Page 52 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition

38 N. E. Korres

Recent changes in the agricultural sector and related market niche along with
consumer’s preferences for eco-friendly production methods necessitate changes
in the traditional model of ‘‘productivism agricultural era’’ which is focused on
production of food and fiber (Wilson 2007) in favor of a ‘‘post-productivism
agricultural era’’ which focuses on environmental management and ‘‘production of
nature’’ (Marsden 1999). In support to this, the 2003 mid-review of the common
agricultural policy (CAP) marked agricultural support payments conditional upon
compliance with certain environmental standards (EC 2003). Holmes (2006)
reported that the transition of agricultural structure from ‘‘productivism’’ to ‘‘post-
productivism’’ model will be achieved through its multifunctional role. Marsden
and Sonnino (2008) considered multifunctional agriculture as a part of a sus-
tainable rural development paradigm within an agro-industrial model. This could
result in generation of advantages toward increase non-farm income from the
emerging opportunities such as bioenergy production. Earlier, at the beginning of
1990s, Sachs and Silk (1991) characterized farming systems as type 1 integrated
food and energy systems (IFES) and type 2 IFES. This categorization was based on
the way they were designed in terms of integration and intensification toward the
simultaneous production of food and energy. More particularly, type 1 IFES is
characterized through the production of feedstock for food and for energy on the
same land and multiple-cropping patterns or agroforestry systems (Bogdanski et al.
2010). Type 2 IFES seek to maximize synergies between food crops, livestock, fish
production, and sources of renewable energy through the adoption of agro-
industrial technology (such as anaerobic digestion) that allows maximum utiliza-
tion of all by-products and encourages recycling and economic utilization of
residues (Bogdanski et al. 2010).
It is therefore imperative to examine and reconsider practices that alleviate the
environmental burden of agricultural and bioenergy production systems. One way
to achieve this is through the application of life cycle assessment (LCA) which
allows for a detailed analysis of material and energy fluxes under various pro-
duction schemes. This includes indirect inputs to the production process and
associated wastes and emissions and the downstream fate of products (Korres et al.
2010).
The purpose of this chapter is to describe how the applications of LCA in
agricultural production systems in relation to bioenergy use in transportation
sector, particularly biogas and bioethanol production using lignocellulosic mate-
rials as feedstock, can assist in decision-making processes toward sustainable
production practices. The development of generic guidelines and corresponding
commentary on important issues for each LCA phase can assist greatly toward
proper applicability of LCA in both sectors.
The need for this kind of approach is justified by discussions on bioenergy
production sustainability in terms of carbon dioxide emissions reduction but also
by consumer needs for environmental friendly production practices and products.
It should be noted, however, that bioenergy is considered renewable and sus-
tainable form of energy under certain conditions (Perley 2008). For example, to
maintain the carbon dioxide balance, biomass harvest must not exceed growth