Mapping indirect pressures allocated to crop production in LCA?

[cottrellr]

Hi @juliablanchard @bshalpern @bethpenrose. Trying to make some decisions about what to embed in the pressures data and some input would be great . The LCA data we are using for the pressures paper differ from Ben's paper in that there are off-farm pressures allocated to crop production e.g. GHG emissions from fertiliser production which occurs elsewhere (if you remember we agreed to use this data last year during your May visit, Ben). I haven't seen all the inventories but from the wheat inventory these are not insignificant, but nowhere near a majority share.

To my mind we have three options here:

• Keep the off farm pressures mapped to food production locations because they are important pressures but we don't have spatial data to map the off farm activities - problem being from this you can't necessarily take these data layers to impact when we want to go there because the location is wrong for some of it, but it can work for this paper (we have Ben's paper for doing the whole thing).
• Only use direct pressures, omitting off farm pressures in the LCA inventories which will allow us to get to impacts from direct farm activities using this data if we want to do that - but as I say we also have data from Ben's paper
• Use the existing data with off-farm pressures included for this paper but also isolate the direct pressure data from these LCA inventories so we have the option for going to impact from these data.

There are a couple of thoughts on the merit of each.

• First option - the spatial aspect of this doesn't really matter for this paper, it demonstrates the spatial approach to move to impacts but includes some important off-farm pressures from the production of feed raw materials
• Second option - isolates the direct farm pressures which is ideal for moving and differs slightly from our whole food system paper, as things like manure is mapped to the crop system where it is used rather than the livestock that produced it which obviously will dictate some important N/P impacts.
• Third option - obviously this is ideal but it will require Marceau investing a bit of time in isolating the on-farm only data and I don't want to ask him to do this if we aren't certain of it's value.

[bethpenrose]

As an 'agricultural' person, I think Option 3 is ideal but Option 2 is a good compromise- I know the spatial element doesn't really matter for this (it's primarily a proof-of-concept thing), but maps are very very powerful, and people will get het up if the off-farm impacts are mapped to the farm. However, what type of off-farm impacts are we talking about? Fertiliser-associated GHG emissions for example are (in my mind) legit to link to the farm, but not things like GHG emissions of the production of maize starch.

[bethpenrose]

Also, is it possible to map (as in data visualise) only the on-farm impacts but include the off-farm inputs in the 'score' of the regions? Let me know if I'm not being clear

[cottrellr]

Hi @juliablanchard @bshalpern @bethpenrose. Trying to make some decisions about what to embed in the pressures data and some input would be great . The LCA data we are using for the pressures paper differ from Ben's paper in that there are off-farm pressures allocated to crop production e.g. GHG emissions from fertiliser production which occurs elsewhere (if you remember we agreed to use this data last year during your May visit, Ben). I haven't seen all the inventories but from the wheat inventory these are not insignificant, but nowhere near a majority share.

To my mind we have three options here:

• Keep the off farm pressures mapped to food production locations because they are important pressures but we don't have spatial data to map the off farm activities - problem being from this you can't necessarily take these data layers to impact when we want to go there because the location is wrong for some of it, but it can work for this paper (we have Ben's paper for doing the whole thing).
• Only use direct pressures, omitting off farm pressures in the LCA inventories which will allow us to get to impacts from direct farm activities using this data if we want to do that - but as I say we also have data from Ben's paper
• Use the existing data with off-farm pressures included for this paper but also isolate the direct pressure data from these LCA inventories so we have the option for going to impact from these data.

There are a couple of thoughts on the merit of each.

• First option - the spatial aspect of this doesn't really matter for this paper, it demonstrates the spatial approach to move to impacts but includes some important off-farm pressures from the production of feed raw materials
• Second option - isolates the direct farm pressures which is ideal for moving and differs slightly from our whole food system paper, as things like manure is mapped to the crop system where it is used rather than the livestock that produced it which obviously will dictate some important N/P impacts.
• Third option - obviously this is ideal but it will require Marceau investing a bit of time in isolating the on-farm only data and I don't want to ask him to do this if we aren't certain of it's value.

I should be clear that both option 2 and option 3 require Marceau to do the filter.

[cottrellr]

When you say the maps - do you mean the maps in figure 2? Technically all data in the boxplots and bar plots etc are map summaries for which those in figure 2 are just visualised examples of. The type of off farm impacts depend on the crop but also the location....

[juliablanchard]

Just trying to get my head around the differences and assumptions/ implications of each. Might be helpful to chat through? Would options 2 and 3 underestimate the pressures? If so, does it affect our conclusions about comparing feeds?

Is option 3 more work than 2? Would this be a comparison for a supplement that could be done later?

———— Sent from my phone

---

From: Richard S. Cottrell @.> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 12:06 pm To: Sustainable-Aquafeeds-Project/feed_pressure_mapping @.> Cc: Julia Blanchard @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [Sustainable-Aquafeeds-Project/feed_pressure_mapping] Mapping indirect pressures allocated to crop production in LCA? (Issue #16)

When you say the maps - do you mean the maps in figure 2? Technically all data in the boxplots and bar plots etc are map summaries for which those in figure 2 are just visualised examples of.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/Sustainable-Aquafeeds-Project/feed_pressure_mapping/issues/16#issuecomment-1484319824, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGD7OX2ERLSXOAPVUKT6WTW6DRYFANCNFSM6AAAAAAWIP6MNU. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

This email is confidential, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended recipient organisation is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of the University of Tasmania, unless clearly intended otherwise.

[cottrellr]

Yes - 2 and 3 would reduce pressures and yes quite possibly change results but I'm not sure because I haven't seen all inventories. 2 and 3 are approximately the same work - both require Marceau to do a bunch of wrangling so I wanna be sure we're on the same page before I ask that of him.

[bshalpern]

apologies for my neglect in responding to this. it came right before our spring break holidays and then got lost in my overflowing inbox...

I'm totally fine with any of these options, but am least interested in option 1 because, although it gives a good 'quick' solution, it limits further analyses in ways that seem too much sacrifice. But again, if this is the easiest and is workable for what we want, I'm fine with it.

Option 2 seems the best to me, balancing what we can/want to do now and moving forward without overburdening Marceau.

The main reason Option 3 isn't my top is the work that would be needed to do it well. But if Marceau is up for it and we collectively want to create the foundation for all the potential follow on work (e.g. mapping impacts), then obviously that is great too.