energy and economics of intensive animal production

Agro-Ecosystems, 8 (1983) 169-181 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

169

ENERGY AND ECONOMICS OF INTENSIVE ANIMAL PRODUCTION

C.R.W. SPEDDING, A.M.M. THOMPSON and M.R. JONES Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, University of Reading, Early Gate, Reading RG6 2AT (Gt. Britain)

(Accepted 16 February 1982)

ABSTRACT

Spedding, C.R.W., Thompson, A.M.M. and Jones, M.R., 1983. Energy and economics of intensive animal production. Agro-Ecosystems, 8: 169-181.

An examination of support energy use within the major systems of animal production shows that substantial outputs occur as heat and excreta and, if these could be utilised, overall energetic efficiencies could be greatly changed.

The main justification for energy accounting as more relevant than financial accounting in the longer term rests on the probability that the price of energy will rise more than the price of other resources.

Whilst there are substantial differences between the support energy costs of production for different products, the differences between intensive and extensive systems producing the same product are not enormous. The more intensive systems tend to use more support energy, but also produce more product per unit of other resources, and their support energy costs tend to represent a higher proportion of total costs.

INTRODUCTION

So much confusion is associated with the term “intensive” that it is essen- tial to be clear about the meaning attached to it in this paper.

Intensive animal moduction

Even when there is little disagreement about the production systems in- cluded in this term, it is nonetheless important to specify exactly what aspect of intensity is involved or characteristic.

In ordinary language, intensity means a whole range of things, including meanings that are opposite to one another.

Thus, intensive care (in medicine) means a lot of care per person; labour- intensive often means as little labour as possible - i.e. a lot of output per unit of labour - but, sometimes, means using a lot of labour. In the latter sense it parallels capital-intensive (i.e. using a lot of capital).

Intensive use of space implies that very little is used (per animal or per

0304-3746/83/0000-0000/$03.00 o 1983 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company

170

unit of product), intensive stocking means a lot of stock per unit of space (field, house or cage) and extensive means a lot of space per animal.

So, capital-intensive could involve a lot of space or few people per animal, but could also involve very little space. Intensive thought about poultry cage design may result in better cages, intensive use of antibiotics could mean less disease, and intensive use of fertiliser could mean no plant nutritional defi- ciencies. Intensity is also a relative term: the meaning of an increase or a decrease depends upon the starting point.

Increased stocking is good if the starting point is understocking and bad if it is overstocking.

Clearly, intensity is neither good nor bad and a given system can be intensive about some things and less so about others. It is therefore necessary to state what kind of intensity is involved and, in agriculture, it usually relates to the intensive use of one or more resources.

In animal production, the resource most commonly referred to is space (indoors or outdoors) but intensity also usually implies a high rate of production per unit of time, very often involving a high rate of performance per animal. In many cases intensity is allied to large scale: few people would describe two hens as an intensive production unit, however small a space they occupied, partly because the total output per unit of time would not be high.

The main intensive animal production systems are therefore: (1) intensively-fed dairy cows; (2) intensively-fed beef cattle; (3) housed breeding sows; (4) housed fattening pigs; (5) battery egg production; (6) broiler production.

Suckler cows are rarely kept intensively and sheep are generally grazed for most of the year, although often at quite high stocking rates per ha. However, intensive grazing never involves the same kind of space restriction as intensive housing and usually does not involve such high rates of performance per animal. Only the systems listed above will therefore be considered further here.

ENERGY USE IN ANIMAL PRODUCTION

Table I gives the amount of support energy (i.e. energy in addition to solar radiation) used to produce 1 kg of product for each of the main systems: these figures are in the same range as those of less intensive systems (Table II).*

Table III shows where the energy is mainly used within the major systems of animal production and Figs. 1-7 illustrate where energy flows to as a result of these production processes.

Since none of the energy used in enclosed systems necessarily has to be lost to the atmosphere, some economies are possible in terms of heat inputs. However, most of the energy inputs are inevitable, unless the energy cost of inputs, such as feed, can be reduced. There may be ways of using the sub-

*In all tables the energy requirements are based on Leach (197 6).

171

TABLE I

Support energy per kilogram of primary animal product - intensive systems

System Support energy (MJ/kg)

Dairying Cereal Beef Breeding sows Fattening pigs Broilers Battery eggs

9.12a 43.1b 51.72’ 32.42d 31.5ge 49.50f

MMB (1979) MLC (1978) Ridgeon (1980) NFU (1981a)

Leach (1976) and NFU (1981b)

TABLE II

Support energy per kilogram of primary animal product - extensive systems

System Support energy (MJ/kg)

Dairying 13.64’ Beef 47.72b Breeding sows 40.11C Covered yard eggs 40.22d

; MMB (1979) MLC (1978)

’ Boddington (1971) and Farmers Weekly (1980) d Sainsbury (1978).

GROSS ENERGY [FEEO)

SUPPORT ENERGY 12445i

56320 --I METAEOLISAELE

METHANE ENERGY

8090 72791

HEAT

39253

I

1 20000 NJ

LIVEWEIGHT GAIN

MILK

16787

Fig. 1. Energy flow diagram for an intensive dairy system (MJ per cow per year). Sources: GreenhaIgh (1969); McDonald et al. (1973); MAFF/ADAS (1976); Moore (1976); MMB (1979); ARC (1980).

TAB

LE I

II

z M

Supp

ort

ener

gy i

n m

ajor

liv

esto

ck

syst

ems

Syst

em

Dai

ry

Bee

f so

ws

Fatt

en-

Bat

tery

B

roile

rs

Inpu

t un

it in

g pi

gs

eggs

(MJ

per

cow

per

yea

r)

Inte

nsiv

e E

xten

sive

(MJ

per

head

)

Inte

nsiv

e E

xten

sive

(MJ

per

sow

per

ye

ar)

(MJ

per

(MJ

per

hen

(MJ

per

Bac

oner

) pe

r ye

ar)

broi

ler)

Con

cent

rate

fe

ed

Oth

er p

urch

ase

feed

Fo

rage

-nit

roge

n

Fora

ge-s

eed,

spr

ay,

P,K

V

et a

nd M

edic

ineC

Bed

ding

C/L

itte

r

Oth

er (

e.g.

wat

er)c

Live

stoc

k B

uild

ings

C

Trac

tors

and

mac

hine

&

Fuel

a

Ele

ctri

city

1992

1 89

21

1348

0 82

28

881

689

585a

58

5a

341

341

1121

11

21

1202

7 82

8 70

10

99

7783

1969

1103

8 17

59

371

43

985a

11

40

294g

a 33

07a

4419

= 58

52a

1129

2 14

952

5971

b 10

58gb

630

630

829=

19

50

83ga

19

17

973

2224

369

5

202

12

748

34

1.9

760

931

138

1456

75

21

19

2a

16a

negl

igib

le

283

25

2549

9

58

0.15

0.26

1.4

4.2

0.27

ne

glig

ible

12

Tota

l 56

320

5458

5 17

111

2472

2 17

597

2866

58

9 61

.3

Sour

ces

as T

able

s I

and

II

aBas

ed o

nNix

(1

981)

bF

arm

Ele

ctr.

Cen

tr.

(197

2)

‘Ene

rgy

requ

irem

ents

co

effic

ient

s fo

r th

ese

min

or i

nput

s ar

e as

sum

ed a

s 48

.75

MJ

per

i, ca

lcul

ated

fr

om

1980

U

.K.

Prim

ary

Ene

rgy

Con

sum

ptio

n pe

r E

G.D

.P.

(see

Lea

ch (

1976

) an

d C

SO (

1981

b)).

173

SUPPORT ENERGY

MEltiAPJt jc,y-

GROSS ENERGY (FEEI

113244

YETA30LISAPLF

FIJEPGY 58645

LIVEWEIGHT GAIN IIiEITER) 3ji;4

EVAPORATION

IlO?

Fig. 2. Energy flow diagram for an extensive dairy system (MJ per cow per year). For sources see Fig. 1.

SUPPORT 7 ENERGY

17111

METlIANr

2382

HEPT

15687

EVAPORATION

5229

GROSS ENERC'J (FEEUI

36640

METABOLISA9LE

ENERGY

26396 h iAECES +

CARCASS

3069

URINE 786.'

SLAUGHTER WASTE 2411

Fig. 3. Energy flow diagram for an intensive cereal beef system (MJ per head per year). Sources: McDonald et al. (1973); MAFF/ADAS (1976);Moore (1976); Goodwin (1977); MLC (1978); ARC (1980).

stantial heat outputs but the heat lost is mostly at rather a low temperature and is thus difficult to use. Possibilities include heating water for fish farming or for heating glasshouses.

The very large quantities of excreta, however, represent important sources

174

of energy and could be used directly (e.g. by anaerobic digestion) or, indirect- ly, to reduce the support energy costs associated with fertiliser inputs.

Since the costs of support energy, based on fossil fuels, are likely to increase further in the future, the economics of production are likely to be less favourable in systems that use more energy. These are the more intensive ones but, of course, the reason for their current success is that other features tend to make them more profitable.

SUPPORT

EVAPORATION

8912

GROSS ENERGY (FEED) Scab

75848

I Ifl@lO MJ

METABOLISABLL

ENERGY n _I

CARCASS

4718

Fig. 4. Energy flow diagram for an extensive 24-month grass beef system (MJ per head per year). For sources see Fig. 3.

GROSS ENERGY (FEEO)

5881

METABOLISABLE

ENERGY

HEAT

1642

EVAPORATION 1226

Scale

I 1000MJ

FAECES +

URINE 1660

SLAUGHTER

WASTE 338

Fig. 5. Flow diagram for an intensive pig breeding and fattening system (MJ per baconer - average liveweight 90.5 - per year). Sources: Robinson (1969); Moore (1976); Whittemore and Elsley (1976); Woods (1979); Ridgeon (1980).

175

Fig. 6. Energy flow diagram for an intensive broiler production system (MJ per bird per year). Sources: Golden (1955); Hill (1969); NFU(1981a, b).

HEAT

GROSS ENERGY (FEEUI

Fig. ‘7. Energy flow diagram for a battery egg production system (MJ per bird per yew). For sources see Fig. 6.

Energy accounting is often used in order to make longer-term assessments than are possible using monetary expressions, because costs and prices can change rapidly in an unpredictable fashion, but ultimately energy costs must be reflected in monetary costs.

176

TABLE IV

Estimated average cost of production (at January 1981 prices)

System Average total cost (p/kg)

Dairying Intensive Extensive

12.6 19.6

Beef Intensive Extensive

105.0 112.0

Breeding sows Intensive Extensive

110.0 98.9

Eggs Intensive Extensive

76.2 77.9

Broilers Intensive 43.6

Pigmeat Intensive

-__ 58.9

-- ---__---

TABLE V

Support energy cost as a proportion of total cost (at January 1981 prices)

System Support energy cost

Total cost x lOO(%)



Breeding sows Intensive Extensive


Broilers Intensive

Pigmeat Intensive

77.8 69.9

87.9 74.0

79.2 70.5

81.4 75.4

82.6

86.4

177

ECONOMICS OF INTENSIVE ANIMAL PRODUCTION

There is no single figure that can be used to describe the profitability of a production system - but then this is also true for energy use. Average costs of production can be estimated (see Table IV) and allocated to support energy as a proportion of the total (Table V). In fact, all costs except solar radiation (the cost of solar radiation derives from the necessity to buy or rent a receiv- ing surface area) and labour (which may be partly attributed to indirect solar radiation) have ultimately to be attributed to support energy, since this is involved in most processes. Labour costs, do not, however, reflect solar energy used in the food eaten but are greatly influenced by other factors (including a cost of living that may be dominated by energy prices).

A further problem relates to the different values that have to be set on different forms of support energy. Strictly speaking, energy accounting should take account of this but it will not be possible in this paper (because the calculations of energy budgets do not relate to systems that are described in suf- ficient detail).

TABLE VI

Rent, labour and support energy as percentages of total cost (at January 1981 prices) -

System Renta Labourb Support energy

Dairy Intensive Extensive


sows Intensive Extensive

Eggs

8.7 13.5 8.7 21.4

4.2 7.8 12.3 13.4

4.2 16.5 5.5 2.40’

Intensive 5.9 12.7 Extensive 5.4 19.3

Broilers 10.3 6.gd

Pigs 4.4 9.0

77.8 69.9

87.9 74.0

79.2 70.5

81.4 75.4

82.6

86.4

aEstimated rent based on enterprise area per animal plus a rent element of the total costs of producing grain for concentrate feeds. Average of $60 per ha assumed (after Nix, 1981). bLabour inputs derived from Nix. These also include an element for concentrate production. ’ Boddington (1971). dNFU (1981a).

178

Assuming that rent and labour costs are not proportionately affected by the cost of support energy, then it is possible to describe the proportions of these three costs per kg of product. It is necessary to express results in this way, in order to take into account the different levels of production achieved in different systems.

Intensive can then be compared with less intensive systems (Tables VI and VII for current rents, labour costs and support energy costs.

If all three of these should rise in parallel and relative prices remained un- changed, there would be no change in relative profitability. If, however, the cost of support energy rose faster than the other two, those systems in which support energy costs represented a higher proportion of total costs would suffer a relative decrease in profitability. Although extensive systems appear to have a lower proportion of their costs associated with support energy (Table VI), their absolute profitability might remain low even if relative profitability increased.

In the past 20 years, however, relative costs have risen quite extraordinarily (see Fig. 8) and it would be hard to predict how they will behave in the future. It is also possible that farms may use the same quantities of energy but derive more of it from waste products (cereal straw and animal manure, mainly) or from fuel crops (Slesser and Lewis, 1979; Spedding et al., 1979).

TABLE VII

Rent, labour and support energy costs (at January 1981 prices) (6 per kg of product)

System Rent Labour Support energy



sows Intensive Extensive


Broilers

Fattening pigs

1.1 1.7

4.7 13.8

4.6 5.4

4.5 4.2

4.5

2.6

1.7 9.8 4.2 13.7

8.2 92.3 15.0 82.9

18.1 87.1 23.7 69.8

9.7 62.0 15.0 58.7

3.0 36.0

5.3 30.9 --

Rows added may not equate with total costs in Table IV due to rounding errors.

179

Price

Index

900

800

700

600

530

400

300

--I

-I

- I~--

611 ,L 7b 715 8h year

Fig. 8. Index of 1960-1980 (1960 a 100) prices of: xxx, energy

labour (CSO, 1965,1969,1979,1981a; Nix, 1976-1980) ii;‘, rent (Nix, 1976-1980; Trail& 1980).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Where energy and monetary accounting can sensibly be compared they give similar answers. This can only be done, however, for relatively short-term projections as there is no way in which costs and prices can be predicted in the long term.

The argument for energy accounting usually depends, therefore, on the as- sumption that support energy costs will rise faster than other costs and that, in the long term, therefore, energy costs will dominate economic calculations. This rather ignores the considerable effect that energy costs have on the costs

of other resources, because of the way in which energy pervades most other processes and even affects the cost of labour, by virtue of its effect on the cost of living.

What remains certain, however, is that, if energy costs do rise as predicted, then agriculture will need to use support energy as efficiently as possible. There is no clear evidence that this would lead to the adoption of less intensive methods of crop and animal production, largely because high outputs are needed to make good use of all resources, including support energy.

There is clearly room for improvement since wastage of energy is considerable, but even if the use of such wastes was energetically efficient, it would not be practised unless it also made economic sense.

Similarly, the possibilities of on-site production of energy, including methane generation from fuel crops grown as a feedstock for digesters, can only be adopted if and when they become economic.

Increased efficiency in the use of the support energy that has to be used may require alternative production systems and these may not even be devised in response to short-term economic pressures.

A major function of energy accounting, therefore, is to ensure that systems suitable in the long-term actually exist so that alternatives can be chosen.

There are other considerations that may also greatly influence the future shape of agriculture and for which alternative systems may not be devised as a result of short-term economic pressures. Considerations of animal welfare, amenity, landscape, soil structure and social structure of the countryside, are all examples of important concerns that are not reflected in short-term economics. It is worth noting that they are not usually reflected in energy accounting either.

REFERENCES

ARC, 1980. Nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Agricultural Research Council, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, Farnham Royal, 351 pp.

Boddington, M.A.B., 1971. Outdoor pig production. Agricultural Enterprise Studies in England and Wales, Economic Report No. 4, Wye College, Ashford, 99 pp.

CSO, 1965, 1969, 1979, 1981a. Annual abstract of statistics. Central Statistical Office, HMSO, London, pp. 319, 354, 462, 460.

CSO, 1981b. Monthly digest of statistics, January 1981. Central Statistical Office. HMSO, London, pp. 64-65.

Farm Electr. Cent., 1972. Handbook No. 17, Milk Production. Farm Electric Centre, Stoneleigh.

Farmers’ Weekly, 1980. Pigs in the open air. Farmers’ Weekly, November 21, 1980, pp. v-xvii.

Golden, E.F., 1955. Broilers: their production and management. Poultry World, London. Goodwin, D.H., 1977. Beef Management and Production. Hutchinson, London, pp. 42, 49. Greenhalgh, J.F.D., 1969. Nutrition of the dairy cow. In: D. Cuthbertson (Editor), Inter-

national Encyclopaedia of Food and Nutrition. Vol. 17, Nutrition of Animals of Agri- cultural Importance (2). Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 717-771.

181

Hill, F.W., 1969. Poultry nutrient and nutrition requirement. In: D. Cuthbertson (Editor), InternationaLEncyclopaedia of Food and Nutrition. Vol. 17, Nutrition of Animals of Agricultural Importance (2). Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 1137-1181.

Leach, G., 1976. Energy and Food Production. IPC Science and Technology, London, 137 pp McDonald, P., Edwards, R.A. and Greenhalgh, J.F.D., 1973. Animal Nutrition. Oliver and

Boyd, Edinburgh, pp. 146-344. MAFF/ADAS, 1976. Nutritional allowances and composition of feedingstuffs for rumi-

nants. Advisory Paper LGR 21, Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, Minis- try of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London, 39 pp.

MLC, 1978. Meat production -Margins and performance on farms 1977. Livestock Im- provement Services, Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes, 67 pp.

MMB, 1979. Milk production in England and Wales, April 1978 to March 1979. Economics Division, Milk Marketing Board, Thames Ditton, 24 pp.

Moore, I. (Editor), 1976. Primrose McConnell’s The Agricultural Notebook. Newnes Butter- worth, London, 965 pp.

NFU, 1981a. Quarterly Broiler Bulletin, 1.1.81. National Farmers’ Union, Honiton, 17 pp. NFU, 1981b. Quarterly Egg Production, 14.1.1981. National Farmers’ Union, Spalding, 9 pp. Nix, J., 1976-1981. Farm Management Pocketbook. Farm Business Unit, Wye College,

Ashford. Ridgeon, R.F., 1980. Pig management scheme results for 1980. Agricultural Enterprise

Studies in England and Wales, Economic Report No. 76. Agricultural Economics Unit, Cambridge University, Cambridge.

Robinson, K.L., 1969. Production of meat from pigs. In: D. Cuthbertson (Editor), Inter- national Encyclopaedia of Food and Nutrition. Vol. 17, Nutrition of Animals of Agri- cultural Importance (2). Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 997-1053.

Sainsbury, D.W.B., 1978. Poultry. In: W.N. Scott and J.A. Laing (Editors), The Care and Management of Farm Animals. Bailiere, Tindall and Cassell, London, pp. 184-213.

Sainsbury, D.W.B., 1981. Poultry Health and Management. Granada, London, 92 pp. Slesser, M. and Lewis, C., 1979. Biological Energy Resources. Spon, London, 192 pp. Spedding, C.R.W., Bather, D.M. and Walsingham, J.M., 1979. Fuel crops: an assessment

of the U.K. potential. In: Report No. 5, Energy from the Biomass, Watt Committee on Energy, London, pp. 18-22.

Traill, W.B., 1980. Land values and rents: the gains and losses from farm price support programmes. Bull. No. 175, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Manchester, p, 6.

Whittemore, C.T. and Elsley, F.W.H., 1976. Practical Nutrition. Woods, J.L., 1979. Waste heat recovery in piggeries Agric. Eng., 34: 20-22.

energy and economics of intensive animal production

Documents