Luca Ferraro

Circular bioeconomy initiatives often valorise food-processing residues into bio-based inputs, yet environmental gains depend on how technologies are implemented and governed across multiple actors. This study evaluates a pathway that converts leek processing residues into a bioactive extract used as a plant biostimulant in greenhouse lettuce production and develops an evidence-based procedure to design a sustainable business model around it. We conducted a cradle-to-gate Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) of leek extract production and a comparative LCA of lettuce cultivation for a baseline system and an alternative system applying the extract, using the Environmental Footprint (EF) 3.1 midpoint indicators. The alternative scenario improved most indicators, with consistent reductions in acidification, eutrophication and freshwater ecotoxicity, while selected trade-offs were associated with the upstream extract supply chain, particularly in resource-related and process-sensitive impact categories. We then embedded these multi-impact hotspot signals into an ecosystem-oriented Sustainable Business Model Canvas (SBMC) and an experimentation logic, specifying who must act on each hotspot (processors, extract producers, labs, farmers) and how mitigation and verification can be financed through value capture (product-service bundles, monitoring, and conditional sustainability claims). The approach links LCA evidence to actionable business model choices, supporting credible scaling of residue-based agrifood innovations.

Maize is a water-intensive crop widely cultivated in temperate regions, where irrigation practices strongly influence its environmental performance. This study applies Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to compare the environmental impacts of surface and drip irrigation for maize green silage production in the Po Valley (Italy), following ISO 14040/44 standards and adopting a cradle-to-farm-gate perspective. Results show that, compared to drip irrigation, surface irrigation leads to lower impacts in 14 out of 15 categories, with reductions ranging from −0.2% (marine eutrophication) to −61% (human toxicity, non-cancer), particularly for human toxicity and resource use due to lower diesel and infrastructure requirements. Conversely, drip irrigation achieves a 58% reduction in water use thanks to its higher irrigation efficiency. The single-score assessment highlights water use as the key differentiating factor, positioning drip irrigation as preferable under scenarios of water scarcity. Contribution and sensitivity analyses confirm that nitrogen fertiliser use and mechanisation are major hotspots, while yield variation (±30%) significantly affects the magnitude of results. These findings emphasise a clear trade-off: surface irrigation shows a lower environmental burden across most impact categories, whereas drip irrigation strongly reduces water scarcity impacts and provides robust, site-specific evidence to guide sustainable irrigation strategies in intensive maize systems.