Sustainable Milk

_________________________________
________________
AnelRastoderDaniel Z. MoghaddamDaniarBilas
S130762
S122566
S133859

____________________
Nadia Chahade
S140259

Table of Contents
Preface ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Introducing the worldwide problem ................................................................................ 5
The product ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Purpose of an environmental assessment................................................................................. 7

Problem Statement ............................................................................................................... 8

Methods ................................................................................................................................... 9
Life cycle assessment and MECO .............................................................................................. 9
The functional unit ......................................................................................................................11

Source criticism .................................................................................................................. 12

Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 13
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 14
LCA for 1-liter milk .......................................................................................................... 15
The 4 processes in the LCA .......................................................................................................15
Milk production ...........................................................................................................................15

LCA for 1-liter milk carton ............................................................................................. 18

The 5 processes in the LCA .......................................................................................................18
One-liter milk package ...............................................................................................................18

Board production ............................................................................................................... 19

The production at the paper mill .............................................................................................19
Chemical pulping process ..........................................................................................................20

Plastic production .............................................................................................................. 21

Chemistry ......................................................................................................................................21
What is LDPE? .............................................................................................................................22
Chemical production of LDPE .................................................................................................22

Introduction to the MECO-table ................................................................................... 23

Material ..........................................................................................................................................23
Transport .......................................................................................................................................23
Chemicals.......................................................................................................................................24
Calculation of transporting .......................................................................................................25
End of life ......................................................................................................................................27

Social environment ............................................................................................................ 28

Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 30
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 32
Group work process .......................................................................................................... 33

Bibliography........................................................................................................................ 34
APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................... 39
APPENDIX 1 ................................................................................................................................39
APPENDIX 2..................................................................................................................................40
APPENDIX 3 ................................................................................................................................41
APPENDIX 4 ................................................................................................................................42

Energiform ......................................................................................................................... 42

Preface
This report targets people around the world who are interested in obtaining
knowledge about dairy farming, and the production & development of its products,
along with the impact that these products have on the environment. This report also
analyzes many steps taken in production, elimination and recycling process related to
dairy farming. Through this report we will attempt to understand how to be more
green and sustainable in the future. By using reliable sources and calculation systems,
we hope to attain reliable results. Four different theoretical and academic courses
have been taught:
1) Sustainable products, environment and chemistry including laboratory work
2) IT. Including website development specifically HTML
3) English
4) Theory of knowledge.
5) Library course
6) Workshop course and building a product from the bottom
To make the report as respectable, various professors have been assisting with
guidance.

Introducing the worldwide problem

Throughout the world, a chronic environmental problem influences the nature and
ecosystems of our planet due to industrialization. One of the major topics of
discussion today is global warming, and the fact that it is caused by the emission of
CO2 and greenhouse gasses that form a heat isolation in the atmosphere. This thereby
increases the temperature of the planet and destruction of the ozone layer, which
exposes the Earth to dangerous radiation. The increase of temperature has several
collateral damages, which can threaten life on this planet. An increase of temperature
will melt the ice sheet, which will raise the sea level, and spoil the ocean currents,
which serve as a ventilation system on the planet, and all of these will cause another
ice age at the planet. Furthermore, the increase in temperature will extinct animal
species on the Earth and storms will occur more often, and they will hit harder.1 There
has been several attempts to stop the problem in the form of treaties such as the Kyoto
Protocol and UNFCCC meetings. These agreements are supposed to reduce the
emission of CO22.
A report from the FN climate panel, IPCC, states that the average temperature
of the Earth has increased by 0.7 C in the past 100 years and the average temperature
of the Earth has been estimated to increase another 4.5 C by the year 2100 if steps
are not taken to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses.3

1An InconvinientTruth, 2006

2Powerpoint

DrivhuseffektE14-2ppt
Klimaforandringerog global opvarmning, 2008

3Climademinds,

The product
Our initial thoughts was:
If you buy a liter Danish milk from the grocery store in Copenhagen. Where is the
biggest environmental impact in the production of the milk itself and its container?
This lead us to investigate, estimating and tracking the development in
greenhouse gas emission for 1 liter/kg raw Danish milk produced from the company
Arla foods. This was done through Life Cycle analysis (LCA) and andMeco-method.
The functional Unit and purpose of the study is 1 Liter. Danish produced Milk
processed by Tetra pak. The milk company Arla Foods was established in April 2000
and is a merging of two cooperatives, Arla and MD Foods. Arla food is owned by
approximately 17.000 farmers in Sweden and Denmark and produces around 7
million tons of milk products every year. This is enough for 1 liter of milk per day for
more than 19 million people. In Sweden there is around 25 plants, in Denmark 45 and
6 in England. Besides that there is plant in Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and many other
subsidiaries around the globe.

Purpose of an environmental assessment

The development on the environmental area has over the last 10 years changed from
having focus on the production methods to shift the center of attention to a product
perspective. A product point of view means that, in addition to look at the
environmental conditions at the actual production of the company. We also look at
what has happened with the raw materials used for production, before companies use
them. It also looks at what happens to the product once it has left the factory when it
is being used and when it is discarded.

This life cycle thinking is a key element in Danish environmental policy. It is

reflected in the EPA strategy and action plan and commonly referred to the "productoriented environmental efforts." Environment is for many companies becoming a
competitive factor. Many of the parties the company is in contact with are interested
in environmental conditions or environmental standards of the company's production
and products. Environmental Standard at a company can be shown through an
environmental assessment by a life cycle approach. Life-cycle principle is a crucial
element in many contexts. It is criteria for eco-label, environmental product
declarations and other environmental assessments of products that will provide
information from manufacturers to consumers. Large companies have for years used
such considerations in product development and customized materials and material
consumption based on environmental considerations of the entire product lifecycle.
The results of environmental assessments have also been used for marketing
purposes. Modern consumers want proof that food is produced with care of the
environment and that what we eat is healthy and safe and that the products and
processes follow the statutory requirements that are given out by the government.
Businesses should be perceived as responsible and credible by consumers if the food
is to be seen as of good quality. Life cycle assessments are used to make products
more sustainable. By examining the environmental aspects of the product widely
throughout its lifecycle: from extraction of raw materials, production of materials, use
and disposal; the most harmful part can be improved. 4

4LCA-center.dk

- Campusnet

Problem Statement
Focusing on the production of carton. Where is the biggest environmental impact in
the production of 1 L milk from Arla, and the highest emission of greenhouse gasses,
and is there a way to reduce the impact?
Furthermore we want to take a look at the working conditions for the employees that
contribute to making this product.

Methods
Life cycle assessment and MECO
As mentioned the ideal method for investigating carbon emission and energy
consumption from cradle to grave is through a Life Cycle Assesment. LCA is a
thorough assessment of the environmental ins and outs in a products life cycle, from
start to finish. The MECO- table is a social science method, which is used, for
quantitative and qualitative research. The quantitative method is based on d

The LCA covers 5 different main phases:

1) Raw material extraction / Raw material manufacturing
2) Production
3) Usage
4) Recycling
5) Transport

An outline is made to give a better overview of the LCA process:

The LCA will give an energy account of the total energy consumption from the milk
production and the container production. To make an energy account it is also

necessary to use the MECO-method, which is developed to simplify calculations of

the two lifecycles calculated. Energy account will determine the total energy
consumption of the milk and the container.

MECO Phases:

1) Material
2) Energy
3) Chemical
4) Other
The steps in MECO go through every step in the 5 main phases of LCA.5

5Introduktion

til livscyklusvurderingerE14-2.doc

10

The functional unit

The functional unit consists of two parts: the milk and the carton. A functional unit is the
average emission of kg GHGper L milk. The measuring includes all of the steps it takes to
produce the functional unit, and to dispose of the empty carton.

11

Source criticism
When discussing the reliability of our data, the major problem is the size of our digits. We
have used credible sources. For the LCA we have used a report from the University of Aarhus
and data from other sources from the companies that contributes to our product.
The GHG emission from the milk in our functional unit is almost 100 %, and the rest of the
factors in the total emission of our functional unit is so small compared to the milk that they
almost make no difference. This is a problem because it leaves very little margin for error.

12

Limitations

We have limited our LCA at the Farm. This means that we do not have LCA
calculations from the Farm input. Instead we use values from an annual farm provided
from an investigation by Aarhus University. We focus on the farm and the output.

We have not considered the amount of energy or CO2 used for cutting down the trees
or the process of producing the paperboard.

We assume that Frvi in Sweden supplies all the wood used for milk cartons.

We assume that the only carton supplier for Arla is Tetra Pak in Sweden.

We only focus on the milk sold by Arla.

We only focus on the supermarketNetto in Hedegaardcenteret in Ballerup.

We assume that the consumer has a walking distance to the store, which leaves out the
extra transportation.

The only calculations for energy are calculated for transport.

The calculation of energy and CO2 emission is not considered for the refrigerators in
the supermarket or in the household of the consumer.

We have limited ourselves only to the burning of the carton and not recycling.

13

Assumptions

The wood used for the paperboard is softwood.

The pulping process is chemical.

A fully loaded truck, which means it is heavier than 16 tons, will transport the
product.
The fiber used for the paperboard is Virgin fiber.
Tetra Paks only LPDE supplier is Plastcom from DK

14

LCA for 1-liter milk

The 4 processes in the LCA
1) Production of milk at the farm and the farm input.
2) Processing
3) Supermarket
4) Consumer

Milk production
The University of Aarhus at the Faculty of Agriculture/Sciences has provided us with some
very useful information including typical annual data from an organic dairy farm in Denmark.
This can be used to analyze and calculate the farms production performance and show how
much it impacts the environment. We will estimate the greenhouse gas emission.
The farm consists of 320 ha with sandy soil and 21 ha permanent pasture. The herd consists of
192 cows, 297 heifers and 142 bull calves all in all 631. The 192 cows produce 9000L milk
each per year. And are fed with different types of organic green food as it is shown below:

15

A farm is a complex system and it requires a lot of different material to run which is shown at
the input. The output of the production is 1,726,751 L milk and a 2,347,600 kg CO2 release
to the air. Emission to the air includes CO2, N2, CH4 and NH3. Emission to the soil and water
is NO3- and PO4-.

Figure 1 shows the input and output of the milk at dairy 6

The first step in producing the milk is the acquisition of food for the cow. This part emits
GHG due to the stored carbon in the food product. Then there is the transportation to a dairy,
and then there is the distribution. At the dairy several types GHG are emitted. There is carbon
dioxide, CO2,from the cows and the machinery, CH4, which is caused by the fermenting in the
cows digestive system and the manure storage at the farm. Nitrous oxide, N2O, is emitted by
microorganisms in the ground, which turns leaked fertilizer, N2 fixation, into N2O.
To estimate the CO2-eq / kg milk, we have used the digits from a report made at the
University of Aarhus, in which they have estimated that 1,726,751 kg milk emits 2,347,600
kg CO2-eq which means 1 kg milk emits 1.36 kg CO2-eq. The division of GHG is shown in
the figure below:
6The

University of Aarhus, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Life cycle assessment of organic milk in Denmark

16

The figure shows that CH4 emission is the biggest CO2-eqemitter in the production of the
milk. CH4 is emitted during several fermenting processes depending of the feed of the cow.
1.

C6H12O6 + 2H2O 2CH3COOH + 2CO2 + 4H2

2.

C6H12O6 + 2H2 2CH3CH2COOH + 2H2O

3.

C6H12O6 CH3CH2CH2 COOH + 2CO2 + 2H2

4.

4H2 + CO2 CH4 + 2H2O

N2O is caused by microorganisms in the ground that absorbs the N2 fixation, commonly used
as fertilizer, and then spits out as N2O. The emission of N2O is not that big, but the matter has
a very high greenhouse effect, about 300 times7 as big as CO2, which means that even a slight
reduction can affect the total amount of emitted CO2-eq.8
The milk part of the functional unit is the amount of (sold) milk divided by amount of emitted
CO2-eq.
2,347,600 CO2
2
= 1,36
1,726,751

Videnskab.dk, Lattergas kan ge global opvarmning, 2010.

Metan fra drvtyggere, 2005

8Landbrugsinfo,

17

LCA for 1-litermilk carton

The 5 processes in the LCA
- Board production
- Plastic production
- Converting
- Filling
- Distribution, Retail and Consumption

One-liter milk package

The concept of "cradle to grave" of a milk carton can be divided into 5 main processes, and
thereafter 2-3 subgroups depending on the material use and disposal. The packaging consists
of paper and plastic (Low-density polyethylene, LDPE).
The construction of an 1-liter milks packaging is divided in tree layers consisting of
polyethylene on the outside to protect against outside moisture, second layer is the paper for
stability and strength and a finishing layer of polyethylene on the inside to seal the liquid.The
paper of the package is biodegradable.A milk package consists of 89% paper and 11% LPDE.

Figure 1. Illustration of the construction of a 1-liter milk carton

18

Board production
Arlas carton supplier Tetra Pak is in cooperation with the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council).
FSC is an organization which ensures that the world's forests in the future be used sustainably
in order to guarantee that forests not only covering the social, environmental and economic
needs of this generation but also can cover the same needs of future generations.9It is assumed
that the board supplier for Tetra Pak is Frvi paper mill.
A milkcarton consists of 89% paperboard10 and is therefor a primary material used for carton.
Paperboard is made of pulp, which is a moist mixture of cellulose fibers, as obtained from
wood.11

Cellulose chemical formula: [C6H10O5]n

The production at the paper mill

In the production of the paperboard it is possible to use different methods and materials. For
wood it can be either hard wood, soft wood even recycled pulp depending on what kind of
strength, structure or smoothness is requite. The wood is thereafter processed through a
mechanical or chemical pulping, depending on what the pulp is going to be used for. The
wood used for milk carton is soft wood and is processed through chemical pulping. When
processed through chemical pulping it results in shorter paper fibers then mechanical pulping.
By pulping the wood this way it will provide a smoother and higher-quality printing surface.12

9FSC,

Forest steweardshipcounsil, Vrdigrundlag, 2012

Aarhus Universitet, AFD FOR MILJSTUDIER, 2002, Milj og mlkeemballage. [PDF]
11
Dictionary, Pulp
12
Independent Carton Group, The ABCs of foldingcartonsubtrates, 2003
10

19

Chemical pulping process

The first step in the process of making paperboard is to debark the logs in a debarking drum.
Next step is chipping the debarked logs. When the logs are chipped into chips they get
screened and are cooked in a large digester. The chips are cooked in white liquor which is
sodium sulfide and sodium hydroxide. This way the cellulose fibers are separated from the
lignin, which binds the fibers together. After the separating process, the pulp remains brown
in color. To get a brighter color it is bleached using oxidation with chemicals, such as oxygen
(O2), chlorine dioxide (CIO2) or hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). At the end the pulp is screened,
dried, baled and ready to be produced to a new product.13

Figure 1. Illustration of the chemical and mechanical pulping process.

13Wood

Products Industry, Chemical Wood Pulping [PDF]

20

Plastic production

Chemistry
A milk carton consists 11% of a thin layer on the inside and outside of plastic called
polyethylene.14 The thin layer of polyethylene is calculated as a coating on the inside to
prevent the liquid from penetrating through the carton. The outside coating is to protect from
outside moisture. Polyethylene (PE) is a thermoplastic, which means it can be heated and
reformed many times due to the construction of the PE-molecule. The polymer molecules are
combined of long chains, which only have weak bonds between the chains. Polyethylene has
the chemical formula [C2H4]n when heated to the point of its melting point (approximately
between the temperature 85 and 95 degrees Celsius) the chains then move freely and take a
new and modified form. Once the plastic has cooled the weak bonds restore, and the
thermoplastic material retains its new shape.15 PE can be produced in three different densities,
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) and Linear Low
Density Polyethylene (LLDPE). The polyethylene used for a milk carton is LDPE.

A.

B.

Figure 2. Illustration of a weak bond between chains (A.) And a strong bond between
chains (B.)

14Aarhus
15

Universitet, AFD FOR MILJSTUDIER, 2002, Milj og mlkeemballage. [PDF]

PLASTINDUSTRIEN I DANMARK, Platform [PDF]

21

What is LDPE?
LDPE (Low-density polyethylene) is a thermoplastic and is used for example in wrapping foil
for packaging, plastic bags (soft type that does not crackle), garbage bags, tubes and ice cube
plastic bags. It has a good ductility and is suitable for food contact.16 Low-density
polyethylene typically has a density value ranging from 0,910 to 0,940 g/cm317

Chemical production of LDPE

LDPE is produced under high pressure approximately at 1500-3000 atmospheres and a
temperature range of 100-300C.

16

17

Designsite.com, LDPE - low density polyethylene, 1996-2003

D&M Plastics Inc, Unknown. Plastic MouldingTechniques, Polymers.

22

Introduction to the MECO-table

The MECO-table is a method. It is a way to gather data in a clear and systematic form. It
helps to create an overview of the environmental issues of a product. The method divides the
assessment in to four categories: 1. Material, Energy, chemicals and others. Through these
elements we can define the various issues we are facing in a LCA.

LCA/MECA

Raw material

Production

Usage

Recycling

Materials
Energy
chemicals
transport
Other

Material
The use of material is calculated as use of non-sustainable resources, which are metals and
fossil fuels. The use of non-sustainable resources is calculated with the unit PR, PersonReserve. The unit expresses the proportion of an amount of a reserve from a non-sustainable
resource, which remains for one person and his descendants. The calculation for PR can be
expressed as following:

.

= * 1000 = mPR

Transport
In this phase, we can calculate energy consumption in MJ for the transports. We need the
distance in Km and the quantity in kg then the data from document 2.
We can calculate CO2 emission for transports from the start to the end.

23

Chemicals
The use of chemicals concerns the chemicals used in every phase of the products life cycle.
The chemicals are assessed as substantial chemicals with negative affect on the environment
if they are to be found on the list of unwanted chemicals, the effect list or the list of dangerous
chemicals

The weight of the Carton is 28.6g. 25g(89%) of the Carton is Cardboard and 3.5g(11%) is
LDPE
Plast,PET, PP = 20%natural gas and 80 % Oil
We have 3.5 g plast(LDPE)
3.5/100 * 80 = 2,8g oil
3.5/100* 20 =0,7 g natural gas
Oil =2.8/25,600kg/person * 1000 = 0.109 mPR
Natural gas = 0.7/23,440kg/person *1000 =0.029 mPR

Materials18

Gram in product

Usage

Oil

2.8g

0.109mPR

Natural gas

0.7g

0.029mPR

Tree

18APPENDIX

We cant really say

anything about it because
trees always being planted.

24

Calculation of transporting
from

to

By

km

Energy
consumption in MJ

CO2 emission

Frovi
Tetra Pak
paper
(Sweden)
mill
(Sweden)
Plastcom Tetra pak
(Sweden)

Truck

525

0.0128625

2.083725 g CO2

Truck

104

0.000364

0.058968 g CO2

Tetra pak Arla (Slagelse)

dairy
Arlaslage NettoHedegrds
lse dairy centeret

Truck

362

0.010136

1.642032 g CO2

truck

92.4

0.0949872

15.3879264 g CO2

Frovi paper mill (Sweden) Tetra pak (Sweden)

By truck: 525 km * 0.001MJ/kg*km*0.0245kg = 0.0128625 MJ
525 0.0000245 16219

2 = 2.083725 g CO2

Plastcom Tetra pak (Sweden)

By truck: 104 km * 0.001 MJ/kg*km * 0.0035kg = 0.000364 g CO2
104 km * 0.0000035t* 162g/tkm = 0.058968 g CO2
Tetra pak (Sweden) Arla (Slagelse) dairy
362 km * 0.001 MJ/kg*km * (0.0245kg + 0.0035kg) = 0.010136 g CO2
362 km * 0.000028t* 162g/tkm = 1.642032 g CO2
Arla (Slagelse ) dairy NettoHedegaardcenteret
By truck: 92.4 km * 0.001 MJ/kg*km * (0.028g+1kg) = 0.0949872 g CO2
92.4 km * 0.001028t*162g/tkm =15.3879264 g CO2
Total Energy use of all transportation forms = 0.1183497 MJ
Total CO2 emission for all transportation forms = 19.1726514 g CO2
Our calculations have been based on transporting only one 1L Milk Carton! That is why the
numbers are very small.
All MJ/kg*km are found in the Appendix.20
All the destination coordinates are used from a former report.21
19APPENDIX
20APPENDIX

5
3

25

Assessment22

Chemical
Name

CAS-No.

Usage

The List of

The Effect

The List of

Unwanted

List

Dangerous

Chemicals
Sodium sulfide

1313-82-

Unconnects No

223

the cellulose

Chemicals
No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

yes

Hydrogenperoxide 7722-84-1 Bleaching

No

No

No

LDPE

no

no

no

fibers from
lignin
Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 the cellulose No
fibers from
lignin
Oxygen
Chlorine dioxide

7782-44- Bleaching
7
10049-04- Bleaching
4

9002-88-4 plastic

21

A comparison in CO2 emission between a Milk Carton andarPET in relation to carbon emisson. [PDF
Download]
22
23

http://www.mst.dk/Virksomhed_og_myndighed/Kemikalier/Stoflister+og+databaser/
Chemexper.com, 2014. IUPAC Name

26

End of life24
The consumer uses domestic waste for disposal of milk cartons and afterwards the cartons are
transported to the incinerator and burned.
Waste volume is 0.025 kg carton and 0.0035 kg LDPE.
When the cardboard and LDPE are incinerated there is released heat, which also leads to the
production of electricity: 20 MJ / kg and 40 MJ / kg.25
The carton produce:
(0.025 kg * 20 MJ / kg) + (0.0035 kg * 40 MJ / kg) = 0.64 MJ pr.1 carton

24

Aarhus Universitet, AFD FOR MILJSTUDIER, 2002, Milj og mlkeemballage.

2

25APPENDIX

27

Social environment
Health and safety conditions in the working environment at Arla Foods: Cooperate social
responsibility (CSR) and The Triple Bottom Line principle: Arla Foods is a global dairy
company and cooperative owned by dairy farmers in Denmark, Sweden, Britain, Germany,
Belgium and Luxembourg. The products are sold under many different brands in around 100
countries. Manufacturing facilities exist in 11 countries and sales offices in 30. The company
strives to operate responsibly throughout the whole value chain and follow The Triple Bottom
Line principle. All the way from the production at the farms to having a container that is
produced environmentally correct and is recyclable.26 Arlas container supplier Tetra Park is
in corporation with Forest Stewardship council. Arla works with many different suppliers
from around the globe. Suppliers must acknowledge their social and environmental
responsibilities in order to meet Arla standards and requirements. Key suppliers are therefore
bound to meet Arla requirements in order to work with the company. Arla evaluates and
follows up on their ability to comply with requirements. As the products of the company are
made from natural ingredient it rely on nature to supply with raw material. The business is
closed connected to nature.

When it comes to employees at Arla it is of big importance and priority that all
employees have good working condition with a healthy and stimulating work environment.
Employees are challenged and educated. The company exceeds the laws, rules and regulation
in the countries in which they operate. This includes forced labor, child labor, fair salaries and
respect to the allowed working hours.27

Animal welfare in the agriculture:

Healthy milk is produced from healthy and happy cows, and since the business is based on
milk from cows, it is important to make sure that the cows are well threated and looked after
by agriculture expertise who have knowledge about animal health and welfare. The cow needs
must be for filled. This means that they are fed, watered, kept clean and cared for.

26

Arla Foods: 2013 Corporate Social Responsibility

27

Arla Foods: Ourresponsibility Code of Conduct

28

Arla produced both ecological and non-ecological products and both have different
requirements for animal care and environmental care which are followed.
Arla produced both ecological and non-ecological products and both have different
requirements for animal care and environmental care which are followed.

29

Discussion
Looking back at our report, we have a clear view of where the GHG emissions are. In the
production of milks biggest GHG factor is the emission of CH4, which has a greenhouse
effect that is 21 times as big as CO2. This is a shame, because a loss of CH4 is a loss of
potential energy, which could have served another purpose. When CH4 is burned the
molecule is split and it has a reduced greenhouse effect.
CH4 + O2 + Q CO2 + H4
The equation above proves that burned CH4 reduces the emitted CO2-eq by 4/21
times. By disposing all of the CH4 properly, it is possible to reduce the emission of CO2-eq
for 1 kg milk by almost 50 %. Another way to get rid of the CH4, is to find the proper feed for
the cow. As explained in the part of the report, which describes the fermenting process of
C6H12O6 inside the cow, we can see that the pattern of the fermentation can be affected to
produce propionic acid rather than acetic- and butyric acid, which not only reduces the
emission of CO2-eq, but also CO2. Although this compromises the welfare of the cattle as
they will be bound by certain rules, as they will not be allowed to move around as they please,
and they might be on a restricted diet.
In our report we have made some assumptions and limitations of our LCA. These
assumptions and limitation might cause some slight errors in our calculations. First of all, the
milk is CO2 neutral, as the CO2 bound in the crops equals the CO2 emitted from the cattle,
and this CO2 is the same amount of CO2 bound in the new seeded crops. In addition, we have
included the emission of GHG from cattle that does not produce milk, which is discussable,
because they do not produce the milk, but they do play a part in the production of the milk in
the long term.

We chose not to calculate the digesting of the milk in our results, because the health
and functionality of peoples digestive system is, and the amount of food they eat, which
means that they will not absorb all of the energy contained in the milk.
In our calculations we only calculated the amount of milk sold, we do not know how the total
amount of milk, which influences the amount of GHG per L milk. This is especially a
problem because the emission of GHG is almost 100 % of the total amount of emitted CO2 of

30

the functional unit. Regarding the carton, the acquisition of tree is questionable. Arlas
supplier is marked by the FSC, but the problem is the ecological system surrounding the tree,
such as the animal in the trees and the vegetation at the forest floor that is exposed to more
sunlight than the plant needs.

31

Conclusion
By making a Life Cycle Assessment we can conclude the total amount of emitted GHG per
functional unit unit, which is 1 L organic Arla milk. The total amount is 1.36 kg CO2-eq per
functional unit. This biggest emitter of GHG is the production of the milk, and the CO2-eq of
CH4 has the highest greenhouse effect. The production of the carton poses a very little part of
the emission of GHG and is very environmentally friendly, as it costs relatively little energy
to produce one unit, it is biodegradable and it abides a lot of the requests it takes for a product
of this kind to be environmentally friendly. Arla, and their suppliers, abide the labor
regulations there is in their own field. This can be because of the geographical placement of
the company, which is mainly in Scandinavia, as there is very strict laws regarding labor and
there are unions that are very good at making companies abide these laws. Furthermore Arla
is a very large company, and there are certain expectations to a company of the kind, that
brands with health and organics, that they meet these expectations.

32

Group work process

The process of this group has had its ups and downs. There had been a lot of
misunderstandings and discussions in the beginning, after a few individual conversations
everything was sorted out. Everyone in the group had good ideas on what our project should
contain. After deliberating different subjects, we all unanimously agreed on one liter milk as a
functional unit. As the project progressed we found out how hard it was to find all the right
information. As a result of this difficulty we used much more of our time on researching than
anticipated. We spent more than a week researching to gain information for the writing
process.

Due to the limited time we had left for the writing process, we chose to divide the group in
two and shared the tasks between us. We had the misfortune of sickness in the group, but
where very flexible and managed to finish on time.If there were any difficulties as for
understanding the subject, we made an effort to helped one other, despite differences. We
spend many sleepless nights at the school a week up to submission and learned how to handle
the next project we have to face. We also learned of the fact that we have to spend our time
more thoughtfully next time.
Overall we had many fun hours during the writing of this project.

33

Bibliography
Internet:
Arla Foods: Ourresponsibility Code of Conduct
Available at:http://www.arla.com/Global/responsibility/pdf/coc/UK_Arla-Foods-Code-ofconduct_2012.pdf
[accessed 04. December 2014]

Arla Foods: 2013 Corporate Social Responsibility

Available
at:http://www.arla.com/Global/responsibility/pdf/csr/2013/ArlaCSR_VoresAnsvar2013_DK.
pdfBesgt
[accessed 04. December 2014]

Arla Food: 2013 Annual Report

Internetaddresse: http://www.arla.com/Global/investors/pdf/annual-report/eng/ConsolidatedAnnual-Report-2013.pdf
[accessed 04. December 2014]

Troels Kristensen Institute of Agroecology: Life CycleAssesment of milk at farm gate.

Internetadresse: http://www.animalchange.eu/Docs/Stavanger2011/S07_kristensen.pdf
[accessed 04. December 2014]

34

Lisbeth Mogensen, Marie T. Knudsen, John E. Hermansen, Troels Kristensen, Thu Lan
T- Nguyen Univeristy of Aarhus Faculty of Agricultural Sciences : Life
CycleAssesment of organicmilkprocution in Denmark.
Available at:
http://www.eaap.org/Previous_Annual_Meetings/2010Crete/Papers/40_Mogensen.pdf
[accessed 02. December 2014]

LCA Food DATAbase: Life cycleassesment

Available at:http://www.lcafood.dk/lca/lca.htm
[accessed 02. December 2014]

National and farm levelcarbonfootprint of milk at farm gate

Available at:http://lca-net.com/files/Arla-Methodology_report_20120724.pdf[accessed 04.
December 2014]

Available at:http://www.lcafood.dk/LCA/LCA_dansk.htm#gennemgang
[accessed 04. December 2014]
Campusnet:

Powerpoint DrivhuseffektE14-2ppt

Introduktion til projekt1E14.ppt

IntroLCA,X1.ppt

Introduktion til livscyklusvurderingerE14-2.doc

35

Chemexper.com, 2014. IUPAC Name, Available at:

http://www.chemexper.com/searchResult.shtml?format=ccd2013%2Cccd&target=stru
cture&options=brandqtyoffercrm&i=4abb12&country=DK&searchTemplate=rn.value%
3D%22%3F%22+elsor+iupac.value%3D%22%3F%22+elsor+mol.value%3D%22%3F%
22+elsor+mol.value%3D~%22%3F%22+elsor+uniqueMolInfo.inchi%3D%22%3F%22+
elsor+uniqueMolInfo.inchikey%3D%22%3F%22+elsor+mf.value%3D%22%3F%22+els
or+entry.catalogID%3D%22%3F%22+elsor+%28iupac.value%3D~%22%3F%22+or+c
atalog.description%3D~%22%3F%22%29&searchValue=&Search=
[accessed 03. December 2014]

Aarhus Universitet, AFD FOR MILJSTUDIER, 2002, Milj og mlkeemballage.

[PDF] Available at:
http://www.environmentalstudies.au.dk/publica/e2003emballage.pdf
[accessed 01. December 2014]

http://www.mst.dk/Virksomhed_og_myndighed/Kemikalier/Stoflister+og+databaser/
[accessed 01. December 2014]
Designsite.com, LDPE - low density polyethylene, 1996-2003
http://www.designinsite.dk/htmsider/m0003.htm
[accessed 01. December 2014]
D&M Plastics Inc, Unknown. Plastic MouldingTechniques, Polymers. Available
at:http://www.plasticmoulding.ca/polymers/polyethylene.htm
[accessed 26. november 2014]

PLASTINDUSTRIEN I DANMARK, Platform [PDF]Available at:

http://www.plast.dk/Billeder/fakta/Publikationer/SamletversionafDansk-web.pdf
[accessed 26. november 2014]

36

Wood Products Industry, Chemical Wood Pulping[PDF] Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch10/final/c10s02.pdf
[accessed 20. november 2014]

FSC, Forest steweardshipcounsil,Vrdigrundlag, 2012 Available at:

http://dk.fsc.org/vrdigrundlag.101.htm
[accessed 03. december 2014]
Dictionary, Pulp.Available at
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pulp
[accessed 20. November 2014]
Independent Carton Group, The ABCs of foldingcartonsubtrates, 2003 Available at:
http://lso-inc.com/docs/mpt/ABC_sofSubstrates.pdf
[accessed 24. November 2014]

Landbrugsinfo, Metan fra drvtyggere, 2005Available at:

https://www.landbrugsinfo.dk/Kvaeg/Foder/Sider/Metan_fra_droevtyggere.aspx

[accessed 24. November 2014]

The University of Aarhus, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences,Life cycle assessment of
organic milk in DenmarkAvailable at:
http://www.eaap.org/Previous_Annual_Meetings/2010Crete/Papers/40_Mogensen.pdf
[accessed 24. November 2014]
Climademinds, Klimaforandringerog global opvarmning, 2008Available at:
http://www.climateminds.dk/index.php?id=806
[accessed 26. November 2014]

37

A comparison in CO2 emission between a Milk Carton and

arPET in relation to carbon emisson. [PDF Download]Available at:
http://www.ihk-edu.dk/web/s135380/Projekt1.1.html
[accessed 24. November 2014]
http://www.mst.dk/Virksomhed_og_myndighed/Kemikalier/Stoflister+og+ databaser/

Videnskab.dk, Lattergas kan ge global opvarmning, 2010. Available at:

http://videnskab.dk/miljo-naturvidenskab/lattergas-kan-oge-global-opvarmning
Documentary
An InconvinientTruth, 2006, directed by Davis Guggenheim

38

APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1
Kendte forsyningshorisonter og globale reserver pr. person [8]
Ressourcer

Olie
Stenkul
Brunkul
Naturgas
(m3/prs.)
Aluminium
Jern
Bly
Kobber
Mangan
Nikkel
Tin
Zink
Slv
Guld
Palladium
Tantal
Antimon
Kobalt
Molybdn
Cadmium
Lanthan
Cerium
Beryllium
Kvikslv
Platin
Chromb

Forsyningshorison
Kendte globale
t
reserver pr. person
kg/person
r
43
25.600
170
98.570
390
98.130
60
23.440
200
120
20
36
86
50
27
20
-

660
12.200
13
60
150
9
1,1
30
0,15
0,011
0,008
0,047
1
1
4
0,23
3,2
5,9
0,038
0,11
0,008
2415

39

APPENDIX 2
Energiforhold for visse materialer
Materiale
Stl
Stl omsmeltning
Magnesium
Aluminium
Alum. omsmeltning
Kobber
Kobber omsmeltning
Rustfrit stl
R.fr. stl
omsmeltning
Zink
Messinga
Nikkela
Plast, Polypropylen
(PP)
Plast,
Styrenakrylnitril
(SAN)
Plast,
Polyethylenteraphtal
at (PET eller PETP)
Plast, Polyurethan bld og hrd (PUR)
Plast, Akryl butadien
styren (ABS)
Plast, Polyamid , (PA)
Nylon
Plast, Polycarbonat,
(PC)
Plast, Polyethylen,
(PE)
Plast,
Polyvinylchlorid,
(PVC)
Plast, Polystyren,
(PS)
Plast, Polystyren,
Ekspanderbar (EPS)
Plast,
Polymethylmetakryla
t, (PMMA)
Plast, POMa
Syntet gummi,
polybutadiena
Siconea
Tra
Pap/papir
Pap/papir
genvinding
Glas

Godskrivning
ved genbrug1
(MJ/kg)
-40

Godskrivning ved
forbrnding2
(MJ/kg)
0

0
0/273

-150
-170

0
-0/223

-90

-40

70
80
190
80

0
0
0
40

-70

-80

-30

90

40

-90

-30

80

30

-80

-25

110

30

-110

-25

95

40

-95

-30

140

30

-140

-25

115

30

-115

-25

75

40

-75

-30

65

20

-65

-15

90

40

-90

-30

80

40

-80

-30

110

40

-110

-30

140
80

45
46

220
0,2
40
10

0
18
20

-40

-15

10

-10

Primr
energi
(MJ/kg)
40
20
150
170
30
90
50
40
40

Brndvrdi
(MJ/kg)

40

Glas omsmeltn.
7
Noter:
1) Godskrivning, hvis materialet kan genbruges som nyt. Husk, at energiforbruget ved
genvindingsprocessen skal tilskrives for at godskrivningen kan foretages.
2) Ved forbrnding godskrives 80% af materialets brndvrdi
3) Aluminiums brndvrdi sttes til 27 MJ/kg for folie og 0 MJ/kg for vrige
materialetyper

APPENDIX 3

Energiforbrug til visse transportformer [13]

Transportform
Enhed
Energiforbrug
Skib (bulk carrier) MJ/kgkm 0,00004
Lastbil > 16 tons
MJ/kgkm 0,001
Varevogn < 3,5
MJ/kgkm 0,005
tons
Personbil
MJ/km
3
Enheden er MJ/kgkm, det betyder at der regnes p energiforbruget pr km der kres
med 1kg vare. Det samlede energiforbrug beregnes der ved at gange med antal km
og antal kg.

Ressourceindhold i visse materialer

Materiale
Stl,
maskinstl
stbejern
rustfrit stl
Magnesium
Aluminium,
Valselegering
Stbelegering
Kobber
Messing,
Valselegering
Stbelegering
Bronze
Zink,
Valselegering
Stbelegering
Plast, PE el. EPS
Plast, ABS, PA, PC, PS
Plast, PET, PP
Plast, PUR
Plast, PVC

Ressourcer
Mangan 1% rest jern
Mangan 1%, rest jern
Chrom 18%, nikkel 9%, rest jern
Magnesium
Aluminium
Silicium 12%, rest aluminium
Kobber
Zink 37%, rest kobber
Zink 33%, bly 2%, rest kobber
Tin 10%, rest kobber
Zink
Aluminium 4%, kobber 0,5%, rest zink
Naturgas 40%, olie 60%
Naturgas 50%, olie 50%
Naturgas 20%, olie 80%
Naturgas 40%, olie 40%, rest andet
Naturgas 20%, olie 40%, rest bl.aNaCl

41

APPENDIX 4
Beregning af energiforbrug og omregning til primrt energiforbrug.

Energiform
El (1)
Fyringsolie
Fyringsolie
Fuelolie
Naturgas
Naturgas
Flaskegas (LPG)
Flaskegas (LPG)
Dieselolie
Dieselolie
Benzin
Benzin
Stenkul
Tr

Omregning
MJ/enhed

Enhed
kWh
liter
kg
kg
Nm3
kg
kg
liter
liter
kg
liter
kg
kg
kg

3,6
35,3
42,3
40,7
58,2
48,5
46,0
24,9
38,1
41,9
30,5
42,7
29,5
18,3

Det primre energiforbrug beregnes ved at omregne alle brugte brndsler til
energiindhold.
Elforbruget (i MJ) ganges med 2,5, fordi i hvert fald danske kraftvrker bruger
2,5 MJ brnsel til at producere 1 MJ el.

Bilagene stammer, hvor intet andet er nvnt fra: Wentzel, Caspersen og Schmidt,
1999: Livscykluscheck, en vejledning til TIC konsulenter.
samt:
a) www.elektronikpanalet.dk (kan ikke sges lngere)
b) Miljstyrelsen, 2001: Hndbog i miljvurdering af
produkter.http://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publikationer/2001/87-7944349-4/pdf/87-7944-350-8.pdf

42

APPENDIX 5

Udledning af CO2-kvivalenter pr kg materiale.

Data er fra Databasen: SimaPro og CES Edupack (CES). De er beregnet ved hjlp
af den danske metode: EDIP (UMIP p dansk). Tallene er opgjort som CO2kvivalenter, alts det samlede bidrag til drivhuseffekten.
Materiale
Metaller:
Aluminium
Aluminium
Bly
Chrom
Kobber
Nikkel
Stl:
Stbejern
Stl
Automat stl
Rustfrit stl
Zink
Organiske:
olie
pap
nyt papir
lder
Plast
ABS
HDPE
LDPE
Nylon PA 6
PC
PET
POM
PP
PS
EPS,
expandable
PU
PVC

Beskrivelse

Energiforbrug
MJ/kg

kg CO2kv./kg

kilde

nyt
20 % genbrug
Ikke genbrug

13,5
11,3
2,0
12,4
7,6
2,7

I
I
I
I
I
I

67 % genbrug
10 % genbrug
Nyt, Pb: 2%

0,5
1,1
1,2

I
I
I

Cr: 15%, Ni 8%
20% genbrug af
Fe
25 % genbrug

3,7

3,8

Raffinering,
0,84 kg/L
Genbrugspap til
emballager
kemisk

0,3

0,74

1,13
0,972 kg/m2

EcoInv
I

3,4
2,2
2,5
8,0
5,9
4,6
4,2
1,9
2,9
2,7

I
B
B
I
CES
I
CES
B
I/B
I

5,3
2,8

CES
I

nyt
15 % genbrug
24

57

116
110

125

43

Kulfiber CFRP
Uorganisk:
Glasfiber:
Epoxy
Glas fibre
Silicium
Beton

Composit af
kulfiber og
epoxy

18,5

CES

1,1
0,5

I
I

134
0,82

9,4
0,067
0,136

I
ETH U

4,6

0,38

16,2 MJ/tkm
1,92 MJ/tkm
5,5 kJ/tkm
3 MJ/km
0,21 MJ/tkm

1,2 kg/tkm
162 g/tkm
26 g/tkm
274 g/km
7,2 g/tkm

(i hrdeplast)
(fra ABS
glasfiber)
14% cement
resten sand og
grus

Cement,
Portland

Transport
Fly
Lastbil
Skib
Bil
Tog (el)

286

Bulk carrier

B
I
B

I: Idemat; B: Buwal 250 er databasens kildeangivelse

CES, CES Edupack

44