Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon mitigation methods in probiotic-fed broiler production

被引:0
|
作者
Chin, H. W. [1 ]
Tee, T. P. [1 ]
Tan, N. P. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Putra Malaysia, Fac Agr, Dept Anim Sci, Upm Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia
[2] Univ Putra Malaysia, Fac Agr, Dept Land Management, Upm Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia
关键词
biochar; emission intensity; greenhouse gas emission; life cycle assessment; Malaysia; mitigation; poultry manure; probiotic-fed broiler; CLIMATE-CHANGE; POULTRY; LIVESTOCK; NITROGEN; BIOCHAR; PERFORMANCE; AMMONIA; PHOSPHORUS; RUMINANTS;
D O I
10.1071/AN24040
中图分类号
S8 [畜牧、 动物医学、狩猎、蚕、蜂];
学科分类号
0905 ;
摘要
Context Livestock production contributes significantly to global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Probiotic-fed broiler production has been shown to reduce greenhouse emissions in other nations significantly, however, outcomes in Malaysia are unknown.Aims This study assesses the total greenhouse emissions of probiotic-fed broiler production from cradle to farm-gate using an accredited Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tool, Greenhouse Accounting Framework (GAF). It determines the hotspot of greenhouse emissions and emission intensity of the farm in kg CO2-eq/kg liveweight. Three types of mitigation methods, i.e. selling untreated manure, composting, and conversion into biochar, were compared to identify their effectiveness.Methods The research involves three broiler houses with one production cycle. Fifty-four gas samples and 90 poultry litter samples were collected throughout the production cycle and analysed for the targeted gases - i.e. carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen and volatile solid composition. Analysis results were used to estimate total greenhouse emissions from the farm using the LCA-GAF model. The mitigation efficiency achieved by selling untreated manure, composting, and biochar production is assessed by estimating the carbon stock mass.Key results A new LCA model based on probiotic-fed broiler production was generated, specifically using data obtained from the experiment. The experimental results indicated that energy consumption, i.e. electricity and fuel, have the highest greenhouse emissions (44%), followed by feed production with 40% of the total 53.51 t CO2-eq/house/cycle in the probiotic-fed broiler farm. The emissions intensity of the farm is 1.57 kg CO2-eq/kg liveweight. Estimates of the mitigation efficiency were compared among untreated manure, biochar, and compost.Conclusions Energy consumption, particularly electricity and fuel, contributed the highest greenhouse emissions in the probiotic-fed broiler production. The strategy of selling untreated poultry litter was the most effective carbon mitigation method. However, due to its adverse environmental and human health impacts, converting poultry litter into biochar is the preferable mitigation option.Implications This study is profound for the poultry industry and environmental sustainability. It highlights the crucial role of energy consumption in greenhouse emissions from the probiotic-fed broiler farm, and the necessity of addressing the environmental impacts. Implementing sustainable agricultural practices could lead to more ecological poultry production, contributing to global efforts in climate change mitigation. Livestock production plays a major role in global greenhouse gas emissions, and the impacts of using probiotics in broiler production is a new area of study in Malaysia. This research conducted on three broiler farms, reveals that energy consumption, particularly electricity and fuel, contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. The findings highlight the potential of probiotics in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in broiler production and developing sustainable practices in the poultry industry to address environmental concerns.This article belongs to the Collection Sustainable Animal Agriculture for Developing Countries 2023.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from asphalt pavement maintenance: A case study in China
    Ma, Feng
    Dong, Wenhao
    Fu, Zhen
    Wang, Rui
    Huang, Yue
    Liu, Jenny
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2021, 288
  • [32] Comparative life cycle greenhouse gas emissions assessment of battery energy storage technologies for grid applications
    Han, Xiaoqu
    Li, Yanxin
    Nie, Lu
    Huang, Xiaofan
    Deng, Yelin
    Yan, Junjie
    Kourkoumpas, Dimitrios-Sotirios
    Karellas, Sotirios
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2023, 392
  • [33] Tradeoffs in life cycle water use and greenhouse gas emissions of hydrogen production pathways
    Henriksen, Megan S.
    Matthews, Scott
    White, John
    Walsh, Liam
    Grol, Eric
    Jamieson, Matthew
    Skone, Timothy J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY, 2024, 49 : 1221 - 1234
  • [35] Life Cycle Assessment in the Building Sector - Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Common Ceiling Systems
    Heckmann, Michael
    Glock, Christian
    BETON- UND STAHLBETONBAU, 2023, 118 (02) : 110 - 123
  • [36] Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of retrofit electrification: Assessment for a real case study
    Innocenti, Eleonora
    Berzi, Lorenzo
    Del Pero, Francesco
    Delogu, Massimo
    RESULTS IN ENGINEERING, 2024, 23
  • [37] Life cycle assessment of two emerging sewage sludge-to-energy systems: Evaluating energy and greenhouse gas emissions implications
    Cao, Yucheng
    Pawlowski, Artur
    BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2013, 127 : 81 - 91
  • [38] Energy-economic life cycle assessment (LCA) and greenhouse gas emissions analysis of olive oil production in Iran
    Rajaeifar, Mohammad Ali
    Akram, Asadolah
    Ghobadian, Barat
    Rafiee, Shahin
    Heidari, Mohammad Davoud
    ENERGY, 2014, 66 : 139 - 149
  • [39] Assessment of the greenhouse gas emission footprint of a biorefinery over its life cycle
    Giwa, Temitayo
    Akbari, Maryam
    Kumar, Amit
    ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT, 2022, 271
  • [40] Life-cycle assessment of the intensity of production on the greenhouse gas emissions and economics of grass-based suckler beef production systems
    Clarke, A. M.
    Brennan, P.
    Crosson, P.
    JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE, 2013, 151 (05) : 714 - 726