Environmental impact of Brazilian broiler production process: Evaluation using life cycle assessment

Accepted Manuscript Environmental impact of Brazilian broiler production process: Evaluation using life cycle assessment Nilsa Duarte da Silva Lima, Irenilza de Alencar Nääs, Rodrigo Garófallo Garcia, Daniella Jorge de Moura PII:

S0959-6526(19)32612-5

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117752

Article Number: 117752 Reference:

JCLP 117752

To appear in:

Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 7 February 2019 Revised Date:

30 June 2019

Accepted Date: 22 July 2019

Please cite this article as: Duarte da Silva Lima N, de Alencar Nääs I, Garcia RodrigoGaró, Jorge de Moura D, Environmental impact of Brazilian broiler production process: Evaluation using life cycle assessment, Journal of Cleaner Production (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117752. 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 Environmental impact of Brazilian broiler production process: Evaluation using Life Cycle Assessment Nilsa Duarte da Silva Limaa, Irenilza de Alencar Nääsa, Rodrigo Garófallo Garciab, Daniella Jorge de

a

RI PT

Mouraa

School of Agricultural Engineering, University of Campinas, Av. Cândido Rondon, 501, Campinas,

SP, CEP 13083-875, Brazil. b

School of Agrarian Sciences, Federal University of Grande Dourados, Rodovia Dourados/Itahum,

SC

km 12, Dourados, MS, CEP 79.804-970, Brazil.

Abstract

M AN U

The environmental management of the broiler production chain should include assessments that more accurately detail the processes that occur on the farm related to the broiler life cycle. The present study meant to evaluate the environmental impact of the production process of broiler using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach. The life cycle inventory included all inflows and outflows of the subsystems: feed-ration production and broiler grow-out, with system boundary from

TE D

the housing of the chick from one-day to the live broiler produced in the farm gate, and the functional unit of the "one-kilogram live weight." The impacts categories evaluated were: Global Warming Potential in hundred years (GWP), depletion of abiotic resources (mineral elements and fossil fuels), depletion of the ozone layer, eutrophication, acidification, freshwater aquatic

EP

ecotoxicity, marine aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, human toxicity, photochemical oxidation, and land use. The results showed that total emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) (CH4,

AC C

and N2O) from the management of manure in broiler farms totaled 0.154 kg CO2-eq per kg of live weight produced. The total GWP for the broiler production process was 2.70 kg CO2-eq per kg of live weight produced. The depletion of abiotic resources (mineral elements) and depletion of abiotic resources - fossil fuels presented higher values for the feed-ration production phase. The marine aquatic ecotoxicity category and the GWP are the most impacting categories. The broiler grow-out mainly influences these categories during the production process. Results showed that broiler rearing is the sub-system within meat production that gives the highest environmental impact. However, considering the characteristics of the studied system, the level of technology applied, and the local availability of grains used in the feed ration reduces the use of energy in the transport and processing of the feed. The present study indicates the best strategies to improve the environmental performance of broiler meat production.

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Keywords: Broiler meat production; Conventional system; Environmental impact; Environmental analysis; GHG emissions. 1. Introduction

The intensification and specialization in livestock production nowadays, allow investments in

RI PT

technologies and facilities more focused on generating less environmental impact. Such scenario tied to factors from as rearing environment, nutrition, genetics, health, good practices of production, and waste management in the farm, resulting in production growth driven by the demand for an animal protein of short cycle and high performance. The production of broiler chicken responds to this

SC

demand through an intensive, with greater efficiency in feed conversion and numbers of birds produced per year (Jaspers and van den Ende, 2006; Nääs et al., 2015). In addition to such growth,

M AN U

there were changes in the behavior of meat consumption inducing consumers to raise awareness of production sustainability (Miele, 1999; Daniel et al., 2011; Westhoek et al., 2014). The intensive system of broiler production depends on productivity and intensification of land use for the availability of primary raw materials (corn and soybean) used in the feed-ration processing. Controlled environmental housing has ambient conditions that allow higher flock densities and greater production efficiency (Kic, 2016). The use of energy in such a system is higher than in

TE D

houses with low automation level, which are common in developing countries (Baxevanou et al., 2017; Pishgar-Komleh et al., 2017).

In the international broiler market, Brazil is the second largest producer, behind the US and ahead of China, and the leading exporter (4 106 t) ahead of the US and the European Union (CIAS,

EP

2019). Broiler meat represents 46% of total meat consumption in Brazil, with per capita consumption of 42 kg/inhabitant (ABPA, 2018), and it characterizes significant participation in the country' GDP

AC C

(Nääs et al., 2015; ABPA, 2018). However, the environmental impacts of production are generally transferred to countries that export agricultural commodities. In order to minimize negative impacts and increase the positive value of the Brazilian broiler meat chain, it is necessary to know deeply the process that takes place in farms meant for the production and export of broiler chicken meat. Moreover, it is essential to concentrate the strategies in the process that takes place in the farms since broiler farms for export are similar between production regions at the farm level, slightly change in the quantities of inputs during the production process. A low-carbon economy in the livestock sector depends on the active input of the actors in the production chain concerning the management, organization, and planning of actions that contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions (Nobre, 2010; IPCC, 2014; Rojas-Downing et al., 2017).

3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Emissions are related to the consumption and efficiency of renewable and non-renewable resources in animal production. The environmental impact of the livestock sector on climate change has been the focus in late research, motivated by consumers demands and nations engaged in the subject (Nardone et al., 2010; IPCC, 2013; IPCC, 2014; Downing et al., 2017). The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a scheme currently proposed and discussed as part of the

RI PT

development of approaches to assess the consequences of environmental impacts, especially climate impacts. The LCA is a method used to assess the environmental impacts of a product, process or activity during its life cycle, and are interpreted in terms of potential impacts and evaluated in categories (Anderson et al., 1994; Guinée et al., 2002; ISO, 2006a; ISO, 2006b; Tukker and Jansen,

SC

2006; Finnveden et al., 2009; Roy et al., 2009; de Vries and de Boer, 2010). The LCA technique is considered the most appropriate way to assess the environmental impact of broiler production (ISO, 2006a, 2006b; De Vries and de Boer, 2010). Several studies are available on the estimation of the

M AN U

environmental impact of broilers production in intensive systems using LCA technique (Leinonen et al., 2012; Da Silva et al., 2014; González-García et al., 2014; Cesari et al., 2017). However, most investigate broiler production with low weight and a short grow-out period. The poultry meat chain environmental issues can be evaluated with the LCA approach focused on the categories of significant impacts (GWP, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, and ozone depletion), as

TE D

suggested by Skunca et al. (2015).

Emissions throughout the livestock supply chains are estimated at seven gigatonnes of CO2eq/year, accounting for 14.5% of all man-induced emissions (Gerber et al., 2013). Feed-ration production and processing (45% of emissions), and enteric fermentation of ruminants (39%) are the

EP

primary sources of emissions in the sector, followed by storage and processing of waste (CH4 and N2O; 10%), and transport and processing of animal products (6%), while land use represents 9%

AC C

(Steinfeld et al., 2006; Gerber et al., 2013). GHG emissions associated with energy consumption (directly or indirectly related to fossil fuel) are primarily related to food production and the manufacture of fertilizers. When added along the chains, energy use contributes about 20% of total sector emissions (Steinfeld et al., 2006; Gerber et al., 2013). The improvement of the broiler production process using LCA might allow ways to reach the sustainability of the poultry industry (Pelletier, 2008). Life cycle assessment has been added to the evaluation of broiler meat production to identify which is the segment of the chain that mostly impacts the environment (Leinonen and Kyriazakis, 2016). However, there are evaluations that present the macro vision of the production chain (Tukker and Jansen, 2006; Boggia et al., 2010; Da Silva et al., 2012; Leinonen et al., 2012; Bengtsson e Seddon, 2013; González-García et al., 2014; Da Silva et al., 2014; Wiedemann et al., 2017), while

4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

others are just based on the diet the broilers eat (MacLeod et al., 2013; Giannenas et al., 2017; Tallentire et al., 2017). There is a gap in the evaluation when considering the sub-process that involves the type of broiler rearing (design and use of technology in the housing system). Most published insights involving the LCA studies in broiler production generate a broad interpretation that reaches only policymakers. The present study focuses on the LCA of the broiler production

RI PT

system, covering the stage that occurs the housing of 1-day-old chick until the broiler reaches 50 rearing days and is sent to the slaughterhouse. Such information is essential for farmers to formulate strategies in managing the farm resources properly.

The current study aimed to evaluate the environmental impact of the broiler production

SC

intensive in the modern farm using the LCA method. Also, the research intended to identify the critical areas of the supply chain production process to contribute to the measurement and monitoring of environmental performance.

M AN U

2. Material and Methods

The study used primary and secondary data sources and methods that reflect broiler production systems in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, in the Central-West region of Brazil (Figure 1). Data modeling approaches are described in the following sections.

TE D

Insert Figure 1.

2.1 Production description and climate characterization The present study analyzed the conventional intensive production of broiler in the Itaquiraí city, Mato Grosso do Sul state of Brazil (Region: Central-West, Latitude: 23º 28' 28" S, Longitude:

EP

54º 11' 06" W). The database included a one-year of broiler production (April 2016 - 2017), considering the primary data average of six farms with six annual production cycles, obtained from

AC C

local collections. The application of the LCA in the production process of the poultry chain followed the international norms ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006a, 2006b; Guinée et al., 2001; Guinée et al., 2002).

The climatic conditions of the study region (Table 1) presented lower average monthly temperatures in winter (March to May, 17 to 20 °C) and with increasing temperature from autumn (June to August, 19 to 25 °C), spring (September to November, 20 to 24 °C), and summer (December to February, 25 to 26 °C). The total rainfall is higher in the spring (431 mm) and summer (566 mm) seasons, with relative humidity between 61 to 78% (Cemtec-MS, 2019). Insert Table 1.

5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2.2. Life Cycle Assessment Method (LCA)

LCA followed the principles of life cycle viewpoint, environmental focus, relative approach, and functional unit. All the analyzes are related to the functional unit, as well as all the entries and exits in the life cycle inventory (LCI) (Guinée, 2001; Finkbeiner et al., 2006; ISO, 2006a, 2006b). The LCA procedure consists of four phases (1) goal and scope definition, (2) life cycle inventory

RI PT

analysis (LCI), (3) life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and (4) life cycle interpretation (ISOs, 2006a,b). The procedure refers to the one-year of the broiler production. All analysis of the production process was divided into two main phases, and each phase includes different subprocesses: a) Feed-ration production (broiler feed-ration); and b) Broiler farming operation

SC

2.2.1 Goal and scope definition

The scope of the LCA was to examine the environmental issues of broiler production and the elements involved in the process within the supply chain. The objectives of such study include

M AN U

calculating the environmental impacts of poultry production on GHG emissions and resource use impact categories. The temporal limit of the inventory was from poultry housing (grow-out) to farm output or broilers for slaughter (cradle-to-gate studies, ISO 2006a, 2006b. The functional unit refers to "one-kilogram live weight" of a broiler in intensive production, and the results are also presented using the unit (Figure 2).

TE D

Insert Figure 2.

The analyzed broiler rearing system was divided into subsystems within the supply chain (feed-ration production and broiler production), with the respective inputs and outputs. The processes

EP

adopted were divided into two primary systems of the poultry chain: Sub-system I - corresponds to the subfunction "transforming grains into animal feed", which includes the processes of feed-ration

AC C

production for poultry; and Sub-system II - corresponds to the subfunction "transforming ration into broiler", which embraces the production processes of live broilers (rearing) until slaughter. Cut-off criteria: The inventory did not include cleaning products, veterinary products (drugs), 1-day-old chicks (breeding and hatching), incineration of broiler carcasses, slaughtering, and processing of broilers, and all processes that occurred off the farm. Production infrastructure on farms, such as buildings and machinery, was not included. The allocation of the product was not added to the calculation. It is important to note that the cut-off criteria ware selected based on the goal and scope of the study. Allocation procedures: Allocation is partitioning the input or output flows of a process or a product system between the product system under study and one or more other product systems (ISO

6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

14044:2006). The allocation of the product was not applied in this study. The litter was removed from the houses at the end of a year of production (six production cycles) and replaced with a new litter (shavings). The removed litter used was used as fertilizer. This transaction represents a small fraction of the farm's total production volume. The litter was considered as residual flow without allocation of impacts from the production system to the manure product.

RI PT

Data quality: Data were collected at the site of the case study in the broiler farms. The values for the consumption of water, feed-ration, energy, fuels, and solid waste generated were recorded. The dataset was collected once at the end of each production cycle, and the average values of each broiler production input were considered for the preparation of the inventory. The scope was limited

SC

to the application of the current data quality assessment approach through the Data Quality Matrix or Pedigree Matrix (Althaus et al., 2004).

Data Quality Matrix - Pedigree Matrix Uncertainty: The data quality indicators were presented

M AN U

in a Data Quality Matrix (Althaus et al., 2004; Frischknecht et al., 2007; Weidema et al., 2013; Muller et al., 2016; Wernet et al., 2016) to describe data quality aspects that guarantee reliable result, and considering the following aspects: independent indicators of quality goals (reliance on source, completeness, number of samples) and dependent indicators related to the validity of the production and technologies (temporal correlation, geographic correlation, technological correlation). The six

TE D

quality indicators were placed in a quality matrix. Each indicator receives an evaluation from 1 to 5, considering 1 as the best quality score and 5 as the worst quality score. From these generated scores, each one of the six quality indicators was assigned an uncertainty factor (degree of contribution of the accumulated uncertainty in all indicators) related to the score of the indicator. These uncertainty

EP

features were based on the methodology of Ciroth et al. (2004), Frischknecht et al. (2007), Ciroth et al. (2016), and Muller et al. (2016). After the respective uncertainty factors were determined from

AC C

the indicator score, the degree of uncertainty (95% confidence interval - SDg95) was calculated from Equation 1 (Frischknecht et al., 2007; Weidema et al., 2013 Ciroth et al., 2016; Muller et al., 2016; Wernet et al., 2016). SD

= exp

ln U

+ ln U

+ ln U

+ ln U

+ ln U

+ ln U

+ ln U

(1)

Where SDg95 = degree of uncertainty with a 95% confidence interval; U1 = factor of uncertainty of the indicator Confidence in the source; U2 = uncertainty factor of the indicator Completeness; U3 = uncertainty factor of the indicator Number of samples; U4 = uncertainty factor of the indicator Temporal Correlation; U5 = uncertainty factor of the indicator Geographic Correlation;

7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

U6 = uncertainty factor of the Technological indicator Correlation; Ub = primary uncertainty factor applied to inputs and outputs for elementary flows. The uncertainty within the model relates to the natural variability in the inventory data and uncertainties related to the assumptions made during the modeling process. 2.2.2. Life cycle inventory analysis (LCI)

RI PT

The LCI includes all inflows and outflows of subsystems feed-ration production and broiler grow-out, to evaluate the environmental impact of the product on the farm gate. Primary data for the LCI were collected directly (production reports) on the farms with the producers and the integrating company with the operations’ manager. The validation of the data occurred comparatively, with data

SC

already published in the literature available in scientific databases, and by comparison with the data measured.

The data refer to the year 2016-2017, representing one year of production, with a functional

M AN U

unit of 1 kg of broiler live weight produced. Inputs and outputs related to the grow-out process were identified and quantified including cut-off criteria (exclusions of veterinary/health products, incubation process, cleaning material, construction material, grain transport in feed-ration processing and all processes that occurred outside the farm, such as slaughter and processing). The databases Ecoinvent 2.2 (Frischknecht et al., 2007) and Ecoinvent 3.3 (Muller et al., 2016; Wernet et al., 2016)

TE D

were applied using the following inputs: feed-ration ingredients, electricity use, transport, water. The software used for the LCI calculation was OpenLCA v1.6 (GreenDelta, 2017). Table 2 summarizes the inventory data used for the production of broilers at the farm gate.

EP

Insert Table 2.

Feed-ration production and broiler grow-out: The main feed-ration ingredients such as corn,

AC C

soybean meal, maize meal, soybean oil, mineral supplements, vitamins, and amino acids were used in the broiler feed-ration production during the grow-out (Table 2). The characteristics of the rearing scheme analyzed are shown in Table 3. The feed-ration mill was located at an average distance of 13 km from the farms. The broiler houses were constructed with solid double walls, concrete foundations, automatic water, and feed-ration distribution system, negative-pressure ventilation, and a mixed lighting system (LED and fluorescent). Evaporative cooling and double-wall insulation were used to provide thermal comfort to the birds. The average area of the houses was 2,400 m2. The production cycle was 60 days (50 days production plus ten days of the time interval between successive flocks) during six production cycles per year. The flock density adopted was 13.6 birds/m2. The average total number of broilers produced per farm per year was 956,830, and the total

8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

number of broilers per cycle per year was 191,366. Broilers of the Cobb® and Hubbard® strains (mixed sexes), with a mean weight of 0.45 kg, with a mean final weight of 2.841 kg, feed intake of 5.346 kg and feed-conversion of 1.89 was used. The conventional diets were formulated according to the recommendations (Rostagno et al., 2011) and the broilers were fed to in phases pre-initial (1-7 days), initial (8-21 days), growth I (22-33 days), growth II (34-42 days), and final - growth to

RI PT

slaughter (43-50 days). Insert Table 3.

Electricity: Broiler farms used electricity for heating, cooling, lighting, food and water

SC

distribution equipment.

Wood (firewood and litter): Firewood was used as fuel for the generation of heat in furnaces

M AN U

for heating the chicklings. The material used as litter on the farms was wood chips (shaving), which is the most used in the region.

Fuel: The fuels (diesel and gasoline) were used in an engine to disperse the heat inside the house. Fuel was also used in broiler litter-handling equipment and cleaning of feeders and drinkers. Transportation: Transport of feed ration from the processing plant to the farms during the production process was carried out by trucks. Transport of the day-old chicks from the hatchery to

TE D

the farms on the day of the lodging was carried out by trucks. The unit used for transport is one ton per kilometer (tkm). The transports that were not included are the transport of grain for feed-ration production and transport of workers.

Manure Management Systems (MMS): Direct and indirect emissions of N2O and CH4 occur

EP

during the production and storage of waste on farms, and N2O emissions arise through the nitrification process of ammonium nitrate (Dong et al., 2006). The GHG emissions from the MMS

AC C

were calculated using the following steps: (1) first was to estimate the excretion, and more specifically the volatile solids (VS) mass and the nitrogen (N) excreted in the dung with data collected at the study site (food performance data: daily feed intake and dietary properties). Emissions from manure management result from manure during the rearing (methane: CH4 and nitrous oxide: N2O), storage of dung (CH4 and N2O), application of poultry litter (N2O) and indirect sources (by volatilization of ammonia and leaching, nitrate flow) (Dong et al., 2006; Brasil, 2010a, 2010b; Brasil, 2014). (2) Second, the emissions from MMS (Table 4) and residues were estimated according to the guidelines suggested by the IPCC (2006). The dataset on direct and indirect emissions from MMS was calculated by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Program (IPCC Inventory Software, 2017).

9

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Insert Table 4. 2.2.3. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)

The LCIA is the calculation of the environmental impact based on the inventory results. The method was applied to examine the environmental issues of the inventory results using models and

RI PT

characterization factors contained in the LCIA methods (ISO, 2006a, 2006b; Roy et al., 2009). The functional unit considered in the LCA is 1 kg of broiler live produced. According to the definition of the scope, the LCA study was carried out "from the cradle to the gate of the farm," including the raw materials that only involves the production process of the broiler.

SC

The IPCC method (IPCC, 2007) was used to quantify the GWP and to identify the contributions of the GWP in the broiler production. The GWP with a time horizon of 100 years was

M AN U

used to convert N2O and CH4 regarding NO2-eq. GWP values of 25 and 298 were used for CH4 and N2O, respectively. The CML 2002 method (Institute of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science of Leiden University; Guinée, 2002; Jolliet et al., 2003) was used for the impact categories such as GWP (climate change), acidification, depletion of abiotic resources (mineral elements and reserve), depletion of abiotic resources (fossil fuels), ozone depletion, eutrophication, aquatic ecotoxicity of freshwater, marine aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, human toxicity, photochemical

TE D

oxidation, and land use competition. The impact categories used in the present study are listed in Table 5. Twelve environmental impact categories were considered according to CML baseline v4.4 (Guinée, 2002; Jolliet et al., 2003). The foreground (production system specific) and background data (general materials, energy, transport, and manure management) were used for the LCA analysis.

EP

The databases Ecoinvent 2.2 (Frischknecht et al., 2007) and Ecoinvent 3.3 (Wernet et al., 2016) were applied for the following inputs feed ingredients, electricity, transport, water. The OpenLCA

AC C

software v1.6 (GreenDelta, 2017) was used to implement the LCA study. Insert Table 5.

2.2.4 Life cycle interpretation The explanation of the inventory phases results and the impact calculation (LCA) were done according to the scope and objective of the study, corresponding to input and output flows for the evaluation (Figure 3). Insert Figure 3. 3. Results

10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3.1. Manure management contributors to GWP

The total GHG emissions, CH4 and N2O, from the MMS in broiler farms totaled 0.154 kg CO2eq per kg of weight produced or 154.0 kg CO2-eq per 1,000 kg of live weight produced. The contributions of CH4, direct N2O, and indirect N2O to GWP were 18.9%, 19.3%, and 61.8%, respectively. Total N2O emissions from manure management contributed a total 81.1% of the total

RI PT

emissions on the farm, mainly indirect emission of N2O (95 kg of CO2-eq) followed by emission of N2O in the direct form (30 kg CO2-eq) per 1,000 kg live weight produced. The emission of CH4 presented a similar value (29 kg CO2-eq per 1,000 kg of live weight produced) to the direct N2O emission (Table 6).

SC

Insert Table 6.

M AN U

The key factors that contribute to CH4 emission in the broiler production are the excreta produced per kg of live weight (0.176 kg of volatile solids; Table 4), and the portion that decomposes anaerobically in the broiler end of each production cycle when the litter with the excreta is treated for re-use. Methane is produced from the decomposition of bird excreta under anaerobic conditions. The MMS and the weather are the key aspects to determine the efficiency of the treatment of the broiler litter that is usually carried out in covered piles inside the facilities.

TE D

The use of electricity led to the emission of CO2 (9.40 E-5 kg CO2) almost nine times higher than the use of diesel (1.06 E-5 kg CO2). The emissions of CH4 (1,00 E-7 kg CH4) and N2O (1.20 E-8 kg N2O) from the use of diesel presented similar values. The amount of N in the litter that is lost due to the volatilization of NH3 and NOx also presented a value similar to the amount of nitrogen from

EP

the waste management available for the application (soil fertilization, for example). 3.2. Environmental impact of the broiler production

AC C

The environmental impacts of the broiler production at the farm gate (feed-ration and broiler grow-out) per kg of live weight produced are shown in Table 7. The result of total GWP for the broiler production (subsystem: feed-ration production and subsystem: broiler grow-out) was 2.70 kg CO2-eq per kg of live weight produced at the farm gate. Insert Table 7. 4. Discussion 4.1. Manure management contributors to GWP The emission of N2O during the storage and treatment of bird dung occurs through the combination of nitrogen denitrification-nitrification contained in the waste. Emissions emerge from

11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

several points, but with the most substantial contributions of nitrous oxide emitted during the growout and indirect emissions via volatilization of ammonia. The amount of N2O released depends on the system and the duration of waste management (IPCC, 2006). Indirect emissions result from nitrogen (volatile) losses that occur mainly in the forms of nitrogen and ammonia oxides, according to Asman et al. (1998).

RI PT

The broiler production residues can be treated by composting for crop fertilizer, and this is applied at set rates and with methods that minimize nutrient leaching. This nutrient cycle decreases the dependence on the production of synthetic fertilizers and is more efficient when the animal and agricultural production is combined locally (Kelleher et al., 2002). Another form of use of the

SC

remains generated in the production of broilers is the biomass fuel (Lynch et al., 2013; Dalólio et al., 2017). The production of electricity from these wastes could reduce emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels, resulting in a lower environmental impact (Billen et al., 2015). In addition, as broiler

M AN U

excreta contains a large amount of nitrogen, and due to the nitrification and denitrification processes (Von Bobrutzki et al., 2011), the disposal of farm residues as fertilizer would produce higher emissions of NH3, N2O, and NOx than the combustion of the material for energy generation (Billen et al., 2015).

Potential consequences associated with excess of nitrogen-based concentrations, the main

TE D

component of farm residues (oxidized and reduced forms of N) are contamination of potable water by nitrates; eutrophication of surface water bodies, changes in the ecosystem, climatic changes associated with N2O increase, N saturation in soils and soil acidification, and leaching (Edwards and Daniel, 1992; Leinonen and Kyriazakis, 2016).

EP

4.2. Environmental impact of the process of production of broilers 4.2.1. Comparison to current literature results

AC C

The birds were the subsystem with the most significant contribution to GWP with 1.95 kg CO2-eq per kg of broiler live weight produced, agreeing with the results of several authors (Pelletier, 2008; Boggia et al., 2010; Daine et al., 2012; Leinonen et al., 2012; Bengtsson and Seddon, 2013; González-García et al., 2014). According to these authors, broiler rearing and feed production are the segments that most contribute to the main environmental impact categories in broiler production. The GWP of the broiler grow-out phase in the current study was 2.70 kg CO2-eq per kg of live broiler produced. Such a result was lower than the value found by Cesari et al. (2017) from 3.03 to 3.25 kg CO2-eq per kg live weight. Da Silva et al. (2014) presented a lower value for the French conventional production system (2.22 kg CO2-eq per kg of live weight), similar to the Label Rouge scheme (2.70 kg CO2-eq per kg of live weight), higher than the Brazilian conventional rearing system in the Center-West region (2.06 kg CO2-eq per kg of live weight), and the Brazilian

12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

conventional rearing in the Southern region (1.45 kg CO2-eq per kg live weight). Such result might be explained by the level of technology of the facilities that demand more energy in the production process and by the mean age of slaughter of birds (50 days compared to the age of 42 days of the previous study). However, for the systems and impacts studied, the scale of production did not affect the environmental impact, but the intensity of production. The extensive French Label Rouge system

RI PT

presented the most significant impact amongst the categories studied. The output resulted mainly from the high feed-ration conversion ratio of the extensive system (Da Silva et al., 2014). According to other studies, the GWP varied from 1.39 to 6.83 kg CO2-eq per kg of live weight (Cesish et al., 2017; Pishgar-Komleh et al., 2017; Baldwin et al., 2008; Skunca et al., 2018).

SC

Acidification, eutrophication, and ozone layer depletion presented similar impact values for the two phases of the life cycle, even considering the total of each impact category. Acidification was 0.04 kg SO2-eq, and the eutrophication contribution (2.60 E-2 kg PO4-eq) was lower than that

M AN U

reported by Pelletier (2008). Based on the environmental performance assessment of the American poultry chain Pelletier (2008), it was shown that feed production represented 82% of GHG emissions, 98% of emissions in the category of ozone layer depletion (9.6 E-10 kg CFC-11-eq), 96% of acidifying emissions and in the category of eutrophication associated with the production of broilers was 97% (Pelletier, 2008). Skunca et al. (2018) also found a higher acidification result

TE D

(0.056 kg SO2-eq) in the broiler production phase (life cycle phase).

Regarding the potentials of acidification, eutrophication, terrestrial ecotoxicity and land use found by Da Silva et al. (2014) for conventional French broiler production systems (0.0287 kg SO2eq; 0.0138 kg PO43--eq; 0.006 kg 1.4-DCB-eq and 2.68 m2a, respectively) and the extensive Label

EP

Rouge (0.0472 kg SO2-eq; 0.0193 kg PO43--eq; 0.009 kg 1,4-DCB-eq. 3.9 m2a, respectively), and for the conventional Brazilian production systems of the Central-West region (0.0314 kg SO2-eq; 0.014 kg PO43--eq; 0.006 kg 1,4-DCB-eq and 2.51 m2a, respectively) and the Southern region (0.0345 kg

AC C

SO2-eq; 0.0144 kg PO43--eq; 0.007 kg 1,4-DCB-eq and 2.47 m2a, respectively), the results were similar for the acidification and eutrophication. For the land use, it was higher, and for terrestrial ecotoxicity, it was relatively lower concerning the current study that presented a total of 0.80 kg 1,4DCB-eq per kg of broiler live produced. The terrestrial ecotoxicity (0.80 kg 1,4-DCB-eq), acidification (0.040 kg SO2-eq) and eutrophication (0.026 kg PO4-eq) from the current study were higher than those shown by Cesari et al. (2017) which described average values of 0.005 kg 1,4DCB-eq, 0.016 kg SO2-eq and 0.011 kg PO43--eq per kg of broiler live weight, respectively. According to Leinonen et al. (2012), waste management was the main component of the acidification potential and with eutrophication potential that is similar to the results found by this study.

13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The depletion of abiotic resources - elements, reserves (5.1 E-8 kg ant-eq) and depletion of abiotic resources - fossil fuels (0.143 MJ) results of the present study presented higher values for the feed production phase per kg of live broiler produced. These results are due to the use of energy, fossil fuels, and mineral elements in the processing of poultry feed-ration. Moreover, today level of rearing technology, which presents higher production efficiency, generates annual meat production

RI PT

volume higher than other systems with a lower level of automation. However, freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity, human toxicity, photochemical oxidation, and land use presented similar values for feedration production phases and broiler grow-out of the life cycle. According to the results of Boggia et al. (2010), the category that had the most impact was land use, followed by respiratory inorganics

SC

and fossil fuels, with a higher degree of influence of the feed-ration production phase than the birds grow-out.

The results obtained by Boggia et al. (2010), in comparing the environmental impact of three

M AN U

different poultry production systems (conventional, organic and organic-plus) in Central Italy, the organic-plus rearing system shows the highest values of land use (8.96 E-3) and inorganic respiration (1.38 E-3). The conventional and organic-plus arrangements presented similar values for fossil fuels (2.01 E-3 and 2.07 E-3, respectively), and were higher than in organic systems. However, such found values were low (0.154 MJ per kg of live weight produced), when comparing to those of the present

TE D

study. The highest values for carcinogens and climate changes were shown in the conventional rearing scheme and the lowest values in the organic system. However, the conventional system showed the lowest values in the respiratory organic compounds (7.01 E-08), ozone layer (5.80 E-09), and minerals (4.71 E-06). Overall, the results presented that the organic system has better

EP

environmental performance since it showed lower values for the categories of inorganic respiratory and fossil fuels, among others, such as acidification and eutrophication. In the present study, the

AC C

depletion of the ozone layer (9.6 E-10 kg CFC-11-eq per kg of broiler live produced) was relatively lower than that found by Boggia et al. (2010). The organic rearing scheme uses slow-growing birds, and depend on a larger production area, both for the grain production phase (corn) and the animal grow-out phase (large availability of pasture). Such an array presents the characteristics of production with a higher level of animal welfare and meat quality (Castellini et al., 2008; Martinez-Perez et al., 2017). However, evaluating the low production efficiency (long production cycles, high feed-conversion ratio, fewer animals produced per area, and higher mortality than conventional systems) may negatively reflect the economic viability and, consequently, the impact (Martinez-Perez et al., 2017), because it consumes more resources to produce less meat.

14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

According to Kalhor et al. (2016), birds raised on farms that use environmental controlled facilities have a better feed-conversion index, meaning that it affects feed-ration intake and consequently the amount of excretion of volatile solids. Also, the decrease in feed consumption per kg of broiler live produced is directly related to the reduction of environmental costs. In the present study, the feed-conversion ratio was 1.89, indicating that for 1 kg of broiler produced, 1.89 kg of

RI PT

feed was consumed. Therefore, it is essential to obtain a better feed conversion ratio, aiming to decrease the environmental impact through feed efficiency, which, consequently, generate fewer residues and less growth time to slaughter (MacLeod et al., 2013; Tallentire et al., 2017).

The results found by González-García et al. (2014), intending to identify the environmental

SC

hotspots of the production up to the slaughter in the Portuguese poultry chain, presented that the poultry rearing phase and the feed-ration production were the main environmental hotspots. In the same study, broiler meat was compared to pork, beef, and sardines (functional unit based on protein

M AN U

content), the results showed that the production of broiler might be preferable to other types of meat, due to its low global warming potential. According to other studies (De Vries and De Boer, 2010; Nijdam et al., 2012), broiler meat is the protein with the lowest environmental impact, followed by pork, and the beef on the production of 1 kg of protein in the categories of global warming, energy use and land use. Nijdam et al. (2012) concluded that the stage of grow-out has vital importance in

TE D

the life cycle studies. Vegetable and poultry products and certain seafood have low carbon footprints, and that the meat of ruminants and some types of seafood have high carbon footprints. The use of alternative ingredients for animal feed can improve the environmental performance of the production process, such as the use of special ingredients (enzymes and amino acids with a

EP

consequent reduction in the use of land) (Leinonen and Kyriazakis, 2016). Giannenas et al. (2017) evaluated the effects of protease addition and substitution of soybean meal for corn gluten meal on

AC C

the environmental performance of a broiler production system in Greece. In that study, a partial life cycle assessment was performed to identify its environmental critical points. The authors concluded that protease and corn gluten additions performed better than the control (standard broiler diet) in nine of the environmental impact categories studied indicators. Another study by Kebreab et al. (2016) assessed the environmental impact of the use of particular food ingredients in pork and broiler production in three regions (Europe, North America, and South America), and concluded that the supplementation of special food ingredients (additives) substantially reduces global warming, eutrophication and acidification potentials. The authors considered the supplementation of special feed ingredients in broiler diets, and it reduced the greenhouse gas emissions (cradle-to-farm-gate) by 54% in Europe, 15% in North America, and 19% in America of the South compared with an unabsorbed diet.

15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4.2.2. Contribution of the present study

The results obtained in the present study might be used to reduce environmental impacts through the management of resources used in the production process carried out on the farm since it is the phase that uses the most energy and inputs for the animals. The current study proposes a view of the production process based on the evaluation of the life

RI PT

cycle of a modern broiler rearing system, on farms that apply high investment in construction structure for a high flock density and thermal comfort and welfare of the birds. The approach was applied to an LCA study of the process of production of broiler chickens in two subsystems feed production and the rearing of cradle-to-farm-gate broilers.

SC

The results showed that broiler housing/rearing is the most impacted subsystem within limits established in the present study. The regional characteristics where the broilers are produced, and the production system should be taken into account during the LCA evaluation. Amongst the inputs of

M AN U

the analyzes/resources, we suggest the inclusion of the level of technology in the facilities and the availability of local agricultural contributions, such as reducing energy and transport use in food processing. It is possible to use the results of the present study to elaborate strategies of improvements in the use of the technological resources to reach a better broiler farm environmental

5. Conclusions

TE D

performance.

The indirect N2O emission from manure management is the main contributor to global warming potential in the broiler production process in Brazil. Consequently, broiler farming was the

ecotoxicity.

EP

life cycle stage that most contributed to the potential for global warming and marine aquatic

AC C

The lowest impact values were in the categories acidification, depletion of abiotic resources elements and reserves, depletion of abiotic resources - fossil fuels, depletion of the ozone layer, eutrophication, photochemical oxidation, and land use, which contributed less intensively. The depletion of abiotic resources (elements and reserves) and the depletion of abiotic resources (fossil fuels) are most affected by the stage of bird feed-ration production. The total GWP for the broiler production process (subsystem: feed production; subsystem: broiler grow-out) was 2.70 kg CO2-eq per kg of live weight produced at the time of slaughter. Broiler rearing was the subsystem with the most significant contribution to global warming with 1.95 kg CO2-eq per kg of live weight produced. The depletion of abiotic resources - elements, reserves (5.1 E-8 kg ant-eq) and depletion of abiotic resources - fossil fuels (0.143 MJ) presented higher values for the feed-ration production phase per kg of live weight produced. The marine aquatic ecotoxicity

16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

category and the GWP are the most impacting categories. These categories are mainly influenced by the broiler housing/rearing during the production process.

Acknowledgment

RI PT

To Capes (Brazilian Coordination of High Education) for the Doctoral scholarship of the first author.

References

ABPA - Associação Brasileira de Proteína Animal, 2018. Relatório Anual 2018: Produção Brasileira de Carne de Frango e Consumo per capita. Relatório Anual, 31-32. Available in: http://abpa-

SC

br.com.br/storage/files/relatorio-anual-2018.pdf. Accessed Jan 28, 2019.

Althaus, H., Doka, G., Dones, R., Heck, T., Hellweg, S., Hischier, R., Nemecek, T., Rebitzer, G.,

Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, 2004.

M AN U

Spielmann, M., 2004. Ecoinvent Report Nº 1: Overview and Methodology. Swiss Centre for Life

Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., Olsson, P., 1994. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of food products and production systems. Trends Food. Sci. Tech. 5, 134-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/09242244(94)90118-X

Asman, W.A., Sutton, M.A., Schjørring, J.K., 1998. Ammonia: emission, atmospheric transport and

TE D

deposition. New Phytol. 139, 27-48.

Baumgartner, D.U., De Baan, L., Nemecek, T., 2008. European grain legumes–Environment-friendly animal feed. Life cycle assessment of pork, chicken meat, egg and milk production. Grain Legumes Integrated Project. Report, Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART,

EP

Zürich.

Baxevanou, C., Fidaros, D., Bartzanas, T., Kittas, C., 2017. Energy consumption and energy saving

AC C

measures in poultry. Energy Environ. Eng. 5, 29-36. https://doi.org/10.13189/eee.2017.050201 Bengtsson, J., Seddon, J., 2013. Cradle to retailer or quick service restaurant gate life cycle assessment

of

chicken

products

in

Australia.

J.

Clean.

Prod.

41,

291-300.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.034 Billen, P., Costa, J., Van der Aa, L., Van Caneghem, J., Vandecasteele, C., 2015. Electricity from poultry manure: a cleaner alternative to direct land application. J. Clean. Prod. 96, 467-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.016 Boggia, A.; Paolotti, L.; Castellini, C., 2010. Environmental impact evaluation of conventional, organic and organic-plus poultry production systems using life cycle assessment. World's Poultry Science Journal, v. 66, n. 1, p. 95-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933910000103

17

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Brasil. MCTI. Emissões de Metano por Fermentação Entérica e Manejo de Dejetos de Animais. Relatórios de Referência: Agricultura. 2º Inventário Brasileiro de Emissões e Remoções Antrópicas de Gases de Efeito Estufa. Brasília, DF: MCTI, 2010a. Brasil. MCTI. Emissões de Óxido Nitroso de Solos Agrícolas e de Manejo de Dejetos. Relatórios de Referência: Agricultura. 2º Inventário Brasileiro de Emissões e Remoções Antrópicas de Gases de

RI PT

Efeito Estufa. Brasília, DF: MCTI, 2010b. Brasil. MCTI. Estimativas anuais de emissões de gases de efeito estufa no Brasil. 2. ed. Brasília: Secretaria de Políticas e Programas de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento – SEPED, 2014.

Castellini, C., Berri, C., Le Bihan-Duval, E., Martino, G., 2008. Qualitative attributes and consumer

SC

perception of organic and free-range poultry meat. World's Poultry Science Journal, 64(4), 500512. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933908000172

Castellini, C., Boggia, A., Cortina, C., Dal Bosco, A., Paolotti, L., Novelli, E., Mugnai, C., 2012. A

M AN U

multicriteria approach for measuring the sustainability of different poultry production systems. J. Clean. Prod. 37, 192-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.006. Cemtec-MS - Centro de Monitoramento de Tempo, do Clima e dos Recursos Hídricos de Mato Grosso

do

Sul.

Banco

de

dados

meteorológicos.

Available

in:

http://www.cemtec.ms.gov.br/boletins-meteorologicos/. Accessed Jun 18, 2019.

TE D

Cesari, V., Zucali, M., Sandrucci, A., Tamburini, A., Bava, L., Toschi, I., 2017. Environmental impact assessment of an Italian vertically integrated broiler system through a Life Cycle approach. J. Clean. Prod. 143, 904-911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.030 CIAS - Central de Inteligência de Aves e Suínos. Embrapa Aves e Suínos: Estatísticas do Mundo, de

corte. Available

in: https://www.embrapa.br/suinos-e-

EP

Frangos

aves/cias/estatisticas/frangos/mundo. Accessed Jun 29, 2019.

AC C

Ciroth A., Fleischer G., Steinbach J., 2004. Uncertainty calculation in life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 9(4):216-226. Ciroth, A., Muller, S., Weidema, B., Lesage, P., 2016. Empirically based uncertainty factors for the pedigree

matrix

in

ecoinvent.

Int.

J.

Life

Cycle

Assess.

21,

1338–1348.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0670-5 Da Silva, V.P., van der Werf, H.M., Soares, S.R., Corson, M.S., 2014. Environmental impacts of French and Brazilian broiler chicken production scenarios: An LCA approach. J. Environ. Manage. 133, 222-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.011 Dalólio, F.S., da Silva, J.N., de Oliveira, A.C.C., Tinôco, I.D.F.F., Barbosa, R.C., de Oliveira Resende, M., Coelho, S.T., 2017. Poultry litter as biomass energy: A review and future perspectives. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 76, 941-949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.104

18

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Daniel, C.R., Cross, A.J., Koebnick, C., Sinha, R., 2011. Trends in meat consumption in the USA. Public Health Nutrition. 14, 575-583. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980010002077 De Alvarenga, R.A.F., da Silva Júnior, V.P., Soares, S.R. (2012). Comparison of the ecological footprint and a life cycle impact assessment method for a case study on Brazilian broiler feed production. J. Clean. Prod. 28, 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.06.023

review

of

life

cycle

assessments.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.11.007.

RI PT

De Vries, M., de Boer, I.J.M., 2010. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A Livest.

Sci.

128,

1-11.

Dong, H., Mangino, J., McAllister, T.A., Hatfield, J.L., Johnson, D.E., Lassey, K.R., Aparecida de

SC

Lima, M., Romanovskaya, A., Bartram, D., Gibb, D.J., Martin, J.H.J., 2006. Emissions from livestock and manure management. In: Eggleston, S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K. (Eds.), IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Institute for Global

M AN U

Environmental Strategies, Kanagawa, Japan.

Dunkley, C.S., Fairchild, B.D., Ritz, C.W., Kiepper, B.H., Lacy, M.P., 2015. Carbon footprint of poultry production farms in South Georgia: A case study. J Appl Poultry Res. 24, 73-79. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfu005

Edwards, D.R., Daniel, T.C. 1992. Environmental impacts of on-farm poultry waste disposal - A

TE D

review. Bioresource Technol. 41, 9-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-8524(92)90094-E Finkbeiner, M., Inaba, A., Tan, R., Christiansen, K., Klüppel, H.J., 2006. The new international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int. J. Life Cycle Assessment. 11, 80-85. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.02.002

EP

Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D., Suh, S., 2009. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manage.

AC C

91, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018 Frischknecht R., Jungbluth N., Althaus H.-J., Doka G., Heck T., Hellweg S., Hischier R., Nemecek T., Rebitzer G., Spielmann M., Wernet G., 2007. Overview and Methodology. Data v2.0, Ecoinvent report No. 1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, 2007. Garcia, R.G., Almeida Paz, I.C.L., Caldara, F.R., Nääs, I.A., Pereira, D.F., Ferreira, V.M.O.S., 2012. Selecting the most adequate bedding material for broiler production in Brazil. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 14, 121-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-635X2010000300005 Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. Tempio, G., 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.

19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Giannenas, I., Bonos, E., Anestis, V., Filioussis, G., Papanastasiou, D.K., Bartzanas, T., Papaioannou, N., Tzora, A., Skoufos, I., 2017. Effects of protease addition and replacement of soybean meal by corn gluten meal on the growth of broilers and on the environmental performances of a broiler production system in Greece. PloS one, 12(1), e0169511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169511

RI PT

González-García, S., Gomez-Fernández, Z., Dias, A.C., Feijoo, G., Moreira, M.T., Arroja, L., 2014. Life Cycle Assessment of broiler chicken production: a Portuguese case study. J. Clean. Prod. 74, 125-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.067

GreenDelta - OpenLCA software. Life Cycle Assessment studies. Version 1.6. Berlin, Germany:

SC

GreenDelta, 2017. Available in: http://www.openlca.org/. Accessed on Sept 30, 2018.

Guinée, J., 2001. Handbook on life cycle assessment - operational guide to the ISO standards. Int. J. Life Cycle. 6, 255-255.

M AN U

Guinée, J.B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., de Koning, A., van Oers, L., Wegener Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H., Bruijn, H., van Duin, R., Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2002. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment. Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2006. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

TE D

Change), IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IPCC Secretariat, Geneva. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007. Climate Change: The physical science basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen,

and New York.

EP

M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, H.L. Miller (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

AC C

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2013. Climate Change: the Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2014. Climate Change: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. part A: global and sectoral aspects. C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J., Mach, M.D., Mastrandrea, T.E., Bilir, M., Chatterjee, K.L., Ebi, Y.O., Estrada, R.C., Genova, B., Girma, E.S., Kissel, A.N., Levy, S., MacCracken, P.R., Mastrandrea, L.L. White (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA (2014), p. 1132.

20

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

IPCC Inventory Software: IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Version 2.54. Hayama, Japan: IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, 2017. Available in: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/software/index.html. Accessed Sept 30, 2017. ISO (International Standards Organization). 2006a International Standard ISO 14040: Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. Geneva.

RI PT

ISO (International Standards Organization). 2006b International standard ISO 14044: Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva.

Jaspers, F., van den Ende, J., 2006. The organizational form of vertical relationships: Dimensions of integration. Ind. Market. Manag. 35, 819-828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.06.016

SC

Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G., Rosenbaum, R., 2003. IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle. 8, 324. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978505

M AN U

Kalhor, T., Rajabipour, A., Akram, A., Sharifi, M., 2016. Environmental impact assessment of chicken meat production using life cycle assessment. Information Processing in Agriculture. 3, 262-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2016.10.002

Kebreab, E., Liedke, A., Caro, D., Deimling, S., Binder, M., Finkbeiner, M., 2016. Environmental impact of using specialty feed ingredients in swine and poultry production: a life cycle

TE D

assessment. Journal of Animal Science, 94(6), 2664-2681. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-9036 Kelleher, B.P., Leahy, J.J., Henihan, A.M., O'dwyer, T.F., Sutton, D., Leahy, M.J., 2002. Advances in poultry litter disposal technology – a review. Bioresource Technol. 83, 27-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00133-X

EP

Kic, P., 2016. Microclimatic conditions in the poultry houses. Agronomy Research. 14, 82-90. Leinonen, I., Kyriazakis, I., 2016. How can we improve the environmental sustainability of poultry

AC C

production?. P. Nutr. Soc. 75, 265-273. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000094 Leinonen, I., Williams, A.G., Wiseman, I.J., Guy, J., Kyriazakis, I., 2012. Predicting the environmental impacts of chicken systems in the United Kingdom through a life cycle assessment: broiler production systems. Poult. Sci. 91, 8-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.201101634

Lynch, D., Henihan, A.M., Bowen, B., Lynch, D., McDonnell, K., Kwapinski, W., Leahy, J.J., 2013. Utilisation of poultry litter as an energy feedstock. Biomass. Bioenerg. 49, 197-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.12.009 MacLeod, M., Gerber, P., Mottet, A., Tempio, G., Falcucci, A., Opio, C., Vellinga, T., Henderson, B., Steinfeld, H., 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken supply chains – A global life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.

21

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Martinez-Perez, M., Sarmiento-Franco, L., Santos-Ricalde, R.H., Sandoval-Castro, C.A., 2017. Poultry meat production in free-range systems: perspectives for tropical areas. World's Poultry Science Journal, 73(2), 309-320. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933917000034. Miele, M., 1999. Short circuits: new trends in the consumption of food and the changing status of meat. Int. Plan. Stud. 4, 373-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563479908721748

RI PT

Muller, S., Lesage, P., Ciroth, A., Mutel, C., Weidema, B. P., Samson, R., 2016. The application of the pedigree approach to the distributions foreseen in ecoinvent v3. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(9), 1327-1337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0759-5.

Nääs, I., Mollo Neto, M., Canuto, S., Waker, R., Oliveira, D., Vendrametto, O., 2015. Brazilian

SC

chicken meat production chain: a 10-year overview. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 17, 87-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1516-635x170187-94

Nardone, A., Ronchi, B., Lacetera, N., Ranieri, M.S., Bernabucci, U., 2010. Effects of climate

M AN U

changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems. Livest. Sci. 130, 57-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.011

Nijdam, D., Rood, T., Westhoek, H., 2012. The price of protein: Review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes. Food Policy, 37, 760-770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.08.002

18.

TE D

Nobre, C.A., 2010. Mudanças climáticas e o Brasil - Contextualização. Parcerias estratégicas. 13, 07-

Patricio, I.S., Mendes, A.A., Ramos, A.A., Pereira, D.F., 2012. Overview on the performance of Brazilian

broilers

(1990

to

2009).

Braz.

J.

Poult.

Sci.

14,

233-238.

EP

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-635X2012000400001 Pelletier, N., 2008. Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: Life cycle energy

AC C

use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions. Agr. Syst. 98, 6773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2008.03.007 Pishgar-Komleh, S.H., Akram, A., Keyhani, A., van Zelm, R., 2017. Life cycle energy use, costs, and greenhouse gas emission of broiler farms in different production systems in Iran - a case study

of

Alborz

province.

Environ.

Sci.

Pollut.

Res.

24,

16041-16049.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9255-3 Rojas-Downing, M.M., Nejadhashemi, A.P., Harrigan, T., Woznicki, S.A., 2017. Climate change and livestock: impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Clim. Risk. Manag. 16, 145-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.001

22

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Rostagno, H.S., Albino, L.F.T., Donzele, J.L., Gomes, P.C., De Oliveira, R.F., Lopes, D.C., Ferreira, A.S., Barreto, S.L.T., Euclides, R. 2011. Tabelas brasileiras para suínos e aves: composição de alimentos e exigências nutricionais (HS Rostagno, Ed.). 3 ed. UFV, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brasil. Rotz, C.A., 2004. Management to reduce nitrogen losses in animal production. J Anim. Sci. 82, 119137. https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.8213_supplE119x

cycle

assessment

(LCA)

on

some

food

products.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.06.016

RI PT

Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Shiina, T., 2009. A review of life J.

Food.

Eng.

90,

1-10.

Siefert, R.L. and Scudlark, J.R., 2008. Determination of ammonia emission rates from a tunnel

SC

ventilated chicken house using passive samplers and a Gaussian dispersion model. J. Atmos. Chem. 59, 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10874-007-9082-x

Skunca, D., Tomasevic, I., Djekic, I., 2015. Environmental performance of the poultry meat chain –

M AN U

LCA approach. Proc. Food. Sci. 5, 258-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profoo.2015.09.074 Skunca, D., Tomasevic, I., Nastasijevic, I., Tomovic, V., Djekic, I., 2018. Life cycle assessment of the

chicken

meat

chain.

Journal

of

Cleaner

Production,

184,

440-450.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.274

Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., de Haan, C. Livestock’s long

TE D

shadow: environmental issues and options. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2006.

Tallentire, C.W., Mackenzie, S.G., Kyriazakis, I., 2017. Environmental impact trade-offs in diet formulation for broiler production systems in the UK and USA. Agricultural Systems, 154, 145-

EP

156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.03.018

Toghyani, M., Gheisari, A., Modaresi, M., Tabeidian S.A., Toghyani, M., 2010. Effect of different

AC C

litter material on performance and behavior of broiler chickens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 122, 4852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.11.008 Tukker, A., Jansen, B., 2006. Environmental impacts of products: A detailed review of studies. J. Ind. Ecol. 10, 159-182. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1162/jiec.2006.10.3.159 Van der Werf, H.M.G., Kanyarushoki, C., Corson, M.S., 2009. An operational method for the evaluation of resource use and environmental impacts of dairy farms by life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 3643-3652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.003 Von Bobrutzki, K., Müller, H.J. Scherer, D., 2011. Factors affecting the ammonia content in the air surrounding

a

broiler

farm.

Biosyst.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2011.01.005

Eng.

108,

322-333.

23

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Weidema, B.P, Bauer, C., Hischier, R, Mutel, C., Nemecek, T., Reinhard, J., Vadenbo, C.O., Wernet, G., 2013. Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. Ecoinvent Report 1(v3). St. Gallen: The Ecoinvent Centre. Wiedemann, S.G., McGahan, E.J., Murphy, C.M., 2017. Resource use and environmental impacts from Australian chicken meat production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 675-684.

RI PT

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.086 Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., Weidema, B., 2016. The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(9), 1218-1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8

SC

Westhoek, H., Lesschen, J.P., Rood, T., Wagner, S., De Marco, A., Murphy-Bokern, D., Leip, A., Grinsven, H., Sutton, M.A., Oenema, O., 2014. Food choices, health and environment: effects of cutting Europe's meat and dairy intake. Global Environmental Change. 26, 196-205.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.004

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 1. Climate conditions from the study region Month

Temperature (°C)

Relative humidity (%)

Precipitation (mm)

Autumn

April

25

68

99

May

19

81

71

June

17

71

1

July

19

80

32

August

20

70

147

September 20

61

October

23

68

November

24

65

December

25

78

January

26

77

February

26

75

March

25

77

Winter

2017

2016

Spring

Summer

Autumn

51

282 98

246

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

Source: Cemtec-MS.

RI PT

Seasons

SC

Year

159

161 150

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2. Life cycle inventory data for broiler production farms (per 1 kg of live weight produced) Inputs

Unit

1 kg of live weight produced

Uncertainty (SDg95)

electricity

kWh

0.036

3.60 E-02

1.06

diesel

L

0.00019

1.90 E-04

1.06

water use

L

0.160

1.60 E-01

1.06

Maize

kg

1.273

1.27 E+03

1.06

Soybean meal

kg

0.460

4.60 E-01

1.06

Corn gluten meal

kg

0.086

8.60 E-02

1.06

Soybean oil

kg

0.019

1.90 E-02

1.06

Limestone

kg

0.014

1.40 E-02

1.06

Meat and bone meal

kg

0.011

1.10 E-02

1.06

Sodium bicarbonate

kg

0.009

9.00 E-03

1.06

L-Lysine HCL

kg

Premix vitamins

kg

DL-Methionine

kg

Sodium chloride

kg

Premix minerals

kg

Enzyme

kg

day-old chicks broiler feed

SC 5.00 E-03

1.06

0.004

4.00 E-03

1.06

0.003

3.00 E-03

1.06

0.002

2.00 E-03

1.06

0.002

2.00 E-03

1.06

0.0001

1.00 E-04

1.06

kg

0.052

5.20 E-02

1.06

kg

1.891

1.89 E+03

1.06

EP

Energy

0.005

TE D

System II - Broiler Production

M AN U

Ingredients

RI PT

System I - Feed production

electricity for the farm

kWh

0.055

5.50 E-02

1.06

diesel for the farm

L

0.00036

3.60 E-04

1.06

L

0.00022

2.20 E-04

1.06

water, cooling

L

0.25

2.50 E-01

1.06

water, drinking

L

3.4

3.40 E+00

1.06

Feed ration transport

tkm

0.0000013

1.30 E-06

2.0

transport day-old chicks

tkm

0.0000003

3.00 E-07

2.0

wood chips

kg

0.003

3.00 E-03

1.06

wood, firewood for heating

kg

0.0004

4.00 E-04

1.06

Water

Transport

AC C

gasoline for the farm

Wood

Pedigree matrix uncertainty - SDg95. Pedigree Matrix Uncertainty

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3. Main characteristics of the rearing system Unit

Annual Production

Average slaughter age

day

50

Production cycles

number/year

6

Density

bird / m2

13.6

Birds produced per farm

birds/farm/year

956,830

Birds produced per cycle

birds/cycle/year

Average live weight

kg/broiler

Feed consumption

kg/broiler

Feed conversion ratio

kg/kg

Average mortality rate

mortality (%)/cycle

3.8

Building area

m2/facility

2,400

RI PT

Production Data

191,366 2.841

5.346

SC

M AN U TE D EP AC C

1.89

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4. Direct and indirect emissions of N2O and CH4 from the poultry manure management per 1 kg of live weight produced. Unit

1 kg of live broiler produced

Uncertainty (SDg95)

Manure VS excretion

kg VS

0.176

1.76 E-01

1.06

Total N excretion, MMS

kg N

0.050

5.00 E-02

1.06

CH4 emission, MMS

kg CH4

0.00117

1.17 E-03

1.20

Direct N2O emissions, MMS

kg N2O

0.0001

1.00 E-04

1.40

Indirect N2O emissions, MMS

kg N2O

0.00032

3.20 E-04

1.40

Total N2O emissions

kg N2O

0.0004

4.00 E-04

1.40

Nvolatilization-MMS

kg N

0.002

NMMS_Avb

kg N

0.0016

CH4 emission, diesel

kg CH4

0.0000001

N2O emissions, diesel

kg N2O

CO2 emission, electricity

kg CO2

CO2 emission, diesel

kg CO2

CO2 emissions, total energy

kg CO2

SC

RI PT

Data

1.40

1.60 E-03

1.40

1.00 E-07

1.50

0.000000012

1.20 E-08

1.50

0.000094

9.40 E-05

1.06

0.0000106

1.06 E-05

1.06

0.000105

1.05 E-04

1.06

M AN U

2.00 E-03

TE D

MMS - Manure Management Systems. Nvolatilization-MMS - Amount of manure N that is lost due to the volatilization of

AC C

SDg95.

EP

NH3 and Nox. NMMS_Avb - Amount of managed manure nitrogen available for application. Pedigree matrix uncertainty -

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 5. The nomenclature used in impact categories and their respective units Measurement Units

Climate change - GWP100*

kg CO2-eq

Acidification

kg SO2-eq

Depletion of abiotic resources - elements, minerals reserves

kg antimony-eq

Depletion of abiotic resources - fossil fuels

MJ-eq

Eutrophication

kg PO4-eq

Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity

kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene-eq.

Human toxicity

kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene-eq.

Marine aquatic ecotoxicity

kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene-eq.

SC

RI PT

Impact Category

Ozone layer depletion

kg CFC-11-eq

kg ethylene-eq

M AN U

Photochemical oxidation Terrestrial ecotoxicity

kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene-eq m2 a

Land use - competition

*Global warming potential, considering 100 years. CO2-eq = carbon dioxide equivalent. SO2-eq = sulfur dioxide

AC C

EP

TE D

equivalent. PO4-eq = phosphate equivalent. CFC-11-eq = trichlorofluoromethane equivalent.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 6. Greenhouse gas emissions and contributions to global warming potential for the production of broilers from manure management Unit

1 kg of live weight*

1,000 kg of live weight*

GWP (%)

CH4

kg CO2-eq

0.029

29.0

18.9

N2O direct

kg CO2-eq

0.030

30.0

19.3

N2O indirect

kg CO2-eq

0.095

95.0

61.8

Total

kg CO2-eq

0.154

154.0

RI PT

Emissions - MMS

100.0

MMS: Manure Management Systems. GWP: Global Warming Potential. The 100-year-old GWP used are 25 for CH4

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

and 298 for N2O. (IPCC, 2007). *per 1 or 1,000 kg of live weight produced.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 7. Environmental impact of the productive process of broilers per 1 kg of live weight produced Broiler Production

1 kg of live weight

1 kg of live weight

produced

produced 1.95

Impact Category

Unit

Global Warming Potential

kg CO2-eq

0.75

Acidification

kg SO2-eq

0.020

kg ant.-eq

5.1 E-08

elements, reserves Depletion of abiotic resources fossil fuels

MJ

0.14

kg CFC-11-eq

Eutrophication

kg PO4-eq

Aquatic ecotoxicity of fresh water

kg 1,4-DCB-eq

Marine aquatic ecotoxicity

0.040

3.5 E-08

8.6 E-8

0.01

0.15

1.6 E-11

9.4 E-10

9.6 E-10

0.012

0.014

0.026

1.72

1.72

3.44

kg 1,4-DCB-eq

45.53

54.91

100.44

Terrestrial ecotoxicity

kg 1,4-DCB-eq

0.40

0.40

0.80

Human toxicity

kg 1,4-DCB-eq

0.54

0.54

1.08

Photochemical oxidation

kg ethylene-eq

6.65 E-04

6.74 E-04

1.34 E-03

1.40 E-03

1.50 E-03

2.90 E-03

TE D EP

m2a

AC C

Land use

M AN U

Depletion of the ozone layer

2.70

0.020

SC

Depletion of abiotic resources -

Total

RI PT

Feed Production

M AN U

Itaquiraí, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil.

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

Figure 1. Location of the study area in Itaquiraí city, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil.

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

Figure 1. System limits and flow diagram of the broiler production system.

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

Figure 3. Inputs and outputs scheme of the LCA using OpenLCA software.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Highlights The total GWP for the broiler production process was 2.70 kg CO2-eq/kg live weight

•

N2O emission from litter is the main contributor to GWP in broiler production

•

The lowest environmental impact in broiler production was from the feed processing

•

The highest environmental impact was from the broiler rearing.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

•