Next Article in Journal
Land Cover Classification from Hyperspectral Images via Weighted Spatial–Spectral Joint Kernel Collaborative Representation Classifier
Previous Article in Journal
The Response of Grain Yield and Quality of Water-Saving and Drought-Resistant Rice to Irrigation Regimes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 2
10.3390/agriculture13020303
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Grape Wine Cultivation Carbon Footprint: Embracing a Life Cycle Approach across Climatic Zones

by
Yuval Tamar Hefler
and
Meidad Kissinger
*
Department of Geography and Environmental Development, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 8410501, Israel
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(2), 303; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020303
Submission received: 30 September 2022 / Revised: 2 January 2023 / Accepted: 7 January 2023 / Published: 27 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Ecosystem, Environment and Climate Change in Agriculture)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Ongoing climate change processes and increasing environmental pressure suggest the need to adjust the wine production systems worldwide to the new conditions while reducing their environmental pressure. The grapes’ cultivation phase may be influenced by expected changes. It follows that existing grape wine cultivation systems should be analyzed to identify major ‘hotspots’ and opportunities for change. Several studies have analyzed materials, energy inputs, and related emissions along the grape wine life cycle. However, most research focuses on traditional grape wine growing areas, and no study has yet focused on grape wine grown in unconventional desert areas. The research presented in this paper analyzed the carbon footprint (CF) of grapes grown in the Mediterranean, semi-arid, and arid climatic regions in the state of Israel. It revealed that, on average, a ton of grapes generates 342 kg CO2 eq from the cradle to the farm gate. The product was analyzed using a life-cycle approach, with the aim of studying the CF of each phase according. Most emissions were found to be related to the use of fertilizers (37%), fuel for transportation and mechanization (19%), and water supply (17%). The CF of grapes in the arid region was found to be the highest at 361 kg CO2 eq compared to 317 kg CO2 eq in the semi-arid region and 346 kg CO2 eq in the Mediterranean region. The analysis emphasizes the arid and semi-arid potential to reduce its CF by implementing farm management practices, including the choice of grape varieties, changing vineyard infrastructure, fertilizers, water management, and more. As presented here, understanding cropping systems in these regions can promote a better adaptation of the cropping systems to the changing conditions around the world.

1. Introduction

Worldwide, the demand for wine is increasing following demographic–socioeconomic and cultural changes, which are expected to continue in the coming years [1]. Today, almost 260 million hectoliters of wine are produced annually worldwide, covering an area of about 7.3 million hectares [2].
Throughout history, the Mediterranean basin was the main growing area for grapes, and the wine industry was an important element in the culture and economy of the region [3]. Even today, Spain, France, and Italy produce about 53% of the world’s wine [2]. However, recent decades have witnessed a change in the world’s winery industry. While vineyard cultivation in ‘traditional’ growing regions has increased, the growing demand, the improvement in agricultural capabilities, and the desire to diversify types, flavors, and qualities have increased the production of wine in ‘new’ parts of the world, such as the USA and China, along with growing vineyards and wine production in the southern hemisphere in countries such as Australia, Argentina, Chile, and South Africa [1].
Ongoing climate change processes, alongside increasing environmental pressure, suggest the need to adjust the wine production systems to the new conditions while reducing their environmental pressure. It follows that a growing number of studies have indeed focused on desired practices and management strategies along these lines—including the analysis of existing growing systems’ greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and mitigation potential [2,4,5,6].
Most studies adopted a systemic life cycle assessment (LCA) approach to examine a variety of inputs and emissions, directly and indirectly, related to the product (for a review of several wine grapes LCA-based studies, see the Supplementary Materials file). A growing number of studies have analyzed the carbon footprint (CF) of wine while referring to emissions related to different stages along its life cycle, including vineyard preparations, grapes cultivation, transport to the winery, wine production, to the end of the product’s life. The CF analysis quantifies GHG emissions directly and indirectly caused by activity or accumulation during the life cycle of the studied product [7]. The method makes it possible to identify hotspots, obstacles, and critical environmental issues along the supply chain of the selected product and to explore possibilities to reduce the CF [8]. Based on previous studies, it is clear that the cultivation phase is significant in terms of its share of the overall wine CF.
Similar to other crops, the cultivation of wine grapes is affected by a combination of environmental conditions—climate, soil quality, water availability, etc., and the way the vineyard is managed—the selection of varieties, the type and scope of the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and the source and amount of water, among other factors. Focusing on the cultivation phase, three components were revealed to be the main sources of GHG emissions: The use of fuel [9,10,11], the use of pesticides and fertilizers [12,13,14,15], and vineyard management [16].
As illustrated in Figure 1, most previous studies focused on the traditional growing areas in Europe, including Italy [4,17,18,19,20,21,22], Spain [12,23,24,25,26], and other European countries [14,27,28,29,30,31]. Some studies have been conducted in other parts of the world, including North America [32,33], Australia and New Zealand [34], and Latin America [35]. Nevertheless, most studies are concentrated in several limited climatic zones and do not reflect the distribution of grapes growing in the different regions of the world.
The research presented in this paper focuses on analyzing the CF of growing wine grapes in Israel. It joins a very limited number of studies focusing on the potential of growing vines in arid or semi-arid climates. Understanding cropping systems in these regions can promote a better adaptation of the cropping systems to the changing conditions around the world.
The country’s area is only 22,072 square kilometers and is located at the seam of a meeting point between Asia, Africa, and Europe. Therefore, it is on a climatic border and includes Mediterranean, semi-arid, and arid climates within a relatively small region.
Historical and archeological evidence reveals a significant activity of growing wine grapes in this part of the world starting from the Greek period, with quantities changing over the years [36]. Today, wine vineyards cover an area of about 55 square kilometers across the country’s climatic gradient, with an annual harvest of 65,000 tons. It produces around 50 million bottles of wine, 77% of which are red and 23% are white wines [37,38].

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Scope Definition and Functional Unit

The growing interest in the wine sector has advanced different carbon footprint (CF) calculating frameworks, including, for example, the OIV-Greenhouse Gas Accounting Protocol (OIV-GHGAP), the international FIVS protocol [39], the International Carbon Wine Protocol (IWCP), and several carbon calculators, such as the French ornithological calculator Bilan Carbone [40] the Australian Wine Carbon Calculator [41], and the Italian wine carbon emissions calculator [42].
This study analyzes the carbon footprint of 12 different vineyards in three regions in Israel. The IPCC methodology [43] was chosen as the evaluation method for calculating greenhouse gas emissions using a 100-year framework. Ecoinvent data [44] was also used as a base (3.9 databases). A detailed list of the GHG conversion factors used in this analysis and each factor source can be found in the Supplementary Materials file.
The research focuses on the grape cultivation phase and includes vineyard preparations (infrastructure, planting, watering), cultivation during the first 3 years, and throughout the full harvest years. It refers to the supply and use of water, production, and application of fertilizers, pesticides, and fuels for machinery and transportation. The analysis does not include the land preparations, seedlings’ nursery stages, and the end of the vine’s life. Similar to several previous studies, the functional unit (FU) used was 1 ton of grapes [20,45] which is the number of grapes needed to produce roughly equivalent to 120 gallons of wine, or two barrels.
The initial data collection was conducted through a detailed face-to-face personal interview with each of the farmers cultivating the studied vineyard. Data also provided by an Israeli wine production company, The ‘Tabor Winery’. The data was collected over the 2018–2019 cultivating year.

2.2. System Boundaries

The research focuses on the cultivation stage up to the vineyard gate before being transported to the winery and analyzes the various inputs and emissions throughout this process. All the processes and field operations necessary to grow grapes, including the production and use of the main inputs, such as fossil fuels, fertilizers, pesticides, water, and vineyard infrastructure (Figure 2), were included in the system’s boundaries. The fuel inputs included materials transportation to the vineyard and machinery used during land preparation, cultivation, and harvesting, mainly by tractors. The use of metal refers to the trellising system. It was assumed that the same infrastructure was used throughout the entire operating years of the vineyard and therefore was divided by the number of years to reflect the annual embodied emissions. The use of pesticides refers to pesticides for fungi, pests, diseases, and weeds; the active ingredient of each pesticide used was calculated based on the official pesticide producer data. Data on the use of fertilizers included various types of used fertilizers based on the NPK content and emissions related to irrigation were calculated based on the electricity used for water extraction and supply. The used electricity relied on the national grid which is based on natural gas, coal, and renewables (more details can be found in the Supplementary Materials).

2.3. Research Location

This research focused on wine grape cultivation systems in three regions characterized by different climates, from south to north: the arid ‘Negev Desert’, the semi-arid ‘Shfelah Hills’, and the Mediterranean Galilee Mountains and the ‘Golan heights’ (Figure 3). In each region, four similar size vineyards were analyzed. The difference between the main climate regions in Israel is very noticeable—the North region is characterized as a Mediterranean region (400–1200 mm of rain per year). In contrast, the Negev desert’s southern region is characterized by an arid desert climate with very little precipitation (less than 200 mm). Between these two regions, there is a narrow strip of semi-arid climate (200–400 mm of rain per year).

2.4. Analysis of the Carbon Footprint (CF)

The analysis focused on the main agricultural methods conducted: application of fertilization and pest control, soil management, pruning, harvesting, and transportation. All greenhouse gas emissions are expressed as CO2-eq (kg). The calculation methodology adopted in this study is based on the international standard, ISO 14067 [46], where the input data for each process or sub-process are multiplied by specific and appropriate emission coefficients that quantify CO2 eq emissions. The emission factors are calculated considering the global warming potential (GWP) associated with the process concerning carbon dioxide. The three most relevant greenhouse gases, estimated according to the GWP 100a IPCC 2013 methodology, are reported as 1 for carbon dioxide (CO2), 25 for methane (CH4), and 298 for nitrous oxide (N2O). For the GWP indicator used in this paper, the time horizon is 100 years [44].

3. Results

On average, growing a ton of grapes, the amount requires to produce 1000 bottles of wine, requires 1000 square meters of land, 180 cubic meters of water, 80 kWh of electricity, 17 kg of metal, 10 L of fuel, and about 540 kg of additional materials including chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and compost. The carbon footprint (CF) of that amount of grapes from cradle to the farm gate was found to be 342 kg CO2 eq.
Table 1 presents the average inputs per year for a ton of grapes throughout the life of the vineyard—the preparation of the infrastructure, the first years, and the productive years—in the various studied areas. The analysis reveals a significant range in the use of water and electricity for water supply between the climatic regions in all stages along the product’s life cycle, highlighting the extra quantity of water needed in drier areas. In the productive years, a difference in fertilization amount was found between the regions, revealing a larger amount used in the semi-arid region.
The analysis of the emissions inherent in the supply of the various resources throughout the life cycle of grape cultivation shows that, on average, growing a ton of grapes emits 343 kg CO2 eq. Figure 4 shows the analysis of the relative contribution of the various components to the carbon footprint. 42% of the GHG emissions are related to land management practices (production and use of chemical fertilizers, compost, and pesticides), 22% to the use of steel for the vineyard infrastructure, 19% to the use of fuels, and 17% to electricity for water.
Figure 5 illustrates the carbon footprint of each studied system in the different climatic regions. The emissions range between 200 and 524 kg CO2 eq per ton of grapes. While there is intra-regional variation, the regional averages are not significantly different.
Table 2 presents a detailed account of contributions from all life cycle stages to the carbon footprint of each studied vineyard in the different climatic regions. Across all vineyard activities at all stages, the production and use of fertilizer made the most significant contribution to the carbon footprint, especially in the semi-arid region. The fertilizer-related footprint component was distributed between almost 60% of emissions related to the chemical fertilizers production and supply and about 34% related to their application in the vineyards. The rest (about 6%) was related to the use of manure compost. The use of metal infrastructure in all studied vineyards was found to be a significant component, responsible for up to 25–30% of the analyzed footprint. The use of fossil fuels was found to be a significant component, especially due to the use of machinery during the fruitful years. In the case of the arid region’s vineyards, the use of fuel for shipping materials over relatively larger distances from suppliers to the vineyards increased emissions of that component. The highest electricity-related emissions were identified in the arid region as a result of the higher use of irrigation. The use of pesticides contributed a minor portion of total CF. Although there are differences between the studied vineyards in each region, the regional average CF of all analyzed components for a ton of grapes is quite similar. Still, studied vineyards in the arid region have a higher footprint compared to vineyards in other regions. That difference is mostly related to electricity use for irrigation.

4. Discussions

The need to examine the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the wine sector receives increasing recognition both from the scientific community and among wineries and grape growers worldwide. However, most research focuses on a limited number of regions that constitute traditional wine-growing areas (mostly in Europe). The research in other growing areas is still quite limited. Also, almost no studies have been conducted in arid and semi-arid areas.
One of climate change’s potential implications is changing conditions in areas that enjoy optimal conditions for growing wine grapes. Those growing areas will probably have to adapt to the changing conditions. Exploring the situation today in arid and semi-arid areas, as done in this study, can indicate the necessary adjustments needed in terms of expected materials and energy inputs and related emissions in light of the expected changes.
The research presented in this paper analyzed the carbon footprint (CF) of grapes grown in three geographic regions with different environmental and climatic characteristics. It is one of the first worldwide CF analyses of wine grape systems in an arid and ‘semi-arid’ climate. Analyzing the CF of grape wine grown in those regions along its life cycle and comparing the results to grape wine systems in the Mediterranean region in a single study allows for a good examination of the growth characteristics in each region while identifying the differences between the systems.
Similar to studies in other parts of the world, this study found that, on average, a ton of grapes generates 280–360 kg CO2 eq from the cradle to the farm gate. Most emissions are related to the use of fertilizers (37% of the emissions), the vineyard metal infrastructure (25%), fuel for transportation and mechanization (19%), and water supply (17%).
In the arid region, a significant part of the emissions was related to the production of electricity for irrigation, which is twice as high as in the other two areas. Furthermore, the emissions from using compost and fuel for transporting materials during the first 3 years of the vineyard are twice as high as in the other two climatic regions.
Nevertheless, examining emissions per unit of area in the arid region studied vineyards revealed that, on average, the volume of emissions is low compared to the other regions (422 kg of CO2 eq compared to 490 kg CO2 eq in the semi-arid region and 491 kg of CO2 eq in the Mediterranean region). At the same time, the analysis of the emissions per ton of grapes shows that the average in the arid region is the highest (360 kg CO2 eq compared to 300 kg CO2 eq in the semi-arid region and 346 kg CO2 eq in the Mediterranean region). The main reason for this is the relatively low yield per unit of area in the arid region.
While comparing the results of different vineyards’ carbon footprint studies is not that straightforward, as each study may use different research boundaries, the results of the analysis presented here are in the lower range of wine grapes’ footprint analysis. For example, other Mediterranean-based studies such as Litskas et al., 2017 in Cyprus [47] and Harb et al. 2021 in Lebanon [48] presented a carbon footprint of 390 and 450 kg CO2 eq/ton of grapes, respectively. Another study conducted in Italy and Spain [24] reported 113 and 613 kg CO2 eq/ton of grapes, respectively, emphasizing that vines grown in northwestern Spain exhibit higher GHG-related impacts compared to other, drier regions such as Tuscany and Sardinia. In fact, the CF values in northwestern Spain correspond to those observed in other Atlantic regions, such as northern Portugal [14], with more similar climatic conditions.
The use of synthetic fertilizers, which was found to be the main source of emissions in all the vineyards examined in this study, causes high carbon emissions due to the product’s life cycle—production, supply, and application. Other studies have also identified the use of fertilizer [12,14,25,32] and the use of diesel [4,10,32,49,50] as the most significant source of emissions.
Regarding the vineyards included in this study, no excessive use of fertilizers was found in the arid region compared to the other regions. This finding is somewhat surprising because the low quality of the soil in arid areas requires the use of fertilization as an important element in the vine’s growth. The explanation for this probably stems from several factors, including precise use of fertilization, additional fertilization through compost, and low yield compared to the other areas.
Water-related emissions were also significant. Additional studies have examined irrigation water use [6,18,23,27,49] and found that the amount of electricity consumed was significant. This factor is influenced by the climate zone, the pumping depth, and the distance the water is transported to the vineyard. Dry conditions create a higher demand for irrigation and, therefore, an increased use of electricity or fuel to water supply. On the other hand, higher-than-average rainfall during the growing season increases the pressure of fungal diseases, which may require more tractor work and fungicides than in the other regions. Also, while all the vineyards examined in this study used benign water, a significant part of the vineyards in Israel today use reclaimed treated water. The accessibility of reclaimed treated water in arid/remote areas, such as the area where the vineyards were examined in this study, reduces the likelihood of high availability of reclaimed water in the future compared to other areas closer to the source of water.
The studied systems analysis highlights several hotspots that can be used to minimize the CF along the life cycle of wine grapes, including field operation optimization, transportation, and soil nutrition management. Vineyard managers influence soil management, the type and amount of fertilizer used, and the nature and timing of fertilizer applications. In addition to choosing grape varieties with high nutrient absorption efficiency, effective management of fertilizer inputs and choosing grape varieties adapted to the regional climatic conditions can significantly reduce emissions [51]. Exploring an alternative infrastructure that will use fewer amounts of metals can also contribute to a smaller carbon footprint.
Some research limitations should be acknowledged. The selection of the vineyards was conducted according to the farmers’ interests to cooperate. While it covers a few systems in each climatic region, the number of analyzed systems is still limited and, therefore, it will not necessarily be possible to draw conclusions from the results about the entire wine grape production system in Israel. Due to the lack of data, the vine nursery stage was not taken into account. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the number of vines that are replaced on an annual basis is very low, which minimizes the effect of this exclusion [24,52]. In addition, throughout all the stages, agricultural waste is not included in the account since the waste in all the vineyards is crushed in the field and, therefore, there is no data about its quantity. Finally, human labor hours are not taken into account in this work. Additional inputs that are not included include the establishment of a vineyard (permanent buildings, land preparation) and the production and maintenance of various products (field equipment and irrigation pumps).

5. Summary and Conclusions

Changing growing conditions due to climate change may influence the wine industry. Analyzing the carbon footprint (CF) of wine grapes systems, as presented here, is a key to advancing this sector’s GHG mitigation.
The analysis presented in this paper is the first attempt to capture the GHG gas emissions of Israeli wine vineyards. The analysis allowed identifying major materials and energy inputs and related direct and indirect emissions and identified the measures with the most significant potential contribution to reducing emissions in the future.
While, indeed, based on the studied systems, growing grapes for wine in the arid region requires higher inputs and often has a larger (CF), the documented differences are not significant and can be reduced by implementing different management practices and/or adjusting grapes varieties.
In conclusion, the research results emphasize the ability of vineyards and wineries in different growing regions to be sustainable even in harsher climatic conditions, given the implementation of required measures. The Israeli Negev region, which has a desert climate, can be used as an experimental field for understanding better how climate change processes will affect the vines and finding ways to adapt. Research like this can help winegrowers survive climate change, help reduce emissions and adapt to future changes.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture13020303/s1. Table S1: Detailed report about the main characteristics of the 27 studies reviewed in the paper. Table S2: Classification of reviewed studies into climatic zones. Table S3: The emission coefficients used in this work. Table S4: Detailed calculation methods. Table S5: The characteristics of the research participating vineyards. Table S6: Area and weight Comparison of vineyard grapes in the research areas. Figure S1: Kg CO2-eq emitted per 1000 square meters of each studied vineyard

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.T.H. and M.K.; methodology, Y.T.H. and M.K.; formal analysis, Y.T.H. and M.K.; investigation, Y.T.H.; resources, Y.T.H. and M.K.; data curation, Y.T.H. and M.K.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.T.H. and M.K. writing—review and editing, Y.T.H. and M.K.; visualization, Y.T.H. and M.K.; supervision, M.K.; project administration, M.K.; funding acquisition, M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially funded by the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. The International Organisation of Vine and Wine. Statistical Report on World Vitiviniculture in 2019. Available online: http://www.oiv.int (accessed on 1 April 2020).
  2. The International Organisation of Vine and Wine. State of the World Vitivinicultural Sector in 2020. Available online: https://www.oiv.int/public/medias/7909/oiv-state-of-the-world-vitivinicultural-sector-in-2020.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2021).
  3. Notarnicola, B.; Hayashi, K.; Curran, M.A.; Huisingh, D. Progress in working towards a more sustainable agri-food industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 28, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Benedetto, G. The environmental impact of a Sardinian wine by partial Life Cycle Assessment. Wine Econ. Policy 2013, 2, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Bosco, S.; Claudia, D.; Mariassunta, G.; Damiano, R.; Rossano, M.; Enrico, B. Soil organic matter accounting in the carbon footprint analysis of the wine chain. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 973–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Litskas, V.D.; Tzortzakis, N.; Stavrinides, M.C. Determining the carbon footprint and emission hotspots for the wine produced in Cyprus. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wiedmann, T.; Minx, J. A Definition of Carbon Footprint. ISA Research and Consulting, Durham. 2007. Available online: http://www.censa.org.uk/reports.html (accessed on 1 March 2019).
  8. Notarnicola, B.; Tassielli, G.; Renzulli, P.A.; Lo Giudice, A. Life Cycle Assessment in the agri-food sector: An overview of its key aspects, international initiatives, certification, labelling schemesand methodological issues. In Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 1–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rugani, B.; Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Benedetto, G.; Benetto, E. A comprehensive review of carbon footprint analysis as an extended environmental indicator in the wine sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 54, 61–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Marras, S.; Masia, S.; Duce, P.; Spano, D.; Sirca, C. Carbon footprint assessment on a mature vineyard. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2015, 214–215, 350–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tsalidis, G.A.; Kryona, Z.P.; Tsirliganis, N. Selecting south European wine based on carbon footprint. Resour. Environ. Sustain. 2022, 9, 100066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gazulla, C.; Raugei, M.; Fullana, I.; Palmer, P. Taking a life cycle look at crianza wine production in Spain: Where are the bottlenecks? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15, 330–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bagliani, M.; Galli, A.; Niccolucci, V.; Marchettini, N. Ecological footprint analysis applied to a sub-national area: The case of the Province of Siena (Italy). J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86, 354–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Neto, B.; Dias, A.C.; Machado, M. Life cycle assessment of the supply chain of a Portuguese wine: From viticulture to distribution. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 590–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Da Silva, L.P.; da Silva, J.C.E. Evaluation of the Carbon Footprint of the Life Cycle of Wine Production: A Review. Clean. Circ. Bioeconomy 2022, 2, 100021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ferrara, C.; De Feo, G. Life cycle assessment application to the wine sector: A critical review. Sustainability 2018, 10, 395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Notarnicola, B.; Tassielli, G.; Nicoletti, G.M. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of wine production. In Environmentally-Friendly Food Processing; Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2003; pp. 306–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ardente, F.; Beccali, G.; Cellura, M.; Marvuglia, A. POEMS: A case study of an Italian wine-producing firm. Environ. Manag. 2006, 38, 350–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Petti, L.; Raggi, A.; De Camillis, C.; Matteucci, P.; Sára, B.; Pagliuca, G. Life cycle approach in an organic wine-making firm: An Italian case-study. In Proceedings of the Fifth Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment, Melbourne, Australia, 22–24 November 2006; pp. 22–24. [Google Scholar]
  20. Pizzigallo, A.C.I.; Granai, C.; Borsa, S. The joint use of LCA and emergy evaluation for the analysis of two Italian wine farms. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86, 396–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Pattara, C.; Raggi, A.; Cichelli, A. Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint in the Wine Supply-Chain. Environ. Manag. 2012, 49, 1247–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Masotti, P.; Zattera, A.; Malagoli, M.; Bogoni, P. Environmental Impacts of Organic and Biodynamic Wine Produced in Northeast Italy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Aranda, A.; Zabalza, I.; Scarpellini, S. Economic and environmental analysis of the wine bottle production in Spain by means of life cycle assessment. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 2005, 4, 178–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Villanueva-Rey, P.; Iribarren, D.; Teresa Moreira, M.; Feijoo, G. Joint life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis of grape production for vinification in the Rías Baixas appellation (NW Spain). J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 27, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Rugani, B.; Benetto, E. Tapping carbon footprint variations in the European wine sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 43, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Villanueva-Rey, P.; Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Teresa Moreira, M.; Feijoo, G. Comparative life cycle assessment in the wine sector: Biodynamic vs. conventional viticulture activities in NW Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 330–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gonzalez, A.; Klimchuk, A.; Martin, M. Life cycle assessment of wine production process. In Finding Relevant Process Efficiency and Comparison to Eco-Wine Production; Royal Institute of Technology: Stockholm, Sweden, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  28. Fusi, A.; Guidetti, R.; Benedetto, G. Delving into the environmental aspect of a Sardinian white wine: From partial to total life cycle assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 472, 989–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Schlich, E.H. From vineyard to point of sale: Allocation of energy use and CO2-emission to entire supply chains of wine. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference, American Association of Wine Economists, Davis, CA, USA, 25–28 June 2010. [Google Scholar]
  30. Quinteiro, P.; Dias, A.C.; Pina, L.; Neto, B.; Ridoutt, B.G.; Arroja, L. Addressing the freshwater use of a Portuguese wine (‘vinho verde’) using different LCA methods. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 68, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Comandaru, I.M.; Bârjoveanu, G.; Peiu, N.; Ene, S.A.; Teodosiu, C. Life cycle assessment of wine: Focus on water use impact assessment. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. (EEMJ) 2012, 11, 533–543. [Google Scholar]
  32. Point, E.; Tyedmers, P.; Naugler, C. Life cycle environmental impacts of wine production and consumption in Nova Scotia, Canada. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 27, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Colman, T.; Päster, P. Red, White, and ‘Green’: The Cost of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Global Wine Trade. J. Wine Res. 2009, 20, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Herath, I.; Green, S.; Singh, R.; Horne, D.; van der Zijpp, S.; Clothier, B. Water footprinting of agricultural products: A hydrological assessment for the water footprint of New Zealand’s wines. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 41, 232–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Letamendi, J.; Sevigne-Itoiz, E.; Mwabonje, O. Environmental impact analysis of a Chilean organic wine through a life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 371, 133368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Feingersh, O.; Eitam, D. Land of Wine; Ma’ariv Library: Tel Aviv, Israel, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  37. The Israeli Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Available online: https://www.gov.il (accessed on 1 June 2019).
  38. Israeli Wine Grapes Board Vine Council. Available online: https://wineboard.co.il (accessed on 1 June 2019).
  39. FIVS International Wine Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Version 2.0. 2016. Available online: http://wineinstitute.org (accessed on 1 April 2019).
  40. ADEME. La Méthode Bilan Carbone®. Agence de L’Environment et de la Maitrise de l’Energie. Available online: www2.ademe.fr (accessed on 1 August 2020).
  41. Australian Wine Carbon Calculator, Version 1.0. 2009. Available online: www.wfa.org.au (accessed on 1 April 2020).
  42. Italia Wine Carbon Calculator. 2014. Available online: http://wineobservatorysustainability.eu (accessed on 1 August 2020).
  43. Metz, B.; Davidson, O.R.; Bosch, P.R.; Dave, R.; Meyer, L.A. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ecoinvent. Version 3.9. 2022. Available online: https://v39.ecoquery.ecoinvent.org/Account/AcceptChangedEula (accessed on 1 March 2022).
  45. Steenwerth, K.L.; Strong, E.B.; Greenhut, R.F.; Williams, L.; Kendall, A. Life cycle greenhouse gas, energy, and water assessment of wine grape production in California. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 1243–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. International Organization for Standardization. Greenhouse Gases: Carbon Footprint of Products: Requirements and Guidelines for Quantification and Communication; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  47. Litskas, V.D.; Irakleous, T.; Tzortzakis, N.; Stavrinides, M.C. Determining the carbon footprint of indigenous and introduced grape varieties through Life Cycle Assessment using the island of Cyprus as a case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 156, 418–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Harb, W.; Zaydan, R.; Vieira, M. Improving environmental performance in wine production by life cycle assessment: Case of Lebanese wine. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021, 26, 1146–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bosco, S.; Di Bene, C.; Galli, M.; Remorini, D.; Massai, R.; Bonari, E. Greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural phase of wine production in the Maremma rural district in Tuscany, Italy. Ital. J. Agron. 2011, 6, e15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Kavargiris, S.E.; Mamolos, A.P.; Tsatsarelis, C.A.; Nikolaidou, A.E.; Kalburtji, K.L. Energy resources’ utilization in organic and conventional vineyards: Energy flow, greenhouse gas emissions and biofuel production. Biomass Bioenergy 2009, 33, 1239–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Litskas, V.D.; Karaolis, C.S.; Menexes, G.C.; Mamolos, A.P.; Koutsos, T.M.; Kalbourtji, K.L. Variation of energy flow and greenhouse gas emissions in vineyards located in Natura 2000 sites. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 27, 1-7.–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Villanueva-Rey, P.; Vazquez-Rowe, I.; Teresa Moreira, M.; Gumersindo Feijoo, G. The use of carbon footprint in the wine sector: Methodological assumptions. Assess. Carbon Footpr. Differ. Ind. Sect. 2014, 2, 269–298. [Google Scholar]
Agriculture 13 00303 g001 550
Figure 1. Selected studies that used the LCA method on a global aridity and transpiration index map.
Figure 1. Selected studies that used the LCA method on a global aridity and transpiration index map.
Agriculture 13 00303 g001
Agriculture 13 00303 g002 550
Figure 2. Systems boundaries of the research.
Figure 2. Systems boundaries of the research.
Agriculture 13 00303 g002
Agriculture 13 00303 g003 550
Figure 3. The research areas.
Figure 3. The research areas.
Agriculture 13 00303 g003
Agriculture 13 00303 g004 550
Figure 4. The relative contribution (%) of the various components in the life cycle of the vineyard to emissions.
Figure 4. The relative contribution (%) of the various components in the life cycle of the vineyard to emissions.
Agriculture 13 00303 g004
Agriculture 13 00303 g005 550
Figure 5. Kg of CO2 eq emitted from a ton of grapes of each vineyard according to the analyzed climatic regions.
Figure 5. Kg of CO2 eq emitted from a ton of grapes of each vineyard according to the analyzed climatic regions.
Agriculture 13 00303 g005
Table
Table 1. Average inputs per ton of grapes of the vineyard in the research areas.
Table 1. Average inputs per ton of grapes of the vineyard in the research areas.
InputsUnitNational AverageStandard DeviationMediterranean Average Semi-Arid Average Arid Average
The infrastructure phase
cardboardkg0.30.10.40.30.3
plastickg0.80.00.90.60.8
metalkg17.61.520.413.418.9
fuelkm43.720.443.318.769.1
First three years
Field work fuelL2.62.14.02.01.6
NPK fertilizer (Active Ingredient)kg1.51.51.61.81.0
Pesticides (Active Ingredient)L0.61.21.20.60.0
compostkg0.40.30.60.10.6
waterm332.118.029.01750.0
electrical powerkWh12.87.18.0720.0
The fruitful years
Field work fuelL151424129
NPK fertilizer (Active Ingredient)kg1718182312
Pesticides (Active Ingredient)L0.230.250.0910
compostkg0.670.65210
waterm320190152177276
electrical powerkWh91906171141
Table
Table 2. Detailed contribution of life cycle stages to grape’s CF for each vineyard (kg CO2 eq per ton of grapes).
Table 2. Detailed contribution of life cycle stages to grape’s CF for each vineyard (kg CO2 eq per ton of grapes).
Vineyard NoAridSemi-AridMediterranean
123456789101112
The infrastructure phase
Carton0.40.00.40.30.20.30.40.30.40.40.40.4
Plastic1.51.11.31.30.81.01.41.21.61.41.61.3
Metal97.269.884.779.136.360.284.870.892.279.092.388.7
Fuel4.84.10.921.43.30.31.93.01.60.72.32.4
Sub-Total103.975.087.3102.140.661.788.675.395.881.596.692.9
First three years
Truck fuel5.42.53.012.60.40.16.50.70.90.52.90.8
Field work fuel0.92.92.41.61.63.620.62.817.45.521.15.5
Fertilization6.91.96.410.60.03.717.740.517.411.48.010.5
Pesticide0.10.10.30.20.10.213.50.20.30.34.215.5
Compost7.75.46.66.10.00.07.10.07.75.75.10.0
Electricity7.56.436.79.63.02.74.24.46.65.75.16.4
Sub-Total28.419.336.740.75.110.369.648.546.330.052.238.7
The fruitful years
Truck fuel2.85.90.59.20.80.19.90.719.214.481.30.8
Field work fuel4.916.713.58.99.220.3116.615.776.431.3121.931.3
Fertilization23.49.580.6191.585.5128.4173.790.274.864.197.4203.3
Pesticide0.00.81.50.71.70.93.64.00.20.21.20.4
Compost0.012.40.00.04.40.026.90.014.612.520.40.0
Electricity68.060.0114.847.629.840.854.924.741.535.625.521.9
Sub-Total99.1105.1210.8257.9131.4190.6385.6135.3226.6158.0347.7257.7
System Total231.5199.4334.8400.7177.1262.6543.8259.1368.8269.5496.5389.3
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hefler, Y.T.; Kissinger, M. Grape Wine Cultivation Carbon Footprint: Embracing a Life Cycle Approach across Climatic Zones. Agriculture 2023, 13, 303. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020303

AMA Style

Hefler YT, Kissinger M. Grape Wine Cultivation Carbon Footprint: Embracing a Life Cycle Approach across Climatic Zones. Agriculture. 2023; 13(2):303. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020303

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hefler, Yuval Tamar, and Meidad Kissinger. 2023. "Grape Wine Cultivation Carbon Footprint: Embracing a Life Cycle Approach across Climatic Zones" Agriculture 13, no. 2: 303. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020303

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop