Energy efficiency (EE) and cost-effective means to increase EE and to mitigate the climate change of pork and broiler meat production in five European countries

Abstract

Production of pork and broiler meat in the European Union (EU) has increased by 7.8 and 16.1%, respectively, in the period of 2001 – 2011. At that time pork and broiler meat produced, amounted together to over four times the cattle meat. Meat is an important protein source in human diet, but on the other hand, livestock uses globally 30% of ice-free terrestrial land and produces 18% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This exceeds the global emissions of the transport sector. Furthermore, energy ratio (output/input) for meat production is less than 1.0 in general and it is much lower than that of plant production. This paper presents cost-effectiveness of EE measures in pork and broiler meat production and it is based on the results of the Agriculture and Energy Efficiency Project (www.AGREE.aua.gr). The structure of the energy input appeared to be very similar in pork and broiler meat production. Feed was found to be the major indirect energy input. Its contribution to the total energy demand varied from 51% to 82% in pork production and from 55% to 94% in broiler meat production. The percentage of feed was the lowest in the Northern European countries and the highest in the south. This difference was mainly attributable to the demand for heating of animal houses during the winter period. Differences could also be found in the absolute energy input of feed. It indicated that there may be possibilities to improve feeding strategies or feed conversation rate of animals. In pork production, the energy input of feed was 12.5 GJ t-1 (live weight) in average and 8.6 GJ t-1 (live weight) in broiler production. The difference between pork and broiler meat is a consequence of the higher feed conversation rate of broilers in contrast to pigs. The category “Other energy use” was the second highest energy input and it consisted of energy input for ventilation, illumination, feeding, and heating of animal houses. In pork production, the input of this category was 4.7 GJ t-1 (live weight) in average (25% from the total energy input) and 2.4 GJ t-1 (live weight) in broiler meat production (22% from the total energy input). The specific energy input in pork production was the lowest in The Netherlands ( 14.5 GJ t-1) and that of broiler meat production in Germany (9.8 GJ t-1). Case studies analysed in five participating countries demonstrated EE measures capable to reduce costs, to increase EE, and to cut GHG emissions at the same time. Proposed EE measures were related to ventilation, heating, feeding, animal bedding, energy generation from manure, and feed production. As an example, an airtight grain storage met all three goals at the same time. Investment costs were lower than those for a grain dryer, no energy was needed for drying, and no GHG emissions were generated because no gas or oil was needed for drying. All suggested EE measures were not as successful. They might appear negative for costs but positive for EE and GHG reduction, resulting in a trade-off situation. An approach like this helps to rank potential EE measures in terms of their cost-effectiveness and capability to cut GHG emissions.