Page 13 - National Poultry Newspaper

Pathways to reduce carbon footprint in poultry farming
* from P12
ways, which included a timeline for implemen- tation leading to the de- livery of low carbon or carbon neutral eggs for free range and cage-free farms.
targeting setting around Scope 3 - LU and dLUC emissions.
Baseline results
dLUC emissions.
Scope 1 and 2 emissions
contribution of feed.
If FCR improved, fos- sil energy consumption and the carbon footprint of chicken meat were re-
time at some facilities, indicating that practice change will be required to reduce the carbon foot- print of eggs.
mental credentials and a very low carbon footprint in comparison to other animal proteins.
in any long-term sustain- ability planning.
Complementary tech- nologies or strategies were grouped into ‘modules’ to be implemented consecu- tively over a period from 2020 to 2035 – see Table 2.
Cage eggs had the low- est environmental impacts and free range the highest.
Scope 1 and 2 emis- sions were greatest for free range system eggs, in addition to higher energy use at each stage of pro- duction, emissions from manure were greatest in this housing system.
feed required per kg eggs produced – resulted in comparatively higher im- pacts across these indica- tors.
Reductions of 47-51 per- cent of emissions were observed in the model pathways.
Emission reduction op- portunities indicate on- farm emissions – Scope 1and2–canbereduced by up to 48 percent with adoption of a suite of tech- nologies and management practices and through the decarbonisation of the en- ergy grid.
The pathways also in- cluded the incremental, ongoing emissions re- duction, which has been and will continue to be brought about by the de- carbonisation of the elec- tricity grid.
Feed production was the greatest source of emis- sions impacts, ranging from 65-69 percent of greenhouse gas emissions or 77-81 percent when LU and dLUC impacts were included.
Though the per kilogram contribution of Scope 3 - LU and dLUC emissions were greatest in cage-free and free range production, these emissions represent- ed a greater proportion of the total in cage produc- tion, due to that system being the most efficient, which was reflected in the per kilogram contribu- tions from Scope 1 and 2 and other Scope 3 sources.
In this study, cage pro- duction – lowest FCR – had the lowest impacts and free range – highest FCR – the highest.
Through a reduction in on-farm Scope 1 and 2 emissions of 48 percent – largely energy driven – this came close to achiev- ing net zero emissions within the farm boundary – not including emissions from purchased inputs, Scope 3 emissions.
Similarly, even a mar- ginal substitution of im- ported soybean meal for alternative proteins would lead to significant emis- sion reductions.
An important distinction to make is between carbon neutral and net zero.
For all indicators except LU and dLUC, cereal grains were the most sig- nificant driver of impacts within feed production.
This is a significant find- ing, as the industry increas- ingly transitions from cage production to cage-free or free range in response to customer and consumer preferences and percep- tions for these systems.
By including strategies targeting reductions in emissions from feed pro- duction – Scope 3 - LU and dLUC – the total car- bon footprint of eggs was reduced by 47-51 percent.
Coupling on-farm emis- sion reduction with strate- gies targeting feed-related impacts – Scope 3 - LU and dLUC – the carbon footprint of eggs can be reduced by around 50 per- cent.
Though net zero produc- tion would likely increase cost of production – and these costs are difficult to absorb for low-margin in- dustries – this is a shared challenge across the ag- riculture sector and the economy more broadly.
Carbon neutral is typi- cally used to describe products and is based on the carbon footprint – Scopes1,2and3–ofthat product.
The significance of feed production to the carbon footprint of eggs is re- flected in the far smaller contributions from other stages of the supply chain – the layer farm repre- sented 14-16 percent, pul- let production excluding feed 5-7 percent, grading 4-5 percent and breeding, excluding feed was 1 per- cent of the total green- house gas emissions per kilogram of eggs, includ- ing LU and dLUC.
Insights into the con- tribution of Scope 1 and 2 emissions – emissions which arise within the farm boundary – were a major focus for the emis- sion reduction and net zero pathways.
The Australian egg in- dustry is comparatively low impact when com- pared with international egg production and with other animal proteins – emissions for shell and protein-corrected eggs when compared with other Australian produc- tion were substantially – five to six times – lower than for boneless protein- corrected beef and lamb, lower than boneless pro- tein-corrected pork and were similar to boneless protein-corrected chicken meat.
Though significant re- ductions, it was found that unless low carbon or car- bon neutral grain becomes available, substantial vol- umes of carbon offsets will be required to deliver carbon neutral eggs.
However, access to low emission or carbon neu- tral grain, or accepting the need for large volumes of offset credits, will be a re- quirement for the industry to achieve carbon neutral- ity for eggs.
Considering the egg industry has strong en- vironmental credentials, demonstrating proactive adoption of renewable en- ergy and a transition to meet consumer preferenc- es will make the industry well-positioned to initiate a dialogue with custom- ers and lenders around the potential for cost-sharing in the supply chain to de- liver net zero and carbon neutral egg production.
Carbon neutral therefore requires emissions from all sources to be reduced or offset.
A challenge for the in- dustry is that the most environmentally efficient production system, the cage, is generally being phased out in favour of production systems that tend to deliver slightly higher environmental im- pacts.
On the other hand, net zero is typically used to refer to a business and often only refers to Scope 1 and 2 emissions – mean- ing a business could be net zero if it reduced or offset its Scope 1 and 2 emis- sions only.
Figure 1 breaks down the carbon footprint of cage, cage-free and free range eggs by Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions, clearly dem- onstrating the major con- tribution of feed produc- tion to the carbon foot- print of eggs – as Scope 3andScope3–LUand
After feed production, fossil energy consumption was the next greatest con- tributor to emissions from egg production, account- ing for approximately 25 percent of emissions.
Interestingly, when com- pared with our 2010 study, there was no significant change in results over the decade.
While breakthrough technologies, particu- larly waste-to-energy technologies, are regu- larly pitched to producers as ‘silver bullet’ options, there are major barriers to adoption, including high costs, incompatibility with the high moisture, high nitrogen characteristics of layer manure and reliance on technology that is un- proven in the Australian egg industry. Conclusions
Trade-offs of this na- ture – such as between perceived animal welfare improvements and envi- ronmental efficiency or emission reduction and higher costs or burden- shifting to other environ- mental indicators – are important considerations
If you are interested in services in this area or fur- ther information, please contact Mary-Frances or Steve at Integrity Ag and Environment on 07 4615 4690.
According to the Sci- ence Based Targets Ini- tiative Net Zero Standard, targets must be set around Scope 3 emissions where these represent 40 percent or more of all emissions.
Reducing inclusion rates of high impact soymeal or improving feed conver- sion ratio are key to reduc- ing the carbon footprint of eggs.
While this study had a smaller sample size, it none-the-less suggested that performance has not changed substantially over
Dr Stephen Wiedemann, Mary-Frances Copley Integrity Ag and Envi- ronment, Toowoomba Queensland
The baseline results for Australian egg produc- tion – presented in Table 1 – demonstrate that envi- ronmental impacts differ between cage, cage-free and free range production.
represented 17-20 per- cent of the total, Scope 3 emissions 46 percent and Scope 3 - LU and dLUC emissions accounted for the remaining 34-37 per- cent.
duced.
A higher FCR – more
Emission reduction pathways
The majority of impacts arise from feed produc- tion, making this a key exposure area.
Though carbon footprint reduction is not simple and at this stage reach- ing net zero will require considerable investment, there are a number of eco- nomically viable strate- gies that are readily avail- able for implementation, such as solar.
The SBTI is currently developing guidelines for
FCR was the single greatest influence on the
Australian egg produc- tion has strong environ-
Fendona® Plus 60SC
Insecticide
Specifically developed for use within poultry sheds, for the control of litter beetles and a range of flying and crawling insects
High performance residual insecticide offering rapid knockdown
Low dose formulation provides the flexibility of a clean-out and maintenance application rate
For more information on Fendona Plus 60 SC,
visit crop-solutions.basf.com.au or contact your local CCD Representative on 1300 791 009
Distributed by
@basfpestcontrolau
ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW LABEL DIRECTIONS.
© Copyright BASF 2019 ® Registered trademark of BASF. W239831 12.2019
www.poultrynews.com.au
National Poultry Newspaper, August 2022 – Page 13