Journal of Food Engineering 236 (2018) 1e8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Mitigation measures to minimize the cradle-to-grave beer carbon

footprint as related to the brewery size and primary packaging
materials
Alessio Cimini, Mauro Moresi*

della Tuscia, Via S. C. de Lellis, 01100 Viterbo, Italy
Departimento per la Innovazione nei sistemi Biologici, Agroalimentari e Forestali, Universita

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Brewing is quite an energy-intensive process, and its environmental impact has been the object of
Received 20 August 2017 several life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. In this work, the potentialities of a series of options directed
Received in revised form to mitigate the main hotspots of the beer life cycle were evaluated to minimize the cradle-to grave
13 March 2018
carbon footprint (CFC2G) of 1 hL of beer produced in three large- (LS), medium-(MS) and small-(SS) sized
Accepted 2 May 2018
breweries and packed in 66-cL glass or polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles by using a previously
Available online 7 May 2018
developed LCA model. As the annual brewery capacity reduced from 3
106 to 600 hL/yr, the estimated
CFC2G scores increased from ~127 to 192, or 103e169 kg CO2e hL1 for glass or PET bottles, respectively.
Keywords:
Brewery size
Their main hotspots depended on the primary packaging material used, even in the case of PET bottles
Carbon footprint for the large-sized brewery only. By replacing progressively virgin materials with 100%-recycled glass or
Glass and PET bottles PET bottles, road transport with rail one, barley grown abroad using conventional agriculture methods
Beer with local organic one, fossil fuel energy with solar photovoltaic one, etc., CFC2G declined to 56e60, or
Mitigation options 80 kg CO2e hL1 in the case of LS and MS, or SS breweries, respectively, independently of the primary
Specific material and energy consumption packaging material used. Such an approach appeared to be useful to identify how to reduce effectively
CFC2G, as well as to decide to invest on the collection of selected primary data or assessment of other
environmental impact categories to avoid burden shifting.
© 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Beer carbon footprint estimation model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Effect of brewery size on the beer CFC2G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Impact of PET bottles on beer CFC2G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Contribution of post-consumer packaging waste disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Effect of a few mitigation options on beer CFC2G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1. Introduction

* Corresponding author. Beer is the most consumed alcoholic beverage in the world, its
E-mail address: moresi@unitus.it (M. Moresi). overall consumption is expected to reach about 2.5 billion of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2018.05.001
0260-8774/© 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2 A. Cimini, M. Moresi / Journal of Food Engineering 236 (2018) 1e8
hectoliters (hL) in 2016 (Statista, 2018). In Italy, the overall pro-
duction of beer was about 14 million hL in 2015 and was covered by
a few industrial breweries producing over than 1.5 million hL of
beer per year (i.e., Heineken Italia Spa, Birra Peroni Srl, etc.), some
medium-sized breweries with capacity in the range of
150,000e1,200,000 hL/yr (i.e., Carlsberg Italia Spa, Birra Castello
Spa, Birra Forst Spa, Birra Menabrea Spa), a limited number of
small-sized breweries in the range of 10,000e150,000 hL/yr (i.e.,
Hausbrandt Trieste 1892 Spa), and over 674 craft breweries,
including micro-breweries and brewpubs (Assobirra, 2016). The
great majority of craft breweries have an annual brewery capacity
(ABC) of circa 622 hL/yr, though ABC can be as much as 10,000 hL/yr
(Ravelli and Pedrini, 2015). In 2015, their overall production (on the
assumption of an average concentration of fermentable sugars in
the wort of 14  Plato) was of the order of 438,000 hL/yr, namely the
2.8% of the national beer production (Assobirra, 2016). In the United
States, craft beers represent the 12% of total US beer market, being
produced by as many as 4269 craft breweries (Kell, 2016).
Brewing is quite an energy-intensive process, especially in the
steps of malt mashing, wort fermentation and rough beer matu-
ration and filtration (Olajire, 2012). A large number of life cycle
assessment (LCA) studies (Amienyo and Azapagic, 2016; BIER, 2012;
Cimini and Moresi, 2016a; b; 2017; Climate Conservancy, 2008;
Chicago Manufacturing Center, 2009; EPD, 2010, 2011a; b; 2014a;
b; Koroneos et al., 2005; Lalonde et al., 2013; Mun ~ oz et al., 2012;
Narayanaswamy et al., 2005; Talve, 2001; Williams and Mekonen,
2014) have so far attempted to evaluate the life cycle environ-
mental impact of beer as packed in disposable glass bottles, as well
as aluminium or steel cans, or re-usable steel or plastic drums. The
estimated beer carbon footprint varied from as low as 25 to as high
as 259 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) hL1 owing to several
reasons, such as the beer type, packaging format, brewery size, and
inclusion or not of the consumer phase.
In this work, the life-cycle assessment model previously
developed (Cimini and Moresi, 2017) was used to evaluate the
potentialities of a series of mitigation opportunities in order to
minimize the cradle-to-grave carbon footprint of 1 hL of beer pro-
duced in three large- (LS), medium-(MS) and small-(SS) sized
breweries and packed in 66-cL glass or PET bottles through a simple
and stepwise approach.
2. Beer carbon footprint estimation model
The cradle-to-grave carbon footprint (CFC2G) of a lager beer,
made of malted barley and hop pellets and produced from brew-
eries of different size, was estimated using the life cycle assessment
(LCA) model previously developed by Cimini and Moresi (2017) in
compliance with the Publicly Available Specification (PAS 2050)
Fig. 1. Beer system boundary. All symbols are listed in the Nomenclature section.
standard method (BSI, 2008a; b). Such a model accounted for a
functional unit consisting of 1 hL of lager beer packed in 66-cL glass
(GB) or PET (PB) bottles.
Fig. 1 shows the field-to-fork stages included in the system
boundary examined here. Table 1 lists the main specific con-
sumption of resources (i.e., raw materials - malted barley, qMB, and
hop pellets; main brewing coadjutants and processing aids - DE,
PVPP, and carbon dioxide of fossil origin; chemicals for plant
cleaning and PVPP regeneration - 30% caustic soda; water, qW) and
thermal (Eth) and electric (Eel) energy, and specific formation of
wastewaters, by-products (i.e., spent grains, and surplus yeast), and
biogas per hL of beer produced by European breweries of different
size. All these data were of the secondary type and were sourced
from the literature and related to the annual brewery capacity
(ABC), as derived from Cimini and Moresi (2016a,b, 2017). Whereas
some brewing coadjutants and processing aids are dependent on
the beer recipe only, most of the specific resource and energy
consumption increases as ABC reduces.
All details about the process refrigeration cycle adopted, beer
packaging, solid packaging waste recycling, brewing wastewater
disposal, use stage, post-consumer packaging waste management,
and transportation modes were reported previously (Cimini and
Moresi, 2017). Process by-products (i.e., wet brewers’ spent
grains, BSG, and yeast surplus) were used as animal feed, this
resulting in an avoided environmental load of ~0.09 kg CO2e/kg as
referred to the carbon footprint of soybean meal produced in
Argentina when excluding land use changes (Dalgaard et al., 2008)
and an average raw protein content of ~0.04 g g1 of BSG (Cimini
and Moresi, 2017).
The cradle-to-grave carbon footprint of the aforementioned
functional unit was estimated by accounting for the GHG emissions
associated to all the activities included in the boundary system
shown in Fig. 1 as follows:
X
CFC2G ¼ ðJi EFi Þ (1)
i
where Ji is the amount of each activity parameter (expressed in
mass, energy, mass-km basis), and EFi its corresponding emission
factor, expressed in kg CO2e emitted over a time horizon of 100
years. All the EFi values used in this work were reported in the
electronic supplement (Table S1) and were extracted from several
databases of the LCA software Simapro
7.2 v.2 (Pre

Consultants,
Amersfoort, NL), as well as technical literature. Moreover, the effect
of the recycling percentage on the carbon footprint of glass or PET
bottles was extracted from FEVE (2016) or Dormer et al. (2013),
respectively.
 A. Cimini, M. Moresi / Journal of Food Engineering 236 (2018) 1e8 3

Table 1
Specific consumption of raw materials, processing aids, thermal and electric energy, detergents, and water, and formation of by-products (brewers spent grains, ans surplus
yeast) and methane, relative to several European breweries. All the empiric regressions were related to the annual brewery capacity (ABC) and were extracted from Cimini and
Moresi (2017).

Specific consumption Unit European Breweries Ref.s Empiric Regression ABC [hL/yr]
1 (1.69±0.2) (0.064±0.004)
Malted barley kg hL 21e36 2, 4, 5, 7, 13 qMB ¼ 10 ABC 500 < ABC<107
Hop Pellets g hL1 90e260 1, 4
Diatomaceous Earth g hL1 80e570 9, 13, 4
PVPP g hL1 0.1e40 8, 4
Caustic Soda (30% w/w) kg hL1 0.39e1.07 13, 4
Fossil-fuel-derived CO2 g hL-1 619e3060 13, 4
Thermal energy MJ hL1 64e440 2-5; 7, 10, 12-14 Eth ¼(150,443 ± 22,292)/ABC þ (158 ± 16) 500 < ABC<105
12 Eth ¼ 320 ABC0.064 ABC>105
Electric energy MJ hL1 29e92 2-5, 7, 9, 10, 13 Eel ¼ (55,054 ± 5636)/ABC þ(44 ± 4) 500 < ABC<105
12 Eel ¼ 118.4 ABC0.099 ABC>105
1
Water hL hL 3.4e20 2, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13 qW ¼ 10(1.43±0.15) ABC(0.13±0.03) 500 < ABC<107
Wastewaters hL hL1 1.3e1.8 11
Spent Grains (avg dm 26%) kg hL1 14e19 4, 9, 13 qSBG ¼ 0.3
qMB/0.26 500 < ABC<107
Surplus Yeast kg hL1 1.4e4 4, 9, 13
Biogas MJ hL-1 0e10 6, 9

1, Assobirra (2016); 2, Beloborodko et al. (2014); 3, Blümelhuber (2008); 4, Cimini and Moresi (2016a); 5, Cimini and Moresi (2017); 6, Donoghue et al. (2012); 7, European

Commission (2006); 8, Gopal and Rehmanji (2000); 9, IFC (2007); 10, Olajire (2012); 11, Osojnik Crnivec and Marinsek-Logar (2007); 12, Sturm et al. (2012); 13, UNEP (1996);
14, Williams and Mekonen (2014).

3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effect of brewery size on the beer CFC2G
Table 2 summarizes the typical operating conditions for three
breweries of small, medium, and large size. In particular, the spe-
cific consumption of malted barley (qMB), water (qW), electric (Eel)
and thermal (Eth) energy were estimated using the empiric re-
gressions given in Table 1, whereas all the other coadjutants and
processing aids were set in accordance with Table 1. The refriger-
ation unit was charged with ammonia in the case of the large-sized
brewery, but with the hydrofluorocarbon mixture R-407c in the
case of the medium- and small-sized breweries. Moreover, the
means of transport used to deliver malted barley to the brewery
gate and palletized beer to the distribution centers (DC) were EURO
3 articulated trucks with total capacity of 16e32 Mg, heavy rigid
trucks (7.5e16 Mg), or light-medium rigid trucks (3.5e7.5 Mg), as
the brewery size decreased from 3
106 to 6
105, and to 600 hL/
yr, respectively. On the contrary, malted barley travelled from 500
to 1500 km to emphasize the fact that microbreweries generally
rely on imported malted barley. In reverse, palletized beer delivery
distance was reduced from 500 to 0 km. The latter was a virtual
distance used to point out that microbreweries and especially
brewpubs are skipping DCs, their products being sold directly to

Table 2
Specific consumption or formation of the main process parameters associated to the production of 1 hL of beer packed in 66-cL glass or PET bottles by breweries of three
different annual capacity (ABC), together with the main supply and delivery distances, and default emission factors.

Specific Consumption Brewery size Unit

Large Medium Small

ABC 3
106 6
105 6
102 hL/yr

Main process parameters

Refrigerant NH3 R-407c R-407c
Thermal Energy 123.2 136.6 408.7 MJ/hL
Electric Energy 27.0 31.7 135.8 MJ/hL
Refrigeration Fluid Loss 0 0.00022 0.0010 kg hL1 yr1
Water 4.0 4.9 11.9 L/L
Malted Barley 19.1 21.2 32.9 kg/hL
Hop pellets 260 260 260 g hL1
Diatomaceous Earth 80 500 0 g hL1
PVPP 5 40 0 g hL1
Caustic Soda (30% w/w) 0.4 0.8 1.0 kg hL1
Carbon Dioxide 620 2000 0 g hL1
Spent Grains (26% dm) 22.1 24.4 37.9 kg hL1
Surplus Yeast (10% dm) 1.5 3 4 kg hL1
Biogas generated 5 0 0 MJ hL1
Supply and delivery distances
Barley 500 1000 1500 km
Bottles 200 km
Palletized beer from brewery to DCs 500 300 0 km
Beer in cartons from DCs to Retailers 100 75 25 km
Default emission factors
Barley 1.143 kg CO2e/kg
Glass bottles, 0% recycled 1.08 kg CO2e/kg
PET bottles, 0% recycled 3.77 kg CO2e/kg
Electric energy 0.324 kg CO2e/kWh
Malt, bottles and palletized beer transportation 0.168 0.291 0.657 kg CO2e/(Mg km)
4 A. Cimini, M. Moresi / Journal of Food Engineering 236 (2018) 1e8
consumers from the manufacturing plant or adjacent bars, res-
taurants, liquor stores, and grocery stores.
As shown in the electronic supplement (Table S2), the cradle-to-
grave carbon footprint of beer packed in 66-cL glass bottles
increased from about 127 to 192 kg CO2e hL1, as the brewery size
reduced from 3 million to 600 hL/yr. In particular, the greatest in-
crease in CFC2G (þ51%) was observed in the case of the craft
brewery examined. In the circumstances, the contribution of craft
beer to the overall climate change load of the beer sector would be
approximately 50% higher than its current market share. In other
words, the craft beer representing ~2.8% of total Italian beer pro-
duction (Assobirra, 2016) should have accounted, in 2015, for 4.7%
of total climate change impact of the Italian beer sector.
The contribution of the main beer life cycle phases to CFC2G is
shown in Fig. 2a and detailed in the electronic supplement
(Table S2). The manufacture of packaging materials (PaM) resulted
to be the primary hotspot, the manufacture of glass bottles and
cartons representing about the 70% and 20% of this contribution,
respectively. This finding was in line with previous studies by
Cimini and Moresi (2016a,b), Cordella et al. (2008), Koroneos et al.
(2005), and Talve (2001). The second and third hotspots were
transportation (TR), and production of raw and processing mate-
rials (RPM, viz. mainly malted barley), respectively. For large- and
medium-sized breweries the fourth hotspot was represented by the
consumer phase (~18.6 kg CO2e hL1), whereas for the smallest
brewery it was represented by the brewing and packaging pro-
cessing (BPP) step in consequence of the very low efficiency in the
utilization of malted barley and overall energy by craft breweries
(Beloborodko et al., 2014; Williams and Mekonen, 2014).
3.2. Impact of PET bottles on beer CFC2G
By replacing the glass bottles with PET ones, CFC2G increased
from ~103 to 169 kg CO2e hL1, as the brewery size reduced from 3
million to 600 hL/yr. Owing to the smaller amount of PET used
(~3.89 kg/hL), the environmental load of beer production lessened
by about 18% in the case of the large- and medium-sized breweries,
but no more than 12% in the case of the craft brewery examined.
The main hotspots of the PET-bottled beer life cycle phases are
shown in Fig. 2b and exhaustively listed in the electronic supple-
ment (Table S2). The primary hotspot coincided with the produc-
tion of packaging materials (PaM), raw materials and processing
aids (RPM), or beer processing and packaging (BPP) for LS, MS, or SS
brewery, respectively. It was newly confirmed that the first priority
for craft breweries was the optimization of their processing lines,
even when using a light packaging material, such as PET.
3.3. Contribution of post-consumer packaging waste disposal
By referring to the average Italian municipal solid waste man-
agement scenarios (Mariotta, 2015), it was found that the impact of
post-consumer packaging waste disposal (PCWD) was definitively
diverse for the two primary packages accounted for (Fig. 2). Owing
to the high amount of glass used to packed one hL of beer (43.9 kg/
hL) and its high recyclable waste fraction (70.3%), the environ-
mental load of such a phase represented a significant CO2e credit
(11 kg CO2e hL1). On the contrary, owing to the low amount of
PET used to packed one hL of beer (3.89 kg/hL) and still inadequate
recyclable waste fraction (37.9%) in Italy, such a phase resulted in
another environmental burden (þ4.6 kg CO2e hL1). By referring to
the 4 countries in Europe (i.e., Switzerland, Austria, the Nederlands,
and Germany) that reached a recovery ratio of more than 99% of the
post-consumer plastic packaging wastes in 2014, thanks to their
landfill banning (Plastics Europe, 2016), it was estimated how such
conditions affected the environmental load of PCWD. Provided that
even in Italy the overall recovery ratio of plastics tended to 100%,
PET banning from landfill would boost the PET recycling ratio from
37.9% (Mariotta, 2015) to 55.5% by assuming no variation in the
ratio of PET energy recovery via incineration (44.5%). In the cir-
cumstances, the environmental load of PCWD approximately
reduced by 10% from 4.6 to 4.1 kg CO2e hL1. Thus, the main
advantage of replacing glass bottles with PET ones appeared to be
just related to PET lightness (each PET bottle weighing about one
eleventh of a glass one). Probably, the only way to minimize the
environmental impact of this phase with considerable cost savings
for the municipalities would be to resort to refillable glass or PET
bottles, since these can be refilled over 50 or 15 times, respectively
(Zero Waste Europe, 2010).
3.4. Effect of a few mitigation options on beer CFC2G
According to Morawicki (2012), a simple and stepwise approach
to sustainability should be directed, firstly, to improve food pro-
cessing efficiencies and replace gradually usage of fossil energy
with renewable one by purchase or self-generation; secondly, to
minimize the environmental impact of raw material and final
product transportation; thirdly, to minimize the environmental
load of crop and animal farming via sustainable global agricultural
systems (Simons, 2015); and fourthly, to reduce the environmental
burden of post-consumer packaging wastes, as well as food and
drink scraps.
Despite firm-oriented, such an approach might result in miti-
gation actions exerting a minimum reduction in the product carbon
footprint. Thus, a few mitigation opportunities were scheduled on
the rationale that one should prioritize the life cycle stages with the
highest contribution to the product carbon footprint, namely the
hotspots identified thanks to the LCA studies shown in Fig. 2.
By using technologies nowadays feasible for the brewing sector,
Table 3 shows the effect of such alternatives on beer CFC2G. Firstly,
the replacement of 100% virgin glass bottles with 100% recycled
ones reduced CFC2G by about 21% or 14% with respect to the refer-
ence case for LS and MS, or LS breweries, respectively. To affect the
2nd hotspot, the transportation mode used to manage malted
barley and palletized beer logistics was shifted from road to rail
freight, this yielding a further 10e13% decrease in CFC2G. Then, the
use of organic instead of convential barley had the effect of
decreasing CFC2G by another 10%. By resorting to barley grown
locally using organic agriculture methods, the average supply dis-
tance was diminished to as low as 250 km and this gave rise to an
additional reduction in CF by 0.5e0.8%, as ABC was reduced from 3
million to 600 h L/yr. A quasi zero-carbon alternative for electricity
generation is solar-photovoltaic electricity. In this specific case,
such a shift lessened CFC2G by 12e13%. By submitting the brewery
wastewaters to anaerobic digestion, it would be possible to lessen
brewery thermal energy requirements thanks to the energy
recovered from biogas combustion. This would further reduce
CFC2G by 0.3e1.2% in the case of LS to SS breweries. Finally, the
recovery of carbon dioxide from the beer fermenters to cut abio-
genic CO2 consumption, or replacement of the hydrofluocarbon
blend R-407c with ammonia (R-717), that has zero ozone depletion
potential and no direct global warming potential, was assumed for
the small- and medium-sized breweries only, these technologies
being already applied in large-sized breweries (Cimini and Moresi,
2016a). In medium-sized breweries, the recovery of biogenic CO2
reduced CFC2G by another 1.3%, while the use of ammonia as
refrigerant by a further 0.3%. Since beer refermentation in bottles is
largely used in small-scale breweries, the option of CO2 recovery for
craft breweries appeared to be worthless (Table 3).
As shown in Fig. 3a, such a sequential series of mitigation op-
tions allowed the CFC2G of 1 hL of beer packed in glass bottles to be
 A. Cimini, M. Moresi / Journal of Food Engineering 236 (2018) 1e8 5

A
60

LSB
50
MSB
SSB
40

CFi [kg CO2e hL ] 30

-1

20

10

-10

TRBPW

PCWD
CP
BPP

WED

TRBDC

TR
TRIR

TRBR
RPM

PaM

RR
BPC

-20

B
60

LSB
50
MSB
SSB
40

30
CFi [kg CO2e hL ]
-1

20

10

0
TRBPW

PCWD
CP
BPP

WED

TRBDC

TR
TRIR

TRBR
RPM

PaM

RR
BPC

-10

-20

Fig. 2. Contribution of the generic i-th stage (RPM, raw materials and processing aids; BPP, brewing processing and packaging; PaM, packaging materials; WED, waste and effluent
disposal; BPC, CO2e credits from by-product use as cattle feed; TRIR, transportation of input resources to the brewery gate; TRDC, transportation of palletized beer to distribution
centers, DC; TRBR, transportation of beer in cartons from DCs to retailers; TRBPW, transportation of byproducts and wastes; TR, total transport; RR, retailer refrigeration; CP,
consumer phase; PCWD, post-consumer waste disposal) of the life cycle to the cradle-to-grave carbon footprint (CFC2G) of a functional unit (1 hL) of beer packed in 66-cL glass (a) or
PET (b) bottles in the three breweries of large (LS), medium (MS) and small (SS) size accounted for, as estimated from the LCA model (1) using the secondary data shown in Table 2.

reduced by about 53e58% with respect to the reference cases
(Table 3), as ABC decreased from 3 million to 600 hL/yr.
Similarly, when using PET bottles, the above mitigation alter-
natives allowed CFC2G to be reduced from 103 to 55 kg CO2e hL1,
from 114 to 56 kg CO2e hL1, and from 169 to 79 kg CO2e hL1 in the
case of the large-, medium- and small-sized breweries examined
(Table 3). The use of solar photoelectric energy resulted in a CF
reduction about two and a half times greater than obtained using
100%-recycled PET bottles. The use of organic malted barley had a
slightly less mitigation effect (circa 11%), except for the craft
brewery, this effect jumping to 29%.
In Italy, the increase in craft beer production was mainly due to a
noticeable increase in the overall number of small-sized breweries
(Ravelli and Pedrini, 2015). Moreover, most of the craft brewery
capacity is around that examined here (i.e., 600 hL/yr). Thus, CFC2G
for an artisan beer is about one and a half greater than that asso-
ciated with industrial beer. In the circumstances, the first priority
task for craft breweries would be to improve the current utilization
efficiency of their input resources and energy sources.
Finally, because of the main mitigations options examined so far,
6 A. Cimini, M. Moresi / Journal of Food Engineering 236 (2018) 1e8

Table 3
Effect of the sequential mitigation strategies used to minimize the overall beer carbon footprint (CF), as referred to the production of 1 hL of beer packed in 66-cL glass or PET
bottles in the large- (LS), medium- (MS), and small-(SS) sized breweries accounted for, and its relative percentage variation (DCF) with respect to that pertaining to the
reference case, its main operating conditions being shown in Table 2. The sequential step-wise procedure started from the most impactful life cycle phase of beer production as
resulting from the single issue LCA procedure used (PAS 2050) and shown in Table 2.

Bottle material used Parameter Glass PET

varied
Brewery size LS MS SS LS MS SS

Mitigation strategy CF DCF CF DCF CF DCF CF DCF CF DCF CF DCF

a % a % a % a % a % a %

Reference case (RC) e 127.2 0.0 138.6 0.0 192.2 0.0 103.0 0.0 113.9 0.0 169.3 0.0
0-100% recycled GBs or PBs (RB) EFB 100.3 21.2 111.6 19.5 165.2 14.0 92.3 10.4 103.2 9.4 158.6 6.3
Malt & Beer Rail Transport (MBRT) EFRT 88.2 30.7 92.7 33.1 129.3 32.7 83.8 18.7 89.3 21.6 127.7 24.6
Organic Malt (OM) EFOM 76.6 39.8 79.9 42.4 109.5 43.0 72.3 29.8 76.5 32.9 107.8 36.3
Local Malt (LM) dLM 76.5 39.9 79.3 42.8 107.8 43.9 72.1 30.0 75.9 33.4 106.2 37.3
Photovoltaic Electric Energy (PEE) EFPEE 60.2 52.7 62.7 54.8 82.9 56.8 55.9 45.8 59.3 48.0 81.3 52.0
Thermal Energy from Biogas Generated (BG) QBG 59.9 52.9 61.9 55.3 80.6 58.1 55.5 46.1 58.5 48.6 80.6 52.4
Net specific amount of fossil CO2 used (CR) mCO2F b e 60.1 56.6 80.6 58.1 b e 56.7 50.2 80.6 52.4
Use of a natural refrigerant (NH3) instead of R407c (UNR) UNR b e 59.7 56.9 80.5 58.1 b e 56.3 50.6 78.9 53.4
a
[kg CO2e/hL].
b
Basic option for the large-sized brewery accounted for.

A 210
192
LS
180 MS
165
SS
150 139
CFC2G [kg CO2e hL-1]

127 129
120 112 109 108
100
88 93
90 83 81 81 80
77 80 76 79
60 63 60 62 60 60
60

30

0
RC RB MBRT OM LM PEE BG CR USR
B
210

LS
180 169 MS
159
SS
150
CFC2G [kg CO2e hL-1]

128
120 114
108 106
103 103
92 89
90 84 81 81 81 79
72 76 72 76

60 56 59 55 59 57 56

30

0
RC RB MBRT OM LM PEE BG CR USR

Fig. 3. Marginal abatement curves of the cradle-to-grave beer carbon footprint (CFC2G) as resulting from the sequential mitigation strategies adopted to alleviate the environmental
load of the most impactful life cycle phase of the production of a functional unit (1 hL) of beer packed in 66-cL glass (a) or PET (b) bottles in the three breweries of large (LS), medium
(MS) and small (SS) size accounted for, as estimated from the LCA model (1). All symbols used are listed in Table 3.
 A. Cimini, M. Moresi / Journal of Food Engineering 236 (2018) 1e8 7

CFC2G for beer packed in glass bottles levelled off to about 60, or Instruction, University and Research, special grant PRIN 2010e2011
80 kg CO2e/hL in the case of large- and medium-, or small-sized - prot. 2010ST3AMX_003.
breweries. Similarly, CFC2G for beer packed in PET bottles declined
to ~56, or 79 kg CO2e/hL in the case of large- and medium-, or small- Nomenclature
sized breweries. After applying all the above mitigation alterna-
tives, the use of PET instead of glass bottles yielded no significant ABC Annual brewery capacity [hL/yr]
reduction in beer CFC2G, whatever the brewery size. To assess CFC2G BG Biogas generated
uncertainty, all the independent variables shown in Table 2 were BPC CO2e credits from by-product usage
varied by ±10% with respect to the values used to minimize the BPP Brewing and packaging processing
CFC2G score against the brewery size and primary packaging ma- BSG Brewers' spent grains
terials (Table 3). For the large-, medium, or small-sized brewery CFC2G Cradle-to-grave carbon footprint of a functional unit, as
accounted for, CFC2G exhibited a ±13.7, ±14.7, and ±16.2% variation defined by Eq. (1) [kg CO2e hL1]
with respect to the default scores shown in Table 3 when using CP Consumer phase
glass bottles, respectively. Similarly, CFC2G varied by ±10.2, ±10.4, CR Net specific amount of fossil CO2 used [kg CO2 hL1]
and ±13.7% with respect to the default scores when using PET d supply or delivery distance [km]
bottles (Table 3). DC Distribution center
Whatever the primary packaging material used and brewery DE Diatomaceous earth
size examined, each mitigation action should be evaluated not only Eel Specific electric energy consumption [MJ hL1]
in terms of the achieved reduction in the process environmental Eth Specific thermal energy consumption [MJ hL1]
load, but also in terms of the marginal increase in the overall EE Electric Energy
operating costs. Despite the LCA model used to estimate beer CFC2G EFi Emission factor for the generic i-th activity, expressed in
relied on secondary data only (Cimini and Moresi, 2017), such a [kg CO2e kg1], [kg CO2e MJ1], [kg CO2e kWh1] or [kg
sequential procedure might be safely applied either for internal CO2e Mg1 km1]
decision making or for identifying improvement opportunities Eth Specific thermal energy consumption [MJ hL1]
along the supply chain. If the intention would be the carbon la- GB Glass bottle
beling of the final product, such a procedure will surely be inap- GHG Greenhouse gas
propriate and secondary data are to be replaced by primary ones. GWP Global Warming Potential
Nevertheless, Espinoza-Orias et al. (2011) demonstrated that the LCA Life-cycle assessment
studies based on primary, PAS 2050-compliant data and secondary LM Local malt
data exhibited a difference in bread carbon footprint not greater LS Large-sized brewery
than 12% and allowed the same major hotspots to be identified. mCO2F Net specific amount of carbon dioxide of fossil origin
Since the only assessment of GHG emissions might result in burden used, exceeding natural CO2 recovered [kg CO2 hL1]
shifting, a further step should be directed to investigate other MBRT Malt and beer rail transport
environmental impacts in the product life cycle, especially eutro- MS Medium-sized brewery
phication and acidification categories, as recommended by the OM Organic malt
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules for beer (TSBP, PaM Packaging materials
2016). PB PET bottle
PCWD Post-consumer waste disposal
4. Conclusions PEE Photovoltaic electric energy
PET Polyethylene terephthalate
In this work, a simple and stepwise approach was applied to PVPP Polyvynilpolypyrrolidone
minimize the cradle-to grave carbon footprint (CFC2G) of 1 hL of Q Thermal energy
beer produced in three large-(LS), medium-(MS), and small-sized qMB Specific malted barley consumption [kg hL1]
(SS) breweries and packed in 66-cL glass or PET bottles by resort- qSBG Specific brewers' spent grain formation [kg hL1]
ing to a previously developed LCA model. Once the main hotspots of qW Specific water consumption [L L1]
the beer life cycle (i.e., packaging material manufacture, trans- R407c Mixture of hydrofluorocarbons used as a refrigerant
portation, and production of raw materials and processing aids) RB 100%-recycled bottles
had been identified, a few mitigation actions were tested to assess RC Reference case, as reported in Table 3
their relative effectiveness at minimizing CFC2G. In this way, CFC2G RPM Raw materials and processing aids
was more than halved whatever the brewery size and primary RR Retailer refrigeration
packaging material used. However, the replacement of glass bottles SS Small-sized brewery
with PET ones resulted in no significant reduction in beer CFC2G TR Transportation
whatever the brewery size, unless the option of refillable glass or TRBPW Transportation of byproducts and wastes
PET bottles were accounted for. TRBR Transportation of beer from DCs to retailers
A cost/benefit analysis is finally needed to recognize which TRDC Transportation of beer to distribution centers
opportunities are worthy of being explored to reduce the product TRIR Transportation of input resources to brewery gate
environmental impact with minimum effect on the overall oper- UNR Use of a natural refrigerant (NH3) instead of R407c
ating costs of beer, as well as to decide to invest on the collection of WED Waste and effluent disposal
selected primary data to make the carbon footprint calculation Ji Amount of the i-th activity, expressed in [kg/hL], [MJ/
more accurate or on the assessment of other environmental impact hL], [kWh/hL] or [Mg km]
categories.
Subscripts
Acknowledgements B referred to bottles made of virgin or 100% recycled glass
or PET
Funding: This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of BG referred to biogas generated
8 A. Cimini, M. Moresi / Journal of Food Engineering 236 (2018) 1e8

LM referred to local malt European Commission, 2006. Integrated pollution prevention and control, refer-
ence document on best available techniques in the food, drink and milk in-
OM referred to organic malt
dustries, p. 580. Available at. http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/
PEE referred to photovoltaic electric energy fdm_bref_0806.pdf. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
RT referred to rail transportation FEVE (European Federation of glass packaging and glass tableware makers), 2016.
Recycling: why glass always has a happy CO2 ending. Available at. http://feve.
org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/FEVE-brochure-Recycling-Why-glass-
Appendix A. Supplementary data always-has-a-happy-CO2-ending-.pdf. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
Gopal, C., Rehmanji, M., 2000. PVPP e the route to effective beer stabilization.
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at Brewers’ Guardian 1e6. May.
IFC, 2007. Environmental, health, and safety guidelines for breweries. Available at.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2018.05.001. http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/a1b1ce8048855d0e8dc4df6a6515bb18/
finalþ-þbreweries.pdf?mod¼ajperes. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
References Kell, J., 2016. What you didn't know about the boom in craft beer. March Fortune 22
(2016). Available at. http://fortune.com/2016/03/22/craft-beer-sales-rise-2015/.
(Accessed 10 March 2018).
Amienyo, D., Azapagic, A., 2016. Life cycle environmental impacts and costs of beer
Koroneos, C., Roumbas, G., Gabari, Z., Papagiannidou, E., Moussiopoulos, N., 2005.
production and consumption in the UK. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21 (4), 492e509.
Life cycle assessment of beer production in Greece. J. Clean. Prod. 13 (4),
Assobirra (Associazione degli Industriali della Birra e del Malto), 2016. Annual
433e439.
Report 2016. Assobirra, Rome, Italy. Available at: http://www.assobirra.it/wp-
Lalonde, S., Nicholson, A., Schenck, R., 2013. Life cycle assessment of beer in support
content/uploads/2017/11/annual_report_2016.pdf. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
 of an environmental product declaration. Institute for Environmental Research
Beloborodko, A., Zogla, L., Rosa, M., 2014. Efficient use of energy in small size
and Education (IERE). Available at. http://iere.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/
brewery. In: 17th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Pro-
IERE_Beer_LCA_Final.pdf. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
duction: Book of Abstracts, Slovenia, Portoro z, 14-16 October, 2014. Maribor:
Mariotta, C., 2015. Imballaggi e rifiuti di imballaggio. Cap. 4, pp. 137e166. In: ISPRA,
Nigrad, 151e151.
Rapporto Rifiuti Urbani, Rapporti 230/2015. Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e
BIER, 2012. Research on the carbon footprint of beer. Beverage industry environ-
la Ricerca Ambientale, Rome, Italy.
mental roundtable, june 2012. Available at: http://media.wix.com/ugd/49d7a0_
Morawicki, R.O., 2012. Handbook of Sustainability for the Food Sciences. Wiley-
70726e8dc94c456caf8a10771fc31625.pdf. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
Blackwell, Chichester, UK.
Blümelhuber, G., 2008. Environment and energy in German breweries. MBAA, ~ oz, E., Riquelme, C., Cardenas, J.P., 2012. Carbon Footprint of beer e analysis of a
Mun
global emerging issues; september 2008. Available at: https://www.mbaa.com/
small scale processing plant in Chile. In: Proceedings of the 2nd LCA Confer-
brewresources/Documents/Energy_Blumelhuber_09.08.pdf. . (Accessed 11
ence, November, 6-7, 2012 (Lille, France).
March 2018).
Narayanaswamy, V., Van Berkel, R., Altham, J., McGregor, M., 2005. Application of
BSI, 2008a. Publicly Available Specification (PAS 2050) for the Assessment of the Life
life cycle assessment to enhance eco-efficiency of grains supply chains. In:
Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emission of Goods and Services. British Standards
Proc.s of the 4th Australian LCA Conference, 23-25 February, 2005 (Sydney,
Institution, London.
NSW, Australia).
BSI, 2008b. Guide to PAS: How to Assess the Carbon Footprint of Goods and Ser-
Olajire, A.A., 2012. The brewing industry and environmental challenges. J. Clean.
vices. British Standards Institution, London.
Prod. 1e21 (in press). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.003.
Chicago Manufacturing Center, 2009. Product carbon footprint of Goose Island
(Accessed 11 March 2018).
brewery 312 Beer keg. Available at: http://www.glproject.com/filebin/pdf/312_ 
Osojnik Crnivec, I.G., Marinsek-Logar, R., 2007. D7.2.2 Report on the assessed extent
Keg_Footprint_Report.pdf. (Accessed 31 July 2014).
of environmental impacts of the existing TFPs production and processing. A
Cimini, A., Moresi, M., 2016a. Carbon Footprint of a pale lager packed in different
report of the TRUEFOOD Project. Available at: https://www.
formats: assessment and sensitivity analysis based on transparent data. J. Clean.
noexperiencenecessarybook.com/2OnNp/d7-2-2-report-environmental-
Prod. 112 (Part 5), 4196e4213.
impact.html. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
Cimini, A., Moresi, M., 2016b. Carbon Footprint della birra: effetto dei consumi di
Plastics Europe (Association of Plastics Manufacturers), 2016. World plastics pro-
pro-cesso e della scala di produzione. Ind. delle Bevande 45 (marzo/aprile),
duction 1950-2015. Avaliable at https://committee.iso.org/files/live/sites/tc61/
42e52.
files/The%20Plastic%20Industry%20Berlin%20Aug%202016%20-%20Copy.pdf. .
Cimini, A., Moresi, M., 2017. Effect of brewery size on the main process parameters
(Accessed 11 March 2018).
and cradle-to- grave carbon footprint of lager beer (in press). J. Ind. Ecol..
Ravelli, G., Pedrini, M., 2015. Osservatorio ALTIS e UNIONBIRRAI Sul Segmento Della
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12642. Available at. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
Birra Artigianale in Italia - Rapporto 2015. EDUCatt, Milano.
doi/10.1111/jiec.12642/full. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
Simons, L., 2015. Changing the Food Game. Market Transformation Strategies for
Climate Conservancy, 2008. The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber ale. Available
Sustainable Agriculture. Greenleaf Publishing Ltd, Shieffield, UK.
at: http://www.newbelgium.com/Files/the-carbon-footprint-of-fat-tire-amber-
Statista, 2018. Consumption of alcoholic beverages worldwide from 2016 to 2020
ale-2008-public-dist-rfs.pdf. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
(in billion liters). Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/726990/
Cordella, M., Tugnoli, A., Spadoni, G., Santarelli, F., Zangrando, T., 2008. LCA of an
alcoholic-beverage-consumption-worldwide/. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
Italian lager beer. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13 (2), 133e139.
Sturm, B., Butcher, M., Wang, Y., Huang, Y., Roskilly, T., 2012. The feasibility of the
Dalgaard, R., Schmidt, J., Halberg, N., Christensen, P., Thrane, M., Pengue, W.A., 2008.
sustainable energy supply from bio wastes for a small scale brewery - a case
LCA of soybean meal. Int J LCA 13 (3), 240e254.
study. Appl. Therm. Eng. 39, 45e52.
Donoghue, C., Jackson, G., Koop, J.H., Heuven, A.J.M., 2012. The Environmental
Talve, S., 2001. Life cycle assessment of a basic lager beer. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 6
Performance of the European Brewing Sector. Report no. 3101010DR02. The
(5), 293e298.
Brewers of Europe, Brussels, B. Available at: http://www.brewersofeurope.org/
TSBP (Technical Secretariat for the Beer Pilot), 2016. Product environmental foot-
uploads/mycms-files/documents/archives/publications/2012/envi_report_
print category rules for beer. Draft version 3.4. Available at: https://webgate.ec.
2012_web.pdf. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/download/attachments/81474510/PEFCR%20for%20Beer%
Dormer, A., Finn, D.P., Ward, P., Cullen, J., 2013. Carbon footprint analysis in plastics
20%203%204%20%2829%20July%202016%29.pdf?api¼v2. (Accessed 11 March
manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 51, 133e141.
2018).
EPD, 2010. EPD® Carlsberg® and Tuborg® Beer. Reg. no S-EP-00264. http://www.
UNEP, 1996. Environmental management in the brewing industry. Technical Report
environdec.com. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
Series No. 33. United Nations Environment Programme e Industry and Envi-
EPD, 2011a. EPD® Tuborg® Beer. Reg. no S-P-00311. Available at. http://www.
ronment, Paris.
environdec.com. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
Williams, A.G., Mekonen, S., 2014. Environmental performance of traditional beer
EPD, 2011b. EPD® BAP Bock Chiara® and BAP Bock Rossa® Beer. Reg. no. S-P-00314.
production in a micro-brewery. In: Schenck, R., Huizenga, D. (Eds.), Proc.s of the
Available at. http://www.environdec.com. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food Sector,
EPD, 2014a. EPD® Birrificio Angelo Poretti 5 Luppoli Bock Chiara® and Birrificio
San Francisco (CA, USA), 8-10 October 2014, pp. 1535e1540. Available at: http://
Angelo Poretti 6 Luppoli Bock Rossa® Beer. Reg. no. S-P-00314. Available at.
lcafood2014.org/papers/271.pdf. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
http://www.environdec.com. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
Zero Waste Europe, 2010. Empowering our communities to redesign beverage
EPD, 2014b. EPD® Kronenbourg 1664® Beer. Reg. no. S-P-00533. Available at.
packaging and zero waste. Available at: https://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/2010/
http://www.environdec.com. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
09/beverage-packaging-and-zero-waste/. (Accessed 11 March 2018).
Espinoza-Orias, N., Stichnothe, H., Azapagic, A., 2011. The carbon footprint of bread.
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16, 351e365.