Comparison of the environmental performance of light mechanization and animal traction using a modular LCA approach

Abstract Animal traction has supported humans in most field operations since the origin of agriculture. With the introduction of mechanization, humans gained access to much more work power at similar management costs and were able to significantly increase the productivity and time efficiency of field operations. This achievement completely changed food production systems for all populations able to access such technology. Nowadays, animal traction is mainly used in the developing countries, in specific contexts such as mountainous areas due to the difficulties in using tractors, and within farm tourism in the developed countries. Although the consumption of non-renewable resources is clearly higher in crop production systems that use mechanized traction, tractor traction may involve low consumption of fuel relative to that needed for feed production for equivalent draught animals. Mechanical traction can also facilitate precision agriculture, which uses less fuel, while animals, as living systems, consume resources even when they are not working. This study compared the environmental performance of animal traction with that of machine traction in two scenarios: (I) A forest harvesting system, using as the functional unit the logging operations needed to obtain 50 t market-ready wood and (II) a seedbed preparation system, using as the functional unit the management of 1000 m2 of prepared seedbed. Use of animal traction for these two systems was evaluated on the La Masca farm in Roccaverano, Asti, Northern Italy, while use of machine traction was evaluated using field data on two-wheel tractors performing the operations in similar production systems, converted to the specific functional unit. Owing to the differing properties of mechanical and living systems, it was difficult to establish a reliable standard LCA model of the forestry and food production system. In particular, it proved necessary to include the whole life cycle impacts from tractors and animals. Therefore, we applied a modular LCA approach in which all mechanical implements and animals were accounted as independent modules, a complete life cycle impact assessment phase was performed and results were related to the contribution of the module in the main workflow of the scenario. The final results showed better environmental performance of animal traction both per unit weight of market-ready wood and per unit surface area of prepared seedbed.

[1]  E. Hertwich.  THE LIFE CYCLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSUMPTION , 2011 .

[2]  Bruce R. Hartsough,et al.  Small Parcel Fuel Reduction with a Low-Investment, High-Mobility Operation , 2009 .

[3]  Ravi Prabhu,et al.  Factors affecting runoff and soil erosion: plot-level soil loss monitoring for assessing sustainability of forest management , 2003 .

[4]  Eiji Inoue,et al.  Study on the development of agricultural machines for small-scale farmers (part 1, applied technology for Morocco and Africa) , 2005 .

[5]  Michel Paquot,et al.  Life cycle assessment of a biobased chainsaw oil made on the farm in Wallonia , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[6]  Clara Valente,et al.  LCA of environmental and socio-economic impacts related to wood energy production in alpine conditions: Valle di Fiemme (Italy) , 2011 .

[7]  K. Cerutti Alessandro,et al.  Methodologies and Early Results in the Application of the Energy Analysis Program to the Italian Context , 2012 .

[8]  Henri Moll,et al.  Household metabolism in European countries and cities , 2003 .

[9]  Thomas Nemecek,et al.  Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: II. Extensive and intensive production , 2011 .

[10]  Gerald Rebitzer,et al.  Enhancing the Application Efficiency of Life Cycle Assessment for Industrial Uses , 2005 .

[11]  Hye-Jin Cho,et al.  Life cycle assessment of tractors , 2000 .

[12]  E. Kandeler,et al.  Potential indicators of soil quality in temperate forest ecosystems: a case study in the Basque Country , 2011, Annals of Forest Science.

[13]  Lauri Sikanen,et al.  The cost effect of forest machine relocations on logging costs in Finland , 2006 .

[14]  H. Wilting.  An energy perspective on economic activities , 1996 .

[15]  M. Hauschild,et al.  Absolute versus Relative Environmental Sustainability , 2013 .

[16]  M. Hauschild,et al.  Environmental assessment of products , 1997 .

[17]  L.B. Lave,et al.  Comparing two life cycle assessment approaches: a process model vs. economic input-output-based assessment , 1997, Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. ISEE-1997.

[18]  R. Pearson,et al.  Use of draught animal power on small mixed farms in Asia , 2002 .

[19]  Riccardo Dainelli,et al.  Environmental comparison of draught animal and tractor power , 2012, Sustainability Science.

[20]  Kim Cerutti Alessandro,et al.  Comparison of environmental performance of tractor and animal traction using a hybrid-LCA , 2012 .

[21]  Niels Jungbluth,et al.  Food purchases: Impacts from the consumers’ point of view investigated with a modular LCA , 2000 .

[22]  Torbjörn Rydberg,et al.  Comparison of horse and tractor traction using emergy analysis , 2002 .

[23]  Gerald Rebitzer,et al.  Independent information modules—a powerful approach for life cycle management , 2009 .

[24]  Andrea Raggi,et al.  Life cycle assessment of Italian and Spanish bovine leather production systems , 2011 .

[25]  Alex Alkhoury,et al.  The Transition Handbook: From Oil Dependency to Local Resilience , 2008 .

[26]  M. Lange,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions of two mechanised wood harvesting methods in comparison with the use of draft horses for logging , 2011, European Journal of Forest Research.