A comparison of carbon accounting tools for arable crops in the United Kingdom

• Published in: Environmental modelling & software : with environment data news Vol. 46; pp. 228 - 239
• Main Authors: Whittaker, Carly, McManus, Marcelle C., Smith, Pete
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Elsevier Ltd 01.08.2013; Elsevier
• Subjects: Accounting; Agriculture; Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions; Air pollution; Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Arable land; Biological and medical sciences; Carbon; Carbon accounting; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; General agroecology; General agroecology. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development. Rural area planning. Landscaping; General agronomy. Plant production; General aspects. Techniques; Generalities. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development; Greenhouse effect; Greenhouse gas reporting; Greenhouse gases; Life cycle analysis; Mathematical models; Methods and techniques (sampling, tagging, trapping, modelling...); Reporting; Triticum aestivum; United Kingdom; Europe; Western Europe; British Isles; Carbon accounting; Agriculture; Greenhouse gas reporting; Life cycle analysis; Life cycle; Analysis; Greenhouse gas; Cropping system; Carbon
• ISSN: 1364-8152; 1873-6726
• DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.03.015

In light of concerns over climate change and the need for national inventories for greenhouse gas reporting, there has been a recent increase in interest in the ‘carbon foot printing’ of products. A number of LCA-based carbon reporting tools have been developed in both the agricultural and renewable energy sectors, both of which follow calculation methodologies to account for GHG emissions from arable cropping. A review was performed to compare 11 existing greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting tools produced in order to calculate emissions from arable crops, either for food or bioenergy production in the UK, and a multi-criteria-analysis was performed to test their relative strengths and weaknesses. Tools designed for farm-based accounting achieved a higher ‘user-friendliness’ score, however bioenergy-based tools performed better in the overall level of information provided in the results, transparency and the comprehensiveness of emission sources included in the calculations. A model dataset for UK feed wheat was used to test the GHG emissions calculated by each tool. The results showed large differences, mainly due to how greenhouse gas emissions from fertiliser manufacture and application are accounted for. Overall, the Cool Farm Tool (Hillier et al., 2011) was identified as the highest ranking tool that is currently available in the public domain. The differences in the results between the tools appear to be due to the goal and scope, the system boundaries and underlying emission factor data. •There has been a recent increase in interest in the carbon foot printing of agricultural products.•Existing carbon accounting tools for UK agriculture were identified and compared.•The end user affects the structure of the tool and the comprehensiveness of the calculations.•Differences are mainly due to different underlying emission factors and system boundaries.