.

Risse, L.M., & Faucette, L.B. (2017). Food waste composting: Institutional and Industrial Application. Retrieved from https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=B1189&title=Food%20Waste

AN LCA OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL VITICULTURE

Fitzsimmons 16

%20Composting:%20Institutional%20and%20Industrial%20Application.

Sánchez, A., Artola, A., Font, X., Gea, T., Barrena, R., Gabriel, D.,…Mondini, C. (2015).

Greenhouse gas emissions from organic waste composting. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 13, 223-238.