Data obtained from 4 different capacity houses were evaluated to analyse the cultural energy and perfor- mance of broilers. Capacities of housings were 20,000, 25,000, 30,000 and 60,000 birds per production peri- od and they were assigned as HI, HII, HIII and HIV, respectively. The study was conducted in 2005 in which there were 6 production periods of 45 days. Data collected for each period were: date of starting and finish- ing; number of chicks entered and broilers sold; live weight at slaughter; carcass weight; feed consumption for starting, growing and finishing phase; labour; medication, vaccination and disinfectant; electricity con- sumption; heating and cooling methods and amount spent; distance for transportation of feed, chicks, broil- ers, wood shaving, limestone; and other miscellaneous expenditures. Ross 308 chickens in all houses received the same commercial feed and water ad libitum. Chicks were reared under a conventional temper- ature regimen. Chicks were fed starter, grower and finisher diets according to their ages. Even though capac- ities for houses were different their stocking densities were 16.36, 16.00, 16.38 and 16.54 birds/m2 for HI, HII, HIII and HIV, respectively. For cultural energy analysis, feed, transportation, labour, machinery, electric- ity, brooding, and other inputs were calculated and corresponding energy values for each input were obtained from literature. For the analysis it was assumed that carcasses would have 18.2% protein and 15.2% fat. Total cultural energy invested in broilers in HIII was lower than that of broilers in HI (P< 0.05). Energy input per kg live weight gain and per kg carcass of HIII were lower than that of HI (P< 0.05, P< 0.01, respective- ly). The HIII had lower cultural energy ratio for protein energy output than HI (0.01). Energy efficiency (kcal input/kcal output) of HIII was better than that of HI (P< 0.01). Results of the study showed that increasing capacity of housings decreases cultural energy input up to certain capacity and indicated that increasing housing capacity without interfering with performance could be a means for energy conservation in sustain- able agriculture
As a country with not only significant production potential but also fragmented land ownership, the Kyrgyz Republic struggles with environmental efficiency, which is a strategic element of environmental management in agricultural production. The objective of this study was to assess the environmental efficiency of sheep’s wool when used as a fertilizer in bean production in northern Kyrgyzstan. In this study, the efficiency indicator was taken to be GHG emissions per functional unit of product, using a proprietary methodology for calculating GHG emissions to determine the true value of this material as a source of soil nutrients and organic matter. Two experimental factors were used in the experiment: fertilizer type and fertilizer rate. Fertilization with sheep wool resulted in a 15% higher bean yield compared to when fertilized with mineral fertilizers at a comparable rate, converted to pure nitrogen. By using sheep wool as a source of mineral nutrients for the plants, the carbon footprint was reduced by almost 10% compared to a facility with mineral fertilization. Therefore, the use of sheep wool as a source of plant nutrients is environmentally justified.
The problem of the use and disposal of horticultural substrates is an important element of the optimization of plastic greenhouse production in terms of economic and environmental efficiency. The production of mineral substrates is associated with a high energy expenditure, which generates costs and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. An important factor is also the transport of professional substrates over long distances. The research objective was to evaluate the possibility of using sheep wool to create horticultural substrates in the hydroponic production of cucumber. The modifier of production technology was the use of substrates of various origins. The experiment was based on the use of two substrates: one was a conventional substrate, made of mineral wool, and the other was made of greasy Gissar sheep wool, which is considered waste or a nuisance byproduct of sheep farming today. The adopted functional unit was 1 ton of commercial cucumber yield. The boundaries of the system were soil formation, fertilization, irrigation, and harvesting. The amount of GHG emissions was calculated in accordance with the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards. The results of the experiment show that the use of sheep wool as a substrate in the hydroponic cultivation of cucumbers reduced yield by approximately 8%, but it allowed for a higher efficiency of water and mineral fertilizer use per crop mass unit. Within the adopted system boundary, the value of the carbon footprint in the object with the conventional substrate was 276.9 kg CO2 eq · Mg−1. The value of this parameter for the object with the sheep wool was 193.9 kg CO2 eq · Mg−1. The use of sheep wool did not increase the phytosanitary risk of the cultivated plants. An important goal for achieving sustainability, especially in food production, is to use materials that are easily recyclable and renewable, locally available, and environmentally friendly. The use of sheep wool as a substrate for soilless plastic greenhouse cultivation is a rational solution, as this material consists of 60% animal protein fibers, 10% fat, 15% moisture, 10% sheep sweat, and an average of 5% impurities. This makes it an easily recyclable, easily renewable, and environmentally friendly source of raw material for hydroponic substrates in food production, contrary to rockwool, which produces waste that is difficult to manage and a nuisance to the natural environment. In the countries of Central Asia, the sheep population is over 20 million; therefore, the potential for using sheep wool material for agricultural production is significant.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.