Meat Eaters Guide: Methodology - Environmental Working Group
Meat Eaters Guide: Methodology - Environmental Working Group
Meat Eaters Guide: Methodology - Environmental Working Group
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Meat</strong> <strong>Eaters</strong> <strong>Guide</strong>: <strong>Methodology</strong><br />
48<br />
states where the net carbon flux from the soil is zero on average (spatial/temporal average). it should be<br />
pointed out that assumptions about steady state remain the subject of considerable scientific debate.<br />
9. Manure benefits go to crop systems that use it as fertilizer, per the “recycled content” method. No benefits<br />
are accounted for in the animal system that produces the manure. No change to soil carbon stock in crop<br />
systems that use the manure -- under the assumption that the system is at steady state and the net soil<br />
carbon flux is zero on average.<br />
10. While some homes will use electricity for cooking, our model assumes the use of natural gas; further cooking<br />
assumptions are included in Annex B.<br />
11. The size of the large-scale operation is 50,000 birds, smaller than the typical 200,000 in a US poultry operation.<br />
12. While a significant portion of fertilizer is imported and shipped to the United States, emissions from shipping<br />
a minor portion of overall emissions from fertilizer production and delivery. For freight transport by<br />
ocean where the product is not under temperature control, the road transport on either side of the ocean<br />
segment generally dominates the total transport emissions. For example, for 1 Kg of state-of-the-art nitrogen<br />
fertilizer transported 5000 km by ocean and 1600 km by semi-trailer truck, the ocean transport contributes<br />
about 1.3% of the total fertilizer-related emissions at the point of delivery to a farm while the truck<br />
transport contributes 9.1%.<br />
13. We assumed these nominal transport distances for inputs because most agricultural production data<br />
sources do not provide this information. We tested the sensitivities of our assumptions and found that the<br />
final results are quite insensitive to these assumptions. For example, in the case of corn produced in the<br />
Midwest, if the input transport distances changed by +/-25% relative to our assumptions, the cradle-tofarmgate<br />
emissions would change by less than 2 percent (even less if you consider the emissions as a total<br />
percentage of cradle to grave emissions). Transport-related emissions are generally a very minor component<br />
of the overall GHG emissions per Kg of product.<br />
14. Fertilizer production is modeled uniformly on current state-of-the-art technologies per the International Fertilizer<br />
Association and is not country-specific.<br />
15. While many animals are transported far greater distances from their original grazing or confined pasture<br />
lands, we used this distance since our models were based on regional production systems in which all subsystems<br />
(such as cow-calf and feedlot) are in the same state. The sensitivity of final results to this assumption<br />
is very low. The 300 km transport adds less than 0.1 Kg CO 2 e to the cradle-to-gate GHG emissions<br />
of 1 Kg of meat. If we increase this to 1,500 km, it would still represent a very small portion of the overall<br />
carbon footprint.<br />
16. The number was selected somewhat arbitrarily based on average distances from the middle of the country,<br />
where a majority of meat is produced, to major populations centers on either coast.<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Working</strong> <strong>Group</strong> <strong>Meat</strong> <strong>Eaters</strong> <strong>Guide</strong>: <strong>Methodology</strong> 2011