A comparison of farm-level greenhouse gas calculators in their application on beef production systems
A comparison of farm-level greenhouse gas calculators in their application on beef production systems
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.197
复制
发表时间：
2017-10
影响因子：
11.1
通讯作者：
Alasdair J. Sykes;C. Topp;Ronald Wilson;Gillian Reid;R. Rees
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Alasdair J. Sykes;C. Topp;Ronald Wilson;Gillian Reid;R. Rees
农场一级温室气体（GHG）足迹工具产生显着不同的结果，从共同的输入数据集。这些工具通常是经验性的、范围广泛的模型，这些模型很有价值，因为它们能够使用非专业数据说明一系列农场温室气体源。这些工具中有许多是公开的，并由来自各种背景的用户使用，以提供企业级的碳足迹。它们可用于为缓解战略和政策制定提供信息，但往往是在同行审评制度之外制定的，因此所采用的方法可能很少有文献记载。使用来自各种牛肉生产企业的数据对五种农场级工具进行了测试。牛肉生产被选为畜牧业生产的一种排放密集型形式，也是全球相当大的减缓努力的重点。结果显示，不同工具的估算结果存在很大的不一致性。对直接来自畜牧业的排放量的估算存在差异，而畜牧业是整个农场足迹的最大贡献者（占总排放量的43-92%）。因此，对这些排放量的一致计算是相当重要的。在其他排放类别中也发现了类似的变化。牛肉生产的排放强度计算每一个估计，并从LCA文献公布的值进行比较。一些工具产生的估计值与这些值一致，而另一些则明显低估了比较。本研究突出了这些工具产生的估计值之间的差异，并探讨了其背后的原因。与用户相关的是，即使在农场一级的估计数在工具之间看起来相似，这些估计数的组成可能会有所不同。因此，不同的工具对系统变化的响应不同。在强调和探索这可能产生的影响时，本研究的结论为工具用户和开发人员提供了关键的参考点。
Farm-level greenhouse gas (GHG) footprinting tools produce markedly different results from common input datasets. These tools are typically empirical, broad scope models which are valuable for their ability to account for a range of on-farm GHG sources using non-specialist data. Many of these tools are publicly available, and are employed by users from a range of backgrounds to provide enterprise-level carbon footprints. They may be used to inform mitigation strategies and policy developments, though are often developed outside the peer-review system, and as such the methodology employed may be sparsely documented.The study reported here rigorously tests these tools and discusses differential findings. Five farm-level tools were tested using data from a variety of beef production enterprises. Beef production was chosen as an emissions intensive form of livestock production, and the focus of considerable mitigation effort globally. Considerable inconsistencies between tools were found in the resulting estimates.Estimates of emissions stemming directly from livestock were variable, and the largest contributor to the overall farm footprint (43–92% of total). As such, consistent calculation of these emissions is of considerable importance. Similar variability was found in other emissions categories. The emissions intensity of beef production was calculated for each estimate and compared to published values from LCA literature. Some tools produced estimates concurrent with these values, whilst others markedly underestimated in comparison.This study highlights the differences between estimates produced by these tools, and explores the reasons behind them. Of relevance to users is the finding that even where farm-level estimates appear similar between tools, the composition of these estimates can vary. As such, different tools respond differently to system changes. In highlighting and exploring the impacts this can have, the conclusions of this study provide a key reference point for tool users and developers.