Evaluation of the environmental impacts of two pathways for utilizing chicken meat production waste in Guilan Province

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Agricultural Machinery Engineering, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran,, Iran

2 Department of Agricultural Machinery Engineering, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

3 Department of Agricultural Machinery Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

4 Department of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tehran University

Abstract

A chicken meat processing systems are a primary source of valuable materials because of the considerable amount of waste they generate. Among the most effective methods for managing and converting waste into higher-value materials is the adoption of a circular bioeconomy strategy within biorefineries. this study examines two biorefineries that utilize chicken waste. In the initial pathway, chicken meat and sound insulation from chicken feathers are manufactured while the second pathway also involves the production of chicken meat, sound insulation, as well as biodiesel and glycerol from chicken fat waste. In this research, Simapro software and ReCiPe method were used to evaluate the life cycle assessment. The findings from this research indicated that the second pathway offers superior environmental performance when compared to the first pathway. Based on the findings, the second pathway presents a decrease of 21.92% in the overall environmental impact caused by producing chicken meat when compared to the first pathway. Following the first pathway, the production of one ton of chicken meat can leads to damages of 6.83E-03 DALY to human health, 6.81E-05 species.yr to ecosystems, and $101 to resources. Following the second pathway, production leads to a reduction of 23.26% in human health damage, 24.48% in ecosystem damage, and 17.76% in resource depletion. As such, moving toward production along the second pathway, i.e. diverse materials production, represents a promising strategy for managing the existing waste and reducing the environmental damage caused by chicken meat production.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Evaluation of the environmental impacts of two pathways for utilizing chicken meat production waste in Guilan Province

EXTENDED ABSTRACT

Introduction

Chicken meat not only can address the essential amino acids and protein requirements of humans but also as a cost-effective dietary choice. However, the rapid growth of the chicken industry due to its reasonable price and good quality has given rise to serious challenges pertaining to environmental sustainability and escalated energy consumption. In response to this challenge, the concept of circular bioeconomy that can be implemented by biorefineries is taken into consideration, aiming to transform chicken waste into added-value products, thereby mitigating the environmental impact. This study assesses the environmental impacts of chicken meat production based on this approach under two various pathways by life cycle assessment.

                                                                     

Material and methods

Primary data is sourced from a prominent collection representing one the Iran's most extensive chicken production and distribution networks in the Guilan province during 2022-2023. To implement a circular bioeconomy approach for chicken meat production two various pathways are proposed. Pathway 1 encompasses all processes within chicken farms and slaughterhouses. Additionally, chicken feathers obtained during the slaughterhouse stage were employed for sound insulation generation in this biorefinery. In contrast, Pathway 2 focuses on chicken meat and sound insulation production, as well as utilizing chicken fat waste from the slaughtering phase to produce biodiesel through esterification and transesterification processes. A life cycle assessment tool is used to assess the environmental impacts of chicken meat production under the mentioned pathways. The system boundaries are limited to meat production in farms and slaughterhouses along with the waste valorization phase and one ton of chicken meat as the functional unit is considered. The life cycle inventory is collected directly (face-to-face interview) and indirectly from the literature and EcoInvent database. The life cycle impact assessment is done by the ReCiPe method among available options due to its capacity to identify environmental impact at both midpoint and endpoint levels by the employment of SimaPro software. The study also weighted the environmental impacts to obtain a single score that helps to a better comparison and a more correct decision.

 

Results and discussion

Pathway 1 results in higher carbon emissions and ozone layer depletion due to electricity usage, while pathway 2, focusing on diverse bioproducts, reduces these impacts significantly. It also decreases other impact categories such as acidification, eutrophication, and land occupation. The findings highlight Pathway 2 is a practical and sustainable approach to improve the midpoint impact categories while promoting system efficiency and managing waste effectively. From the point of view of endpoint level, Pathway 1 leads to damages of 6.83E-03 DALY to human health, 6.81E-05 species.yr to ecosystems, and $101 to resources. Pathway 2 reduces damages by 23.26% in human health damage, 24.48% in ecosystem damage, and 17.76% in resource depletion. Weighting assigns more importance to categories with greater environmental impact. Under Pathway 1, each ton of chicken meat production results in 321.49 Pt, with human health damage contributing the most (200.23 Pt). Pathway 2, producing biodiesel, glycerol, and sound insulation, reduces overall impacts by 21.92%, showing improvements in human health (23.26%), ecosystem quality (24.48%), and resource depletion (17.76%). A sensitivity analysis is also done to identify effective factors in each damage category in both pathways. The results indicate that direct emissions, natural gas, and electricity play a key role in human health and ecosystem damage categories. For the resources damage category, optimal fossil fuel consumption significantly reduces impacts.

Conclusion

The study highlights that chicken meat production and its waste valorization under Pathway 2 leads to a decrease of 23.26% in human health, 24.48% in ecosystems, and 17.76% in resources compared to Pathway 1. Accordingly, variation in production for systems based on a circular bioeconomy approach can be proposed. Since chicken farms are trying to obtain more sustainability, this finding helps them to improve efficiency and decrease damages waste as well as produce a greener production for the future.

References

Ayala, M., Thomsen, M., & Pizzol, M. (2023). Life Cycle Assessment of pilot scale production of seaweed-based bioplastic. Algal Research, 71, 103036.
Baaqel, H. A., Bernardi, A., Hallett, J. P., Guillén-Gosálbez, G., & Chachuat, B. (2023). Global Sensitivity Analysis in Life-Cycle Assessment of Early-Stage Technology using Detailed Process Simulation: Application to Dialkylimidazolium Ionic Liquid Production. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 11(18), 7157–7169.
Barua, P., Chowdhury, T., Chowdhury, H., Islam, R., & Hossain, N. (2020). Potential of power generation from chicken waste-based biodiesel, economic and environmental analysis: Bangladesh’s perspective. SN Applied Sciences, 2, 1–9.
Brilhuis-Meijer, E. (2020). Weighting: Applying a value judgement to LCA result.
Campos, I., Valente, L. M. P., Matos, E., Marques, P., & Freire, F. (2020). Life-cycle assessment of animal feed ingredients: Poultry fat, poultry by-product meal and hydrolyzed feather meal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, 119845.
Casadesús, M., Álvarez, M. D., Garrido, N., Molins, G., Macanás, J., Colom, X., Cañavate, J., & Carrillo, F. (2019). Environmental impact assessment of sound absorbing nonwovens based on chicken feathers waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 149, 489–499.
Chan, I., Franks, B., & Hayek, M. N. (2022). The ‘sustainability gap’of US broiler chicken production: trade-offs between welfare, land use and consumption. Royal Society Open Science, 9(6), 210478.
Cherubini, F., & Ulgiati, S. (2010). Crop residues as raw materials for biorefinery systems–A LCA case study. Applied Energy, 87(1), 47–57.
Dos Santos, R. A., da Costa, J. S., Maranduba, H. L., de Almeida Neto, J. A., & Rodrigues, L. B. (2023). Reducing the environmental impacts of Brazilian chicken meat production using different waste recovery strategies. Journal of Environmental Management, 341, 118021.
Ferdous, J., Bensebaa, F., & Pelletier, N. (2023). Integration of LCA, TEA, Process Simulation and Optimization: A systematic review of current practices and scope to propose a framework for pulse processing pathways. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136804.
Fiori, L., Volpe, M., Lucian, M., Anesi, A., Manfrini, M., & Guella, G. (2017). From fish waste to omega-3 concentrates in a biorefinery concept. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 8, 2609–2620.
Ghosh, S., Gillis, A., Sheviryov, J., Levkov, K., & Golberg, A. (2019). Towards waste meat biorefinery: Extraction of proteins from waste chicken meat with non-thermal pulsed electric fields and mechanical pressing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208, 220–231.
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. Journal of Cleaner Production, 74, 125–134.
Govindaraju, R., Chen, S.-S., Wang, L.-P., Chang, H.-M., & Pasawan, M. (2021). Significance of membrane applications for high-quality biodiesel and byproduct (glycerol) in biofuel industries. Current Pollution Reports, 7, 128–145.
Halkos, G., & Gkampoura, E.-C. (2023). Assessing Fossil Fuels and Renewables’ Impact on Energy Poverty Conditions in Europe. Energies, 16(1), 560.
He, W., Li, P., & Wu, G. (2021). Amino acid nutrition and metabolism in chickens. Amino Acids in Nutrition and Health: Amino Acids in the Nutrition of Companion, Zoo and Farm Animals, 109–131.
Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., Nizami, A.-S., Kalogirou, S. A., Gupta, V. K., Park, Y.-K., Fallahi, A., Sulaiman, A., Ranjbari, M., Rahnama, H., & Aghbashlo, M. (2022). Environmental life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from waste cooking oil: A systematic review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 161, 112411.
Jørgensen, A., Bikker, P., & Herrmann, I. T. (2012). Assessing the greenhouse gas emissions from poultry fat biodiesel. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24, 85–91.
Loo, C. P. Y., & Sarbon, N. M. (2020). Chicken skin gelatin films with tapioca starch. Food Bioscience, 35, 100589.
Ghaderpour, O., Gerami, K., & Dehghan, E. (2020). Life Cycle Assessment and Energy Consumption Optimization in Rainfed Chickpea West Azarbayjan Province. Iranian Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 51(3), 611-628. (In Persian).
Papadaskalopoulou, C., Sotiropoulos, A., Novacovic, J., Barabouti, E., Mai, S., Malamis, D., Kekos, D., & Loizidou, M. (2019). Comparative life cycle assessment of a waste to ethanol biorefinery system versus conventional waste management methods. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 149, 130–139.
Sangkharak, K., Mhaisawat, S., Rakkan, T., Paichid, N., & Yunu, T. (2020). Utilization of mixed chicken waste for biodiesel production using single and combination of immobilized lipase as a catalyst. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 1–14.
Schwede, S., Thorin, E., Lindmark, J., Klintenberg, P., Jääskeläinen, A., Suhonen, A., Laatikainen, R., & Hakalehto, E. (2017). Using slaughterhouse waste in a biochemical-based biorefinery–results from pilot scale tests. Environmental Technology, 38(10), 1275–1284.
Sepahvand, M., Mobli, H., Sharifi, M., & Khanali, M. (2019). Modeling of Energy Consumption Trend and Economic-Environmental Indexes Assessment of Broiler Production (Case Study: Khorramabad County). Iranian Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 50(2), 267-279. (In Persian).
Sharifi, M., Akram, A., & Moloudi, H. (2020). Assessing the Life Cycle of Apple Production in View of Energy and Environmental Pollutants (Case Study: Urmia and Mahabad Cities). Iranian Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 51(3), 563-569. (In Persian).
Sharifi, M., Soodmand-Moghaddam, S., & Akram, A. (2021). Investigating the Energy Consumption and Environmental Pollutants of Pumpkin Production (Case Study: Boroujerd County). Iranian Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 52(1), 27-36. (In Persian).
Shafiq, F., Mumtaz, M. W., Mukhtar, H., Touqeer, T., Raza, S. A., Rashid, U., Nehdi, I. A., & Choong, T. S. Y. (2020). Response surface methodology approach for optimized biodiesel production from waste chicken fat oil. Catalysts, 10(6), 633.
Silalertruksa, T., Pongpat, P., & Gheewala, S. H. (2017). Life cycle assessment for enhancing environmental sustainability of sugarcane biorefinery in Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 906–913.
Tam, V. W. Y., Zhou, Y., Illankoon, C., & Le, K. N. (2022). A critical review on BIM and LCA integration using the ISO 14040 framework. Building and Environment, 213, 108865.
Tan, E. C. D., & Lamers, P. (2021). Circular bioeconomy concepts—A perspective. Frontiers in Sustainability, 2, 701509.
Wahyono, N. D., & Utami, M. M. D. (2018). A review of the poultry meat production industry for food safety in Indonesia. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 953(1), 12125.
Ziegler, F., Hornborg, S., Green, B. S., Eigaard, O. R., Farmery, A. K., Hammar, L., Hartmann, K., Molander, S., Parker, R. W. R., & Skontorp Hognes, E. (2016). Expanding the concept of sustainable seafood using Life Cycle Assessment. Fish and Fisheries, 17(4), 1073–1093.
Iranian Journal of Biosystems Engineering
Volume 54, Issue 2
November 2023
Pages 15-31

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 29 August 2023
  • Revise Date: 05 November 2023
  • Accept Date: 18 November 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics