IJARGE-6-Hospido 5/14/05 3:04 PM Page 152

152 Int. J. Agricultural Resources Governance and Ecology, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005

111
2 Environmental analysis of beer production
3
4
5 Almudena Hospido, Maria Teresa Moreira
6
7 and Gumersindo Feijoo*
8 Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering,
9 University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782,
1011 Santiago de Compostela (A Coruña), Spain
1 Fax: +34-981-547168 E-mail: [email protected]
2 *Corresponding author
3
Abstract: The concept of sustainable development is focused on the
4 improvement of the quality of life, avoiding the unbalanced utilisation of natural
5 resources. Several concepts have recently been developed to evaluate the use of
6 resources and the environmental management from an individual to a global
7 scope. One of them, Life Cycle Assessment, has been considered for the
8 environmental analysis of a product of consumption: beer. The results of this
study show that whereas beer production itself has been found to be accountable
9 for a small portion of the environmental performance of the life cycle of beer,
2011 production and the manufacture of the packaging elements as well as the
1 harvesting and transport of cereals are responsible for the largest percentage.
2 Consequently, improvements have to be made regarding these aspects to
3 achieve more respectful behaviour towards the environment.
4 Keywords: beer; environment; environmental management; food industry;
5 LCA; life cycle assessment.
6
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T.
7 and Feijoo, G. (2005) ‘Environmental analysis of beer production’, Int.
8 J. Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.152–162.
9
30 Biographical notes: Almudena Hospido is a Chemical Engineer at the University
of Santiago de Compostela (1999). She has been working on the application of
1 Life Cycle Assessment to different industrial sectors for several years. Her
2 PhD thesis focused specifically on food sectors (milk and canned tuna) that
3 are the pillars of the local economy (Galicia, Spain) as well as wastewater
4 treatment systems (as a common step for several industrial activities).
5 María Teresa Moreira is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Chemical
6 Engineering at the University of Santiago de Compostela. She got her degree in
7 chemical engineering in 1992 and her PhD in 1997. Biotechnological
8 degradation of recalcitrant compounds by white-rot fungi or their oxidative
enzymes as well as the application of Life Cycle Assessment to diverse sectors
9
are some examples of her areas of research.
40
1 Gumersindo Feijoo is an Associate Professor at the Department of Chemical
2 Engineering at the University of Santiago de Compostela. He got his degree in
chemical engineering in 1990 and his PhD in 1994. His areas of research can
3 be summarised as follows: production of ligninolytic enzymes, biodegradation
4 of PAH’s dyes and pesticides in wastewaters, soils and shorelines, cleaner
5 bleaching processes in the pulp and paper industry and development and
6 application of Life Cycle Assessment.
711
8

Copyright © 2005 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

IJARGE-6-Hospido 5/14/05 3:04 PM Page 153

Environmental analysis of beer production 153

111 1 Introduction
2
3 An increasing awareness of food consumption is present in developed countries. The
4 consumption pattern is, at the moment, neither sustainable nor healthful. For the future,
5 consumption and production systems of food will be based on principles of global
6 character, with an ecological perspective of minimum environmental impact and efficient
7 use of natural resources (Andersson, 2000).
8 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool of environmental management used to
9 determine the environmental impact associated to a product or a process. The performance
1011 of an LCA comprises the identification and inventory of raw materials consumption,
1 energy use, wastes and emissions inherent to the process as well as the quantification of
2 the associated environmental impact. Finally, the evaluation and implementation of
3 procedures for environmental improvement are suggested.
4
The application of LCA for food products has already been reported, especially for the
5
evaluation of different packaging materials and systems (Perdersen Weidema, 1993). Some
6
examples of food products studied recently are milk (HØgaas, 2002; Hospido et al., 2003),
7
bread (Andersson and Ohlsson, 1999) or beer (Koroneos et al., 2005; Talve, 2001).
8
One of the purposes of LCA is to provide support and environmental information to
9
consumers. It is fundamental that society, as an individual consumer, adopts conscientious
2011
behaviour by evaluating the characteristics of products and services which show respect
1
for the environment. Thus, the concept of ‘green purchase’ implies the integration of the
2
environmental component in the decision-making process; that is to say, the selection of
3
a product is made based not only on its composition and associated production process
4
5 but also on its packaging, recycling possibilities and waste generated.
6
7
8 2 Goal and scope definition
9
30 2.1 Objective
1 The objective of the present work is the application of LCA to the production of beer in
2 Spain, in order to identify and quantify the environmental impact associated with its
3 manufacturing process. Moreover, the comparison, from an environmental point of view,
4
of two products of consumption will be accomplished: beer and milk, the former chosen
5
as an example of beverage and the latter as a model of staple food.
6
7
8 2.2 Functional unit
9
40 The product studied was the typical brand of beer sold in Galicia (Spain) which is
1 marketed in different sizes, the 0.33 L bottle being the most common option. Each specific
2 bottle consists of the following elements, expressed in weight percentages: beer (49.36%),
3 glass bottle (35.61%), plastic box (10.80%), wood pallet (3.79%), cork (0.30%) and paper
4 labels (0.14%).
5 The functional unit corresponds to one batch of production of 50,000 litres. This
6 amount is nearly equivalent to 86,000 bottles of 0.33 L of capacity ready to be sold to the
711 consumers.
8
IJARGE-6-Hospido 5/14/05 3:04 PM Page 154

154 A. Hospido, M.T. Moreira and G. Feijoo

111 2.3 System definition

2
The system investigated was divided into six subsystems which are described below:
3
4  Production and transport of raw materials: Malted barley, maize, hops, yeast and
5 water are the raw materials involved. Their production and transportation from the
6 manufacture facilities to the brewery were considered in this subsystem.
7
8
 Beer production: The manufacturing process studied consists of three distinctly
9 different stages: boiling, fermentation and packaging, which account for an average
1011 duration of 34 days (Hough, 1990). At the bottling and packaging steps, not only
1 the return of used bottles for their re-use but also the replacement of new bottles to
2 maintain the stock number were considered. A similar consideration was made for
3 plastic boxes and wood pallets.
4  Wastewater treatment plant at the brewery: An Expanded Granular Sludge Blanket
5 (EGSB) reactor (800 m3 of capacity) with high organic load removal efficiency has
6 been operative since August 2001. This type of high rate anaerobic reactor is
7 especially applied for the brewery and beverage industry, distilleries and fermentation
8 industry, food industry and pulp and paper industry (Field and Sierra, 2004).
9
2011  Production and transport of bottles and other packaging elements: Once all the
1 packaging components were identified, it was necessary to evaluate the relative
2 importance of each one with the target of establishing the system boundaries.
3 Different applicable criteria exist (Christiansen, 1997), but, commonly, minimum
4 percentage contribution to the final product is the most widely used. In this way,
5 those components whose weight was inferior to 2.5% of the final product would
6 be excluded. Consequently, the subsystems of cork and labels lay out of the
7 system limits. For the remaining elements, data were collected from its original
8 supplier.
9  Distribution to the consumers: The distribution of final product to different
30
consumption areas was considered. The recent expansion of the beer studied was
1
considered as this brand has started to be commercialised beyond Galicia borders.
2
3
4 2.4 Data quality
5
6 In LCA methodology, the accomplishment of coherent results depends completely on the
7 reliability of the existing data (Consoli, 1993). Specifically, for this analysis, high quality
8 data obtained from a working brewery with an important share in the Spanish market was
9 obtained; however, in order to include their specific production processes, a data form
40 database of specific software of LCA, SimaPro (PRé Consultants, 2002), was also taken
1 into account.
2
3
4 3 Inventory data
5
6 Figure 1 shows the key parameters of the inventory data related to each one subsystem.
711 Some comments are presented below.
8
IJARGE-6-Hospido 5/14/05 3:04 PM Page 155

Environmental analysis of beer production 155

111 Figure 1 Scheme of the system investigated

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
IJARGE-6-Hospido 5/14/05 3:04 PM Page 156

156 A. Hospido, M.T. Moreira and G. Feijoo

111  Production and transport of raw materials: Data regarding manufacture of malted
2 barley, maize and hops were obtained from SimaPro database (PRé Consultants,
3 2003). Yeast and water production were not included due to the lack of available
4 data. Nevertheless, transport by road from the corresponding supplier were
5 quantified for all the elements: in particular, malted barley and maize are harvested
6 in Spain, hops are sold both by national and international suppliers and yeast is
7 transported from Germany by plane.
8
9  Beer production: Measured data coming from a Galician brewery were handled to
1011 inventory stage. The Spanish electrical production model for year 2000, according
1 to data available from the Institute for Diversification and Saving of Energy
2 (IDAE, 2001) was applied to define the resources consumed due to the electrical
3 consumption.
4  Wastewater treatment plant at the brewery: The energy consumption as well as the
5 flow and composition of the final discharge of treated wastewater were included in
6 the inventory.
7
8  Production and transport of bottles and other packaging elements: The components
9 included on this subsystem were the following:
2011
1
 Glass bottle of 250 g of weight and 0.33 L of capacity, with a mouth of high
2 crown and formed by 60% topaz glass and 40% recycled glass. It is
3 transported by road from Madrid (Spain).
4  Plastic box of 1.82 kg of weight and 24 bottles of capacity, constituted by
5 High Density Polyethylene (98%) and Masterbatch (2%). It is transported by
6 road from Cordoba (Spain).
7
8  Wood pallet of 51.7 kg of weight and 81 boxes of capacity made of dry pine
9 and nine Low Density Polyethylene plates. It is also transported by road from
30 Cordoba (Spain).
1  Distribution to the consumers: The market study of the brewery factory points out
2
four areas of influence:
3
4  Regional market: 70% of total production is sold within an average distance of
5 130 km and transported by diesel trucks of 16 tons.
6
7  National market: 22% is sold within an average distance of 400 km and
8 transported by diesel trucks of 16 tons.
9  International market: 4% is sold within an average distance of 1900 km and
40 transported by diesel trucks of 16 tons.
1
2  Transoceanic market: 4% is sold within an average distance of 6000 km and
3 transported by ship.
4
5
6
711
8
IJARGE-6-Hospido 5/14/05 3:04 PM Page 157

Environmental analysis of beer production 157

111 4 Environmental analysis

2
3 The purpose of the third phase of the LCA methodology is to analyse the inventory results
4 to better understand their environmental significance by means of classifying the inputs
5 and outputs into specific categories and modelling the inputs and outputs for each
6 category into an aggregate indicator (ISO, 2000).
7 In accordance with the default list of impact categories elaborated by Guinèe et al.
8 (2001), some of them were chosen among the so-called ‘baseline impact categories’:
9 eutrophication potential (EP), stratospheric ozone depletion potential (ODP), climate
1011 change (also called ‘global warming, potential (GWP)’), acidification potential (AP),
1 photo-oxidant formation potential (POFP) and depletion of abiotic resources depletion
2 potential (ADP) (Table 1).
3
Table 1 Characterisation factors used in this study
4
5 Impact category References
6
7 Global warming J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden and
8 (GWP) D. Xiaosu (Eds.), 2001, IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change
2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
9
2011 Stratospheric ozone World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), 1992, Scientific assessment
depletion (ODP) of ozone depletion: 1991. Global Ozone Research and Monitoring
1
Project – Report No. 25, Geneva, Switzerland. WMO, 1995: Scientific
2 assessment of ozone depletion: 1994. Global Ozone Research and
3 Monitoring Project - Report No. 37, Geneva, Switzerland. WMO, 1999:
4 Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 1998. Global Ozone Research
5 and Monitoring Project – Report No. 44, Geneva, Switzerland.
6 Acidification (AP) M.A.J. Huijbregts, 1999. Life cycle impact assessment of acidifying and
7 eutrophying air pollutants. Calculation of equivalency factors with
8 RAINS-LCA. Faculty of Environmental Science, University of
9 Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
30 Eutrophication (EP) R. Heijungs, J. Guinèe, G. Huppes, R.M. Lankreijer, H.A. Udo de Haes,
1 A. Wegener Sleeswijk, A.M.M. Ansems, P.G. Eggels, R. van Duin, H.P.
de Goede, 1992. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of products. Guide
2 and backgrounds. Centre of Environmental Science (CML), Leiden
3 University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
4 Photo-oxidant R.G. Derwent, M.E. Jenkin, S.M. Saunders, M.J. Pilling, 1998.
5 formation (POFP) Photochemical ozone creation potentials for organic compounds in
6 Northwest Europe calculated with a master chemical mechanism. Atmosph
7 Environ 32: 2429–2441. M.E. Jenkin, G.D. Hayman, 1999: Photochemical
8 ozone creation potentials for oxygenated volatile organic compounds:
9 sensitivity to variations in kinetic and mechanistic parameters. Atmosph
40 Environ 33: 1775–1293.
1 Depletion of abiotic J.B. Guinèe (Ed.), 2001. Life Cycle Assessment - an operational guide to
resources (ADP) the ISO standards. Volumes I–III. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning
2
and Environment, The Hague, The Netherlands.
3
4
5
6 Firstly, emissions and resources are sorted into the different categories according to their
711 potential impact on the environment. Once classification is finished, characterisation takes
8
IJARGE-6-Hospido 5/14/05 3:04 PM Page 158

158 A. Hospido, M.T. Moreira and G. Feijoo

111 place in order to quantify the potential contribution of an input or output, J, to the impact,
2 (CIJ), allowing aggregation into a single score by means of the following equation:
3
4 CIJ = AJWIJ,
5
6 where AJ is the amount of input or output and WIJ is the weighting factor. The total
7 potential contribution of to the effect from all inputs and outputs to the effect, (CI), is the
8 sum of each CIJ.
9 Here, we used Simapro 5.1, LCA software (PRé Consultants, 2002), to perform this
1011 stage. The identification of the contribution of each subsystem defined as the components
1 of the global process on each impact category and flow indicator are presented in Figure 2.
2
3 Figure 2 Characterisation data for each impact category considered in this work
4
5
6
7
8
9
2011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
Each impact category is calculated on its corresponding reference substance and,
4
5 consequently, comparisons stated as absolute values are not viable. Therefore, the use of
6 factors to establish the relative weights for each category will be necessary in order to
7 make comparisons and obtain their normalisation.
8 As noted above, the normalisation phase allows us to compare all environmental
9 impacts using the same scale (Figure 3). This procedure transforms an indicator result by
40 dividing it by a selected reference value, such as the total emissions or resource use for a
1 given area (Huijbregts et al., 2003). In the present study the situation in Western Europe
2 (data from the year 1995) were taken as the reference scenario for all the impact
3 categories as this is the most complete list available (Guinèe et al., 2001).
4 According to these outcomes, the categories can be divided into two groups:
5  significant: EP, GWP and AP
6
711  not significant: ODP, POFP and ADP.
8
IJARGE-6-Hospido 5/14/05 3:04 PM Page 159

Environmental analysis of beer production 159

111 Figure 3 Normalisation data for each impact category considered in this work
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2011
1 5 Interpretation of results and improvement proposals
2
3 The main objective of this study was the identification of hot-spots from an environmental
4 perspective, that is to say, points with greater polluting load associated with beer manufacture,
5 as well as the knowledge of the environmental influence of each productive stage.
6 The global analysis of the different subsystems shows that the packaging elements
7 production and transportation is the least respectful subsystem with an associated
8 responsibility of 35.1% of the total environmental impact closely followed by raw
9 material production and transportation (33.5%).
30 Whereas packaging elements mainly contribute to global warming and acidification
1 potential (46.1 and 51.8%, respectively), raw materials have an outstanding contribution
2 to eutrophication potential (52.6%). Malted barley processing and glass bottle production
3 are the specific operations that hide more environmental pollution.
4 The contrast of the outcomes obtained with others coming from available reports on
5 beer (Koroneos et al., 2005; Talve, 2001) was not possible due to the differences found
6 in the inventory data and the evaluation methodology applied, which made difficult to
7 achieve comparative conclusions.
8 Bearing in mind the results obtained, the proposal of potential improvements to
9 achieve a more ‘respectful’ beer can be established as the following:
40  the malted barley supplier be replaced by one closer to the brewery factory
1  an economical and technical analysis of malting the barley in the own brewery
2 facilities would be of interest
3
4  the return of glass bottles and plastic boxes as a reward for distribution centres and
5 consumers should be supported
6  the substitution of the glass bottle supplier by one that was 100% recycled glass
711 bottles is proposed.
8
IJARGE-6-Hospido 5/14/05 3:04 PM Page 160

160 A. Hospido, M.T. Moreira and G. Feijoo

111 6 Comparison with other consumption product

2
3 In order to have a point of reference about the environmental impact of beer manufacture
4 and its order of magnitude, the comparison with another product of consumption whose
5 LCA was previously determined for an identical geographic context may be very
6 interesting. For this purpose, milk has been chosen as a reference element (Hospido, 2003).
7 The direct comparison between a tetra brik of milk (1 L) and a glass bottle of beer
8 (0.33 L) is not very appropriate because consumption factors are not taken into account.
9 A reference familiar unit can be defined as a group of four members (two parents and
1011 two children of different ages) and, consequently, the average daily consumption of milk
1 and beer can be calculated as the following:
2
3  average daily consumption of milk=0.975 L
4  parents=2*0.200 L at breakfast
5
6  children=2*0.225 L at breakfast+1*0.225 L at night
7  average daily consumption of beer=0.424 L
8
9  parents=2/2*0.33 L
2011  children=2/7*0.33 L.
1
2 Figure 4 shows the distributive comparison between both daily consumptions.
3
4 Figure 4 Comparative results for both average familiar daily consumptions
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40
1
2 Considering the results obtained, production and processing of average familiar daily milk
3 consumption presents a superior environmental impact in all the impact categories
4 studied. For instance, the EP at milk production is due to the elaboration of food ration
5 for the dairy cows at farms, in which elements such as maize, silage and fodder, are
6 included, as well as wastewater generation with a high organic load due to milk losses
711 from milking facilities. However, although raw milk production at farms is responsible
8
IJARGE-6-Hospido 5/14/05 3:04 PM Page 161

Environmental analysis of beer production 161

111 for a large impact in nearly all the impact categories, the manufacture of the package
2 (tetra brik) also constitutes a remarkable element in many categories.
3 To summarise, in both products of consumption, the package represents a key factor
4 of impact. Social awareness should lead to the abandonment of the consumption of small,
5 non-reusable volume packages with effective packaging recovery and recycle systems.
6 Apart from the auxiliary elements of packaging, the analysis of both consumption
7 products indicates the agriculture phase as another focus of significant environmental
8 impact. The support and promotion of an ecological agriculture, in which neither
9 pesticides nor chemical agents are used on the meadows and crops, would significantly
1011 reduce the damage caused by this stage.
1
2
3 7 Conclusions
4
Life Cycle Assessment has been used to quantify the environmental impact associated
5
with a product of consumption: a typical brand of beer sold in Galicia (Spain). The final
6
aim of this study is to provide environmental information to the consumer, who has the
7
chance of taking his/her decisions with more respectful social behaviour towards the
8
protection of the environment.
9 Beer production itself has been found to be accountable for a small portion of the
2011 environmental performance of the life cycle of beer. However, the production and
1 transportation of packaging elements and raw materials are undoubtedly the aspects that
2 have to be regarded when improvement actions are proposed. Measures that support
3 recycling activities as well as the search for more environmentally-friendly raw materials
4 can be considered as alternatives to promote sustainable development.
5
6
7 Acknowledgements
8
9 This work was financed by the Galician Autonomous Government, Xunta de Galicia
30 (Project reference: PGIDIT04TAL262003PR). A. Hospido would like to express her
1 gratitude to the Spanish Ministry of Education for financial support (Grant reference:
2 AP2001-3410).
3
4
5 References
6 Andersson, K. (2000) ‘LCA of food products and production systems’, Int. J. LCA, Vol. 5,
7 pp.239–248.
8 Andersson, K. and Ohlsson, T. (1999) ‘LCA of bread produced on different scales’, Int. J. LCA.,
9 Vol. 4, pp.25–40.
40 Christiansen, K. (1997) ‘Simplifying LCA: Just a cut? ‘, Final Report SETAC-Europe, SETAC.
1 Consoli, F. (1993) ‘Guidelines for life cycle assessment: a code of practice’, Workshop Report.
2 SETAC.
3 Field, J. and Sierra, R. (2004) Anaerobic Granular Sludge Bed Technology Pages. Available at:
http://www.uasb.org/discover/agsb.htm (online).
4
Guinèe, J.B., Gorreé, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., de Koning, A., van Oers, L.,
5 Weneger, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., de Bruijn, H., van Duin, R. and Huijbregts, M.
6 (2001) Life Cycle Assessment: An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards, The Hague,
711 The Netherlands: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment.
8
IJARGE-6-Hospido 5/14/05 3:04 PM Page 162

162 A. Hospido, M.T. Moreira and G. Feijoo

111 HØgaas, M.E. (2002) ‘Life cycle assessment of industrial milk production’, Int. J. LCA, Vol. 7,
2 pp.115–126.
3 Hospido, A., Moreira, MT. and Feijoo, G. (2003) ‘Simplified life cycle assessment of Galician milk
4 production’, Int. Dairy J., Vol. 13, pp.783–796.
5 Hough, J.S. (1990) Biotecnología de la Cerveza y de la Malta, Ed. Acribia, Zaragoza.
6 Huijbregts, M.A.J., Breedveld, L., Huppes, G., de Koning, A., van Oers, L. and Suh, S. (2003)
7 ‘Normalisation figures for environmental life-cycle assessment: The Netherlands (1997/1998),
Western Europe (1995) and the world (1990 and 1995)’, J. Cleaner Prod., Vol. 11,
8 pp.737–748.
9 IDEA (2001) ‘Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la energía’. Available at:
1011 http://www.idae.es (online).
1 ISO (2000) ‘International Organization of Standardization’, 14040 Series – Environmental
2 Management, Geneva, Switzerland.
3 Koroneos, C., Roumbas, G., Gabari, Z., Papagiannidou, E. and Moussiopoulos, N. (2005)
4 ‘Life cycle assessment of beer production in Greece’, J. Cleaner Prod, Vol. 13, No. 4,
5 pp.433–439.
6 Perdersen Weidema, B. (1993) ‘Life cycle assessment of food products’, First European
7 Invitational Expert Seminar on LCA of Food Products, Lyngby, Denmark.
8 PRé Consultants (2002) SimaPro 5.1 User Manual, The Netherlands: Amersfoort.
9 PRé Consultants (2003) SimaPro 5.1 Database Manual, The Netherlands: Amersfoort.
2011 Talve, S. (2001) ‘Life cycle assessment of a basic large beer’, Int. J. LCA., Vol. 6, pp.293–298.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8