bulk transport (rail and/or sea freight), storage (ventilation), and processing (milling, mixing, extrusion ...... Frey, B. C., L. E. Stewart, and D. Chandarana. 1981.
LIVESTOCK-ENVIRONMENT INITIATIVE FOSSIL FUELS COMPONENT FRAMEWORK FOR CALCULATING FOSSIL FUEL USE IN LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS Roberto D. Sainz University of California Davis, CA 95616 USA
1. Introduction Intensification of animal production systems has required external inputs in order to achieve the high yields expected from the investment on facilities, equipment and breeding stock. In contrast to integrated mixed farming where most of the resources including energy used to come from the farm itself, intensive production requires a variety of outside inputs, which in one way or another have required fossil fuels. Fossil energy is used for the production of feeds (land preparation, fertilizers, pesticides, harvesting, drying, etc.), their bulk transport (rail and/or sea freight), storage (ventilation), and processing (milling, mixing, extrusion, pelleting, etc.) and their distribution to individual farms. Once on the farm, and depending on location (climate), season of the year and building facilities, more fossil energy is needed to the movement of feeds from the storage to the animal pens; for control of the thermal environment (cooling, heating or ventilation); and for animal waste collection and treatment (solid separation, aerobic fermentation; drying; land applications, etc.). Transport of products (meat animals to abattoirs; milk to processing plants; eggs to storage), processing (slaughtering, pasteurization, manufacture of dairy products), storage and refrigerated transport also require fossil fuels. Finally, the distribution to the consumer and the final cooking process may also require expenditures of fossil fuels. The objective of the present analysis was to establish the methodology for calculation of direct and indirect consumption of fossil fuels for the various steps required for the production, processing, marketing and cooking of products of animal origin. This methodology can then be used to calculate (fossil) energy costs of animal products in various systems.
2. Methodology Several methods have been used for the purpose of analyzing the energy costs of agricultural systems. Each of these has its own advantages and disadvantages, and the choice of methodology necessarily depends upon the objectives of the analysis. Pimentel et al. (1974) discussed “total aggregation”, input/output analysis, and process analysis, and opted for the latter when possible. Fluck (1980) substituted the term “statistical analysis” for total aggregation, and also identified a number of problems and pitfalls in energy analysis. Among these, the main problems (and recommendations for their solution) were: ♦ Nonhomogeneity of energy sources; reduction of energy costs to consistent units for analysis, with due caution in interpretation of data regarding quite different fuels
♦ Multiple or joint outputs; apportionment of energy among outputs on the basis of weights, prices or enthalpies, as appropriate to the objectives ♦ Attributability of energy inputs to outputs; caution in specifying boundaries of the system under analysis ♦ Assignment of total value to energy; invalid, since other resources (e.g., materials, land and capital) are not totally substitutable for energy Additional recommendations by Fluck (1980) were that a) all inputs to production systems be quantified on the basis of their sequestered primary energy, disallowing the practice of using dietary energy inputs to account for the costs of labor and draft animal power; and b) energy productivity (e.g., kg·MJ-1), not ratios (J·J-1), be used to indicate efficiency. In this analysis, the following conventions were adopted. All inputs are expressed on a gross energy basis, that is as the amount of fossil fuel energy (in J) required for each step of the process. Originally, inputs of labor and draft animal power were calculated based on the additional work done by the individual, multiplied by the embodied fossil fuel energy coefficient associated with the dietary energy consumed by that individual. Eventually, human and animal draft animal power were omitted from the calculations, due to the lack of coherent data for all processes. As data become available, inclusion of labor or animal power would enable analyses of the effect of substituting work for fuel. Another decision was made regarding the assignment of energy costs to processes with multiple outputs. As discussed by Fluck (1980), this problem is common to all energy analyses, and a variety of solutions have been adopted. In some cases, workers have ignored secondary products (e.g., Pimentel, 1980b ignored the straws produced during cereal production, and assigned all inputs to the grain product), which effectively reduces the cost of byproduct formation to zero. Others have allocated inputs to several products based upon their respective monetary values. This approach also has flaws, since there are marked variations in price structures among locations and at different times. For example, Cook (1976) assigned 16% of costs of sheep production to wool, and 84% to meat, whereas McChesney et al. (1982) used values of 43 and 57%, respectively. In this study, energy costs have been allocated among outputs on a mass basis, although is some cases it might be preferable to estimate costs on an energy basis. For example, crop residues represent a large proportion of the total production (Table 2). By allocating energy inputs to both the grain and the straw on a mass basis, the fossil fuel energy component of the byproduct (as a feed ingredient) is also accounted for. In some cases, such as soybeans, the main product may be the oil used for human consumption. Since fats and oils have a much higher energy content relative to other organic components, they probably should be assigned a proportionately higher share of the energy inputs (see box). A less conspicuous example of multiple outputs relates to the wastes produced by animals themselves, and the processing of their products. Farmers around the world recognize the value of animal wastes to improve soil fertility and physical properties. In some cases, nutrients in animal manure may be recycled even more through their use as feed ingredients foe other livestock. For example, accounting for the flow of energy from fossil fuels, into N fertilizer, into a grain crop and its residues, into poultry meat, with some losses in excreta and processing waste which can be fed to cattle to produce meat and milk with some further 2
waste which is then recycled onto the land to help support another crop, is truly a daunting task.. Moreover, the long series of assumptions and approximations needed would likely render such a calculation unreliable to the point of uselessness. A very simplistic example is given below (see box). The point, however, is that simple input-output analyses are likewise fraught with errors of omission and commission, and should be taken with more than a grain of salt.
Example: soybean oil production Production:
whole beans trash
2,100 kg/ha 2,100 kg/ha
Primary product:
2,100 kg/ha x 16.7% oil = 350 kg oil/ha
Byproduct:
2,100 – 350 = 1,7540 kg/ha extracted soybean meal (SBM)
In this case, the crop residue has negligible feeding value (although it is a valuable soil amendment). Therefore, the entire energy input is allocated to the harvested crop, as follows: 350 kg oil/ha x 38.9 MJ/kg = 13,615 MJ/ha 1,750 kg SBM x 18.0 MJ/kg = 31,500 MJ/ha Total 13,615 + 31,500 = 45,115 MJ/ha 13,615 ÷ 45,115 = 30% of energy output in primary product (oil) 31,500 ÷ 45,115 = 70% of energy output in byproduct (soybean meal) Therefore, 70% of the fossil fuel energy inputs would be allocated to the production of soybean meal, when the primary product is oil for human consumption.
Having expressed the foregoing caveats, the following sections describe the development and use of a spreadsheet model of several crop and livestock production systems. This model was developed for the purpose of quantifying the fossil fuel energy inputs required by these systems, and to identify potential areas for improvement of energy efficiency. A comment regarding the scope of this exercise is in order. Accurate representation of all possible production systems, species and locations would be an impossible task indeed. Instead, this exercise is focused on several representative species and systems, with some flexibility built in so that users may adapt the model to their own particular situation. Specifically, production of meat and milk by cattle (both extensive and intensive), meat and eggs by poultry, meat and fiber by sheep, and meat by swine, are included. Also included are estimates of the costs of transportation, processing, distribution and preparation of food products of animal origin. Default values are given for all parameters, but extreme variability in all the included processes argues for the use of actual local data for analyses to produce meaningful results.
3
Example: N in broiler waste A broiler ration might contain 73% corn and 27% soybean meal. Using approximate ratios to account for crop residues and the use of soybeans for oil, the embodied energy in broiler rations (18% crude protein or 2.9% N) might be: Corn: 4.49 MJ/kg x 0.63 = 2.83 MJ/kg grain SBM: 6.08 MJ/kg x 0.7 = 4.26 MJ/kg SBM (2.83 x 0.73) + (4.26 x 0.27) = 3.22 MJ/kg ration Add 10% for costs of feed processing: 3.54 MJ/kg ration At 60% N digestibility and 2:1 feed conversion, 1 kg of ration would produce 1,000 g ÷ 2 x 70% meat yield = 350 g chicken meat plus 1,000 g x 2.9% N x 40% apparent indigestibility = 12 g N (excreta) plus 500 g x 25% processing waste x 3.2% N = 4 g N (processing waste) Fed to finishing cattle (if it were the sole source of N), this would translate into 833 g of a 12% crude protein ration. At a 6:1 feed conversion, this would produce 833g ÷ 6 x 50% meat yield = 69 g beef That is, a 20% increase in the recovery of N (and its embodied energy) in edible product.
3. Crops & feedstuffs According to Pimentel et al. (1974), 15 crops supply about 90% of the world’s food (presumably in addition to animal products), and occupy about 75% of the total tilled land area. These comprise cereals and other grains (rice, wheat, maize, sorghum, millet, rye, and barley), root crops (cassava, potato, sweet potato), legumes (soybeans, peanuts) and tree crops (banana, coconut). All of these crops contribute to the feed base available for animal production to some degree, but the main crops from this list that are used for livestock feeding (Hendy et al., 1995; Table 1) are maize (52% of concentrates), barley (19%), wheat (19%), sorghum (5%), and soybeans, plus a variety of agro-industrial byproducts (10%). Of course, the primary feed base for ruminants consists of grasses and other forages. As feed comprises the major cost in all livestock production systems, any accounting of energy costs must begin with crops and other feeds.
4
Table 1. Global concentrate feed resources (1990-92) Commodity
Kton/year
%
Cereals
600,516
66.8
Brans
118,946
13.2
13,463
1.5
119,263
13.3
47,003
5.2
899,191
100.0
Oilseeds Oilmeals and cakes Roots and tubers (90% DM basis) Total Source: Hendy et al. (1995).
Corn output, Gcal/ha
Pimentel (1980b) compiled the most comprehensive data set regarding the fossil energy costs of crop and livestock production systems. In that and other publications, Pimentel and others have argued that intensification of maize production between 1945 and 1975 has reached the point of diminishing returns, and that further increases in inputs will yield progressively smaller improvements in productivity. Smil et al. (1983) examined the assumptions used by Pimentel (1980) and revised their estimates. That report concluded that the earlier estimates of efficiency were too low, but agreed with the decline over time. The present analysis indicates that the reason for declining energy ratios is not reduced efficiency but rather the non-zero intercept (Figure 1). Of course, very low energy inputs (e.g, no fertilization) may not be agronomically or economically sustainable.
y = 2.31x + 1.47
20
2
R = 0.97
15 10
y = 2.61x
5
R2 = 0.95
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Energy input, Gcal/ha Figure 1. Changes in energy efficiency of corn production in the US between 1945 and 1975. Solid line indicates full regression line, dashed line indicates line with no intercept. Source: Pimentel, 1980a.
5
Moreover, comparison of energy ratios (J output/J input) showed that human or animalpowered systems in use in some developing countries were more efficient than the mechanized, high-input systems used in developed countries (Pimentel, 1980ab). As pointed out by Fluck (1980), use of energy ratios is suspect, since there is little substitutability among fuel and food forms of energy. In this report, energy efficiency will be expressed as kg product/J input. The data on inputs to crop production given by Pimentel (1980b) were reevaluated and revised to reflect changes in tillage and fertilization practices, and to account for multiple outputs from cropping systems. The resulting changes in energy costs due to changing cultural practices were small, and the original estimates were retained. Differences in accounting for multiple outputs, however, can produce large discrepancies in the embodied energy of main crops, crop residues and processing byproducts (Table 2; NAS, 1983). Model users may select which value to use in a particular situation. Davulis and Frick (1977) assigned all input energy to the main product, so that only the energy required for processing was allocated to byproducts. Embodied energy in feedstuffs were tabulated using values from Davulis and Frick (1977) as well as from Pimentel (1980b) and other sources. These values are summarized in Table 3. Fossil energy embodied in feeds represents the single largest cost in all animal production systems, therefore the values assigned to feeds are critical to the final analysis. Wherever possible, local data should be used.
Table 2. Crop byproducts Residue Crop Rice Wheat Maize Sorghum Barley Oats Cotton
Type straw straw stover stover straw straw trash cotton seeds Soybean trash From: Parikh and Syed (1988).
6
x Main product 1.22 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 .25 1.00
Table 3. Embodied energy (MJ⋅⋅kg-1) of various feed ingredients Ingredients Production Transport Alfalfa hay Animal fat Barley 3.74 0.07 Brewer's dried grains Cane molasses Cereal grains - average Cottonseed oil meal Distiller's dried grains Dried beet pulp Dried citrus pulp Dried whey Hay Limestone Maize gluten meal Maize grain 4.22 0.08 Maize silage Meat & bone meal Oats 2.63 0.12 Rice bran Salt + minerals Sorghum 5.80 0.07 Soybean oil meal 4.41 0.09 Soybeans - whole Urea Wheat 3.96 0.07 Wheat bran Wheat middlings Sources: Davulis & Frick (1977); Pimentel (1980b).
Processing 10.92 11.62 5.81 1.29 11.62 12.12 12.12 53.22
12.46 0.82 8.60 0.32 1.11 29.01 0.32 0.32
Total 1.59 10.92 3.81 11.62 5.81 4.72 1.29 11.62 12.12 12.12 53.22 2.77 12.46 5.13 2.33 8.60 2.75 0.32 0.38 5.87 5.61 5.90 29.01 4.03 0.32 0.32
4. Livestock production systems Separate spreadsheets were developed for production and meat and of eggs from poultry. Additional worksheets are included for swine, dairy, beef and sheep. Other species (e.g., goats), although important, were not included due to time constraints. For each species, the entire production chain is included, the rationale being that even though the reproductive and growing phases may take place on different farms, all must be accounted for in the production system. The user may also define the type and amount of pasture (for poultry and swine the default is zero), and diet compositions. All the production worksheets are linked to a single feeds worksheet, which has separate sections to account for the dietary requirements of different types of animals. In the future, each spreadsheet should include error-checking
7
equations to ensure that dietary inputs match the levels of production set by the user. At present, caution must be exercised to avoid unrealistic input-output relationships. 4.1 Poultry In the case of eggs, only domestic chickens were included, but for meat production the user may select among broilers, turkeys, ducks and geese. Selection of species then sets up the appropriate input and output defaults, taken from standard livestock production handbooks and texts (e.g., Acker & Cunningham, 1998; Gillespie, 1997). Costs of construction, equipment, temperature control and ventilation are extremely variable. Default values were obtained from Collins & Walpole (1977); Ostrander (1980); and Stout (1984). An example worksheet is appended to this document. 4.2 Swine The default swine herd is a 100-sow farrow-to-finish operation. The user may give actual input and output values, including a provision for pasture amount and type and feeds as for poultry. are extremely variable. Default costs of construction, equipment, temperature control and ventilation were obtained from Bloome & Williams (1980); Driggers (1976); and Reid et al. (1980). 4.3 Dairy The default dairy operation is a 100-cow dairy; at this stage there is no provision for dualpurpose cattle, although the spreadsheet could be modified to accommodate this system. In addition to pasture, there is provision for three forages (either alone or in mixtures) and three concentrates, to accommodate different feeding strategies within the herd. Default values for building, equipment and operating costs were taken from Oltenacu & Allen (1980). 4.4 Beef The default is a 100-cow herd producing weaned calves, with provision for subsequent growing and finishing phases of the offspring. Separate pasture, feed and operating sections are included for each phase. Default values for costs of construction, fencing, water and onfarm transportation were obtained from Cook (1976); Cook et al. (1980); Heitschmidt et al. (1996); Hoveland (1980); and Ward et al. (1977). 4.5 Sheep The default sheep farm is a 1,000 ewe range lambing operation, with production of meat and wool. Separate pasture, feed and operating sections are included for ewes and for finishing lambs. Default values for costs of construction, fencing, water and on-farm transportation were obtained from Cook (1976); and Gee (1980).
8
5. Post-harvest 5.1 Processing A number of studies have been conducted to quantify the energy costs of processing animals for meat and other products, and to identify potential areas for energy savings. The variability among plants is extreme, so that once again it is difficult to generalize. For example, Ward et al. (1977) reported costs of beef processing in Colorado ranging from 0.84 to 5.02 MJ/kg live weight, a six-fold range! For this work, default values for the costs of processing are given in Table 4. Table 4. Default values for processing costs Fossil energy cost Product Poultry meat 2.59 Eggs 6.12 Pork - fresh 3.76 “ - processed meats 6.30 Sheep meat 10.4 Frozen 0.432 Beef 4.37 Frozen 0.432 Milk 1.12 Cheese, butter, whey powder 1.49 Milk powder, butter 2.62
Units
Source MJ⋅kg live wt Whitehead & Shupe, 1979 OECD, 1982 MJ⋅dozen-1 MJ⋅kg-1 carcass Singh, 1986 “ MJ⋅kg-1 meat -1 MJ·kg carcass McChesney et al., 1982 MJ·kg-1 meat Unklesbay & Unklesbay, 1982 -1 MJ·kg carcass Poulsen, 1986 MJ·kg-1 meat Unklesbay & Unklesbay, 1982 -1 MJ·kg Miller, 1986 -1 “ MJ·kg -1 MJ·kg “ -1
5.2 Distribution, storage and preparation Transportation costs vary according to mode (e.g., truck, rail, or water), and size of conveyance. Generally, road transport is the most expensive, and varies inversely with the size of the truck. Default values for transport costs are 1.82, 0.40, and 0.48 MJ·kg-1·km-1 for truck, rail and water transport, respectively (OECD, 1982). Costs of refrigeration are taken to be 0.0272 MJ·kg-1·day-1, and for frozen storage the value is 0.0404 MJ·kg-1·day-1 (Poulsen, 1986). The fossil energy required for cooking was assumed to be 3.45 MJ·kg-1 for all meat products, and 12.5 MJ·kg-1 for eggs (Unklesbay & Unklesbay, 1982). It is assumed that dairy products are consumed uncooked. There is a provision for the user to define fossil or nonfossil fuel used in cooking, so that the appropriate factor is used depending on local conditions.
6. Analyses Using the default values in the spreadsheets, one can readily see that on a kg primary product/MJ fossil energy basis, milk production is most efficient, followed by eggs, poultry meat, swine, beef and sheep (Table 5). Considering an energy basis, however, places poultry meat first (presumably due to the water content of milk). Moreover, inclusion of byproducts
9
of slaughtering and food processing also changes the rankings, with dairy still in front, followed by poultry meat and eggs, sheep, beef and swine last. A number of factors influence the efficiency of each production system. First, the biology of the animal is paramount. As seen in Table 6, livestock production is the largest component in the animal product chain, in contrast to the situation with cereals (Leach, 1976). Production required from 79% (poultry meat) to 94% (eggs) of the total cost of animal products up to the moment of consumption. Of course, these values will change depending on the actual inputs, but the importance of productive efficiency will remain. Within the costs of production, pasture and feed are the largest components, comprising from 40 to 78% of the total energy costs of the systems (Table 7). Of the feed costs, poultry (with their high reproductive efficiency) need only 7% to support the breeding flock, whereas beef cattle need over 50% just to maintain the cow herd. Table 5. Efficiency of fossil energy use in animal production – default systems Products
Poultry meat
Eggs
Swine
.028
.033
" , J·J-1
.414
Primary + byproducts, MJ·kg-1
Primary only, MJ·kg-1 "
"
+
"
, J·J-1
Dairy
Beef
Sheep
.022
.063
.019
.016
.233
.320
.204
.284
.238
.036
.035
.023
.063
.026
.029
.525
.268
.342
.204
.379
.438
Second, processing costs vary widely, due to differences in processes and also in scale. Egg processing requires little fossil energy, but the meats require more energy. The processing costs for dairy given in Table 6 are low, since the default is fluid milk. Changes in the product mix (e.g., to spray-dried milk powder) would increase this cost. Transportation and storage are relatively small contributors to overall costs, but preparation can be expensive. Costs of preparation of dairy products are very low, those of meats are higher. Poultry meat is highest, due to the assumption that the entire carcass (including skin and bone) is cooked. Table 6. Components of fossil energy use in animal production – default systems Component
Poultry meat
Eggs
Swine
Dairy
Beef
Sheep
Production
79.3
93.5
85.4
88.7
86.8
79.0
Processing
9.8
1.5
10.3
7.5
8.5
17.0
Transportation
0.5
0.7
0.3
2.4
1.0
0.9
Storage
0.5
1.3
0.2
1.2
0.4
0.3
Preparation
9.8
3.0
3.8
0.2
3.4
2.8
10
Table 7. Contributions of feed and the reproductive stock to total fossil energy costs Component Feed as % of total
Poultry meat
Eggs
Swine
Dairy
Beef
Sheep
40
54
55
78
78
73
7
-
17
-
51
36
Reproductive stock as % of feed costs
7. Conclusions The spreadsheet described and attached to this document provides a framework for calculation of the fossil energy use in various animal production systems, using the widest definition of the term. That is, a production system here is regarded as the sum total of the inputs (including the cropping systems used to provide feed) all the way to a product that has been prepared and is ready for consumption. A limited number of systems have been analyzed, but the model has the flexibility to accommodate many more. Default values for all parameters, obtained from the literature, are included. These should only be used with great caution, as in all cases actual local data are much preferable. Under the default systems examined, livestock production (in the narrow sense) is the largest component of the whole, and of this the energy embodied in feed is the largest part. Therefore, improvement in the efficiency of fossil energy use for production of food products of animal origin should be most easily accomplished by increasing the productivity of the livestock component. The most important part of the livestock component is the feed requirement, so that attention should be given to a) increasing the energy efficiency of feed production (including greater use of byproduct feeds); and b) increasing the efficiency of feed utilization by animals.
11
Literature cited 1. Acker, D., and M. Cunningham. 1998. Animal Science & Industry. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 2. Bloome, P. D., and J. E. Williams. 1980. Energy costs in swine confinement in Oklahoma. Summer Meeting American Society of Agricultural Engineers. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. 3. Collins, N. E., E. W. Walpole. 1977. Computer evaluation of alternative broiler production programs for energy conservation potential. In: W. Lockeretz (Ed.) Agriculture and Energy, p. 431. Academic Press, St. Louis, MO. 4. Cook, C. W. 1976. Cultural energy expended in range meat and fiber production. J. Range Manage. 29:268-271. 5. Cook, C. W., J. J. Combs, and G. M. Ward. 1980. Cultural energy in U.S. beef production. In: D. Pimentel (Ed.) Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture, p.405. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 6. Davulis, J. P., and G. E. Frick. 1977. Potential for energy conservation in feeding livestock and poultry in the United States. Station Bulletin No. 506. Agricultural Experiment Station - University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. 7. Driggers, L. B. 1976. Energy consumption in swine confinement buildings. Winter Meeting American Society of Agricultural Engineers. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. 8. Fluck, R. C. 1980. Fundamentals of energy analysis for agriculture. ASAE Publication 3-81, pp. 208-211. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. 9. Gee, C. K. 1980. Cultural energy in sheep production. In: D. Pimentel (Ed.) Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture, p.425. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 10. Gillespie, J. R. 1998. Animal Science. Delmar Publishers, Albany, NY. 11. Heitschmidt, R. K., R. E. Short, and E. E. Grings. 1996. Ecosystems, sustainability, and animal agriculture. J. Anim. Sci., 74:1395-1405. 12. Hendy, C. R. C., U. Kleih, R. Crawshaw, ahd M. Phillips. 1995. Environmental Impacts of the Demand for Feed Concentrates. Report of a study funded by the European Union Scientific Environmental Monitoring Group. Natural Resources Institute, Chatham Maritime, Chatham, Kent, UK. 13. Hoveland, C. S. 1980. Energy inputs for beef cattle production on pasture. In: D. Pimentel (Ed.) Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture, p.419. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 14. Leach, G. 1976. Energy and Food Production. IPC Science and Technology Press Ltd, Hampshire, UK. 15. McChesney, I. G., B. M. H. Sharp, and J. A. Hayward. 1982. Energy in New Zealand agriculture: current use and future trends. Energy Agric. 1:141-153. 16. Miller, E. J. 1986. Energy management in milk processing. In: R. P. Singh (Ed.) Energy in Food Processing, p. 137. Elsevier, New York, NY. 17. National Academy of Sciences. 1983. Underutilized Resources as Animal Feedstuffs. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 18. Oltenacu, P. A., and M. S. Allen. 1980. Resource-cultural energy requirements of the dairy production system. In: D. Pimentel (Ed.) Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture, p.363. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 19. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1982. The energy problem and the agro-food sector. OECD, Paris. 20. Ostrander, C. E. Energy use in agriculture poultry. 1980. In: D. Pimentel (Ed.) Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture, p.379. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
12
21. Parikh, J. K., and S. Syed. 1988. Energy use in the Post-Harvest Food (PHF) system of developing countries. Energy Agric. 6:325-351. 22. Pimentel, D. 1980a. Food, Energy and the Future of Society. Colorado Associated University Press, Boulder, Colo. 23. Pimentel, D. (Ed.). 1980b. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 24. Pimentel, D., W. R. Lynn, W. K. MacReynolds, M. T. Hewes, and S. Rush. 1974. Workshop on research methodologies for studies of energy, food, man and environment. Phase I. Cornell University Center for Environmental Quality Management, Ithaca, NY. 25. Poulsen, L. P. 1986. Regression analysis for assessing and forecasting energy requirements. In: R. P. Singh (Ed.) Energy in Food Processing, p. 155. Elsevier, New York, NY. 26. Reid, J. T., P. A. Oltenacu, M. S. Allen, and O. D. White. 1980. Cultural energy, land, and labor requirements of swine production systems in the U.S. In: D. Pimentel (Ed.) Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture, p.393. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 27. Singh, R. P. 1986. Energy accounting of food processing operations. In: R. P. Singh (Ed.) Energy in Food Processing, p. 20. Elsevier, New York, NY. 28. Smil, V., P. Nachman, and T. V. Long II. 1983. Technological changes and the energy cost of U.S. grain corn. Energy Agric. 2:177-192. 29. Stout, B. S. 1984. Energy Use and Management in Agriculture. Breton Publishers, MA. 30. Unklesbay, N., and K. Unklesbay. 1982. Energy Management in Foodservice. AVI Publishing Co., Westport, CT. 31. Ward, G. M. P. L. Knox, and B. W. Hobson. 1977. Beef production options and requirements for fossil fuel. Science 198:265-271. 32. Whitehead, W. K., and W. L. Shupe. 1979. Reducing electric power demand in poultry processing plants. Paper 79-6507, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
13
Additional references 1. American Feed Manufacturers Association. 1980. AFMA. Arlington, VA. 2. Bell, B. A., and W. J. Sorenson. 1977. The economics and energy inputs associated with three intensive dairying systems. In: M. Baker (Ed.) Proceedings of International Conference: Energy Conservation in Crop Production. Massey University, Palmerston North, NZ. 3. Cervinka, V., W. J. Chancellor, R. J. Coffelt, R. G. Curley, J. B. Dobie, and B. D. Harrison. 1974. Methods used in determining energy flows in California agriculture. Paper no. 74-5013, ASAE, St. Joseph, Mich. 4. Combs, J. J., G. M. Ward, W. C. Miller, and L. O. Ely. 1981-83. Cattle as competitors for biomass energy. Energy Agric. 1:251-265. 5. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1977. Energy Use in Agriculture. CAST, Ames, IA. 6. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1977. Energy Use in Agriculture. CAST, Ames, IA. 7. De Haan, C., H. Steinfeld, and H. Blackbum. 1999. Livestock & the environment: finding a balance. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 8. Dvoskin, D., and E. O. Heady. 1977. Economic and environmental impacts of the energy crisis on agricultural production. In: W. Lockeretz (Ed.) Agriculture and energy. Academic Press, St. Louis, Missouri. 9. Economic Research Service, USDA. 1974. The U.S. food and fiber sector: energy use and outlook – a study of the energy needs of the food industry. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 10. Fluck, R. C. 1984. Energy, land, and food: vital connections. Energy. Agric. 3:267-275. 11. Fluck, R. C. 1992. Input-output energy analysis for agriculture and the food chain. In: R. M. Peart, and R. C. Brook (Ed.) Analysis of Agricultural Energy Systems, p. 83. Elsevier, New York, NY. 12. Fog, M. H., and K. L. Nadkarni. 1983. Energy efficiency and fuel substitution in the cement industry with emphasis on developing countries. World Bank Technical Paper. The World Bank, Washington, DC. 13. Frey, B. C., L. E. Stewart, and D. Chandarana. 1981. Energy aspects and potential energy savings of the new DASI process for milk sterilization. ASAE Publication 5-81., p. 592. ASAE, St. Joseph, MO. 14. Green, B. M. 1978. Eating Oil - Energy Use in Food Production. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 15. Gupta, R. S. R., R. K. Malik, R. R. Gupta, and A. R. Rao. 1983. Energetics on bullock – and tractor-powered farms in India. Energy Agric. 2:153-160. 16. Haggar, R. J. 1977. Herbicides and low-cost grassland establishment, with special reference to clean seedbeds and one-pass seeding. In: M. Baker (Ed.) Proceedings of International Conference: Energy Conservation in Crop Production, p. 31. Massey University, Palmerston North, NZ. 17. Jones, D. D., and W. H. Friday. 19??. Energy conservation in swine buildings. Pub. AE-101, Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 18. Jones, D. D., and W. H. Friday. 19??. Environmental control for confinement livestock housing. Pub. AE-96, Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 19. Jones, D. D., and W. H. Friday. 19??. Natural ventilation for livestock housing. Pub. AE-97, Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
14
20. Jones, D. D., and W. H. Friday. 1980. Cooling systems for livestock. Pub. AE-103, Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 21. Levis, A. H., E. R. Ducot, I. S. Levis, and T. F. Webster. 1979. A model for assessing energy conservation opportunities in the food processing industry. Systems Control, Burlington, MA. 22. Lockeretz, W. 1977. Agriculture and Energy. Academic Press, New York. 23. Loomis, R. S., and S. J. Connor. 1992. Crop Ecology: Productivity and Management in Agricultural Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 24. McFate, K. L. 1981-82. Food and energy: challenges and choices. Energy Agric. 1:9198. 25. Miller, E. J. 1984. Energy use in the New Zealand dairy processing industry. Energy Agric. 3:307-312. 26. Mudahar, M. S., and T. P. Hignett. 1975. Energy efficiency in nitrogen fertilizer production. Energy Agric. 4:159-177. 27. Norum, L. 1983. Problem formulation and quantification in energy analysis. Energy Agric. 2:1-10. 28. Odum, H. T., and E. C. Odum. 1976. Energy basis for man and nature. McGraw-Hill, USA. 29. Okos, MR, and J. S. Marks. 1981. Energy conservation opportunities for the dairy processing industry. ASAE Publication 5-81. Agric. Eng. Vol. 3. 30. Ouellette, R.P., N. W. Lord, and P. N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Food Industry Energy Alternatives, p. 53. Food & Nutrition Press, Westport, CT. 31. Patrick, N. A. 1977. Energy use patterns for agricultural production in New Mexico. In: W. Lockeretz (Ed.) Agriculture and Energy, p. 31. Academic Press, New York, NY. 32. Patterson, M. G. 1984. Energy use in the New Zealand food system. Energy. Agric. 3:289-304. 33. Pimentel, D. 1997. Livestock production: energy inputs and the environment. In: Proceedings of the 47th annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science, Montreal. 34. Pimentel, D., and M. Pimentel. 1996. Food, Energy, and Society. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO. 35. Pimentel, D., P. A. Oltenacu, M. C. Nesheim, J. Krummel, M. S. Allen, and S. Chick. 1980. The potential for grass-fed livestock: resource constraints. Science 207:843-848. 36. Pimentel, D., W. Dritschilo, J. Krummel, and J. Kutzman. 1975. Energy and land constraints in food protein production. Science 190:754-761. 37. Price, D. R. 1975. New York state energy needs for food production. Proceedings of the Cornell Nutrition Conference, p. 9. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 38. Rao, M. A. 1986. Regression analysis for assessing and forecasting energy requirements. In: R. P. Singh (Ed.) Energy in Food Processing, p. 13. Elsevier, New York, NY. 39. Reid, J. T. 1975. Comparative efficiency of animals in the conversion of feedstuffs to human foods. Proceedings of the Cornell Nutrition Conference, p. 16. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 40. Schisler, I. P., and R. C. Brook. 1992. Analysis of agricultural plants for cogeneration feasibility in the United States. In: R. N. Peart, and R. C. Brook (Ed.) Analysis of Agricultural Energy Systems, p.351. Elsevier, New York, NY. 41. Scrimshaw, N. S., and M. Behar. 1976. Nutrition and Agricultural Development. Plenum Press, New York. 42. Steinhart, J. S., and C. E. Steinhart. 1974. Energy use in the U.S. food system. Science 184:307-316.
15
43. Stevens, G. R., J. A. DeShager, T. L. Thompson, and N. C. Teter. 1976. Environmental control for swine housing based on energy conservation and animal performance. Paper 76-4028, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. 44. Stout, B. A., C. A. Myers, A. Hurand, and L. W. Faidley. 1979. Energy for World Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 45. Thompson, G. B., and W. H. Pfander. 1977. Effic9iencies of beef production systems using alternative cropping systems. In: W. Lockeretz (Ed.) Agriculture and Energy, p. 413. Academic Press, New York, NY. 46. Unger, S. G. 1975. Energy utilization in the leading energy-consuming food processing industries. Food Technol. 29: 33-45. 47. Ward, G. M., P. Knox, B. Hobson, and T. P. Yorks. 1977. Energy requirements of alternative beef production systems in Colorado. In: W. Lockeretz (Ed.) Agriculture and Energy, p. 395. Academic Press, New York, NY. 48. Watt, M. 1984. An energy analysis of the Australian food system. Energy Agric. 3:279288. 49. Wilson, P. W., F. C. Knopf, and M. R. Okos. 1978. Energy utilization in meat processing plants. Paper 78-6507, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. 50. Zucchetto, J., and G. Bickle. 1984. Energy and nutrient analyses of a dairy farm in Central Pennsylvania. Energy Agric. 3:29-47.
16
Appendix
Poultry meat
Inputs Farm
Flock
Feed
Area = Farm type Agroecological zone Species No. birds Average market wt Average market age Feed:gain No. of breeders Ave. breeder wt Feed efficiency
Pasture Stocking rate Concentrate ration - breeders Concentrate ration - market Sub-total
Units 5 ha 1 industrial 1 arid
1 1,000 /year 1.73 kg 7 weeks 1.9 11 3.2 kg 3.0 kg/dozen
Default
Default
Total GJ
1 1
1 1,000 1.73 7 1.9 11 3.2 3.0
90 eggs/year
Fossil fuel input 405.6 MJ/ha
0.00 ha birds/ha 250 kg
Page 1
406
-
-
5.26 MJ/kg
5.26
1.31
5.27 MJ/kg
5.27
17.31
250 3,287 kg 3,287 3,537 kg
18.63
Appendix Buildings etc.
Poultry meat Breeding shed Market birds
2.8 sq m
2.8
15.4 sq m
15.4
Sub-total
18.2 sq m
18.2
Construction
2,252 MJ/sq m
2,252
4.0 birds/sq m 10.0 birds/sq m
25 years
Page 2 4.0 10.0
25 1.64
Equipment
0.6 kg
0.6 0.05
Heating /cooling/ventil ation Transportatio n, feeding Sub-total
7.2 MJ/kg produced
7.2
3,460 MJ
2 envt. control 2.0 MJ/kg prod
2 12.46 2.0 3.46 17.60
PRODUCTIO N TOTAL
OUTPUT
36.23
Market birds
kg live wt 1,730
Carcass wt
kg 1,298
75% dressin g
POSTHARVEST Transportat Distance to ion slaughter
Fossil fuel input 10 km
10 18
75%
Transportatio n Mode Distance to distribution Transportatio n mode Distance to final destination Transportatio n mode Sub-total
1 100 km 1
1
1.82 kJ/kg.k m
1.82
1.82 kJ/kg.k m
1.82
1.82 kJ/kg.k m
1.82
0.03
100 1
5 km
5
1
1
0.24
0.01 0.28
19
Appendix
Poultry meat
Page 3
Processing Storage
Preparation
2.59 MJ/kg Mode Duration
1 fresh 7 days
1 7
0.0272 MJ/kg.d
Cooking fuel
1 fossil
1
3.45 MJ/kg
2.59 0.0272
0.25 3.45
Total post-harvest TOTAL
Carcass only
Inputs Outputs
Efficiency
Production Processing Transportation Storage Preparation Carcass and
byproducts
Efficiency
4.48
4.48 9.48
45.7 GJ/yr 1,298 kg carcass 346 kg byproducts 0.028 kg/MJ fossil fuel 0.41 J out/J in
79.3% 9.8% 0.5% 0.5% 9.8%
18.94 GJ/yr
79%
5.05 GJ/yr 35.2 MJ/kg carcass
1.03 L gasoline/kg carcass
40.7% of total that is feed
0.036 kg/MJ fossil fuel 0.52 J out/J in
20
27.8 MJ/kg carcass
0.81
L gasoline/kg carcass
