IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ajfand/340610.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecological Footprint Of Different Laying Hen Production Systems In San Jeronimo Municipality Antioquia, Colombia

Author

Listed:
  • Gaviria, YS
  • Londoño, LF
  • Zapata, JE

Abstract

In recent years, fish production has increased worldwide due to population growth and consumer interest in this type of product, proving an increase in the waste generated, with concomitant negative impact on the environment. Ecological footprint methodology is one of the sustainability indicators most used for assessing process environmental impact. This technique quantifies the effect of anthropogenic activities on the environment concerning water, forest products, infrastructure and carbon footprint, providing integral, comparable and reliable results. In this study, the environmental impact generated by taking advantage of red tilapia (Oreochromis Spp.) viscera to produce chemical silage and its implementation in the feeding of laying hens was determined, using the ecological footprint methodology as an indicator of sustainability. The productive system consisted of a red tilapia (Oreochromis ssp.) production farm located in the municipality of San Jerónimo, Antioquia (Colombia). The productive variables of the laying hens, laying percentage, egg weight and feed conversion ratio were evaluated. This chemical silage production process generates a reduction of 1.493 kg of CO2 per month compared to that generated by fresh viscera and are discharged into shallow dumps. Additionally, the main categories that generate the greatest impact on the production system are the use of natural resources and wastewater disposal. On the other hand, the productive variables of laying hens of the Isa Brown breed were not significantly affected by the inclusion of chemical silage at the 95% significance level, maintaining the percentage of laying and improving feed conversion. It was concluded that the use of fish by-products to produce feed for laying hens generates a reduction in the environmental load when compared to conventional waste disposal processes (landfill disposal). Red tilapia (Oreochromis Spp.) viscera chemical silage can be used as an alternative protein substitute in feeding laying hens for improved production performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Gaviria, YS & Londoño, LF & Zapata, JE, 2024. "Ecological Footprint Of Different Laying Hen Production Systems In San Jeronimo Municipality Antioquia, Colombia," African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), vol. 24(1), January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ajfand:340610
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.340610
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/340610/files/Gaviria.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.340610?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mamouni Limnios, Elena Alexandra & Ghadouani, Anas & Schilizzi, Steven G.M. & Mazzarol, Tim, 2009. "Giving the consumer the choice: A methodology for Product Ecological Footprint calculation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2525-2534, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Blasi, E. & Passeri, N. & Franco, S. & Galli, A., 2016. "An ecological footprint approach to environmental–economic evaluation of farm results," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 76-82.
    2. Malayaranjan Sahoo & Narayan Sethi, 2022. "The dynamic impact of urbanization, structural transformation, and technological innovation on ecological footprint and PM2.5: evidence from newly industrialized countries," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 4244-4277, March.
    3. Nathalie Gröfke & Valérie Duplat & Christopher Wickert & Brian Tjemkes, 2021. "A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective on Food Labelling for Environmental Sustainability: Attitudes, Perceived Barriers, and Solution Approaches towards the “Traffic Light Index”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-23, January.
    4. Ferng, Jiun-Jiun, 2011. "Measuring and locating footprints: A case study of Taiwan's rice and wheat consumption footprint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 191-201.
    5. Acquaye, Adolf A. & Yamoah, Fred A. & Feng, Kuishuang, 2015. "An integrated environmental and fairtrade labelling scheme for product supply chains," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 472-483.
    6. Mamouni Limnios, Elena & Schilizzi, Steven G.M. & Burton, Michael & Ong, Angeline & Hynes, Niki, 2016. "Willingness to pay for product ecological footprint: Organic vs non-organic consumers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 338-348.
    7. Chou, Sheng-Fang & Horng, Jeou-Shyan & Sam Liu, Chih-Hsing & Lin, Jun-You, 2020. "Identifying the critical factors of customer behavior: An integration perspective of marketing strategy and components of attitudes," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    8. Jóhannesson, S.E. & Davíðsdóttir, B. & Heinonen, J.T., 2018. "Standard Ecological Footprint Method for Small, Highly Specialized Economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 370-380.
    9. Liu, Tiantian & Wang, Qunwei & Su, Bin, 2016. "A review of carbon labeling: Standards, implementation, and impact," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 68-79.
    10. Nicoletta Patrizi & Valentina Niccolucci & Riccardo M. Pulselli & Elena Neri & Simone Bastianoni, 2018. "The Ecological Footprint Accounting of Products: When Larger Is Not Worse," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-13, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ajfand:340610. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.ajfand.net/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.