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: m.pagotto@uq.edu.au | 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