Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:53:13.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative carbon footprint assessment of winter lettuce production in two climatic zones for Midwestern market

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 August 2013

Rachel Plawecki ,
Rich Pirog ,
Adam Montri  and
Michael W. Hamm
Rachel Plawecki
Affiliation:
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Rich Pirog
Affiliation:
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. Center for Regional Food Systems, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Adam Montri
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Michael W. Hamm*
Affiliation:
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. Center for Regional Food Systems, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
*
* Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The following study assesses cold-season hoop house lettuce production in the context of local food systems’ relative environmental effects. For this purpose, we compare the carbon footprints of leaf lettuce production in two climatic zones, one close to the consumer market and one distant, via environmental impact modeling in SimaPro 7.3. A site-specific scenario is first detailed with organic leaf lettuce locally grown in an East Lansing, Michigan hoop house. This is compared to a hypothetical scenario, modeled using average industry data, with leaf lettuce conventionally grown in California then shipped to East Lansing. The system boundaries used in this analysis extend from manufacturing of farm production inputs to a hypothetical retail gate. We assumed that the consumer drove the same distance to the retailer in each case. The functional unit used is 1 kg of leaf lettuce. Results demonstrate that the distant system exhibits 4.3 times the CO2 ‘footprint’ per kg of lettuce. This nonlocal system also resulted in higher resource depletion, health impact and ecological damage potential as demonstrated via the SimaPro simulation. This study concludes that unheated, hoop house lettuce production, given the assumption on within-area travel, has a smaller carbon footprint than outdoor, distant production, and speaks to both the potential value of more localized food systems and the need for a more diverse set of scenario modeling to understand the boundaries of this value.

Keywords

hoop houselettucelocalMidwestcarbon footprintwinter
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 310 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Pollan, M. 2006. The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. Penguin Press, New York.Google Scholar
2 Smith, A.D., MacKinnon, J.B., and Smith, A. 2007. The 100-mile Diet: A Year of Local Eating. Vintage, Canada.Google Scholar
3 United States Dept. of Health and Human Services, United States Dept of Agriculture, United States Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2010. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. HHS publication, vol no HHS-ODPHP-2010-01-DGA-A, 7th ed. G.P.O., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
4 Weber, C.L. and Matthews, H.S. 2008. Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology 42(10):3508–3513.Google Scholar
5 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.Google Scholar
6 Saunders, C., Barber, A., and Taylor, G. 2006. Food miles-comparative energy/emissions performance of New Zealand's agriculture industry. Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand. Available at Web site http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/documents/2328_rr285_s13389.pdf (accessed June 25, 2013).Google Scholar
7 Blanke, M. and Burdick, B. 2005. Food (miles) for thought-energy balance for locally-grown versus imported apple fruit. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 12(3):125–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8 Carlsson-Kanyama, A. 1998. Food consumption patterns and their influence on climate change: Greenhouse gas emissions in the life-cycle of tomatoes and carrots consumed in Sweden. Ambio 27(7)528–534.Google Scholar
9 Canals, L.M., Muñoz, I., Hospido, A., Plassmann, K., McLaren, S., Edwards-Jones, G., and Hounsome, B. 2008. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Domestic vs. Imported Vegetables. Case Studies on Broccoli, Salad Crops and Green Beans. Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, UK. Available at Web site http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/ces/files/pdf/0108_CES_WP_RELU_Integ_LCA_local_vs_global_vegs.pdf (accessed June 25, 2013).Google Scholar
10 Boriss, H. and Brunke, H. 2005. Lettuce Profile. Iowa State University. Available at Web site http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/vegetables/lettuce_profile.cfm. (verified February 27, 2012).Google Scholar
11 Hospido, A., Milà i Canals, L., McLaren, S., Truninger, M., Edwards-Jones, G., and Clift, R. 2009. The role of seasonality in lettuce consumption: A case study of environmental and social aspects. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14(5):381–391.Google Scholar
12 Coleman, E. and Damrosch, B. 1999. Four-Season Harvest: Organic Vegetables from Your Home Garden All Year Long. Chelsea Green, White River Junction, VT.Google Scholar
13 Carey, E., Jett, L., Lamont, W. Jr, Nennich, T., Orzolek, M., and Williams, K. 2009. Horticultural crop production in high tunnels in the United States: A snapshot. HortTechnology 19(1):37–43.Google Scholar
14 Stanhill, G. 1980. The energy cost of protected cropping: A comparison of six systems of tomato production. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 25(2):145–154.Google Scholar
15 Van Hauwermeiren, A., Coene, H., Engelen, G., and Mathijs, E. 2007. Energy lifecycle inputs in food systems: A comparison of local versus mainstream cases. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 9(1):31–51.Google Scholar
16 Growers Supply. Available at Web site http://www.growerssupply.com/farm/supplies/prod1;gs_high_tunnels_cold_frames-gs_hightunnel_coldframe_acc;pg109842_109842.html (verified October 2010).Google Scholar
17 Smith, R., Cahn, M., Daugovish, O., Koike, S., Natwick, E., Smith, H., Subbarao, K., Takele, E., and Turini, T. Leaf Lettuce Production in California. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. Available at Web site http://ucanr.org/freepubs/docs/7216.pdf (accessed June 25, 2013).Google Scholar
18 Takele, E., Aguiar, J., and Walton, D. 1996. Production Practices and Sample Costs to Produce Loose Leaf Lettuce: Coachella Valley, Riverside County. University of California Cooperative Extension, USA.Google Scholar
19 Field Pack Commodities- Green Leaf. 2011. Church Brothers Produce. Available at Web site http://churchbrothers.com/content/?page_id=114. (verified 21 March 2012).Google Scholar
20 SimaPro Database Manual Methods Library. 2006. PRé Consultants BV: Amersfoort, NL.Google Scholar
21 Goedkoop, M. and Spriensma, R. 2001. The Eco-indicator 99: A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Methodology Report. 2001. PRé Consultants BV: Amersfoort, NL.Google Scholar
22 Coley, D., Howard, M., and Winter, M. 2009. Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: A comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches. Food Policy 34(2):150–155.Google Scholar