The Egg’s Global FootprintSearching for True Sustainability in Global Egg Production

By Dr. Giovanni Gasperoni with Erik DahlPublished April, 2011

Around the world, there has been a movement towards organic, local and traditional foods. You might expect that the shoppers at Whole Foods, filling their baskets with organically produced food, are our brightest hope for achieving a sustainable planet. While it may seem comforting to believe that organically produced food can help mitigate environmental damage and help shift the world towards a more sustainable food system, that belief is not correct when it comes to eggs. Studies around the world have found that organic and free-range eggs have a larger carbon footprint than eggs produced in a cage system, due primarily to lower productivity and higher feed consumption.

How to make all agriculture more sustainable is the most important question for farmers and consumers, not the more limited issue of whether organic food is better or worse for the environment.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

Making egg production more sustainable should start with feed and the feed conversion rate. Feed accounts for 76 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and 92 percent of the ecological footprint associated with the poultry industry. Much of this environmental impact is due to the use of chemical fertilizer, which is notably absent from the production of organic poultry feed. However, even though organic layers eat feed that is much less energy-intensive, they consume more feed overall and produce fewer eggs than their non-organic counterparts. How do we weigh the pros and cons of organic feed production (more environmentally friendly feed, but also a larger quantity required) against industrial production (less environmentally friendly feed, but a lower quantity required)?

Life Cycle Assessment

Scientists have come up with a solution called Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). LCA is the most holistic method of evaluating the environmental cost of a product or industry over a period of anywhere from 50 years to 500 years. This approach is effective because it looks beyond the direct environmental impact of an activity, and takes into account damage caused by interrelated supporting activities.

True long-term sustainability, in the words of World Wildlife Fund expert Jason Clay, means looking beyond “organic” marketing claims and

“figuring out how to produce more with less land, less water and less pollution, so we won’t be the only species left living on this planet.”

1

2

Applying Life Cycle Assessment to Agriculture

For agriculture, an LCA takes into account resource use, like land or fossil fuels; emission of pollutants, such as ammonia or methane; and the resource use of supporting activity, like transportation and farm equipment.

For poultry, lower bird performance overrides the benefits of organic feed (Williams, Audsley and Sandars, 2006). Shifting U.S. egg production to organic methods would increase the industry’s carbon footprint by 33.3 percent (a carbon footprint equivalent to putting 1.4 million additional cars on the road for one year), while energy use would rise by 15 percent (equivalent to 1.9 million barrels of oil per year).

As the world population continues to grow and as diets in the emerging world increasingly resemble those in the developed world, identifying environmentally friendly livestock products and adopting sustainable production methods take on truly global implications. What might have been sustainable for a world with 6 billion people probably would not be sustainable for a world population of more than 9 billion. To get the world back on a more sustainable footing will require greater intensification of agriculture through more efficient production systems.

Over the last 40 years, huge gains were made in addressing global food shortages and malnutrition. From 1970 to 2000, global daily caloric intake per capita increased from 2,400 to 2,790 calories, and is projected to rise to 3,150 calories by 2050 (FAO, 2006). Rising incomes and changing consumer preferences over the next four decades will require livestock production to double.

The challenge will be to expand egg production, while freezing the industry’s overall footprint and protecting the planet’s biodiversity and ecosystems. Agricultural intensification offers a pathway for conserving biological diversity, and reducing the industry’s environmental footprint.

Consider your car, for example.A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) does much more than just measure tailpipe emissions.

It also estimates how much pollution was generated in order to:

Manufacture the steel that went into your car

Drill for oil, refine it into gasoline and ship it to your town

Produce the tires on your car

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

1

By 2050, meat production in emerging countries is expected to more than double to nearly 350 million tons, while meat production in developed countries will rise by 50 percent to around 150 million tons (Steinfeld, p. 15).

The challenge of identifying and adopting environmentally friendly livestock production methods takes on increased urgency in light of the global implications of continued world population growth and the convergence of diets in the emerging world with those of the developed world. Mounting concern regarding human-caused climate change and growing consumer awareness of the industry’s environmental footprint have created demand for more environmentally friendly livestock products. It is important that both consumers and producers are aware of the actual impact of different production methods.

The LCA is the first step in measuring the environmental impact of livestock. It inventories all materials, energy inputs and emissions associated with each stage of a product life cycle, and then measures the total environmental cost of that product over an appropriately defined period of time. Several LCA studies on livestock products have identified feed as the largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the poultry supply chain.

F E E D : T H E L E A D I N G S O U R C E O F G R E E N H O U S E G A S S E S

Poultry Feed Hatchery Chicks

In-barn Energy Use

Litter Management

Energy use 80% 2% 18% <1%

GHG Em. (kg CO2 equivalent) 76% <1% 12% 12%

Ecological footprint (m2) 92% 1% 3% 4%

Feed accounts for 80 percent of energy use, 76 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and 92 percent of the ecological footprint of the broiler supply chain in the U.S., from cradle to farm gate. 1

1 Source: Pelletier, 2008.3

Fertilizer production is the largest single contributor to energy use in feed crop production (Pelletier, 2008). It accounts for about one-third of the fossil fuels used to produce feed (Steinfeld, p. 86 and p. 88). Organic feed does not use chemical fertilizers or pesticides, and organic animal products generally require less energy than their non-organic counterparts. However, eggs and poultry are exceptions to this rule, due to the non-organic sector’s overall efficiency and high feed conversion rate. A cage system produces 23.6 percent more eggs per kilogram (kg) of feed, thanks to a combination of lower feed input and higher egg output. Consequently, organic egg production uses 15 percent more energy and has a carbon footprint 33 percent larger than caged production. Simply put, the higher bird performance of non-organic production overrides the lower energy needs of organic feed (Williams, Audsley and Sandars, 2006).

4

Impacts and Resources Used Non-organic Organic 100% Cage, Non-organic

100% Free-range, Non-organic

Primary energy used (MJ) 14,100 16,100 13,600 15,400

GWP100 (kg 100 year CO2 equivalent) 5,530 7,000 5,250 6,180

Comparison burdens of production in some alternative egg production systems (per 20,000 eggs) 2

Free-range Layers

Organic Free-range Layers Barn Eggs Housed Layers

Eggs (number per layer) 289 262 288 295

Layer feed (kg) 49.3 49.3 47.8 44.9

Mortality 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.05

Manure deposited indoors (kg head-1 year-1) 44.4 44.4 50.5 50.5

Methane (kg/head) 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03

Ammonia (kg/head) 0.22 0.22 0.25 0.2

Nitrous oxide (g/head) 15.1 15.1 15.1 10.8

Egg production data used in the LCA model 2

2 Source: Williams, Audsley and Sandars, 2006.

F E E D : T H E L E A D I N G S O U R C E O F G R E E N H O U S E G A S S E S

3

If the U.S. egg industry were to become 100 percent organic, how would that affect the environment and alter the industry’s carbon footprint?

Q U A N T I F Y I N G T H E C O S T O F O R G A N I C P R O D U C T I O N

5

Shifting from 100 percent cage/non-organic layer production to organic production would require the U.S. egg industry to increase its layer flock by 13 percent and increase feed consumption by 24 percent4. This shift would:

The United States produced about

5.3 million metric tons of eggs in 20073.

Increase the industry’s Global Warming Potential (GWP) by 33.3 percent, or 7.9 million tons of CO2.

This increase would be equivalent to putting 1.4 million more cars on the road.

Increase energy consumption by an additional 11.3 billion megajoules (MJ). A barrel of oil contains about 6,000 MJ of energy.

This increase would be equivalent to depleting an additional 1.9 million barrels of oil.

3 According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.4 Based on estimates from Williams et al.

5

How to make all agriculture more sustainable is therefore the most important question for farmers and consumers, not the more limited question of whether organic food is better or worse for the environment. Industrialization and intensification of egg production results in more eggs and requires less feed, less energy and fewer resources than organic methods. Even though housed layers have a smaller carbon footprint than organic layers, there is still room for improvement. Feed is the largest source of greenhouse gasses, and organic feeds have lower energy needs than non-organic feeds. Using less energy-intensive feed could be a “best practice” for the industry to consider.

A M O R E S U S TA I N A B L E E G G I N D U S T R Y

Impact in the Emerging World

The true implications of industrialization and intensification will be felt in the emerging world, which already accounts for about 70 percent of world egg production5. By utilizing existing best practices, emerging countries could boost bird productivity by about 70 percent. Bringing the emerging world up to the developed world’s productivity levels would boost world egg production by 48 percent without adding a single bird.

Over the next 40 years, rising incomes and changing consumer preferences will cause livestock products to increase from 17 percent of food energy to 30 percent, requiring that meat production double from 2001 levels. GHG emissions per unit of production would need to be cut in half for the industry to simply maintain its current level of GWP (Pelletier, 2008). Although there is still much work to be done, intensified production shows how the world can produce more eggs with less land, less feed and less energy than any other production technology. Intensified production may not be organic, but it is sustainable—which is the wiser, long-term choice for the planet.

6

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0Developed Countries

Egg Production Per Layer(in kilograms of hen eggs)

Emerging Countries

World Average

5 Australia, Europe, Japan, New Zealand and North America combined account for 29.8% of world hen egg production by weight and 27.0% by number of eggs with only 20% of layers, according to FAOSTAT.

100,000,000

90,000,000

80,000,000

70,000,000

60,000,000

50,000,000

40,000,000

30,000,000

20,000,000

10,000,000

0Now Potential

Developed Developed

Emerging Emerging

World Egg Production(in metric tons)

Per Capita Egg Production(in kilograms of hen eggs)

China

Brazil

World Average

Nigeria

Emerging Countries

Africa

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

NowPotential

Dr. Giovanni GasperoniExecutive Vice President, Marketing and Sales, Novus International, Inc.

Dr. Giovanni Gasperoni is Executive Vice President, Marketing and Sales for Novus International, Inc., a global health and nutrition company with annual sales of nearly $1 billion. Novus, headquartered in metropolitan St. Louis, Missouri, is a privately held company, jointly owned by Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc. and Nippon Soda Co., Ltd.

In the past ten years, Dr. Gasperoni has played a key role in extending the Novus product portfolio into new areas—including strategic nutrition, gut health and feed quality—and expanding the Novus product line from three core products in the poultry market to more than 100 products in different markets, including beef, dairy, pork and aquaculture.

A native of Italy, Dr. Gasperoni graduated cum laude from the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Bologna. He began his career as a marketing consultant for Monsanto Europe. In that capacity, he conducted an analysis of the methionine market in Italy, which led to a full-time position with Monsanto as Manager, Counter Trade. As a manager for Monsanto, he coordinated a project that led to the commercialization of a new Defluorinated Phosphate (DFP) feed-grade phosphate in the former Soviet Union.

Dr. Gasperoni joined Novus in 1994 as Director, Worldwide Technical Organization, relocating to the company’s global headquarters in St. Louis. He was named Director, Antioxidants Business in 2000, responsible for the global marketing and sales of all antioxidant products. Under his leadership, the Antioxidants Business developed and secured new partnerships with suppliers in Korea and China, and developed a new product line of natural antioxidants for use in animal feed.

Dr. Gasperoni became the head of Marketing and Sales for Novus in 2001, leading the effort to build a direct sales organization in Asia. He was appointed Vice President, Marketing and Sales in 2002. Five years later, he formally assumed the position of Executive Vice President, Marketing and Sales.

Dr. Gasperoni is fluent in five languages: English, Italian, Spanish, French and Portuguese. He frequently speaks at conferences and events around the world on a variety of topics related to future trends in animal agriculture.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

de Vries, M., & de Boer, I. (2009). Comparing Environmental Impacts for Livestock Products: A Review of Life Cycle Assessments. Livestock Science.

FAO. (2006). World Agriculture Towards 2030-2050. Prospects for Food, Nutrition, Agriculture and Major Commodity Groups. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Katajajuuri, J. (2008). Experiences and Improvement Possibilities—LCA Case Study of Broiler Chicken Production. Zurich.

Matson, P. Vitousek, P. (2006). Agricultural Intensification: Will land spared from farming be land spared for nature? Conservation Biology Volume 20, No. 3, 709-710.

Pelletier, N., (2008). Environmental Performance in the U.S. Broiler Poultry Sector: Life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions. Agricultural Systems 98, 67–73.

Pimentel D., Williamson S., Alexander C., Gonzalez-Pagan O., Kontak C. and Mulkey S. (2008). Reducing Energy Inputs in the U.S. Food System. Human Ecology 36: 459-471.

Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wasssenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M. and de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Williams, A.G., Audsley, E. and Sandars, D.L. (2006). Determining the Environmental Burdens and Resource Use in the Production of Agricultural and Horticultural Commodities. Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0205. Bedford: Cranfield University and Defra. Available on: www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk and www.defra.gov.uk

C O N V E R S I O N S A N D S O U R C E S

Hectares to Square Miles: One hectare = 0.0038610216 square miles

Energy:• One barrel of oil = six gigajoules or 6,000 megajoules

(Source: Bioenergy Feedstock Development Programs at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory; http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html)

• Car emissions: One U.S. automobile emits 12,000 pounds of CO2 per year (Source: Environmental Defense Fund; http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?ContentID=6083)

C O N TA C T U S

If you have comments on this white paper or would like further information about sustainability in global egg production, please contact the Novus Sustainability team by sending an email to tricia.beal@novusint.com or send a request in writing to the address on the right.

Novus International, Inc.Attn: Tricia Beal20 Research Park DriveSt. Charles, MO 63304United States of America