L C M 2 0 1 7
C O N F E R E N C E
Can We Feed the World?
A Integrated Framework for Sustainability Assessment of a Production System in the Australian Food Industry
Murilo Pagotto Anthony Halog
Michalis Hadjikakou
R e s e a r c h
B a c k g r o u n d
Source: National Farmers Federation
Economic and Social Dimensions of the Australian food industry
• Agriculture contributes with approximately 20 per cent of Australia’s overall emissions
• Agriculture consumes approximately 65% of the total fresh water consumed in Australia
• Food production (agriculture and food manufacturing) requires large amounts of primary energy
Environmental Impacts
Dry land agriculture - Australia
Irrigated chickpea seed production in the Ord Irrigation Area of Western Australia
Food System Environmental, Economical and Social Impacts
Source: Riegel et al. 2005
Sustainability of Food Systems
Possible Solutions:
• Improve technical knowledge on the environmental impacts of food
• Promote and stimulate sustainable food production and consumption
• Drastically reduce food waste along the entire food supply chain
• Improve health and food policy development• Develop a sound strategy that creates long-term stakeholder
value• Promote the application and development of methodologies,
information and tools for more sustainable food systems
The Proposed Framework for Sustainability
Assessment
‘Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) refers to the evaluation of all environmental, social and economic negative impacts and benefits in decision-making process towards more sustainable products throughout their life cycle’ (UNEP 2011)
Reasons to use LCSA approach:• It covers more aspects related to
sustainability• It measures environmental impacts,
economic viability and social equitability • Supports decision-makers in prioritizing
resources• identify the trade-offs between
environmental, social and economic dimensions during life cycle analysis
ABM is an approach to modeling complex systems composed of interacting, autonomous ‘agents’.
Structure of an agent-based model• A set of agents• A set of agent relationships and methods of
interaction• The environment where the agents interact with
and themselves
Reasons to use ABM:• It allows for dealing with complex and evolving systems• It provides a natural description of a system• It is flexible• It has the ability to deal with emergent phenomena• Can develop scenarios to predict the effects of changes in
production systems
C a s e S t u d y
Case Study
Apply the proposed framework to analyze the sustainability of beef production in Australia
Build a model of a large beef production operation in Australia
Case Study
Why red meat industry? Utilize high levels of inputs Generates waste and environmental
damaging outputs Important for the Australian economy Employ large numbers of Australians
System Model for the Red Meat Sector with Feedlot System
Source: Davis and Watts (2011)
Feedlot Layout
Source: MLA (2012)
Feedlot System Central Queensland
JBS Beef City –Toowoomba
JBS Beef City – 27,000 heads capacity Toowoomba
Case Study Model
hand feed 150 days - Black Angus - Japanese market
capacity 50,000 animals
Area 750,000 m2 (75 ha)
Carcass weight 350 Kg (56% dress weight)
liveweight 625 kg slaughter
average liveweight average liveweight entering the feedlot - 350 kg
average daily gain 1.4 Kg/head/day
feed intake 14.7 DM Kg/head/day (3% of their liveweight)
Dry Matter digestibility 80%
Case Study Results
Inputs 50,000 animals on feedlot feed ration 80:20 (grain/roughage)
Stock feed 735 DM ton/day
Barley grain (90% DM) 815 ton/day
Sorghum silage (32% DM) 2300 ton/day
Case Study Results
Water3.7 L/kg of DM intake
(drinking) 54 L/head/day 2,700,000 L/day
cattle washing in feedlots1700 L/head/year
85,000,000 L/year
cleaning water troughs1.5 L/head/month
2,500 L/day
hospital areas cleaning 1.3 L/head/month
2,166.6 L/day
Vehicles washing 1.2 L/head/month 2000 L/day
Feed processing 100 L/ton of grain 81500 L/day
Case Study Results
Energy MJ/head/day Total
Electricity 0.75 37,500 MJ/day
Natural Gas 1.2 60,000 MJ/day
Diesel 1.05 52,500 MJ/day
Feed processingWater supplyFeed delivery/feedlot areaWaste removal Administration
Case Study Results
Case Study Results
Case Study Results
Case Study Results
Case Study Results
E x p e c t e d R e s u l t s
• The development of a new approach to evaluate and improve the sustainability of the Australian food system
• Prioritize the industry’s goals and minimize its environmental, economic and social impacts
• Support the Australian food industry’s stakeholders • Products and supply chain redesign• Sound policy recommendation• Useful in sustainable procurement• Promote Circular Economy in the food industry
Thank you
Murilo PagottoPhD candidate | School of Earth and Environmental SciencesThe University of QueenslandEmail: [email protected] | Ph: 043176177 University of Queensland Brisbane Australia 4072sees.uq.edu.au | Twitter | Linked-in | Facebook
ABS, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015.NFF, National Farmers Federation, 2015.Davis, RJ & Watts, PJ 2011, Environmental Sustainability Assessment of the Australian Feedlot Industry. Part A Report: Water Usage at Australian Feedlots, Meat & Livestock Australia Limited, Sydney.MLA 2012, National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedltos in Australia, Meat & Livestock Australia, Sydney.
Case Study Results
Case Study Results
National Pollution inventory Whyalla feedlot 2015/2016
Substance Air Total (kg) Air Fugitive (kg) Air Point (kg) Land (kg) Water (kg) Total (kg)
Ammonia (total) 4950359.167 4950359.167 4950359.167
Arsenic & compounds 0.474279812 0.474279812 0.474279812
Beryllium & compounds 0.024292381 0.024292381 0.024292381
Cadmium & compounds 0.058995781 0.058995781 0.058995781
Carbon monoxide 20291.16937 13350.48919 6940.680176 20291.16937
Chromium (III) compounds 0.300762808 0.300762808 0.300762808
Chromium (VI) compounds 0.091385622 0.091385622 0.091385622
Copper & compounds 1.138271549 1.138271549 1.138271549
Fluoride compounds 173.5170044 173.5170044 173.5170044
Hydrochloric acid 1388.136035 1388.136035 1388.136035
Lead & compounds 0.485847612 0.485847612 0.485847612
Mercury & compounds 0.096012742 0.096012742 0.096012742
Nickel & compounds 0.323898408 0.323898408 0.323898408
Oxides of Nitrogen 23925.60051 15134.07229 8791.528223 23925.60051
Particulate Matter 10.0 um 9865.974762 1999.870563 7866.104199 9865.974762
Particulate Matter 2.5 um 4457.772791 1912.856727 2544.916064 4457.772791
Polychlorinated dioxins and furans (TEQ) 6.87E-07 6.87E-07 6.87E-07
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (B[a]Peq) 0.752063905 0.73010822 0.021955685 0.752063905
Sulfur dioxide 35183.70465 17.59176328 35166.11289 35183.70465
Total Volatile Organic Compounds 2179.331836 2109.925034 69.40680176 2179.331836
Life Cycle Costing Concept
Top Related