Search

The production of food is responsible for major environmental impacts. Bearing this in mind, it is even worse when food is lost rather than consumed. In Switzerland, 46% of all processing potatoes and 53% of all fresh potatoes are lost on their way from field to fork. Our study therefore compares the environmental impacts of losses of fresh potatoes with those of French fries. With the aid of a Life Cycle Assessment, we assessed the impact categories "demand for nonrenewable energy resources", "global warming potential", "human toxicity", "terrestrial ecotoxicity" and "aquatic ecotoxicity". Our results show that 1 kg of potatoes consumed as French fries causes 3-5 times more environmental impacts than the same quantity of fresh potatoes, but also that the proportion of impacts relating to losses is considerably lower for French fries (5%-10% vs. 23%-39%). The great majority of processing potato losses occur before the resource-intensive, emission-rich frying processes and therefore the environmental "backpack" carried by each lost potato is still relatively small. Nonetheless, appropriate loss treatment can substantially reduce the environmental impact of potato losses. In the case of French fries, the frying processes and frying oil are the main "hot spots" of environmental impacts, accounting for a considerably higher proportion of damage than potato losses; it is therefore also useful to look at these processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Integrated fruit production (IFP) has been practiced in Switzerland on a large scale basis since the late 1980s, with the aim of improving sustainable farming. The guidelines of IFP emphasise an ecosystem approach that is based on scientific knowledge about self-regulatory mechanisms at the tree and orchard level. Empirical studies at the farm level are rare. An understanding of the relationship between income and environmental impacts at the farm level is a prerequisite for devising a robust system for orchard portfolio management. An income analysis based on full cost principle and environmental life cycle assessment were applied to 445 annual data sets of apple orchards, recorded on 12 specialised fruit farms over a period of 4 years. The main result was that environmental impacts such as ecotoxicity, eutrophication and non-renewable energy use did not necessarily increase when farms increased their income. A higher input level of pesticides, fertilisers and machinery did not lead to increased yields and receipts. In contrast, the choice of apple cultivars and high investment in pre-harvest labour hours were significantly correlated with high eco-efficiency and high farm income. The results of this study were summarised in a pyramid-shaped management model, providing key issues of successful orchard farming and attributing management rules to master them. The management pyramid indicates that cognitive competences such as distributional, conditional and non-linear thinking are crucial when knowledge from tree and orchard management is integrated at the farm level. A main recommendation is that more attention should be paid to improving management competence in order to contribute to sustainable farming. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In this study we assessed to what extent management of apple-growing within a well defined farming system affects environmental impacts. A four-year data set of 12 fruit farms from eastern Switzerland was analyzed using the life cycle assessment (LCA) method to evaluate the variability of different environmental impacts. For the total of 445 annual data sets of apple orchards eight impact categories were assessed. A principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to group the eight impact categories according to their correlation. A three component solution turned out to be adequate. It indicated that the three impact categories energy use, aquatic ecotoxicity and aquatic eutrophication were influenced independently of each other to a high degree. These three key impacts can be managed by keeping the inputs of machinery, pesticides and fertilizers low. Production constraints were highly homogeneous within the sample. Because of this, we were able to define the management influence on environmental impacts as the ratio of the maximum and minimum observed. On a per hectare basis, the effect of management for energy use was factor 2, for aquatic ecotoxicity factor 4 and for aquatic eutrophication factor 1.1. In contrast, when measured per receipts, the management influence was greater than per hectare, indicated by a range of factor 6 for each of the three key impact categories. Further insight into the effect of management was attained by statistical risk assessment. A positive and significant correlation between mean value (M) and the coefficient of variance (CV) indicated that the expected risk could be reduced by a low level of variability. Such a M–CV correlation was found for the two key impact categories energy use and aquatic eutrophication if calculated per receipts. No M–CV correlation was found for aquatic ecotoxicity. It was on the other hand observed that farms with low aquatic ecotoxicity also practiced low energy use and low eutrophication on a per receipt basis. We conclude that the promotion of environmentally sound apple-growing is not only a question of choosing one or the other farming system (e.g. organic versus integrated farming) but that an understanding of the system specific management influence is crucial. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]