The environmental impact of fertilizer embodied in a wheat-to-bread supply chain

Abstract

Food production and consumption cause approximately one-third of total greenhouse gas emissions13, and therefore delivering food security challenges not only the capacity of our agricultural system, but also its environmental sustainability47. Knowing where and at what level environmental impacts occur within particular food supply chains is necessary if farmers, agri-food industries and consumers are to share responsibility to mitigate these impacts7,8. Here we present an analysis of a complete supply chain for a staple of the global diet, a loaf of bread. We obtained primary data for all the processes involved in the farming, production and transport systems that lead to the manufacture of a particular brand of 800 g loaf. The data were analysed using an advanced life cycle assessment (LCA) tool9, yielding metrics of environmental impact, including greenhouse gas emissions. We show that more than half of the environmental impact of producing the loaf of bread arises directly from wheat cultivation, with the use of ammonium nitrate fertilizer alone accounting for around 40%. These findings reveal the dependency of bread production on the unsustainable use of fertilizer and illustrate the detail needed if the actors in the supply chain are to assume shared responsibility for achieving sustainable food production.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: The wheat-to-bread supply chain.
Figure 2: Process group environmental impact.
Figure 3: Environmental impact of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in comparison to other process groups.

References

  1. 1

    Garnett, T. Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy 36, S23–S32 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Tubiello, F. N. et al. The contribution of agriculture, forestry and other land use activities to global warming, 1990–2012. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 2655–2660 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M. & Ingram, J. S. I. Climate change and food systems. Ann. Rev. Enviro. Resour. 37, 195–222 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Tilman, D. et al. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671–677 (2002).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Godfray, H. J. C. et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Horton, P., Koh, S. C. L. & Shi Guang, V. An integrated theoretical framework to enhance resource efficiency, sustainability and human health in agri-food systems. J. Cleaner Prod. 120, 164–169 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Lenzen, M., Murray, J., Sack, F. & Wiedmann, T. Shared producer and consumer responsibility—theory and practice. Ecol. Econ. 61, 27–42 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Koh, S. et al. Decarbonising product supply chains: design and development of an integrated evidence-based decision support system—the supply chain environmental analysis tool (SCEnAT). Int. J. Prod. Res. 51, 2092–2109 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, Highlights (Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations, 2010).

  11. 11

    Tilman, D. & Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518–522 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    O'Rourke, D. The science of sustainable supply chains. Science 344, 1124–1127 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Hellweg, S. & Canals, L. M. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 344, 1109–1113 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Jenson, J. K. & Arlbjørn, J. S. Product carbon footprint of rye bread. J. Clean. Prod. 82, 45–57 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Kulak, M. et al. Life cycle assessment of bread from several alternative food networks in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 90, 104–113 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Espinoza-Orias, N., Stichnothe, H. & Azapagie, A. The carbon footprint of bread. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16, 351–365 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Andersson, K. & Ohlsson, T. Life cycle assessment of bread produced on different scales. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 4, 25–40 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Paustian, K. et al. Climate-smart soils. Nature 532, 49–57 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Grassini, P. & Cassman, K. G. High-yield maize with large net energy yield and small global warming intensity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 1074–1079 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Gan, Y. et al. Improving farming practices reduces the carbon footprint of spring wheat production. Nat. Commun. 5, 5012 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Zhang, X. et al. Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature 528, 51–58 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Brentrup, F. & Palliere, C. Nitrogen use Efficiency as an Agro-Environmental Indicator (OECD, 2010); www.oecd.org/tad/sustainable-agriculture/44810433.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Mueller, N. D. et al. Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 490, 254–257 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Jensen, E. S. et al. Legumes for mitigation of climate change and the provision of feedstock for biofuels and biorefineries. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 32, 329–364 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Cameron, D. D. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi as (agro)ecosystem engineers. Plant Soil 333, 1–5 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Han, M. et al. The genetics of nitrogen use efficiency in crop plants. Annu. Rev. Genet. 49, 269–289 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Xu, G., Fan, X. & Miller, A. J. Plant nitrogen assimilation and use efficiency. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 63, 153–182 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Long, S. P., Marshall-Colon, A. & Zhu, X.-G. Meeting the global food demand of the future by engineering crop photosynthesis and yield potential. Cell 161, 56–66 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Mosleth, E. F. et al. A novel approach to identify genes that determine grain protein deviation in cereals. Plant Biotech. J. 13, 625–635 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Oldroyd, G. E. D. & Dixon, R. Biotechnological solutions to the nitrogen problem. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 26, 19–24 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Green Food Project Bread Subgroup Report (DEFRA, 2012); https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69572/pb13797-greenfoodproject-breadsubgroup.pdf

  32. 32

    Davidson, E. A., Suddick, E., Rice, C. W. & Prokoby, L. S. More food, low pollution (Mo Fo Lo Po): a grand challenge for the 21st century. J. Environ. Qual. 44, 305–311 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Trudge, C. Six Steps Back to the Land: Why We Need Small Mixed Farms and Millions More Farmers (Green Books, 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Weidema, B. P. et al. The Ecoinvent Database: Overview and Methodology, Data Quality Guideline for the Ecoinvent Database Version 3. (ecoinvent, 2013); www.ecoinvent.org

  35. 35

    Guinée, J. B. et al. (eds) Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment. Operational Guide to the ISO Standards (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Svanes, E., Vold, M. & Hanssen, O. J. Effect of different allocation methods on LCA results of products from wild-caught fish and on the use of such results. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16, 512 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework (BSI, 2006).

  38. 38

    ISO 14044:2006 Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines (BSI, 2006).

  39. 39

    Fujihara, S., Sasaki, H., Aoyagi, Y. & Sugahara, T. Nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors for some cereal products in Japan. J. Food Sci. 73, C204–C209 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Bouwman, A. F., Boumans, L. J. M. & Batjes, N. H. Modeling global annual N2O and NO emissions from fertilized fields. Glob. Biochem. Cycles 16, 1–9 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41

    IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2006).

  42. 42

    Brentup, F. & Palliere, C. GHG emissions and energy efficiency in European nitrogen fertiliser production and use. Proc. Int. Fertiliser Soc. 639, 1–25 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment for their generous support. L.G. was supported in part by Impact, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange (IIKE) funds from the University of Sheffield and pump priming funding from the P3 Centre. We also gratefully acknowledge the support of our commercial partners.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

P.H. and S.C.L.K. conceived the study, R.B. negotiated with the commercial partners and L.G. carried out the collection and analysis of the data. All authors were involved in the interpretation of the findings and the writing of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Horton.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures 1–6, Supplementary Table 1. (PDF 539 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goucher, L., Bruce, R., Cameron, D. et al. The environmental impact of fertilizer embodied in a wheat-to-bread supply chain. Nature Plants 3, 17012 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.12

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing