1
COMPARISON OF CARBON EMITTED FROM OX,
2
BUFFALO,
3
SLAUGHTERHOUSES IN MEAT PRODUCTION
4
(Running head): Carbon Emitted in Ox, Buffalo, Pig, and Chicken Meat
5
6
PIG,
AND
CHICKEN
FARMS
AND
Production
Nathawut Thanee1*, Wut Dankittikul2 and Prayong Keeratiurai2
7
8
Abstract
9
The carbon budget of oxen, buffaloes, pigs, and chickens during meat
10
production were studied to determine carbon emitted from farms, to
11
investigate the rate of carbon massflow from plants to ox, buffalo, pig, and
12
chicken in the food chain and to study the carbon emission in energy patterns
13
that was used in meat production in Nakhon Ratchasima province. The study
14
showed that the carbon emitted per unit from farms and slaughterhouses in
15
ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken meat production was 0.0066, 0.0051, 0.0339,
16
17
1
School of Biology, Institute of Science, Suranaree University of Technology, 111
18
University Avenue, Suranaree, Muang, Nakhon Ratchasima Province 30000,
19
Thailand. Tel.: 0-4422-4192, 08-1470-0185, Fax.: 0-4422-4633, E-mail:
20
biology@sut.ac.th, keeratiurai_pray@windowslive.com
21
2
School of Environmental Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Suranaree
22
University of Technology, 111 University Avenue, Suranaree, Muang, Nakhon
23
Ratchasima Province 30000, Thailand. Tel.: 0-4422-4218, E-mail: wut@sut.ac.th
24
*
Corresponding author
1
and 0.0851 kg.C/kg. living weight/day, respectively. The carbon fixation in
2
meat and organs of ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken was 0.0102, 0.0104, 0.0062,
3
and 0.0111 kg.C/kg. living weight/day, respectively, and the rate of carbon
4
massflow from grass and animal feed was 0.0148, 0.0143, 0.0087, and 0.0184
5
kg.C/kg. living weight/day, respectively. This study also showed that the
6
percentage of carbon fixation in meat and organs of ox, buffalo, pig, and
7
chicken to the sum of carbon contents in grass and feed used for feeding was
8
69.24%, 72.53%, 71.18%, and 60.45%, respectively. The ratio of total carbon
9
emitted to total carbon contents in grass and feed used for ox, buffalo, pig,
10
and chicken feeding was 0.31, 0.28, 0.28, and 0.39, respectively. The ratio of
11
total carbon emitted per day to carbon fixation per day in meat and organs of
12
ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken was 0.45, 0.38, 0.40, and 0.65, respectively. Ox
13
production produced more environmentally harmful carbon than buffalo
14
production. The results also showed that the ratio of CH4 to CO2 emitted
15
from faeces, enteric fermentation and respiration of ox was higher than the
16
value from buffalo. For the equal quantity of meat production, it is suggested
17
that ox meat production should be reduced while the buffalo meat production
18
should be increased to lessen the environmental impact. Moreover, of the four
19
animals, carbon emitted from buffalo and pig will give less environmental
20
problems and farming/slaughterhouses should be more encouraged than ox
21
and chicken farming/slaughterhouses. The carbon contents emitted in meat
22
production in ton C per year from ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken farms and
23
slaughterhouses in Nakhon Ratchasima province can be shown by using the
1
equation from mass conservation and the numbers of animals as follows;
2
Cemitted = (0.73) Oxen + (0.85) Buffaloes + (1.25) Pigs + (0.07) Chickens.
3
4
Keywords: Carbon emission, meat production, ox, buffalo, pig, chicken
5
6
Introduction
7
One of the environmental threats that our planet faces today is the long-term
8
change in Earth’s climate and temperature patterns due to global climate
9
change, or the greenhouse effect. CO2 and CH4 from human activities are the
10
most important greenhouse gases contributing to global climate change (IPCC,
11
1995) with CH4 being 23 times more potent than CO2 (IPCC, 2001). Ox and
12
buffalo are herbivores while pig and chicken are energy-using animals that are
13
raised for their meat, and produce emissions of both CO2 and CH4.
14
Carbon is an important element for humans because it is the primary element
15
of both plants and animals and cycles through living and non-living components
16
(Lauhajinda, 2006). One product of carbon fixation is the protein in meat and
17
animal products. The focus of this study is on carbon which is transferred to the
18
food chain and fixed in meat. The net carbon production is the rate at which carbon
19
is fixed during growth, and can be used to explain the time averaged C stocks by
20
carbon weight per time (van Noordwijk et al., 1997, 1998). Therefore, it is
21
important to study and understand the relationship between the carbon emissions,
22
carbon massflow, and energy used for meat production.
23
The primary objective of this study was to determine carbon emitted
24
factors for ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken farms. To accomplish this, we studied the
1
rate of carbon massflow from plants to an ox, a buffalo, a pig, and a chicken, and
2
included the carbon emissions from electricity, LPG, wood or paddy husk, and
3
petroleum used during meat production in Nakhon Ratchasima.
4
5
Materials and Methods
6
Study Area
7
Ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken farms and slaughterhouses were studied in
8
26 districts and 6 subdistricts of Nakhon Ratchasima province which are
9
shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Nakhon Ratchasima province has an
10
agricultural area of 12,469 square kilometers and is the largest area of ox
11
farms in Thailand (Center for Agricultural Information, Office of Agricultural
12
Economics, 2004).
13
Size of Samples and Sampling Methods
14
The numbers of farms, and numbers of oxen, buffaloes, pigs, and
15
chickens, in each district and subdistrict were calculated by determining the
16
numbers of ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken farms and the numbers of oxen,
17
buffaloes, pigs, and chickens in the province (Yamane, 1973; Cavana et al.,
18
2001). The results showed that these were 398 ox farms, 390 buffalo farms,
19
390 pig farms, and 340 chicken farms, 17 ox and buffalo slaughterhouses,
20
7 pig slaughterhouses, and 18 chicken slaughterhouses, totalling 400 oxen,
21
398 buffaloes, 400 pigs, and 400 chickens from farms. Grass and feed, plus
22
their meat and faeces were collected and transferred to the laboratory at
23
Suranaree University of Technology for measurements. Results from
24
analytical methods are as shown in Table 1.
1
Previous Researches and Calculating Methodology for Cemitted, Cfixation,
2
and Cinput
3
According to Thanee et al. (2008), ox production produced more
4
environmentally harmful carbon than buffalo production. For the equal
5
quantity of meat production, it is suggested that decreasing ox meat production
6
and increasing buffalo meat production can decrease the environmental
7
problems. The ratio of CH4 to CO2 emitted from faeces, enteric fermentation
8
and respiration of ox was greater than the value for buffalo (Dankittikul and
9
Keeratiurai, 2008). Carbon was calculated by a mass balance method. Cinput
10
was the carbon contents transferred from plant and animal feed to animals by
11
feeding (kg.C/head/day). Cemitted was the carbon contents emitted from animal
12
faeces (Coutput), enteric fermentation and respiration (Cemission). Thus, Coutput
13
plus Cemission make for Cemitted (kg.C/head/day). The Cinput minus the carbon
14
contents emitted from animal faeces, enteric fermentation, and respiration
15
(Cemitted) was the carbon mass fixed in the body (Cfixation). Whereas the Cfixation
16
(kg.C/head/day) was the carbon contents fixed in meat and organs of animals
17
(Thanee et al., 2008).
18
19
Results and Discussion
20
The Rate of Carbon Contents Massflow and the Carbon Emitted
21
The rate of carbon massflow from animal feed for feeding to the biomass
22
of ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken (Cinput) was determined and found to be
23
4.46  1.93, 6.51  3.14, 0.879  0.30, and 0.043  0.007 kg.C/head/day,
24
respectively are shown in Table 2.
1
Table 2 also shows that the carbon fixation of ox, buffalo, pig, and
2
chicken was 3.09  1.97, 4.72  3.14, 0.626  0.256, and 0.026  0.007
3
kg.C/head/day, respectively. The carbon emitted for ox, buffalo, pig, and
4
chicken was 1.38  0.36, 1.80  0.51, 0.253  0.058, and 0.017  0.006
5
kg.C/head/day, respectively. CO2 and CH4 gases which were emitted from
6
faeces, enteric fermentation and respiration of animals are shown in Table 3.
7
Figures 3 and 4 show the ratio of the carbon massflow by feeding. The carbon
8
mass fixed in the biomass of ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken was 69.18%,
9
72.38%, 71.14%, and 60.70%, respectively and that emitted from faeces,
10
enteric fermentation and respiration was 30.82%, 27.62%, 28.86%, and
11
39.30%, respectively. Carbon emitted which contributes to environmental
12
problems show that buffalo and pig encourage less global climate change than
13
ox and chicken because buffalo and pig fixed the carbon contents in their
14
bodies more efficiently than ox and chicken.
15
Carbon Contents Emission from Energy Sectors for Meat Production
16
The pig and chicken farms in Nakhon Ratchasima province used more
17
energy in kg.C/kg. living weight/day than ox and buffalo farms for feeding.
18
The first sector was electric light and heat energy. The second sector was
19
petrol used for animal transport. The third sector was petroleum for cutting
20
grass and transferring it to farms for feeding. The fourth sector was liquefied
21
petroleum gas (LPG) used for heating. The Cemission per unit of all 3 energy
22
sectors at ox, buffalo, and chicken farms were 0.09, 0.08, and 0.049
23
kg.C/head/day, respectively. The Cemission per unit of all 2 energy sectors at pig
24
farms were 0.83 kg.C/head/day, respectively. The slaughterhouses in Nakhon
1
Ratchasima used energy for electric light, boiling the water for animal skin
2
cleaning, and delivering meat from slaughterhouses to markets with Cemission
3
per unit of energy used for ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken meat production being
4
0.52, 0.44, 2.34, and 0.1332 kg.C/head/day, respectively. On the other hand,
5
the Cemission of energy used for meat production by farms and slaughterhouses
6
was 2.05  10-3, 1.14  10-3, 31.41  10-3, and 77.86  10-3
7
kg.C/kg. living weight/day, respectively. The average of Cemission from energy
8
sectors at farms and slaughterhouses are shown in Table 4.
9
The Relation of Carbon Contents Massflow and Physical Properties of
10
Animal Feed, Meat, and Faeces from Ox, Buffalo, Pig, and Chicken
11
The carbon contents massflow of ox and buffalo are shown in Figures
12
5(a) and 5(b) and the carbon contents massflow of pig and chicken are shown
13
in Figures 6(a) and 6(b), respectively. The relation of Cemitted and Cinput
14
(Sig. F<0.05) and Cfixation and Cinput (Sig. F<0.05) are shown in Figures 7(a)
15
and 7(b), respectively. The results showed that the carbon emitted from
16
chicken increased the most environmental problems.
17
The results also showed that the changes in carbon contents emitted,
18
fixed, input, and emitted from energy used in ton C per year can be illustrated
19
by using the equation from the mass conservation and the numbers of animals
20
as follows:
21
C-emitted(animals+energy)
22
23
24
= (0.73) Oxen + (0.85) Buffaloes + (1.25) Pigs
+ (0.07)Chickens
C-input
(1)
= (1.63) Oxen + (2.38) Buffaloes + (0.32) Pigs
+ (0.016) Chickens
(2)
1
C-fixation
2
3
= (1.13) Oxen + (1.72) Buffaloes + (0.23) Pigs
+ (0.0095) Chickens
C-emission(energy)
4
(3)
= (0.23) Oxen + (0.19) Buffaloes + (1.16) Pigs
+ (0.0665) Chickens
(4)
5
6
where; C-emitted(animals+energy) is the carbon contents emitted from ox, buffalo,
7
pig, and chicken and the emission from energy used in meat production
8
(ton C/year), C-input is the carbon contents transferred from plants and feed to
9
ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken by feeding (ton C/year), C-fixation is the carbon
10
contents fixed in meat and organs of ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken
11
(ton C/year), C-emission(energy) is the carbon contents emitted from energy
12
using as electricity, LPG, wood or paddy husk, and petroleum of farms and
13
slaughterhouses in meat production (ton C/year). Oxen, Buffaloes, Pigs, and
14
Chickens are the numbers of oxen, buffaloes, pigs, and chickens on farms,
15
respectively (head).
16
The percentages of moisture, volatile solids, ash, and carbon contents of
17
animal feed, meat, and faeces of animals are shown in Table 5. The lowest
18
percentage of carbon content was in buffalo’s faeces (30.14  6.07%) and the
19
highest in buffalo’s meat (68.67  0.21%). These percentages of carbon
20
contents from faeces, and meat showed that the buffalo fixed the highest level
21
of carbon in its body.
22
23
Conclusions
1
The study showed that carbon emitted from ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken
2
farms and slaughterhouses was 0.0066, 0.0051, 0.0339, and 0.0851
3
kg.C/kg. living weight/day, respectively. A buffalo and an ox emitted more
4
carbon than a pig and a chicken but the carbon contents per unit in the energy
5
sectors for buffalo and ox meat production were lower than the values for pig
6
and chicken meat production. On the other hand, the Cemission of energy used
7
for ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken meat production by farms and
8
slaughterhouses was 30.72%, 22.40%, 92.60%, and 91.54% of the total carbon
9
emitted from animal and energy sectors in meat production. Carbon fixation in
10
meat and organs of ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken was 0.0102, 0.0104, 0.0062,
11
and 0.0111 kg.C/kg. living weight/day, respectively. Carbon content values
12
were calculated by mass balance. The rate of carbon massflow from grass and
13
feed to ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken was 0.0148, 0.0143, 0.0087, and 0.0184
14
kg.C/kg. living weight/day, respectively.
15
Furthermore, this study showed that the ratio of the carbon fixed in meat
16
and organs of ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken to the carbon contents in grass and
17
feed was 0.69, 0.72, 0.71, and 0.60, respectively. The ratio of the total carbon
18
emitted per head per day to the total carbon contents per head per day in grass
19
and feed used for feeding was 0.31, 0.28, 0.28, and 0.39, respectively. The
20
ratio of Cemitted to Cinput shows that the contribution to environmental problems
21
from buffalo is the lowest. The ratio of the total carbon emitted to the carbon
22
fixation of ox, buffalo, pig, and chicken was 0.45, 0.38, 0.40, and 0.65,
23
respectively. It can be concluded that the carbon contents emitted from
24
chicken increases the most environmental problems (Table 6).
1
Acknowledgements
2
The researchers acknowledge the Centre for Scientific and Technological
3
Equipment, Suranaree University of Technology for providing laboratory analyses.
4
This work received financial support from National Research Council of Thailand
5
and Suranaree University of Technology. We thank our advisor, teachers,
6
consulting persons and our families for critical and helpful comments to this
7
research.
8
9
References
10
APHA, AWWA, WEF. (1998). Standard Methods for the Examination of
11
Water and Wastewater. 20th ed. American Public Health Association,
12
Wash. D.C., USA, 445p.
13
Cavana, R.Y., Delahaye, B.L., and Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied Business
14
Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. 3rd ed. John Wiley and
15
Sons, NY, 472p.
16
Center for Agricultural Information, Office of Agricultural Economics.
17
(2004). Agricultural Statistics of Thailand 2004. Agricultural Statistics
18
No.410. Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives. Bangkok, 122p.
19
Dankittikul, W. and Keeratiurai, P. (2008). Comparison of carbon massflow
20
and emission factors from ox and buffalo farms in beef production.
21
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Knowledge Networks
22
and Regional Development in the Greater Mekong Subregion and Asia-
23
Pacific; June 22-27, 2008; Kunming, Yunnan Province, People’s Republic
24
of China, p. 60.
1
Department of Livestock Development. (2005). Livestock Statistics Data.
2
[On-line]. Available: http:// www.dld.go.th/index.html. Accessed date:
3
December 2006.
4
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (1995). Climate Change 1995,
5
The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the
6
Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
7
Change. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge,
8
U.K., 572p.
9
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (1996). IPCC Guidelines for
10
National
11
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs1.htm.
12
March 2008.
13
Greenhouse
Gas
Inventory.
[On-line].
Available:
Accessed
date:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2001). Climate Change 2001,
14
The
15
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Press Syndicate of the
16
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K., 944p.
Scientific
Basis.
The
Third
Assessment
Report
of
the
17
Kawashima, T., Terada, F., and Shibata, M. (2000). Respiration experimental
18
system. In: Improvement of Cattle Production with Locally Available
19
Feed Resources in Northeast Thailand. Edited by Japan International
20
Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, Japan and Department of
21
Livestock Development, Thailand, p. 1-21.
22
23
Lauhajinda, N. (2006). Ecology: Fundamentals of Environmental. 2nd ed.
Kasetsart University, Bangkok, 292p.
1
Manlay, R.J., Ickowicz, A., Masse, D., Floret, C., Richard, D., and Feller, C.
2
(2004). Spatial carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus budget of a village in
3
the West African savanna-I. Element pools and structure of a mixed -
4
farming system. Agricultural Systems, USA, 79:55-81.
5
Manlay, R.J., Ickowicz, A., Masse, D., Feller, C., and Richard, D. (2004).
6
Spatial carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus budget in a village of the West
7
African savanna-II. Element flows and functioning of a mixed-farming
8
system. Agricultural Systems, USA, 79:83-107.
9
National Transportation Statistics. (2000). C-emission from petrol used for
10
transporting. [On-line]. Available: http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/
11
downloads,
12
Accessed date: March 2007.
http://www.gdrc.org/uem/CO2-Cal/CO2-Calculator.html.
13
Thanee, N., Dankittikul, W., and Keeratiurai, P. (2008). Comparison of carbon
14
emission factors from ox and buffalo farms and slaughterhouses in meat
15
production. Proceedings of the International Conference on Energy
16
Security and Climate Change: Issues, Strategies, and Options; August 6-8,
17
2008; Sofitel Centara Grand, Bangkok, Thailand, p. 52-53.
18
U.S. EPA, AP-42 (1995). Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. [On-
19
line]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.htm. Accessed
20
date: March 2007.
21
van Noordwijk, M., Cerri, C., Woomer, P.L., Nugroho, K., and Bernoux, M.
22
(1997). Soil carbon dynamics in the humid tropical forest zone.
23
Geoderma, Netherlands, 79:187-225.
1
van Noordwijk, M., Murdiyarso, D., Hairiah, K., Wasrin, U.R., Rachman, A.,
2
and Tomich, T.P. (1998). Forest soil under alternatives to slash and burn
3
agriculture in Sumatra, Indonesia. In: Soils of Tropical Forest
4
Ecosystems: Characteristics, Ecology and Management. Schulte, A. and
5
Ruhiyat, D. (eds.), Springer-Veriag, Berlin, p. 175-185.
6
Vudhipanee, P., Lortae, K., and Imvatana, S. (2002). Comparative efficiency
7
of weight prediction equations of swamp buffalo. Animal Husbandry
8
Division.:
9
AHD/Webpage/2545/45(3)-0406-147.pdf. Accessed date: June 2007.
10
World Health Organization. (1993). Assessment of Source of Air, Water and
11
Land Pollution. [On-line]. Available: http://www.who.int/environmental_
12
information/Information_resources/on-line_general.htm, http://whqlibdoc.
13
who.int/hq/1993/WHO_PEP_GETNET_93.1-A.pdf.
14
March 2007.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DLD.
Available
from:
www.dld.go.th/research-
Accessed
date:
Yamane, T. (1973). Mathematics for Economists: An Elementary Survey. 2nd
ed. Prentice-Hall, New Delhi, India, 714p.