UBC Undergraduate Research

UBC Food Security Project : GHG emission inventory : non-milk dairy products Carney, Elizabeth; Chu, Angela; Koppert, Nigel; Law, Ka Ming; Sharpe, Kira Apr 30, 2012

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Carney_E_et_al_SEEDS_2012.pdf [ 1.46MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108607.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108607-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108607-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108607-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108607-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108607-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108607-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108607-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108607.ris

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report       UBC Food Security Project  GHG Emission Inventory: Non-Milk Dairy Products   Elizabeth Carney  Angela Chu  Nigel Koppert  Ka Ming Law  Kira Sharpe University of British Columbia LFS 450 April 2012          Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.      UBC Food Security Project  GHG Emission Inventory: Non-Milk Dairy Products Elizabeth Carney, Angela Chu, Nigel Koppert, Ka Ming Law, and Kira Sharpe Scenario 2- Group 3             UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   2   UBC Food Security Project  GHG Emission Inventory: Non-Milk Dairy Products Elizabeth Carney, Angela Chu, Nigel Koppert, Ka Ming Law, and Kira Sharpe  Executive Summary  Greenhous e gas audit s of the Universit y of Briti sh Colum bia (UBC ) Van co uver campus are a component of UBC’s Climate Action Plan and the intercollegiate Sustainability Tracking Assessm ent and Rati ng S ys tem (STARS ) yet, to date, UBC has not perfo r med a food s ystem specific emi ssi on audit .  The food s ystem at UBC is an intricate s ystem hea vil y depend ent on outsi de input s from provincial, nati onal, and globa l distribut ors.  To effecti vel y esti mate the gr eenhouse gas (GH G)  emi ssi ons associated wit h the UBC food s ystem the sector was b roken int o three components: meat products, ve getable products, and dair y produc ts.  This report wil l focus on non - mi lk dair y products purch ased b y UBC in 2011: so y produ cts, yo gurt, cream cheese, oth er ch eeses, an d goat chees e.   The  ideal and most widel y used qu anti ficati on of GHG emi ssi ons is in kil ogr ams of ca r-bon diox ide equivalents (CO 2 e) per kilogram of pr oduct. To calculat e GHG emi ssi ons the rel e-vant emis sion factors mu st be identified and mul ti pli ed against known, ofte n weight - based, data.  These are regarded as “tier I.5” emission calculations on the scale of increasing calculation and data compl ex it y ran gin g from 1 – 3.   The data re gardin g the da ir y produ cts of int erest fo r this report was compi led throughout the purcha sin g ye ar and provided b y UBC in the 2011 Velocit y report (Un iversit y of Britis h C o-lum bia, 2011).  This list has been modi fied to sho w relevant info rmati on and included in Appe n-UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   3  dix I.  Data re gardin g gr e enhouse gas emiss ion fac tors was collected th rou gh a review of go v-ernment documents and relevant lit eratur e.  Emissi on factors used in this re port are includ ed in Appendix II.   The result s indi cate that t he majorit y (70.6%) of th e non - mi lk dair y product gr eenhouse gas es arise from transpo r tation whil e the re mainde r arises from producti on (17.0%) and pr o -cessi ng (12.5%).  Produ c t - wise, so y products ar e responsi ble for the majori t y of the emi ssi ons (32.3%) foll owed b y sem i - hard ch eeses (18 .6%).   The tot al emis sions for non - mi lk dair y produ ct emi ssi ons are: 299,219.41 kg CO 2 e as sum mariz e d in the below table:  Product Category GHG Emissions  (kg CO2e) Percentage of Total  Soy 96,709.32  32.3 %  Yogurt 41,022.1  13.7 %  Cream Cheese 44,434.3  14.9 %  Soft Cheese 10,576.71  3.5%  Semi-Soft Cheese 40,569.7  13.6%  Semi-Hard Cheese 55,551.6  18.6 %  Hard Cheese 8,451.2  2.8 %  Goat Cheese 1,904.5  0.64%  Total 299,219.41 100%   In determi nin g the GHG emi ssi ons of the non - mi lk dair y products, some important a s-sump ti ons were made tha t ma y hav e influenc ed th e ac cura c y of the result s. Due to the lack of avail abil it y of transpar en c y of dair y pr ocessors in Canada re gardin g sour cing of raw mil k, di s-tance trav eled b y dair y pr oducts was estim ated fro m the dist ributi on center to the Student Union Buil ding, as a gen eral ref erenc e point on the Van c ouver campus . Assumpt i ons were also made regardin g method of t rav el for seve ral of the prod ucts: domesti c and in - pro vince che eses were assum ed transported b y l and, wher eas out - of - prov ince and int ern ati onal ch eeses were assum ed transported b y air. Pro ces sing and packa gin g meth ods were also gener ali z ed in emis sions calc u-lations due to lack of av a il able data, tim e restrictio ns and in order to incr eas e sim pli cit y of r e -UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   4  sult s.  Due to a lack of avail abil it y of suffi cient data fo r calculati ons, th e result s are likel y to be an underesti mate of the actual GHG emi ssi ons ass ociated with non - mi lk da ir y produ cts of the UBC Food S ystem. It is also important to note that greenhouse gas emiss ions ma y not be the best indi cators of sust ainabili ty and th e like l y in approp riateness of the carbon ca lculators avail able onli ne to the publi c (Kim & Neff, 2009; Pad gett , Steinemann, Clarke, & Vandenber ghe, 2008).   Some gen eral recomm en dati ons that can be mad e to reduce GHG emi ssi on s are: r edu ce or phase out the pur chas i ng of drinkable yo gurts from Quebec and opt for more loc al produ cts; e nga ge in carbon miti gati on programs to achiev e t he go al of zero net emi s sions by 2050; and p urchase as man y bulk items  as poss ibl e  and estab li sh an “Eco- t o - go” program to reduce waste w here possi ble.               UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   5   Introduction  Project Overview The University of British Columbia’s Climate Action Plan has been working to estimate the gr eenhous e gas emiss ions of the campus since 2006 and has previous l y ex cluded emi ssi ons related to food consum pti on, producti on and wast e on campus (U BC Susta inabili t y, 2012 ). Due to the high levels of impa ct associated with food producti on globall y, it is important to measure the emi ssi ons associated with the UBC Food S yst em. The purpose of this report is t o inventor y the gr eenhous e gas emiss ions associated with non - mi lk dair y produ cts, and provide quanti tative measures of sustainability as part of UBC’s Climate Action Plan (UBC Sustainability, 2012). The estimation of GHG contributions from UBC’s non - mi lk d air y produ ct consum pti on will provide a bas eli ne measu rement from which impr ovement go als can be set for future ye ars. Overall we hope to address the question: where can improvements be made to UBC’s dairy product choices in rega rd s to source, pa cka gin g, a nd waste?  The go als of thi s report i nclude to:  1.  C ompi le useful baseli ne data re gardin g the sour ce and abundan ce of dair y product -related GH G emi ssi ons  2.  P rovide att ainable recom mendati ons for emi ssi on and waste reducti on   Context As levels and public awareness of the effects of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere rises, it becomes ev er mo re important to investi gat e the sourc es of these inc reases and develop feasibl e wa ys in which to mit igate these eff ects. Food producti on contri butes subst anti all y to this UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   6  cli mate chan ge, with agri cult ure producin g 10 to 1 2% of total anthropo geni c greenhous e gas emi ssi ons globall y (Ecka rd et al. , 2010).  In line with the UBC Cli mate Acti on Plan, UBC Suppl y M ana gement coll aborates wit h suppl iers to  implement sus tainable procur ement of goods and servic es fro m sourcing, to produ c-ti on, transport, packa gin g, and disposal, thus helping staf f, students, and fac ult y members mak e more sust ainable pur chas ing de cisi on s (UBC Sustainable Purchasin g Guid e, 2010) .   Additi ona l -l y, particip ati on in the self - repo rting Sustainabil it y Trackin g Assessm ent an d Rati ng S ystem (STARS ) progr am helps to provide a fr amework for understandin g sust aina bil it y in all sectors of higher educ ati on in relation to other coll e ges and uni versiti es in Canada an d the Unit ed States (Advanc ement of Sustainabil it y in High er Edu cati on, 2011).  UBC has also partner ed with the University Neighbourhoods Association to participate in Metro Vancouver’s “Zero Waste Cha l -lenge” (UBC Waste Management, 20 11).  This pa rtnership will assess the ex isti ng campus solid waste system and identify opportunities and steps to achieve the “Zero Waste Challenge” of 70% reducti ons b y 2015 (U BC Waste Management, 2011).   Background Information Agriculture accounts for ap proximately 8.00% of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions in kil otons of CO 2  equivalents (Environment Canada , 2011).  Emissi ons from the livestock agricu l -ture sector have be en de c reasin g since 2005 but le ave signi ficant room fo r improvement .  The dair y s ector , the focus of thi s report, accounts fo r comparati vel y litt le  of Canada’s livestock agr i -cult ural emis sions ;  the bulk of the emi ssi ons arise from intensive bee f and pork producti on ( E n-vironment Canada, 2011 ) .  Theoreti c all y thi s amo unt wil l  increase or decr e ase with consumer demand for dair y product s as it is federall y re gulat ed by a  quota s ystem.  The GHG emi ssi ons on UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   7  a dair y farm ar e  prim aril y asso ciated with ente ric fermentation of the anim als, as well as manur e storage and man a gement .  Due to the incre ase d fer mentati on required to di gest feed that contains higher amount s of rou gh age as opposed to concen trated fe ed cows in an or gani c s yst em wil l pr o-duce more between 10 - 1 5% more methan e than cows in a conventi onal s ystem  (Cederbe r g & Mattss on, 2000) . Organic  producti on does have ot her bene fits though, as th e reducti on in ch em i -cal fertili z ers and pesti cides can hav e a si gnific an t beneficial impact. Th er e are also indirect GHG redu cti ons involved in orga nic producti on i n terms of redu cing  emi ssi ons associated w it h chemi cal produ cti on, tra nsportati on and appli cati on .  As a consum er, UBC Food Services can select dair y produ cts that are sour ced from low GHG emi ssi on farms.  The majorit y of dair y se c -tor GHG emi ssi ons arise from bovi ne metaboli sm and waste produ cts ( Can adian Dair y Info r-mation Centre , 2009).  The nec essi t y of ref rigerati on during the tr ansportati on processes mak es the transport of dairy products a significant contributor to the sector’s carbon dioxide emissions (CD IC , 2009 ).  The othe r influences on th e GHG i mpact of a dai r y product include the pr o-cessi ng of the milk into various products and the packa gin g pro cess( es) (Ph ett eplace et al ., 2001; FAOU N, 2010).    UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   8  Figure 1: T he ener gy cycl es and GHG sour ces and sink of cat tl e far ms      (Taken from Phet t epl ace , Johns on, and Sei dl (2001) .   Milk  Milk producti on in Canada is regulated b y the Ca nadian Dair y Comm iss ion, which su p-ports the indust r y throu gh the impl ementati on of na ti onal pol icies for milk producti on, assessin g chan ges in the dem and and the producti on of milk, as well as ove rseein g th e revenu e and ma rket -sharing s ystems of th e dair y s ystem (CD IC , 2011). The dair y pro cessi n g sector is concentrat ed, with the three lar g est processors in Canada (Saputo, Agropur, and Parmalat) “processing close to 80% of the total raw milk produced” in the country (CDIC, 2011).  The processing of milk i n-volves centrifu gati on, se parati on and cl arific ati on, foll owed b y pasteuriz ati on to kill  harmful m i-croor ganism s (Go ff, 201 1).  The pasteu riz ed milk is then homogeniz ed and under goes ultra - high temperatur e in order to st eriliz e it before pa cka gin g it in pre - ste riliz ed containers (Go ff, 2011). Globall y, the aver a ge GHG emi ssi ons for milk produc ti on are 2.4 kg CO 2  equivalents per kil o-gr am of milk after proces sing and tr ansport (FAO UN, 2010) and the Can a dian aver a ge is est i -mated at 1.0 k g CO 2  equivalent per kil o gram of mi lk (Ver gé et al . , 2007).  In Canada, pa cka gin g ma y be in cans, pap erbo a rd/pla sti c/foil/ plasti c laminates, flex ibl e pouches, thermoformed plasti c containers, flow mol ded containers, bag - i n - box , or bulk totes, dependin g on the siz e and quanti t y desired b y the consum e r (Goff, 2011).   Yogurt  Yogu rt producti on foll ows the steps of milk proc essi ng unti l the approp ria te mil k fat pe r-centa ge is attain ed.  Once at this stage, starter bac teria cult ures are added t o the mil k in sealed hygienic vats and all owe d to ferment unt il lacti c acid concentr ati ons rea ch a pre - d etermi ned, and not wide l y publi shed, am ount, at which point the yogurt produ cti on process is fini shed (Watson UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   9  Dair y Consul ti ng, 2012).  Some processors all ow the ferm entation to conti nue to take plac e in the co ntainer the y o-gurt durin g shippin g, pro ducing a cr eami er yo gu rt.  Sev eral yo gurt va rieti e s contain fruit or fruit s yrups.  Th ese are add ed int o the container whe re i t either rests on the botto m of the container or is sti rred in (Goff, 1995).  In cert ain drinkable yo gurts – including the sole yo gurt produ ct in thi s stud y – t he fermentation vessels are aggressi v el y agit at ed to prevent the yo gurt from gett ing too thi ck.  Most yo gurts in Canada are pa cka ged in #5 plasti c tubs of various siz es, which are a c-cepted at rec ycli n g facil it ies in Vancouve r.  Small er tubs ma y be se aled wi t h a thi n sheet of pla s-ti c, which is non - rec yc la ble, or with an alum inum sheet, which can be rec ycled, whil e lar ger tubs often have s ealed lids of the same plasti c compos i ti on.   Cheese C anada produ ces a total of 667 differ ent varieties of chees e, most of w hich are produ ced in Ontario and Queb ec, using less than 60% of the tot al flui d milk produced in Canada (CD IC , 2011).   Cheese is produ c ed from he ated proc essed whole milk wit h the addit ion of a bacterial cult ure, addit ives, and, occasionall y, he rbs (Fell o ws, 2008) and colour.  Hard che eses require more cookin g and rip ening time than soft ch eeses , thus requiring mor e en e rg y input s (Fell ows, 2008).  Cheddars and other hard cheeses are often packaged using “vacuum gas flush” of plastic laminate made from a va riet y of plasti cs, makin g it non - rec ycl able (Hill , 20 09).  Soft chees es  can be purchas ed in lar ge r, re c yc lable tubs made from pol yprop ylen e and #5 pla sti cs (Ber r y, 2009).  Goat ch eese is pr oduced in a simil ar mann er to cow ch ees es, but the suppl y fo r this pro d-uct is more specializ ed.  Britis h Col umbi a accoun ts for 13.5% of the go at farms in Canada (A gr i -UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   1 0  cult ure and Agri - Food C anada, 2006).   UBC prim aril y purch ases  semi - soft and semi - hard cheeses (eg. moz z arell as and che d-dars) and also purch ases so y and go at  che eses to accomm odate die ta r y requ irements of students ( Figure 2 ).  The cate go ries of che eses will be des cribed in greater detail in the Methodol og y and listed in Appendix I.   Cream Cheese  Canada produ ces the maj orit y of the cream che ese consum ed nati on all y an d the quanti t y of cream che ese importe d has decr eased b y 45.4 % from 2010 to 206,149 kg in 2011 (CD IC , 2012).  Cream ch eese is produced from 11 - 20% milk fat cream an d the result ing product co n-tains  at least 55% moi sture content with va r yin g fat conte nt from 30% to none (Hill , 2009).  The producti on of cr eam ch ee se is sim il ar producti on of other ch eeses;  requirin g heati ng, cooli ng, removi ng whe y, and the addit ion of a bacte rial cul ture as well as an y  desire d flavorin g (Hill , 2009).  Cream ch eese is als o poured int o a mol d and is refri ger ated (Hill , 2009).  Cheeses that have hi gher moist ure con tent, such as cream ch ees e, have low er overall greenhouse gas emi s-sions than hard er chees es  due  to reduc ed  proc essi ng and ripenin g (A guir re - Vill egas et al., 2011).   Cream che ese is often pa cka ged simi lar l y  to yo gu rt, using t ype 5 plasti cs, but can also be pac k-aged in a non - rec yc lable metal sheet. As shown in Appendix I, UBC purch ases three st yles of cream chees e pa cka gin g: large plasti c tubs, small e r metal - wr apped b locks, and small indi vidual serving pack a ges.   Soy  Soy beans ( Glycine max. ) are a legumi nous species that are a comm on alt ern ati ve protein UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   1 1  source fo r people wit h all er gies, lactose intole ranc e, or cult ural dieta r y rest r ictions . UBC pu r-chases so ymi lk and so y cheeses to accomm odate t hese dietar y restrictions ( Appendix I ).  So y is prim aril y gro wn in the Unit ed States, South America, and China; 1.3% of the world’s total soy gro wn in Canada ( Masud a and Goldsm it h, 2009 ).  The lack of dom esti c  pro ducti on necessi tates that the majorit y  of the so y produ cts consumed by Canadi an s  must be imported.  To produc e so y products, the so ybeans ar e steam cooked, ground i nto a powder, and the liqui d and insolubl e po r-ti ons are sepa rated.  Th e result ing liquid  is forti fie d and homogeniz ed in a manner simi lar to milk.  So ymi lk is packa ged using asepti c technolo g y, a process th at require s sterile condit ions, high he at levels, plasti cs and cardbo ard (M ans, 19 99).     Figure 2 UBC Food Ser vices’ year - t o - dat e dair y  pur chase s (kg) .  The most purcha sed chee ses are semi - sof t and semi - har d – the cat egor ies that cont ai n the most cheese product s (n= 17 and n =21, res pec ti vel y) and incl ude mozzar el l as and cheddar s.  Onl y one yogur t product was UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   1 2  l i st ed in the data provi ded by UBC.  Int er es ti ngl y, cr eam chees es have the thir d most product s pur chased (n= 11) but signi fi cantl y les s quanti t y by mas s.   Methodology Our Approach  As a group we devised th e foll owing formul a for calculati ng the gre enhouse  gas emi s-sions of dair y products:   Figure 3 Our groups’ formula for dairy product greenhouse gas emissions  (formul a 1)    This formul a all owed us to break the GHG emi ssi ons into zones of origin and all owed us to visualiz e the accumul a ti on of emi ssi ons from origin to consum pti on.    “Dairy production” emissions involved the feeding of the cows and the manure manag e-ment of the farm.  Giv en the re gulations behind th e dair y se ctor in Canada, the main variable we considered in this phase were whether the source was organic or conventional.  The “transport a-tion to processing” proved to be inacc essi ble  giv e n our resour ces and th e lac k of transpar enc y of the large dairy distributors.  The “processing” stage of dairy production varies from product to product.  To assess each product’s processing was outside of the time scope for this project; to accomm odate this we generali z ed producti o n for the eight categories of dairy products.  “Pac k-a g ing” emissions were estimated based on the type of material( s) us ed to pa cka ge the product;  in thi s case plasti cs for chee se products and cartons for so ymi lks.  To estimate the “transportation to UBC” element we determined the closest distribution UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   1 3  center and used Goo gle Maps® to calculated the dist ance to the UBC Student Union Buil ding (as a general reference point on the UBC Vancouver campus).  The “waste” element was a measu re of on - campus and off - ca mpus wastes: soli d, rec yc lable, and compos table  waste .  This report wil l not cover this element in the gr eenhous e gas calcu lations , as thi s is an ex tremel y compl ex iss ue that is discussed in the UBC Waste Audit (2009) i n detail.  This report wil l make re comm end a-ti ons that wil l lower the levels of waste produc ed.    Figure 4:   T he aver age d istanc e travel ed from the near est dist ri but i on cent er to the UBC Vancouver campus Student Union Buildi ng.  Not included in this graph is the Yogurt group (n =1) wit h a dist ance of 4837 km.  The aver age di st ance (indi cat ed by the red line) for these products is 179.1 km.   The aver age distanc e trave led, incl udi ng yo gur t , is 761.4 km.   A simil ar mental formul a is appropriate fo r so y ch eeses and milk altern ati ve products, i n-volving “soy production” in place of “dairy production” (Figure 3 ).   Th e processi n g, transport a-ti on, a nd waste elements will be approach ed simi lar to the milk products.    UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   1 4   Emission Factors  Emissi on factors wer e  us ed in gr eenhous e gas calc ulations to convert a vail a ble  data into carbon equiv alents as pe r the foll owing fo rmula (E nvironment Canada, 201 0):   Emission = (Activity Data) x (Emission Factor)  These calculati ons will result in a comparabl e val ue in the unit kil ograms of carbon per unit acti vit y.  In the case of dair y produ cts, this will be kg Carbon/kg product .  This wil l factor in the discussed ele ments of our devised fo rmulae for dair y and so y product s.  There are thr ee tiers of increasin g spe cificit y re gar ding av ail able emi ssi on factors  ( Table 1).  An approp riate tier is determi ned bas ed on tec hnical information avail a ble and the number of emi ssi on  factors consi der ed (Environment Canad a , 2005).  Most calculati o ns regardin g gr ee n -house gas emiss ions in the agricult ur al sector are ti er I or tie r II calculati ons (Environment Can a-da, 2005), invol ving emi ssi on factors from produ cti on and transportati on.  Our repo rt is cate g o-rized as “tier I.5” as it includes mass - bas ed, secto r - specifi c cal culations with moderate ex pertise levels.   Table 1: Emi ss i on factor tier des cr i pt i ons (ada pt ed from Envi r onment Cana da, 2005)  Tier Description I  Simpl e, less det ai l & exper ti se requi red  M a s s - bas ed  II  Cal cul at i ons incl ude sour ce types , sect or of indust r y/ economy  II I  Most compl ex GHG measur i ng met hods  Det ail ed dat a, thorough under st andi ng of technol ogi es  Sourc e - spe ci fi c, use d onl y for smal l number of “principal emission sources”  The primar y sour ce fo r emi ssi on factor data was Internati onal Panel on Cli mate Change UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   1 5  publi cati ons, however th ese proved to b e far more specific than the scope of this project.  Ther e-fore we ex tended our lite rature review to attain si mpl ified emi ssi on factors . A stud y pe rformed by the Am erican Environ mental Working Group produced a report with information  that was  be used to calculate th e ca rb on equivalents and gr een house gas emiss ions  of comm on food - stuffs (Environmental Working Group, 2011).  The EW G report provid ed seve ra l emis sion factors for the dair y sector producti on and processi n g, as well as  air, ground, and se a transportati on factors used in this report (Appe ndix II) .    Assumptions The table in Appendix I contains notes on an y ass umpt ions that were made for particula r products.  Much of thes e assum pti ons are  relat ed to the dist ances trav e led throughout the produ c-ti on and processi n g.  Due to a lack of firsth and dat a from the pro du cers we were un able to gua r -antee the provin ce or cou ntr y of milk ori gin and lo cati on of proc essi ng pl an ts for man y pro d-ucts.  For calculati on pur poses we will assum e tha t dom esti c cheeses are tr a nsported by l and if produced in provinc e or air if produc ed  out of pro vince.  Fo r land transport ati on the aver a ge fu el consum pti on of large, cla ss 8, refri ge rated tru cks was assumed to be 30 L/1 00km based on an i n-formal sea rch on rental s ervices and freight tru ck manufacturin g websit es. Inte rnati onal ch eeses are li kel y transpo rted b y air, but we factored in o cean transport to account for uncert aint y of transportati on methods used by each compan y.  The proc essi ng element of our GHG calculati on was also gene rali z ed.  Differ ent che eses withi n the cate gories wer e consi d er ed to under go  s im il ar  processi n g, despit e havin g diffe rent ripening times (le adin g to higher or lowe r over all emi ssi ons) and specializ ed ingredi ents in real i -t y.   In regards to Go at pr oducts, the ex act emis sion factor fo r produ cti on was unatt ainable and UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   1 6  an approx im ati on of goat emi ssi on being 70% of that of a cow was mad e based on avail abl e i n-formation  (Environment Canada, 2011) and the processi n g was assum ed to be simil ar to cow cheese proc essi ng.  Th e processi n g emi ssi ons for cream chees e were not at ta inable and, ther e-fore, we will be assum ing that the pro cessi n g is sim il ar to other che eses.  These assum pti ons are both for ease of calculati on and due to F rese arch avail abil it y and time con straint s.   Results  Production   The producti on emi ssi on factors fo r the non - mi lk dair y products (App endi x II) are d e -rived from the produ cti on values for whol e milk (cheeses ) and pa rtl y skim med mil k (yo gurt) (EW G, 2011).  So y prod ucti on emi ssi on factors include the producti on an d harvest, howev er b e-cause this product is  likel y from out - of - C an ada it is difficult to obtain a truly refle cti ve emi ssi on factor (EW G, 2011).  UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   1 7   Figure 5:   Product ion - der i ved emi ss i ons from the pr oduct s pur chas ed by UBC in 2011.  The producti on for all chees es is assumed to be the same, despit e havi ng sl i ght var iati on in reali t y depe ndi ng on mil k fat requir ement .  Soy and non - do mes t i c cheese pr oducti on data is dif fi cult to att ai n and assumpt i ons are based on domes t i c producti on and val ues provi ded by the EWG (2011).  Tot al product i on - der i ved emi ss i ons:  50, 679.89 kg CO2e   Table 2 Summar y tabl e of production - der i ved GHG e mi ss i ons.  Product Category Production GHG Emissions (kg CO2e) Percentage of Total Soy 3,113.88  6.13 %  Yogurt 1,22.30  2.43 %  Cream Cheese 1,593.23  3.14 %  Soft Cheese 1,201.95  2.37 %  Semi-Soft Cheese 16,428.5  32.36 %  Semi-Hard Cheese 25,416.02  50.06 %  Hard Cheese 1,564.47  3.08 %  Goat Cheese 218.52  0.43 %  Total 50,769.89 100%    UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   1 8  Processing The proc essi ng of these non - mi lk dair y  produ cts (e x cludi ng so y ) ( Figure 6 )  in this report begins with mil k process ing – a process wit h  a  hi gh level of ene r g y demand s .  As mentioned in the assum pti ons, all chee ses includi ng cream and goat chees e were reporte d using the same emi ssi on factor (fo r  dair y - cow produ cti on).  So y processi n g is also an en er gy - int ensive process  that is difficult to find data for due to the variati on s in global producti on.    Figure 6 Proc ess ing - der i ved emi ss i ons from the pr oduct s pur chas ed by UBC in 2011.  The proces si ng for all chees es and crea m chees e is assumed to be the same, despi te havi ng sli ght var i ati on in real it y depe ndi ng on ripening age, spec i al i zed ingr edi ent s, etc .  Tot al p roce ssi ng - der i ved emi ss i ons:   37, 289.16 kg CO2e       UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   1 9    Table 3: Summar y tabl e of proces sing - der i ved GHG e mi ss i ons  Product Category Processing GHG Emissions  (kg CO2e) Percentage of Total  Soy 3,694.44  9.21&  Yogurt 1,092.8  2.93%  Cream Cheese 1,968.13  5.28 %  Soft Cheese 1,484.76  3.98 %  Semi-Soft Cheese 20,294.03  54.42 %  Semi-Hard Cheese 6,545.78  17.55 %  Hard Cheese 1,939.28  5.20 %  Goat Cheese 269.94  0.72 %  Total 37,289.16 100%  Transportation   The greenhouse gas emi ssi ons from transport ( Figure 7 )  can arise from lan d, sea, or air transport.  It is assumed that imported and trans - C anada produ cts ar e transp orted by air and in -province produ cts are tr a nsported by ref ri ger ated truck.  The emi ssi on f acto rs associated wit h these modes of transpo rtati on differ (Appendix II).  UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   2 0    Figure 7:   Trans port - der i ved emi ss i ons from the pr oducts pur chased by UBC in 2011.  Soy product s ar e the mai n co ntr i but or to GHG emi ss i ons (89, 901.0kg) as the maj or it y of thes e product s are impor t ed.  It is impor t ant to not e that these cal cul at i ons do not incl ude out - of - count r y or i -gi ns.  The tot al transport - der i ved emi ss i ons =  211, 160.36 kg CO2e .    Table 4: Summar y tabl e  of trans por tat ion - der i ved GHG emi ss i ons.  Product Category Transportation GHG Emissions  (kg CO2e) Percentage of Total  Soy 89,901.0  42.6 %  Yogurt 38,696.0  18.3 %  Cream Cheese 40,873.0  19.4 %  Soft Cheese 7,890.0  3.7 %  Semi-Soft Cheese 3,847.2  1.8 %  Semi-Hard Cheese 23,589.8  11.2 %  Hard Cheese 4,947.4  2.3 %  Goat Cheese 1,415.0  0.67 %  Total 380,088.65 100% UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   2 1   Packaging  The number of packa ges purchased in 2011 ( Figure 8 )  was cal culated usin g dat a provi d-ed by th e UBC Velocit y report (U BC , 2012).  Th e se values can be used to provide an esti mate of how much waste is produ ced b y non - mi lk dair y pr oducts in 2011.  Whil e we cannot sa fel y calc u-late the volume, the quan ti t y (756, 982) can be use d as a benchm ark fi gur e for waste reducti on.    Figure 8: T he number of indi vi dual packages pur chas ed in 2011.  The tot al number pur chased is 756,982 indi vi dual packages .  It is evi dent that the indivi dual crea m cheese (n =11) pr o-duce s the bul k of the packagi ng and, in tur n, wast e.  Semi - har d  cheeses (n = 21) also have a high number of packages in 2011, however this cat egor y includes mozzar el l a and che d-dar – both of whi ch are used in sandwiche s, pizzas , past as,  and other common food items.   Carbon Equivalents Summary  The tot al carbon equivale nts produced b y these pr oducts are summariz ed i n Figure 9 and Table 5.  It appe ars the majorit y of the CO 2 e emi ssi ons derive from so y pr oducts, which, in turn, UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   2 2  are prima ril y tr ansportati on - derived emi ssi ons ( Figure 10 ).   Despit e having the le ast num ber of products, yo gu rt is respo nsibl e for 13.7% of the to tal emi ssi ons ( Table 5 ) much of which is also transportati on ( Figure 10 ).    The emi ssi ons from semi - soft chees es, which acco unt for 13.6% of the tot al emi ssi ons, are d e rived prima ril y thr ough produ cti on rather th an transportati on ( Figure 10 ).  This is likel y due to the majorit y of the products bein g proc esse d in - province and, th ere f ore, requirin g litt le transportati on.  This prod uct cate gor y is the most t rul y refle cti ve  of the dair y se ctor.      Figure 9:  The brea kdown of total kg CO 2 e by product .  Soy produce s the maj orit y of the emi ssi ons (32.3% ) , foll owed by semi - har d cheese (18.6% )    T ot al  kg CO 2 e from non - mi l k dai r y products:  299,219.41 kg   UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   2 3  Table 5:  Summar y  tabl e of total  GHG emi ss i ons.  Product Category GHG Emissions  (kg CO2e) Percentage of Total  Soy 96,709.32  32.3 %  Yogurt 41,022.1  13.7 %  Cream Cheese 44,434.3  14.9 %  Soft Cheese 10,576.71  3.5%  Semi-Soft Cheese 40,569.7  13.6%  Semi-Hard Cheese 55,551.6  18.6 %  Hard Cheese 8,451.2  2.8 %  Goat Cheese 1,904.5  0.64%  Total 299,219.41 100% UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   2 4   Figure 10:   A compar i son of the emi ssion sour ce s for the product cat egor ies .    UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   2 5    Transportati on is the sou rce of th e majorit y (70.5 7%) of the calculated em iss ions ( Figure 11).  This is not trul y refl ecti ve of the dair y secto r as a whole but, given the inclusi on of so y products and yo gurt sour ce, is appropri ate in the case of this repo rt.    Figure 11: T he sour ces of the tot al kg CO 2 e.  Trans port is the source of the maj or it y (70.6% ) of the emi ss i ons.   Table 6:   A summar y of the sour ces of over al l greenhouse gas emi ss i ons   Transportation GHG Emissions (kg CO2e) Percentage of Total Production 50,769.89  16.97 %  Processing 37,289.16  12.46 %  Transport 21,1160.40  70.57 %  Total 299 219.45 100 %   UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   2 6  Discussion Results  It is important to note tha t the majorit y of thes e res ult s are likel y und eresti m ati ons due to a lack of avail abil it y of data.  The  result s indi cate that the majorit y of the greenhouse gas emi s-sions arise from transpo rtati on.  This is not in alignment with the Canadian standard that the m a-jorit y of dair y s ector emi ssi ons deriving from the on farm produ cti on (CD IC, 2011).  Due to short comi ngs in avail abil it y of data regardin g proc essi ng emi ssi ons and ex a ct producti on data, our most detail ed result s  for dair y produ cts  ar e rel ated  to  transportati on.   The inclusi on of so y products, which are most from internati onal sourc es, makes the resul ti ng data have a hi gher transportati on value ( Figure 11 ) than the dai r y se ctor standard.   Measures of Sustainability Green hous e gas  emi ssi on s  ma y not be the best indicator of sust ainabili t y for the dair y s ystem due to its compl e x it y and the m yriad impa cts it has on the environ ment.  Although it is eas y to poi nt to cli mate change  as an impendin g th reat, ther e ar e more press ing iss ues arisin g fro m the dair y se ctor that can af fe ct the environme nt severel y on a mu ch shorter time scale.   An ex ampl e of short - ter m issues associate wit h anim al agri cult ure is e utro phicati on of water sour ces , which  occ urs  when lar ge amount s of nutrients are added to a bo d y of wat er .   This  sudden avail abil it y of res ources can cause local algal popul ati ons to incr ea se at an ex tremel y ra p -id rate. The rapid popul at ion growth consum es ox ygen in the water, brin ging it to dan gerousl y low levels, which can kil l other organism s li ving i n the water.  Run of f resu lt ing from dair y o p -erati ons and agriculture t o produce food for dai r y farms can have s erious impacts on biodi versit y UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   2 7  in riparian ar eas  and wat ersheds  around comm er c ial anim al operati ons  (Fil ip & Middlebrooks, 1976) .  It ma y be more eff ecti ve to consider the ef ficien c y and surplus of nitro gen used in the a g-ricultural setting to determine a farm’s sustainability.  Nitrous ox ide (N 2 O) is a side product of ruminant digesti on, is rel eased from manure as well (Sneath, Beli ne, Hilho r st, & Peu, 2006)  and has a global warming pot enti al 296 tim es gr eater t han an equival ent mass of carbon diox ide (Environmental Protecti o n Agenc y, 2011) .  Looki ng at nitro gen (N) su rplus on a farm is useful because it provid es an in put/ output view of what is being produ ced rather t han simpl y focusin g on output , as would be the case i f we were to focu s ex clusi vel y on GHG emi ssi ons.  Non - carbon  emi ssi ons in a dair y s yste m can be closel y tied to p roducti on as well , since t he nit rogen surplus scales cor respondi n gl y wit h how man y anim als ar e present in a cert ain are a (Oleson, et al., 2006) .  Surplus can also be determi ned fairl y easil y b y looki n g at what inp uts are brou ght into a farm ( e. g.: feed, fertili z er ), outputs ( e. g.: manure, milk, meat) ,  and the amo unt of  N  is incorp o-rated into crops which gi ves a compl ete pictu re ab out waste products in a sys tem (Ol eson, et al., 2006) .  N itrogen  efficien c y m a y be a bett er measu re of the sust ainabili t y  of the dair y sector ; thi s  is a measure of how muc h N is produced b y a s yst em in relation to its producti vit y.   L ookin g at dai r y s yst ems using N efficien c y as a measure of sust ainabili t y is int eresti ng because it gives an ed ge t o conventi onal pra cti c es: o rganic mil k producti on has a poore r N eff i -cienc y than conventi onal dair y farms (Oleson, et al., 2006) .  Organic farmi ng pr acti ces p rohibit the use of ch emi cal pesti cides and fertili z ers in producti on, and as a result releas e few er potenti al poll utants into the environment than conventi onal agricul ture (For ge, 2004) .  Howeve r, cows on dair y farms that mak e us e of fr ee - ran ge or ganic pr acti ces actuall y produc e more methane du e to increas ed enteri c fe rment ati on required to di gest fora ge.  In order to produc e the same quanti t y of UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   2 8  mi lk an organi c cow wil l produce a gre ater amoun t of GHGs than a conven ti onal, grain - fed cow  ( For ger, 2004).   This information suggest s that although or ganic producti on ma y have an ed ge in some aspects of produ cti on co ncernin g environm ental healt h there are drawb ac ks to goin g o r ganic.  Howeve r, organic dair y producti on ma y have a greater potential for emi ssi on miti gati on when making use of improved mana gement pr acti ces an d reducti on in herbicid e, pesti cide, and s y n-thetic fertili z er use (Olse n, et al., 2005).   Organic operati ons m a y hav e int rinsic value as well ; organic ope rati ons ar e le ss intensive than their co nventi onal counterpa rts and can actuall y i m-prove biodi versit y and so il condit ion where the y ex ist (Cederber g & Mattss on, 2000) .   Appropriateness of Carbon Calculators     A s the gener al publ ic bec omes increasin gl y aw ar e of the eff ect that anthr op ogeni c acti v i -ti es are havin g on the en vironment there is a need for tool s that effe cti vel y comm unicate perso n -al involvement in a wide reachin g s ystem.  Carbon calculators are tool s t hat all ow indivi duals to input information about their consum pti on habit s and acti vit ies and calcula te the amount of emi ssi ons associated wit h their lifest yle.   From seve ral pe er - revie wed pape rs we have gath ered that carbon calculat ors are ver y much in th eir infanc y an d far from bein g able to generat e specifi c , consi ste nt,  and reli able dat a on emi ssi ons.  Currentl y ,  because of the diffus e na ture of their dev elopm ent among a number of different non - governmen t, private, and gove rnme nt organiz ati ons ,  there is a consi der able degr ee of fragment ati on conce rn ing how emi ssi ons ar e be ing calculated (Kim & Neff, 2009).  A signif i -cant porti on of calculator s address onl y dire ct fact ors of indivi dual emis sions such as transport a -ti on and ener g y use and negl ect i ndirect factors, which would be associ ated wit h diet (Kim & UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   2 9  Neff, 2009 ).  Diff erent ca lculators will use differ e nt methods , emi ssi on factors, and data co m-plex it y  to calc ulate emi ss ions without adequatel y ex plaining their methodolog y ,  or will make us e of pr oprieta r y methods to calculate emi ssi ons and fail to disclose their calc ulations (Padgett , Steinemann, Clarke, & Vandenber gh e, 2008).  The fail ure of the majorit y of thes e calculators to i nclude emi ssi ons result ing from diet is a signific ant conc ern as emi s sions from land and agricult ur al sourc es accou nts for rou ghl y 30 % of all emi ssi ons (Lenz en, 2001).  Omit ti ng these factors from calculators al so interfer es with reco gnit ion on the part of the indivi dual that their dietar y choic es do have a significant impa ct on their carbon footprint (Ki m & Nef f, 2009) and that there is more the y can do to reduce emi ssi ons than drive the car less an d turn down the air condi ti oning.   Carbon calculat ors mus t also account for the sourc e of ener g y gen erati on rather than si mpl y give a result based on ener g y used, as the method of gener ati on use d for powe r has a massi v e influence on emi ssi ons associated wit h ele c-tricit y usa ge (Pad gett et al. , 2008).  There are also issues associated wit h the use of carbon equivalent values, with s ome calculators m aking use of diffe rent values o r omi tt ing the calcul a -ti on of non - C O 2  greenho use gases entir el y (Kim & Neff, 2009).  Carbon calcul ators ma y be a  promi sing tool fo r the f uture but the y require further dev e l -opment to give more ac c urate  and rel iable  result s.  T his tool  ma y prove us e ful for addr essi ng gen eral info rmati on for indivi duals, and providi ng recomm endati ons to reduce emi ssi ons based on personal data but their numbers ran ge too widely to be us eful in a quanti t ati ve cap acit y.  If result s are coupled wit h recomm endati ons , then ed ucati on could be tailored to the indi vidual, fostering  awa re n ess  of m ore  ef fecti ve course s  of acti on to mit igate cli mate chan ge. No group has mana ged to produc e a peer - r eviewed ca rbon cal cu lator and we would hesit at e to recomm end an y calculators to UBC F ood Services  for evaluatin g products purch ased.  UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   3 0   Limitations of our Approach  Our appro ach was signifi cantl y limi ted b y avail abi li t y of emi ssi on factors for differ ent products and difficult y addressi ng th e compl ex it y of ever y aspect involved in the dair y s ystem. Due to the ex tremel y di ff use nature of th e dair y s ystem with processors  rec eivi ng milk from man y dif fer ent farms we were un able to dete rmine emi ssi ons associated wit h transport from farm to processor that would i ncreas e our proj ected emi ssi ons. As we are anal yz ing GHG emi ssi ons associated wit h dair y pro ducti on we have discoun t ed the second ar y produ ct of meat from catt le once the y can no lon ger be milked; thi s is a gain of effici enc y ove r a pur el y be ef - catt le s ystem (Cederbe r g & Mattss on, 2000) .   The coll ecti on of emi ssi on factors was difficult an d required int ensive revie w of gover n -ment documents and rel e vant lit erature.  Sev eral assum pti ons were nec essa r y to facil it ate the lack of data or infe renc es from data that were mad e by th e group.  The emi ssi on factors (App e n-dix II) were coll e cted fro m several sour ces and sh ared amon g t he oth er gr e enhouse gas audit groups focusin g on meat s and ve getables to provi de consi stenc y.  The unit s of man y emi ssi on factors were appropri ate for our data (k g CO 2 e/kg), howeve r the transpo rta ti on EFs (g CO 2 e/ L) required fu rther assum pti ons in vehicle fuel efficie nc y .  Obtaini ng EFs fo r specialt y products, such as goat ch eese, and discernin g betwe en ch ees e t yp es was virtuall y impossi ble and required further assum pti ons.    UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   3 1  Recommendations  The UBC Cli mate Acti o n Plan (CAP) is a project that was establi shed in 2 009 by le ading campus - side consul tation s and workin g groups .  This project was  dev elope d through a mul ti - ye ar planning pro cess invol ving  ove r 200 UBC students, staff, fa cult ies,  and co mm unit y ex per t s  (UBC Sustainabil it y, 201 2).   The goals of the CA P are  to develop ta r gets and soluti ons for gr eenhouse gas emiss ions reducti ons and accel era te efforts to respond to the impacts of cli mate chan ge loc all y and globa ll y (U BC Sustainabil it y, 2012).  The CAP’s focus areas in cluded food, transportati on , fleets and fuel use, en er g y suppl y ,  mana gement ,  etc . (UBC Suppl y M ana gement, 2010).    An objecti ve of this gree nhouse gas audit was to provide re comm endati on s  to reduce emi ssi ons and increase s ustainabil it y of the food s ys tem.  We would like to align wi th the UBC Climate Action Plan’s goals of reducing emissions by 33% by 2015, 67% by 2020, and 100% by 2050 by improvin g UBC ’s dair y choic e s  regardin g transpo rtati on and pa ck agin g of dair y pro d -ucts (UBC Suppl y M ana gem ent, 2010).   Figure 10: The UBC Climate action plan emission targets, as per the below data table  UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   3 2    Goal kg CO2e  Goal kg CO2e 2011 N/A 299,219.41 2020 67% 98,742.41 2015 33% 200,477.01 2050 100% 0.00  Our recomm endati ons ar e structured  following  th e S . M . A . R . T .  guideline s , meaning th at the y must be: S pecifi c, Measur a ble, Att ainabl e, Reali sti c and T i m e - boun d.  Based on ou r result s , we have created the following thre e recomm endati ons:   1.  Focus on local sourcing Transportati on emi ssi ons  are major contribut ors to GHG emi ssi ons through the  releas e of  carbon diox ide and other poll utants from fos sil fuel combust ion.  In the case of this report, tran s -portati on accounted for 70.6% ( Table 5), despite many of UBC’s dairy products being sourced i n - province.   To reduc e tra nsportati on - r elated emi ssi ons, UBC shoul d att empt to source and purchase mor e local p rod ucts to minim iz e transportati on distances.  This can be achieved b y purchasin g produ cts fro m B.C. based subsi diarie s  of lar ger co r-porati ons  or independent farms rath er then importi ng  produ cts  or sourcin g products from the Eastern provinces.  An example of this are the products purchased from Agropur’s Fine Cheese Division located in Queb ec.  A West coast A grop ur subsi diar y, Island Far ms, has the Division Natrel which pro duces si mi lar chees e products an d is located signific antl y closer (Island Farms, 2012).  Another example involves the sole yogurt product, Yoplait’s, Yop ®.   The transportati on of thi s product is also significant ( Figure 9 , Figure 10 and associ ated Tabl es).   This product, likel y has an alt ern ati ve that does not require cross - C anada tr ansport.    UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   3 3  2.  Engage in carbon mitigation  E mi ssi on reducti on ma y be achiev ed throu gh pa rticipati on in a  carbon offse t progr am. Carbon offsett in g is a ser vice in which the  pur chas er pa ys  anoth er part y  to create greenhous e gas reducti ons on his or her behalf (D avid Suz uki Foundati on and Pembi na Insti tut e, 2009). This is most often in the form of tree plantin g but can occ ur in other forms of carb on sequestrati on as well .  In C ana da th ere ar e approx im atel y  fou rteen  retail offset v endors cur r entl y selli n g offs ets from a wide ran ge of pro jects, includi ng wind far ms, tree planting and lan dfil l gas recove r y (D a-vid Suz uki Foundati on and Pembi na Insti tut e, 20 09).  By ini ti ati ng a car b on - offsett in g pro gr am UBC will solidi f y its rep utation as a leade r of cli mate chan ge miti gati on and significantl y co n -tribut e to achievin g the goal of carbon neutrali t y by 2050 (UBC Sustainabil it y, 2010) .   3.  Reduce packaging through bulk ordering Unnece ss ar y pa cka gin g waste caus es  hi gh amoun t s  of gr eenhouse gas emi ssi on s  during the indust rial producti on of the pack a ging m aterial s.  Whil e thi s report was unable to provide quanti tative figu res on th e emi ssi ons associated wit h packa gin g, the shee r quanti t y of packa ges associated wit h non - mi lk dair y products is signifi c ant ( Figure 8 ).  Bulk pac kagin g is an opti on  to  reduce pack a ging .  A single la r ge cont ainer holds significantl y more s ervin gs than indi vidual containers, and will consequentl y produce few er emi ssi ons during producti on than packa gin g indi vidual servings.  Whil e thi s cannot be achi eve d for products requirin g indi vidual servings, such as cream ch eeses fo r caf eterias and so ymi lk cartons, thi s can be a fo c us for food produ cti on areas.  In addit ion, th e “Eco- t o - G o” program at UBC Food Services outlets and i n the Student Union Buil ding  provid es alt ernati ves to indivi dual servings if yo gu rts and m il ks can be serv ed UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   3 4  from lar ge r pack a ges int o reusable cups and bowl s .   Recommendations to LFS Students  W e have proposed some recomm endati ons fo r fut ure LFS students to furth er advan ce the project:   1.  C onti nue resear ch int o the emi ssi on factors asso ciated with these produ cts, pa r-ti cularl y packa gin g and packa gin g opti ons.  2.  T he provided emi ssi on factors shoul d be used to further assess the GHG emi s-sions , and possi bl y in clude  a more detailed an al ys is of onl y a few top pu r -chased produ cts.   Conclusions The use of CO 2  emissi ons as an indicator fo r the s ustainabil it y of the dair y sector is sti ll up for debat e.  The c omp lex it y of the dair y s ystem , in a nati onal and global contex t, makes it di f-ficult to obt ain reli able data at this level.  More th orough anal yses would i nclude fa rm - based non - carbon green house gas emiss ions and rel y les s on transport - rel ated and second - ha nd data sources.  How ever, giv en the nature of this pr eli mi nar y repo rt it appea rs tha t the primar y goal has been achieved and a bas e li ne inventor y of the non - mi lk dair y produ ct emis sions has been co m-pleted to the best level p ossi ble.  Based on ou r an al ysis of the non - mi lk dair y produ cts purchased b y UBC Food Services, we have concluded th at the emi ssi ons arise primar il y from the tr ansportati o n (70.6%) of the products – particula rl y so y produ cts (32.3%) and s emi - hard ch eese (18.6%) . The remaind er is dist ribut ed in the indus trial processi n g (12.5 %) of the product. The tot al em iss ions for non - mi lk UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   3 5  dair y product emis sions are result ed to be 299,219.41 kg of carbon diox ide.  From thes e data, we have identified some areas for improvement and provided att ainable rec o mm endati ons:  1.  R educe or ph ase out the purchasin g of drink able yo gurts from Quebe c and opt for more local and mature product s.   2.  Enga ge in carbon miti gat ion progr ams to achiev e the go al of zero net emi ssi ons b y 2050.   3.  Lastl y, pur chase as man y bulk items an d utilize the “Eco - t o - Go” program to reduce waste where possi ble.   Due to lim it ati ons in data and the scope of the proj ect, these recomm endati o ns are related prim aril y to transpo rtati on and pack a ging.  It is no t feasibl e for thi s group t o recomm end ch an ge s in overall purch asing of cheese produ cts, nor it is it possi ble for recomm end ati ons to be tar geted at farme rs or dist ributi on companies.  This project can be ex panded by future LFS 450  students taking a mor e foc us ed approa ch on highl y purch ased item s usi ng the emi ssi on fact ors collected in this repor t.   UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   3 6  Acknowledgements Thanks to the LFS 450 teachin g team for their pati ence and assi stanc e; our stakeholders with UBC Food Servic es and SEEDS ; past LFS 450 students for providi n g back ground info rmati on and past reports; and Parthenon Food Importer’s Ltd. and Arla Foods Canada Inc. for responding to our email and providi n g insi ght into the world of food distribut ion.  UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   3 7  Literature Cited Agriculture and Agri - Fo od Canada (2004 ). Sector Profile: Cheese . Retriev ed from: htt p:/ /www4.agr. gc.ca/ re sources/prod/doc/dair y/p df/prof_che ese_ e.pdf   Agriculture and Agri - Fo od Canada . (2006 ).  Canadian Dairy Goat Industry Profile. R etrieved from http: // www4.agr. gc. ca/resour ces/prod/doc/d a ir y/pdf/ goatpro file_e.pdf   Aguir re - Vill ega s, H., Kr aatz , S., Milani, F., Newe nhouse, A., Passos - Fon es ca, T., and Rein e-mann, D.  (2011) Und ers tanding the carbon footpr int of cheese.  Madison W I: Universit y of Wisons in Ex tension Publi shing.    Association for the Adv a ncement of Sustainabil it y in High e r Educati on. (20 11). Universit y of Britis h Col umbi a STARS Report. Retrieved from htt ps:/ /st ars.aashe.or g/i nsti tut ion s/uni versit y - of - brit ish - co lum bia - bc/report/2011 - 0 8 - 02/   Ber r y, J . (2009). Plastic #5 Recycling Got You Feeling Blue? Earth 911.com . Retrie ved from htt p:/ /earth911.com/ news/2009/ 02/03/ plasti c - 5 - rec yc li n g - got - you - fe eli ng - blue/   Canadian Dair y Informat ion Centre.  (2009).  Climate change and the dairy sector .  Retriev ed from  http://ww w.dair y - sustainabil it y - init iati ve.org/ Fi les/ media / Factsheet s_Scientific/ FactS heet - 2 - Final.pdf   C anadian Dair y Informat ion Centre. (2011). The Canadian dairy industry at a glance . Retrieved from http: // www.infolait.gc. ca/i ndex _e.php? s1=cdi - il c.   Canadian Dair y Informat ion Centre. (2012). Canadian Dairy Imports . Retrieved from  htt p:/ /dair yin fo. gc.c a/i ndex _e.php? s1=dff - fcil &s2 =im p - ex p&pa ge =im p_CY_YTD    Cederber g, C., & Mattss on, B. (2000). Li fe c ycl e assessment of milk producti on -  a compa rison of conventi onal and or ga nic farmin g. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8 , 4 9 - 60.  David Suz uki Foundati on and Pembi na Insti tut e. (2009). Purchasing Carbon Offsets. Retrieved April 6, 2012, from Davi d Suz uki: htt p:/ /www.davidsu z uki.org/publ icati ons/ downloa ds/20 09/clim ate_offset_ guide_web.pdf    Eckart, R.J ., Grainger, C. , and de Kle in, C.A.M. (2 010). Options for the ab a tement of methane and nit rous ox ide from rumi nant producti on: A rev iew. Livestock Science, 130, p. 47 - 56.   Environment Canada. (2 005).  Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Indicator: Data Sources and Methods . Retrieved from  htt p:/ /www.ec. gc. ca /i ndicateurs - indi cators/de fault .asp? lang=En&n = B E954420 -1&x ml =BE954420 - 0A2 B - 484E - 9C86 - 440 AA27 5C36 5&offset =4&to c=s how    Environment Canada. (2 011). National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (Executive Summary). Queen’s Printer.  UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   3 8  Environmental Protecti on Agenc y. (2011, Novem ber 2). Glossary of Climate Change Terms . Retrieved April 8, 2012, from Cli mate Change: htt p:/ /epa.gov/clim atech a nge/ gloss a r y.htm l   Environmenta l Working Group. (2011). Meat Eater’s Guide to Climate Change & Health: Lifecycle Assessments: Methodology & Results .    Fell ows, P. (2008). Chee se making. Appropriate Technology, 35 , 52 - 56.   Filip, D., &  Middlebrook s, E. (1976). Eutrophicati on potential of dair y catt le waste runo ff. Water Research, 10 (1 ), 89 - 93.  Food and Agriculture Or ganiz ati on of the Unit ed Nati ons. (2010). Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Dairy Sector: a Life Cycle Assessment .  FAOUN,  Animal Producti on and Healt h Divis ion. Retrieved from htt p:/ /www.fao.or g/docr ep/012/ k7930e/k7930e00 .pdf   For ge, F. (2004 ). Organic Farming in Canada: An Overview . Scien ce and Technolo g y Divis ion.  Retrieved from htt p:/ /ww w.parl. gc.c a/content/ LO P /R esearchP ubli cati ons/ prb0029 - e.htm    Goff, D. (1995 ). Dairy science and technology education : Yogurt, University of Guelph. R e-trieved from http: // www. foodsci.uogu elph.ca/d air ye du/ yo gu rt.htm l   Goff, D. (2011 ). Dairy science and technology education , Universit y of Gue lph. Retrieved from www.foodsci.uo guelph. c a/dair yedu/hom e.htm l    Hill , A. R. (2009). Welcome to Our Cheese Site . Universit y of Guelph. Retr ieved from htt p:/ /www.foodsci.uogu elph.ca/ch eese/w elcom.h tm   Island Fa rms . (2012). We’d love to hear from you. R etrieve d  from htt p:/ /www.isl andfarms.c om/ contact - us.php   Kim, B., & Nef f, R. (200 9). Measur ement and Co mm unicati on of Greenho use Gas Emi ssi ons from U.S . Food Consum pti on via Carbon Calcula tors. Ecological Economics, 69, 186 -196.   Lenz en, M. (2 001). The Importance of Goods and Services Consum pti on in Household Gre e n-house Gas Calculators. Ambio, 30 , 439 - 442.   Mans, J. (1999). High - te ch asepti c.  Dairy Foods, 100 , 57 - 66.    Masuda, T. and Goldsm it h, P.D.  (2009).  World So ybe an Producti on: Are a Harvested, Yield, and Lon g - Te rm Projecti ons.  International Food and Agribusiness Management Review , 12, 143 - 162.    Olsen, J .E., Schelde, K., Weiske, A., Weisbj erg, M.R ., Asman, W.A.H., and Djurhuus, J .  (2006).  Modelli ng gr eenhouse  gas emi ssi ons from European conventi o nal and organic UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   3 9  dair y farms.  Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment , 112 , 207 –220.    Padgett , J .P ., Steinemann, A.C., Clarke, J .H., and Vandenbe r gh, M.P . (200 8). A comparison  of carbon calcul ators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review ,  28, 106 - 1 15.    Phett eplace, H.W ., J ohnson, D.E., and Seidl , A.F.  (2001).  Greenhouse gas emi ssi ons from si m-ulated beef and dair y live stock systems in the Unit ed States.  Nutrient Cycling in Agroe-cosystems, 60, 99 –102.   Sneath, R. , Beli ne, F., Hi lhorst, M., & Peu, P. (2006). Moni toring GH G fro m manure stores on organic and conventi onal dair y farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 112 , 122 - 128.  Tetrapak. (2012). As epti c pack a ging. Ret rieved fr om htt p:/ /www.tetrapak.com /prod ucts_and_servic es/a septi c_sol uti ons/ asepti c_packa gin g/P a ges/default .aspx   Transport Canad a.  (2012 ). GHG Emission Factors (g/L) (2011) .  Retrieved from htt p:/ /wwwapps.t c.gc. ca/ P rog/2/ UTEC - C ETU/Gh gEmi ssi onFa ctors.aspx? lang=en g   Universit y of Briti sh Colum bia.  (2011). Velocity Report 2011 .  Microsoft Ex cel spreadsheet provided b y UBC Food Services.   Universit y of Briti sh Columbi a Suppl y M ana gem ent. (2010). Buying into the future: The UBC sustainability purchasing guide . Retrieved from http:/ /www.sust ain.ub c.ca/ sit es/s ustain.ubc.ca/files/upl oad s/pdfs/ UBC S ustainablePurchasin gGuide_v ersion 2.pdf   Universit y of Briti sh Columbi a Sustainabil it y. (20 12). Climate action . Retrieved from htt p:/ /www.sust ain.ubc.ca/clim ate - a cti on.    Universit y of Briti sh Columbi a Waste  Mana geme nt. (2011). An audit of UBC’s and UNA’s solid waste management system: Executive summary. R etrieved from https: // www.vist a .ubc.ca/w ebct/ urw/tp0.l c 5116011/cobalt MainFr a me.dowebct   Ver gé, X.P.C ., Dye r, J.A., Dejardins, R. L., and Worth, D. (2007).  Greenho use gas emiss ions from the Canadian dair y indus tr y in 2001.  Agricultural Systems , 94, 683 –693.   Appendix I – List of pro ducts included in report (including suppl ier, produ ct, distance, and qu a n-ti t y b y wei ght)  UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   4 0  Appendix I – List of products included in report (including supplier, product, distance, and quantity by weight)  Products Brand Name (if available) Supplier Packaging Quantity (kg) Distance Travelled (km) Soy Mozz ar ella So y Chee se (shr ed d ed )  B . C. Castle Chee se  Castle Chee se (W est) Inc.  4 x 2.2 7 kg  19.4  52 5 . 5  Nac ho Blend So y Chee se shr ed d ed )  B . C. Castle Chee se  Castle Chee se (W est) Inc.    525 .5  Origi nal So y Drink  *  So Nice  Co nco r d Sales Ltd .  24 x 250 mL  11 9 6 .0  22 .0  Vanilla Cha i So y Drin k *  So ya Wo r ld  Co nco r d Sales Ltd .  24 x 250 mL  10 2 . 0  22 .0  For tified Stra wb er r y So y Drin k *  So Go o d  Co nco r d Sales Ltd .  24 x 250 mL  15 8 0 .2 6  22 .0  For tified Cho co late So y Drin k *  So Go o d  Co nco r d Sales Ltd .  24 x 250 mL  23 7 0 .3 9  22 .0      Products Brand Name (if available) Supplier Packaging Quantity (kg) Distance Travelled (km) Yogurt Drinkab le (va ri ou s fla vou rs)  Yop lait  Ali me nt s Ulti ma Ltd  12 x 200 mL  15 6 1 .1 4  48 3 7 .0      Products Brand Name (if available) Supplier Packaging Quantity (kg) Distance Travelled (km) Cream Cheese Her b & Gar lic  Bour sin  Agr o p ur (Fine Chee se Divi sio n)  12 x 150 .0 g  61.0 2  48 3 1 .6 7  Her b & Gar lic (P o r t)   Kraft  12 0 x 26.0 g  248 . 3  27 .5  Li gh t  Philad elp hia  Kraft  20 0 x 18.0 g  206 . 4  27 .5  Plain   GFS  6 x 1.5 kg  47.2  31 .5  Plain (tub )   GFS  2 x 2.0 kg  16.8  31 .5  Plain  Philad elp hia  Kraft  6 x 1.5 kg  137 . 04  27 .5  Po r t  Philad elp hia  Kraft  20 0 x 18.0 g  541 . 35  27 .5  Spr ea d ab le  Lac ta ntia  Par malat Canad a Inc.  2 x 2.0 kg  115 . 7  21 .9 5  Spr ea d ab le  Philad elp hia  Kraft  1 x 3.0 kg  144 . 91  27 .5  Stra wb er r y  Philad elp hia  Kraft  12 0 x 26.0 g  43.2 9  27 .5    UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   4 1  Products Brand Name (if available) Supplier Packaging Quantity (kg) Distance Travelled (km) Soft Cheese Bocc o ncini (3 0 gr )  B.C. Scar d illo  Fla mi n go Foo d s Ltd .  1 x 2.0 kg  97.6 1  20  Bocc o ncini (9 0 gr )  B.C. Scar d illo  Fla mi n go Foo d s Ltd .  1 x 2.0 kg  444 . 92   Brie (do ub le cr ea m)  E mma  Jan K. Over whee l Ltd .  1 x 3.0 kg  40.2 5  40 .2 4  Brie (single cr ea m)  B.C. Natur al Pastur es  Natur al Pa s-tur es Chee se  1 x 2.5 kg  11.2 1  13 5  Brie (trip le cr ea m)  Ca yer  Sap uto Dair y Pro d -ucts  1 x 1.2 kg  4.6 9  22  Ca me mb er t (Danis h) *  Kraft  Kraft Ca n a -d a Inc.  12 x 125 .0 g  38.5  27 .5  Cur d (fr es h)  Village Chee se  T he Village Chee se Co .  2 x 1.5 kg  3.1 5  47 3  Cur d (p o utine)  Kinse y  Sap uto Dair y Pro d -ucts  10 0 x 60g  6.9  22  Masca r p o ne  T re Stella  Arla Foo d s Inc.  6 x 475 . 0 g  73.5 8  20  Pro vo lo ne  E mma  Jan K  Ove r -wh ee l Ltd .  3 x 3.0 kg  449 . 19  53  Rico tta **  Bar i  Sap uto Dair y Pro d -ucts  1 x 4.0 kg  39.9 6  22      Products Brand Name (if available) Supplier Packaging Quantity (kg) Distance Travelled (km) Semi-Soft Asiago  Deliss io  Kraft Ca n a -d a In.  2 x 1.0 kg  22.6  27 .5  Blue (cr u m-b led )  Castello  Arla Foo d s Inc.  2 x 2.0 kg  4.4 3  20  Blue (Ro se n -b o r g Mini)   Arla Foo d s Inc.  8 x 125 . 0 g  2  20  Ca mb o zo la   Arla Foo d s In.  1 x 2.2 kg  20.5 1  20  Ched d ar ( m e-d iu m)   GFS  2 x 2.2 7 kg  31.5  36 7 3 .5  Ched d ar ( m e-d iu m, shr e d -d ed )   GFS  2 x 2.5 kg  31.5  45 5 3 .2 8  Go r go nzo la *  Ballar ini  Jan K. Over whee l Ltd .  4 x 1.5 kg  40.2 5  21  Gro go nzo la ( whee l) *  Castello  Arla Foo d s Inc.  1 x 1.5 kg  1.7 7  20  Har var ti (J a l- Do fino  Arla Foo d s 1 x 4.2 kg  13.5 2  20  UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   4 2  ap eno )  Inc.  Mo ntar y Jac k (shr ed d ed )   GFS  2 x 2.5 kg  5.2 5  31 .5  Mo zz ar ella (p izza )  Black Dia mo nd  Par malat Canad a Inc.  2 x 2.2 7 kg  195 6 .0 8  21 .9 5  Mo zz ar ella (b lo ck)   GFS  8 x 2.3 kg  233 2 .8 8  31 .5  Mo zz ar ella (shr ed d ed )   GFS  2 x 2.5 kg  377 0 .8 3  31 .5  Swis s (Can a -d ian)   GFS  2 x 3.0 kg  167 0 .7 4  31 .5      Products Brand Name (if available) Supplier Packaging Quantity (kg) Distance Travelled (km) Semi-Hard Asiago ( whee l)  T re - Stella  Arla Foo d s Inc.  1 x 5.5 kg  5.7 8  20 k m  BC Co mb o Bo x   Litt le Qual i-cu m Chee s e -Chee s e -wo r k s  1 x 1.2 kg  186 . 42  82 k m  Blue (Danis h, wh ee l) *  Rose n -b o r g/Castello w  Arla Foo d s Inc.  1 x 3.0 kg  146 . 9   Co mb i natio n bo x   Litt le Qual i-cu m Chee s e -Chee s e -wo r k s  1 x 1.2 kg  186 . 42  82  Ched d ar ( mar b le)   GFS  2 x 2.2 7 kg  220 . 9  31 .5  Ched d ar ( m e-d iu m 32 %)   GFS  2 x 2.2 7 kg  2.3 7  31 .5  Ched d ar ( m e-d iu m, po r t)   Kraft  10 0 x 21.0 g  0  27.5  Ched d ar ( mild )  Black Dia mo nd  Par malat Canad a Inc.  12 x 500 .0 g  278 . 44  21 .9 5  Ched d ar (Old , wh ite)   GFS  2 x 2.2 7 kg  47.5  31 .5  Feta   GFS  1 x 3.0 kg  609 . 25  31 .5  Feta (Co w mil k) *  Petr o s  Par theno n Foo d I m-p o r ter s  1 x 11.0 kg  46 4  21  Go ud a (s mo ked )  Unie kaa s  Elco Fine Foo d s Inc.  4 x 2.7 kg  119 . 87  39 .7 5  Havar ti  Ca yer  Sap uto Dair y Pro d -ucts  1 x 4.0 kg  102 6 .8 1  22  Mo nter a y Jac k (shr e d -d ed )   GFS  2 x 2.5 kg  364 . 48  31 .5  Mo nter a y Jac k ( w/ ho t pep p er)   Par malat Canad a Inc.  2 x 4.5 4 kg  699 . 17  21 .9 5  UB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   4 3  Mo nter a y Jac k ( white, blo ck)   GFS  2 x 2.2 7 kg  7.5 8  31 .5  Mo nter a y Jac k (p izza mo zz ar el la)   GFS  2 x 2.5 kg  79.3 5  31 .5  Pac ific Pep p er (½ Whee l)   Natur al Pa s-tur es Chee se  1 x 2.5 kg  2.8 4  13 5  Swis s (Gr u y-er e) *  Vo n Mu hle nen  Jan K Ove r -wh ee l Ltd  6 x 2.7 5 kg  277 . 6  40 .2 5      Products Brand Name (if available) Supplier Packaging Quantity (kg) Distance Travelled (km) Hard Cheese Ched d ar (o ld )   GFS  2 x 2.5 kg  21.3  31 .5  Grana Pad ano ( 1/8 whee l)  Cre mo na  Arla Foo d s Inc.  1 x 4.0 kg  28.3 2  20  Par mesa n (B C)  BC Far ms tead  T he Village Chee se Co .  1 x 2.2 5 kg  2.3 5  47 3  Par mesa n (gr ated )   Kitch Es se n -tial  2 x 2.5 kg  114 . 45  22 .2  Par masa n (shr ed d ed )   GFS  2 x 1.0 kg  118 3 .6  31 .5  Par mesa n (value ble nd )   Kitch Es se n -tial  2 x 2.5 kg  181 . 5  22 .2  Par mesa n Sar d o *  Italissi ma  Bo sa Foo d s  1 x 3.6 5 kg  7.2 1  18      Products Brand Name (if available) Supplier Packaging Quantity (kg) Distance Travelled (km) Goat Cheese Ca me mb er t Gao t J uliette   Saltsp r in g Island Chee se Co .  6 x 160 . 0 g  0  95  Co w ble nd  Ca yer  Sap uto Dair y Pro d -cuts  2 x 1.0 kg  170 . 94  22  Cru mb led  BC Hap p y Da ys  Arla Foo d s Inc.  2 x 1.0 kg  5  20  Feta (cr u m-b led )  BC Hap p y Da ys  Arla Foo d s Inc.  2 x 1.0 kg  32.5  20  Ro ma no Pe c-co r ino (shee p mil k)  Lup a  Arla Foo d s Inc.  1 x 5.0 kg  5.8  20    * Assumed imported by airUB C FSP – GHG E mis sio n In vento r y: No n - Mil k Dair y Pro d ucts   4 4  Appendix II – Table of Emission Factors used for emission calculations  P roduct  Producti on  ( kg CO 2 e/ kg)  Processi ng ( kg CO 2 e/ kg)  Transportati on ( kg CO 2 e/ k m)  Soy  0.25 1  0.59 2  0.70 2  8.0 4 *  Yogu rt  0.79 2  0.70 2  8.0 4  Cream Cheese  1.02 2  1.26*  8.0 4  Cheese (domesti c)  1.02 2  1.26 2 *  8.0 4  Cheese (imported)  1.02 2  1.26 2 *  20.0 2  *  ( kg CO 2 e/ kg)  Goat Cheese  0.71 2 *  1.26 2 *  8.0 4   1  Carlsson - Kan yam a and Gonz ález , 2009  2  EWG, 2011  3  IPPC, 1998 Table 1 - 32  4  Transport Canada, 2012  * see  Assumptions   

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0108607/manifest

Comment

Related Items