Joint data envelopment analysis and life cycle assessment for environmental impact reduction in broiler production systems

Joint data envelopment analysis and life cycle assessment for environmental impact reduction in broiler production systems

Accepted Manuscript Applying data envelopment analysis method for environmental impact reduction in broiler production system Z. Payandeh, K. Kheiral...

1MB Sizes 4 Downloads 74 Views

Accepted Manuscript Applying data envelopment analysis method for environmental impact reduction in broiler production system

Z. Payandeh, K. Kheiralipour, M. Karimi, B. Khoshnevisan PII:

S0360-5442(17)30504-2

DOI:

10.1016/j.energy.2017.03.112

Reference:

EGY 10579

To appear in:

Energy

Received Date:

02 December 2016

Revised Date:

23 March 2017

Accepted Date:

24 March 2017

Please cite this article as: Z. Payandeh, K. Kheiralipour, M. Karimi, B. Khoshnevisan, Applying data envelopment analysis method for environmental impact reduction in broiler production system, Energy (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.03.112

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

 The environmental impacts of broiler farms in Isfahan Providence, Iran were determined.  The efficient and inefficient farms were identified by data envelopment analysis.  The inefficient farms were optimized to reach efficient level.  The environmental impacts of all studied farms were calculated after optimization.  All impact indexes were decreased after optimization.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1

Applying data envelopment analysis method for

2

environmental impact reduction in broiler production

3

system

4 5 6

Z. Payandeh1, K. Kheiralipour1*, M. Karimi2, B. Khoshnevisan3

7 8

9

1Mechanical

Engineering of Biosystems Department, Ilam University, Ilam, Ilam, Iran.

10

11

2Mechanical

Engineering of Biosystems Department, Arak University, Arak, Markazi, Iran.

12

13 14

15

3Department

of Agricultural Machinery, University of Tehran, Karaj, Alborz, Iran. *Corresponding

Author:

16

E-mail Address: [email protected]

17

Tell& Fax: +98-8432227015 1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

Abstract

2

In recent years, livestock production sector has been significantly grown

3

associated with increasing of environmental impacts. In the present

4

research 90 broiler farms in Isfahan Providence, Iran, were considered to

5

be evaluated in point view of environmental impacts. The aim of the

6

present research is reducing environmental impacts of the studied farms

7

by data envelopment analysis. By the method, efficiency of the farms was

8

determined and inefficient farms were reduced to reach efficient level

9

through reducing energy and resources use. Before and after comparison

10

all farms, eleven environmental impacts of the farms were calculated

11

using life cycle assessment method. The results showed that the used

12

energy in farms can be reduced by 10.16 %. The contribution of food

13

production to environmental impacts was especially high in almost all

14

environmental indicators. All environmental impacts were reduced by 12-

15

57 %. The highest reduction was seen in ozone layer depletion, abiotic

16

depletion, marine aquatic ecotoxicity and human toxicity as 57.37, 31.32,

17

27.59 and 26.73 %, respectively. The research methodology and obtained

18

results can be used to reduce environmental emissions through managing

19

the resources and energy use in broiler production systems.

20

Keywords:

21

Environmental impacts; Life cycle assessment.

Chicken;

Energy

use;

2

Data

envelopment

analysis;

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

1. Introduction

2

The livestock sector has been expanded rapidly in recent decades and it is

3

projected to be continually grown as a result of increasing trend of food

4

demand. One of the main parts in this dynamic and growing sector is

5

broiler production [1]. The Middle East is the highest per capita consumer

6

of broiler meat in the world. Increasing trend of population growth,

7

urbanization and purchasing power has been caused to increase broiler

8

meet consumption.

9

The worldwide broiler chicken industry has been continuously grown

10

over the last 40 years. Broiler meat is an important source of high quality

11

proteins, minerals and vitamins to balance the human diet [2]. The global

12

broiler production in 2013 was estimated over 96 million tonne of meat

13

and after beef and pork is the third most consumed meat. At the moment,

14

Iran is the seventh broiler producer in the world with annual production

15

of 2 million tonne [3].

16

The livestock production has significant role in emission greenhouse

17

gases. There is estimated that broiler meat and egg production sector

18

emits annually 606 million tonne of CO2 equivalent as about 8 % of the

19

total greenhouse gases emitted in livestock sector. About 343 million

20

tonne of CO2 equivalent in 2013 is the share of broiler meat production

21

[4].

3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

To evaluate environmental impacts of systems, life cycle assessment

2

(LCA) method is a powerful tool that is vastly used in agriculture sector.

3

In this method, the life cycle of a system is considered as well as

4

predetermined its inputs and outputs. The life cycle perspective allows a

5

comprehensive assessing procedure, i.e. the possibility of taking the

6

whole production chain into account to improve the environmental

7

performance of products [5].

8

LCA method has been used to calculate the environmental impacts of

9

broiler production systems. Pelletier used LCA to predict macro scale

10

environmental impacts along the US broiler supply chain. In his research,

11

contribution of food provision in some impact category was calculated

12

[6]. Ewemoje et al. assessed environmental impacts of production

13

processes from hatchery to point-of-lay using LCA method. Their results

14

showed that total contributions to global warming were 9.708 kg of CO2

15

equivalent, 11.34 kg of CH4 equivalent and 0.2 kg of NO2 equivalent.

16

Contributions to acidification were 2.713×10-4 kg of SO2 equivalent,

17

1.948×10-3 kg of NH3 equivalent, 2.167×10-3 kg of NOx equivalent and

18

energy consumption was 59.79 KJ per bird [7]. Another research was

19

reported by Gonzalez-Garcia et al. to investigate environmental impacts

20

of broiler production. They determined contribution of environmental

21

impacts in all categories with significant contributions to eutrophication

22

potential (EP), acidification potential (AP), photo-oxidant formation 4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

potential (POFP) and global warming potential (GWP) as 99%, 98%,

2

99% and 93% of total contributing emissions, respectively [8].

3

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) has been used for evaluating the

4

performance and efficiency of industrial and agricultural systems. DEA is

5

a nonparametric method to estimate the relative efficiency of decision

6

making units (DMU), frontier DMUs and optimal values of each DMU

7

to reach frontiers [9].

8

Different studies have been conducted for assessing agricultural

9

production systems by DEA approach in view point of energy. Chauhan

10

et al. applied this method to determine the efficiencies of rice production

11

farms. Their results revealed that about 11.6% of the total input energy

12

could be saved [10]. Begum et al. calculated technical efficiency of

13

commercial broiler farms using DEA method. They considered constant

14

returns to scale (CRS) and variable returns to scale (VRS) model to

15

estimate the efficiency of DMUs [11]. Heidari et al. determined technical

16

efficiency (TE), pure technical efficiency (PTE) and scale efficiency (SE)

17

of energy use in broiler farms as 0.90, 0.93 and 0.96, respectively. In

18

addition their results revealed that about 11% of the total input resources

19

could be saved [2].

20

As stated above, some researches were conducted to evaluate

21

environmental impacts of broiler production systems by LCA method and

22

in some other researches DEA method was used to estimate energy 5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

efficiency and energy use reduction in the systems. But in the literature, a

2

research was not reported to reduce environmental impacts in broiler

3

production system. So, the aim of the present research was reducing

4

environmental impacts of broiler production systems in Isfahan

5

Providence, Iran. In this study, DEA method was applied to estimate and

6

optimize efficiency of energy consumption in the systems. Energy

7

reduction of the systems was calculated by subtracting the energy use

8

before and after comparison. Then, LCA method was used to calculate

9

the environmental impacts of the systems before and after comparison

10

and calculate the potential reduction of the impacts by subtracting the

11

emitted impacts before and after comparison.

12 13

2. Materials and Methods

14

A flowchart of calculation steps in the present research has been shown in

15

Fig. 1.

16

Fig. 1.

17

The first step was started after data collection. In this step, real amounts

18

of used recourses inputs in all broiler production farms were determined.

19

After that, real amounts of energy consumption and the environmental

20

impacts in the broiler production farms were calculated according to the

21

consumed input recourses by LCA method. All broiler production farms 6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

were reduced in point of energy consumption by DEA method and then

2

the reduced amounts of energy consumption and also energy reduction in

3

the farms were calculated. The reduced amounts of input resources were

4

calculated according to the reduced energy consumption. Finally, the

5

environmental impacts were calculated based on the reduced input

6

resources by LCA method and then reduction of environmental impacts

7

were determined.

8 9

2.1. Data Collection

10

In this study, 90 broiler farms in Isfahan, Najafabad and Nain Township,

11

the most broiler producers of Isfahan Province, Iran, were randomly

12

selected to be studied. Isfahan Province is located within 30.65 north

13

latitude and 51.67 east longitude. The data were gathered by

14

questionnaires and interview with the farm owners in August-September

15

growing period, 2014. The average of growing period was 58 days. The

16

used resources (inputs) in the studied growing period were: total amount

17

of food, diesel and electricity consumptions and total working hours of

18

labors. The outputs of the studied broiler farms were meat and manure.

19 20

7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

2.2. Data Envelopment Analysis

2

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a non-parametric method which the

3

relationships between all inputs and outputs are taken into account

4

simultaneously [12]. The method compares the studied broiler farms as

5

DMUs, and finds out the relative efficiency of the farms and examines

6

their positions in relation to the frontiers. DEA method includes two

7

models: CCR (Chames, Cooper and Rhodes) and BCC (Banker, Chames

8

and Cooper) models [13]. CCR model is constant returns to scale and

9

BCC model is variable returns to scale method. Each of these models is

10

divided to output oriented and input oriented approaches. Input oriented

11

approach means that an inefficient DMU must decrease input to become

12

an efficient one, while the output is fixed. Whereas, the output oriented

13

method fixes the input levels and increase the output values.

14

In DEA method, three efficiencies are estimated as technical efficiency

15

(TE), scale efficiency (SE) and pure technical efficiency (PTE).

16

Technical efficiency (or global efficiency) is determined by evaluation

17

the performance of DMUs relative to each other [13]. Scale efficiency is

18

the potential productivity which is obtained based on the achieved

19

optimal size of a DMU [14]. Pure technical efficiency or local efficiency

20

is the technical efficiency that removes the effect of scale efficiency [15].

21

The difference between three efficiencies has been explained in Fig. 2.

8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Fig. 2.

1 2

Two DEA models have been shown in Fig. 2. The MN line that passes

3

from the extreme data points represents a constant return to scale. Each

4

DMU on MN line is efficient one and its efficiency is equal to unit. Also,

5

pure technical efficiency of the DMUs on break line (P1, P2, P3 and P4)

6

is equal to unit. Having both technical efficiency and pure technical

7

efficiency, scale efficiency of DMUs can be estimated. The scale

8

efficiency of a DMU is equal to unit if its technical and pure technical

9

efficiencies are equal to unit. So, P2 DMU is efficient but other DMUs

10

are not and they are called as inefficiency DMUs. The three efficiencies

11

can be explained by following equations [7]: AB

TE = PTE =

SE = 12

(1)

AD

AC

(2)

AD

AB

(3)

AC

From above equations can be derived that: (4)

TE = PTE × SE 13

From Eq. 4 can be argued that TE is actual efficiency and SE shows an

14

efficiency ratio between ideal and actual efficiency. EMS 1.3 Software

15

[16] was used in this study to analyze the data by DEA method.

9

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

In order to optimize the input resources of all studied farms, firstly the

2

energy of all inputs were calculated. The inputs and outputs recourses

3

were converted to energy (actual) by multiplying the quantity of each

4

input/output to its corresponding energy equivalent. The used energy

5

equivalents in this study and their references were listed in Table 1.

6

Table 1.

7

The actual energy amounts of all input recourses were used as input of

8

DEA method via EMS 1.3 Software. In this study input oriented approach

9

was used to identify efficient (frontiers) and inefficient farms. The EMS

10

Software identifies efficient and inefficient farms based on actual energy

11

inputs of the farms by comparison them with each other. After identifying

12

and classifying the efficient and inefficient farms, the inefficient farms

13

were reduced to reach an efficient position in point of energy

14

consumption.

15

The energy comparison process is done by comparison inefficient farms

16

to efficient ones to determine the ideal energy use. The saved energy can

17

be determined by subtracting ideal from actual energy use [2; 14].

18

The reduced input resources are calculated considering reduced input

19

energies divided by those corresponding energy equivalents (Table 1).

20

These data were used as LCI data before and after comparison. The input

10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

recourses of broiler farms before and after comparison were considered to

2

determine the environmental impacts by LCA method.

3 4

2.3. Life Cycle Assessment

5

Life cycle assessment is an approach to estimate environmental impacts

6

related to a product, process or activity. LCA approach includes four

7

phases based on ISO 14040 and ISO 14044: goal and scope definition,

8

inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation of results [5;

9

24]. In the present study, LCA method was used to calculate

10

environmental impacts before and after DEA comparison of the broiler

11

farms.

12 13

2.3.1. Goal and Scope Definition

14

Goal and scope definition is the first phase of LCA that explain the

15

purpose of the study, the expected product of the study, the system

16

boundary and the assumptions. In the present study, LCA method was

17

used for calculating environmental impacts of production process of

18

broiler farms before and after DEA comparison. The system boundary

19

was farm gate including fuel, electricity and food and emissions

20

associated with live chicks (Fig. 3). Broiler breeder production, slaughter,

11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

chicken packaging and salon construction were not considered in this

2

research.

3

The functional unit of this study was one tonne live mass of broiler. This

4

functional unit is in agreement with previous studies [9; 11; 25]. Since

5

both energy and environmental impact reduction were simultaneously

6

investigated, mass allocation method was considered in the present study

7

[11; 26]. Fig. 3.

8 9 10

2.3.2. Life Cycle Inventory

11

The second phase of LCA study is life cycle inventory (LCI). Various

12

input resources and environmental impacts were quantified in this phase.

13

The actual and ideal inputs of the farms were considered as LCI data.

14

Further information (for production of food, electricity, transportation,

15

etc.) was taken from the SimaPro 8.0 Software Database. Fuel, electricity

16

and food were considered as input resources in the LCA study and

17

outputs were chicken meet and manure. Same to other studies, cleaning

18

agents used for disinfection of poultry salons were neglected in the LCA

19

study [27; 28].

20

Electricity is utilized for different purposes in the studied broiler

21

production farms such as: ventilating, lighting and water pumping.

12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

Electricity supply has been delivered from the grid region. Two kinds of

2

fuels, 99 % natural gas and 1 % Mazut are used in electricity grid of

3

Isfahan Province. The environmental impacts of each electricity supply

4

method were calculated according to fuel consumption percentage.

5

The used fuel for heating system in the studied broiler farms was included

6

diesel and natural gas. In this study, the fuel consumptions were high

7

because Isfahan Province is located in a dry region. Emission factors for

8

using diesel fuel and natural gas were considered based on [24]. The

9

USLCI Database was used in this study [29].

10

The share of maize and soybean was more than 90 % of the broiler foods.

11

The information related to foods was taken from the SimaPro 8.0

12

Software Database. In this study, crop production was not included in the

13

system boundary and it wasn’t considered in assessment process. The

14

largest emission of live chicks comes from the litter manure. N2O (direct

15

and indirect) and CH4 are emission factors of litter manure that were

16

determined based on IPCC guideline [24].

17 18

2.3.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment

19

Environmental impact assessment method was selected based on CML-

20

IA baseline V3.02/EU25/Characterization. Totally 11 impact categories

21

were studied in this study (Table 5). These impact categories were 13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

selected based on the inputs of the broiler production farms. Impact

2

assessment calculations were conducted using SimaPro 8.05 Software

3

from PRé Consultants [29].

4 5

3. Results and Discussion

6

3.1. Farm efficiency

7

In this study, the CCR and BCC models were considered to evaluate

8

technical, pure technical and scale efficiency of poultry production.

9

Efficiency values of the studied farms were presented in Table 2.

10

Table 2.

11

The mean values of TE, PTE and SE were calculated as 0.91, 0.96 and

12

0.92, respectively. It is clear that the mean efficiency of all farms were

13

less than unit that shows inefficient amount of resources and energy

14

consumption in the studied farms. The highest value of standard deviation

15

(0.13) was belonged to technical efficiency with a range of 0.49 to 1. This

16

indicated that technical efficiency better than other efficiencies shows the

17

variation and also revealed that more farms loss the energy or

18

inefficiently use energy and so need more cares to improve their

19

operating practices for enhancing energy and resources consumption

20

efficiency.

14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

In the literature, TE, PTE and SE of broiler farmers of Yazd Providence,

2

Iran, were reported as 0.90, 0.93 and 0.96 [2], technical efficiency of

3

poultry egg production as 0.873 [12] and TE and PTE for broiler farms as

4

0.70-0.73 [8].

5

According to Duncan Multiple Range Test, the studied DMUs were

6

significantly separate by different efficiency classes (Fig. 4).

7

Fig. 4.

8

The result of CCR model showed that between total of 90 farmers, only

9

46 farmers were relatively efficient (TE=1) and the remaining were

10

inefficient, i.e. their efficiency value were less than unit. Whereas the

11

result of BCC model indicated that 57 farmers were efficient (PTE=1).

12

Because of the lower number of indicated efficient DMUs based on CCR

13

model, the TE values were considered for comparison of the inefficient

14

DMUs.

15 16

3.2. Energy use

17

The input energy before and after comparison and also amount of saved

18

energy has been presented in Table 3.

19

Table 3.

20

As can be seen in table 3, all energy inputs can be decreased based on

21

DEA method. The total energy use can be reduced by 10.16 %. The 15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

highest amount of energy save was belonged to diesel, gas, food and

2

electricity, respectively. Although Table 3 says that use of equipment in

3

broiler farms can be decreased (from 169.78 to 70.12 MJ/1000bird), but

4

increasing the level of technology of used equipment in the farms,

5

mechanized systems (heating and feeding), air conditioning and applied

6

appropriate management method to optimize the farm inputs lead to

7

reduce consumption of fuel, electricity and food.

8 9

3.3. Resource use

10

Amount of reduced energy use related to each input was divided by its

11

corresponding energy equivalent (Table 1) to obtain the reduced

12

resources use. The consumed resources before and after comparison were

13

presented in Table 4. These data were used as LCI data before and after

14

comparison. Table 4.

15 16 17

3.4. Environmental impacts

18

In this section, the mean values of environmental impact of all broiler

19

farms were calculated before comparison (actual). The corresponding

20

ideal values were calculated after DEA comparison. Impact reduction was

21

calculated as the difference between actual and ideal impacts. The 16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

environmental impacts before and after comparison and impact reduction

2

was presented in Table 5.

3

Table 5.

4

Some previous studies reported global warming, eutrophication and

5

acidification indicators related to emissions from chicken production

6

farms to produce 1 tonne of chicken meat in different countries. Dasilva

7

et al. estimated the emission in France for the mentioned indicators as

8

2216 kg CO2 eq, 13.8 kg PO4 eq and 28.7 kg SO2 eq, respectively.

9

Dasilva et al. reported their findings in Brazil as 2058 kg CO2 eq, 14.4 kg

10

PO2 eq and 34.5 kg SO2 eq, respectively [25]. In Finland, Katajajuuri et

11

al achieved 2079 kg CO2 eq, 2.1 kg PO4 eq and 35 kg SO2 eq,

12

respectively [30]. Pelletier studied emission of broiler farms in USA and

13

obtained indicators as 1395 kg CO2 eq, 3.9 kg PO4 eq and 15.8 kg SO2

14

eq, respectively [9]. Williams et al. expressed emission values for the

15

indicators in United Kingdom as 1800 kg CO2 eq, 14 kg PO4 eq and 25.9

16

kg SO2 eq, respectively [31]. In another research, Leinonen et al. studied

17

emission of United Kingdom and expressed 3087 kg CO2 eq, 14.2 kg

18

PO4 eq and 32.7 kg SO2 eq, respectively [32].

19

The global warming, eutrophication and acidification indicators for

20

production of 1 tonne chicken meat in the present research were equal to

21

5782.380 kg CO2 eq, 9.881kg PO4 eq and 35.755 kg SO2 eq,

22

respectively. The amounts of eutrophication and acidification indicators 17

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

in Iran are same as corresponding values in different studied countries.

2

But, global warming is higher in compare with other countries that must

3

be decreased by considering better managing use of input resources.

4

Contribution of inputs to environmental impact categories for producing

5

1 tonne chickens before comparison has been shown in Fig. 5.

6

Fig. 5.

7

As can be seen in Fig. 5, the contribution of food to environmental

8

impacts derived from the studied farms was especially high, except for

9

human toxicity and marine aquatic toxicity indicators. The share of food

10

in the abiotic depletion, depletion of fossil resources, global warming,

11

ozone layer depletion, fresh water toxicity, terrestrial toxicity,

12

photochemical

13

eutrophication indicators was equal to 75.1, 41.8, 58.3, 64.6, 72.6, 46.5,

14

25.3, 58.9 and 94.6 %, respectively. Maize and soybean are most

15

important ingredients of food in broiler farms. They had highest

16

contributions in all categories due to its cropping stage.

17

The impact of livestock food on human toxicity and marine aquatic

18

toxicity was low (1.43 and 1.08 %, respectively) but the share of live

19

chicken on the indicators was high.

20

The most important input in the potential of global warming was food due

21

to releasing carbon dioxide into the air (91 %). Equipment (steel) had the

oxidation,

potential

18

acidification

and

potential

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

highest share in ozone layer depletion indicator (52.78 %). Contribution

2

of the heating systems to environmental impacts was 22.4 % in

3

acidification potential, 2.73 % in eutrophication potential, 1.54 % in

4

ozone depletion and 22.3 % in global warming. Emissions of heating

5

systems in the studied broiler farms were correspond to burning natural

6

gas and diesel.

7

Methane was the main source of emission into the air in ozone layer

8

depletion indicator. In acidification potential, ammonia with amount of

9

13.49 kg SO2 eq (39 %) had the highest greenhouse gas emissions and in

10

eutrophication indicator, nitrate with amount of 5.61 kg PO4 eq had a

11

share of 57 % of the emissions to the water.

12

As reported by several researchers, food is the most important input for

13

increasing environmental impacts associated with farm-related activities

14

[9; 27; 30; 33; 34]. da Silva et al. studied the emissions from poultry

15

production in Brazil and France. They concluded that food input had the

16

highest emissions in the global warming, soil toxicity and eutrophication

17

indicators. In toxicity indicators, food had the highest share in Brazil, but

18

live chicken had the highest emission in France due to NH3 emissions.

19

Due to high use of fossil fuels, food had high effect on global warming

20

indicator. The use of nitrogenous fertilizers for food in Brazil caused to

21

increase the toxicity indictors [25].

19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

Nielsen et al. investigated the greenhouse gas emissions of poultry

2

production in Denmark. They reported that the main factor in emissions

3

of global warming potential was the food input with a share of 91 %

4

because of high use of fossil fuels [26].

5

Bengtsson and Seddon studied the emissions of broiler production in

6

Australia to identify environmentally sensitive areas in this sector. They

7

reported that food input is the biggest impact point in broiler chain with

8

emission amount of 1885 kg CO2 eq [33].

9

According to the results of the present and previous studies there was

10

concluded that the food input has the highest emissions. The use of fossil

11

fuels in the production of agricultural products increases the amount of

12

emissions. Also in food production step or any step that fossil fuel is

13

used, the environmental impacts can be minimized by using high fuels

14

efficiency equipment. Renewable energies are good alternative for fossil

15

fuels that reduce the environmental impacts.

16

Environmental impact values after comparison were presented in the

17

fourth column of Table 5. Also, the comparison of present and reduced

18

environmental impacts for all DMUs, have been shown in Fig. 6.

19

Fig. 6.

20

As seen in Table 5 and Fig. 6, amount of all studied indicators was

21

decreased after comparison. For example, depletion of fossil resources by

20

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

the studied farms was equal to 40924.976 MJ before comparison which

2

decreased to 35358.585 MJ after comparison. Considerable impact

3

reduction can be detected in depletion of the ozone layer. The present

4

ozone layer depletion (ODP) was 4.225 kg CFC-11 eq that can be

5

reduced to 1.801 kg CFC-11 eq (57.37 % reduction). The global warming

6

indicator was 5782.380 kg CO2 eq before comparison whereas the

7

corresponding reduced emission will be 5004.346 kg CO2 eq after

8

comparison. So, emission reduction of GWP can be 778.034 kg CO2 eq.

9

Human toxicity reduced from 41447.050 to 30366.805 kg 1.4-DB eq.

10

Acidification can be reduced by 12.89 % and eutrophication reduced

11

from 9.881 kg PO4 eq to 8.620 kg PO4 eq (12.80 % reduction).

12 13

Conclusions

14

In the present research, the energy use and environmental impacts of

15

poultry production in Isfahan, Iran, was evaluated before and after

16

comparison by DEA and LCA methods. The total energy use can be

17

reduced by 10.16 %. Environmental impacts were significantly reduced

18

after comparison. The indicator including, abiotic depletion, abiotic

19

depletion (fossil), global warming, ozone layer depletion, human toxicity,

20

fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity, marine aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestrial

21

ecotoxicity, Photochemical oxidation, potential of acidification and 21

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

eutrophication were decreased by 31.32, 13.60, 13.46, 57.37, 26.73,

2

16.12, 27.59, 17.43, 17.38, 12.89 and 12.80 %, respectively. As food

3

input has the highest contribution to the emissions due to high amount of

4

fossil fuels consumption, it is needed to apply efficient management

5

method to optimize food consumption, decrease food losses in the broiler

6

farms and decrease fuel consumption in food producing farms. Also,

7

improving mechanization and management level in broiler farm to reduce

8

fuel, electricity and other inputs are recommended. The results of this

9

study can be useful for farmers and agricultural organizations to reduce

10

energy and resource consumption and environmental emissions. Also,

11

more technical and economic aspects can be considered to improve the

12

management of poultry production systems.

13 14

Acknowledgements

15

The authors would thank the Ilam University to spurt this research. Also,

16

poultry farmers in Isfahan Province, Iran, are appreciated for their assists

17

and providing the required information.

18 19 20

22

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

References

2

[1] LEAP. Greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy use from poultry

3

supply chains: Guidelines for assessment. Livestock Environmental

4

Assessment and Performance Partnership. FAO, Rome, Italy, 2015.

5

[2] Heidari MD, Omid M, Akram A. Optimization of energy

6

consumption of broiler production farms using data envelopment

7

analysis approach. Research Journal of Modern Applied Sciences

8

2011; 5: 69-78.

9 10

[3] FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization. WWW.FAOState.org. 2013.

11

[4] Macleod M, Gerber P, Mottet A, Tempio G, Falucci A, Opio C,

12

Vellinga T, Henderson B, Steinfield H. Greenhouse gas emissions

13

from pig and chicken supply chains-A global life cycle assessment.

14

Rome, IT: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

15

2013. http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3460e/i3460e.pdf.

16

[5] ISO 14044. Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-

17

Principles

and

Framework.

18

Standardization, Geneva. 2006.

International

Organization

for

19

[6] Pelletier N. Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry

20

sector: Life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, 23

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

acidifying and eutrophying emission. Journal of Agricultural System

2

2008; 98: 67-73.

3

[7] Ewemoje TA, Abimbola OP, Omotosho O. Cradle-to-gate LCA of

4

poultry production system in a developing country-The case of

5

Nigeria. International Journal of AgriScience 2013; 3: 323-332.

6

[8] Gonzalez‫ـ‬Garcia S, Gomez‫ـ‬Fernandez Z, Dias A, Feijoo G, Moreira T,

7

Arroja L. Life cycle assessment of broiler chicken production: A

8

Portouguese case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 2014; 74: 125-

9

134.

10

[9] Malana NM, Malano HM. Benchmarking productive efficiency of

11

selected wheat areas in Pakistan and India using data envelopment

12

analysis. Irrigation and Drainage 2006; 55: 383-94.

13

[10] Chauhan NS, Mohapatra PKJ, Pandey KP. Improving energy

14

productivity in paddy production through benchmarking: an

15

application of data envelopment analysis. Energy Conversion

16

Management 2006; 47: 1063-1085.

17

[11] Begum IA, Buysse J, Alam MJ, Vanhuylenbroeck G. Technical,

18

allocative and economic efficiency of commercial poultry farms in

19

Bangladesh. World's Poultry Science Journal 2010; 66: 465-476.

24

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

[12] Yusuf SA, Malomo O. Technical efficiency of poultry egg

2

production in Ogun state: a DEA approach. Journal of Poultry

3

Science 2007; 6: 622-629.

4

[13] Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of

5

decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research

6

1978; 2: 429-444.

7

[14] Mousavi-Avval SH, Rafiee S, Mohammadi A. Optimization of

8

energy consumption and input costs for apple production in Iran

9

using data envelopment analysis. Energy 2011; 36: 909-16.

10

[15] Nassiri SM, Singh S. Study on energy use efficiency for paddy crop

11

using data envelopment analysis (DEA) technique. Applied Energy

12

2009; 86: 1320-5.

13

[16] Scheel H. EMS: Efficiency Measurement System Users Manual.

14

Version 1.3, Operations Research and Wirtschafts Informatik,

15

University

16

http://www.wiso.unidortmund.de/lsfg/or/scheel/ems.

of

Dortmund.

Dortmund,

Germany.

2000.

17

[17] Kitani O. CIGR Handbook of Agricultural Engineering Vol. 5,

18

Energy and Biomass Engineering, America: ASAE publication, 1999.

25

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

[18] Atilgan A, Koknaroglu H. Cultural energy analysis on broilers reared

2

in different capacity poultry houses. Italian Journal of Animal

3

Science 2006; 5: 393-400.

4

[19] Alrwis KN, Francis E. Technical efficiency of broiler farms in the

5

central region of Saudi Arabia: Stochastic frontier approach.

6

Research Bulletin 2003; 116: 5-34.

7

[20] Saniz RD. Livestoke-enviroment initiative fossil fuels component:

8

Farmework for calculating fossil fuel use in livestock system.

9

Retrieved from www.fao.org, 2003.

10 11

[21] Berg MJ, Tymoczkco LJ, Stryer L. Biochemistry 5th edition, New York: W.H.Freeman, 2002.

12

[22] Celik LO. Effects of dietary supplemental lcarnitine and ascorbic

13

acid on performance, carcass composition and plasma lcarnitine

14

concentration of broiler chicks reared under different temperature.

15

Animal Nutrition 2003; 57: 27-38.

16

[23] Kizilaslan H. Input–output energy analysis of cherries production in

17

Tokat province of Turkey. Applied Energy 2009; 86: 1354-1358.

18

[24] IPCC 14040. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas

19

inventories. In: Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T.,

26

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

Tanabe, K. (Eds.), Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas

2

Inventories Programme. IGES, Japan. 2006.

3

[25] Dasilva V, Wander Werf H, Soareso S, Corson M. Environmental

4

impacts of French and Brazilian broiler chicken production scenarios:

5

A LCA approach. Journal of Environmental Management 2013; 133:

6

222-231.

7

[26] Nielsen NI, Jqrgensen M, Bahrndorff S. Greenhouse gas emission

8

from the Danish broiler production estimated via LCA methodology.

9

Knowledge center for agriculture. 2011. http://lca-net.com/wp-

10

content/uploads/110628_vfc_engelsk_vfl_layout_web.pdf.

11

[27] Castanheira ÉG, Dias AC, Arroja L, Amaro R. The environmental

12

performance of milk production on a typical Portuguese dairy farm.

13

Agricultural Systems 2010; 103: 498-507.

14

[28] Cederberg C, Mattsson B. Life cycle assessment of milk production-

15

a comparison of conventional and organic farming. Journal of

16

Cleaner Production 2000; 8: 49-60.

17

[29] PRé Consultants. SimaPro Database Manual. 2006.

18

[30] Katajajuuri JM, Grönroos J, Usva K. Environmental impacts and

19

related improvement options of supply chain of chicken meat. 6th

27

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

International Conference on LCA in the Agri-food Sector. Zürich,

2

Switzerland, 12-14 November 2008.

3

[31] Williams AG, Audsley E, Sandars DL. A lifecycle approach to

4

reducing the environmental impacts of poultry production. 2009. In:

5

17th European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition. Edinburgh, UK. 23

6

August.

7

[32] Leinonen I, Williams AG, Wiseman J, Guy J, Kyriazakis I.

8

Predicting the environmental impacts of chicken systems in the

9

United Kingdom through a life cycle assessment: Broiler production

10

systems. 2012. Poultry Sciences 91, 8-25.

11

[33] Bengtsson J, Seddon J. Cradle to retailer or quick service restaurant

12

gate life cycle assessment of chicken products in Australia., Journal

13

of Cleaner Production 2013; 41: 291-300.

14

[34] Hospido A, Moreira MT, Feijoo G. Simplified life cycle assessment

15

of galician milk production. International Dairy Journal 2003; 13:

16

783-796.

28

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Start

Determination of real input resources

Calculation of real energy consumption

Calculation of real environmental impacts

Estimation of reduced energy consumption

Calculation of energy use reduction

Calculation of reduced input resources Calculation of reduced environmental impacts

Calculation of environmental impacts reduction

End Fig. 1. The main calculation steps of environmental impacts reduction.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 2. Graphical representation of different DEA efficiency types (Chauhan et al., 2006).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Electricity

Fuel

Chicken

Poultry

Meet

Manure

Emission

Fig. 3. Poultry system boundaries.

Feed

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

57

No. of DMUs

60 50

46

TE

PTE

40 29

30

21

20

12

10

11 4

0

0 1

1-0.9 0.9-0.8 Efficiency class

<0.8

Fig. 4. Efficiency distribution of DMUs.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 5. Contribution of inputs to environmental impact categories for producing 1 tonne chickens before comparison of the units by DEA method. .

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 6. The environmental impact categories to produce 1 tonne chickens before and after comparison of the units by DEA method. .

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1. Energy equivalents (MJ/unit) of inputs and outputs in broiler production. Input/Output Unit Energy equivalent

Reference

Inputs Labor

kg

1.96

[2]

l

47.80

[17]

m3

49.50

[17]

Maize

kg

7.90

[18]

Soybean

kg

12.60

[18]

Di calcium Phosphate

kg

10.00

[19]

Minerals

kg

1.59

[20]

Vitamins

kg

1.59

[20]

Fatty acid

kg

37.00

[21]

Salt

kg

1.59

[20]

kWh

11.93

[14]

Broiler

kg

10.33

[22]

Manure

kg

0.30

[23]

Fuel Diesel Gas Food

Electricity Outputs

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 2. Efficiency scales of studied poultry farms. Efficiency scale

Minimum

Mean

Maximum Standard deviation

Technical efficiency

0.49

0.91

1.00

0.13

Pure technical efficiency

0.84

0.96

1.00

0.03

Scale efficiency

0.49

0.92

1.00

0.12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3. Amount of input energy (Mj/1000 bird) before and after comparison of the DMUs by DEA method. Energy value Saved energy Input Present Reduced Chicks

499.50

497.00

2.50

Labor

107.02

102.84

4.18

Diesel

29001.60

20281.15

8720.45

Gas

53695.87

50747.15

2948.72

Food

50242.88

48455.11

1787.77

Electricity

17102.63

15341.25

1761.38

Equipment

169.78

70.12

99.66

150819.29

135494.62

15324.67

Fuel

Total

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4. Amount of input and output resources before and after comparison of the DMUs by DEA method. Resources value Unit Input/Output Present Reduced Inputs Chicks

Kg

48.35

48.11

m3

1048.77

1019.70

Diesel

L

602.90

424.29

Food

Kg

5104.99

4528.52

Electricity (gas)

kWh

1419.25

1285.94

Electricity (Mazut)

kWh

14.34

12.86

Steel

kg

92.52

1.71

Polyethylene

kg

28.78

0.72

Broiler

kg

2400.53

2400.53

Manure

kg

1691.71

1691.71

Fuel Gas

Equipment

Outputs

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 5. Environmental impacts of poultry production before and after comparison of the DMUs by DEA method. Impact value Impact Impact category Unit reduction Present Reduced Abiotic depletion

kg Sb eq

0.0022

0.0015

0.0007

Abiotic depletion (fossil fuels)

MJ

40924.976

35358.585

5566.391

Global warming (GWP 100a)

kg CO2 eq

5782.380

5004.346

778.034

Ozone layer depletion (ODP)

kg CFC-11 eq

4.225

1.801

2.424

Human toxicity

kg 1,4-DB eq

41447.050

30366.805

11080.25

Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity

kg 1,4-DB eq

5866.113

4920.248

945.865

Marine aquatic ecotoxicity

kg 1,4-DB eq

Terrestrial ecotoxicity

kg 1,4-DB eq

1952.126

1611.852

340.274

Photochemical oxidation

kg C2H4 eq

1.237

1.022

0.215

Acidification potential

kg SO2 eq

35.755

31.145

4.61

Eutrophication

kg PO4 eq

9.881

8.620

1.261

32057072.300 23211337.520

8845735