IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i3p2195-d1045879.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Techno-Economic Assessment of APS-Based Poultry Feed Production with a Circular Biorefinery Process

Author

Listed:
  • Marta Buccaro

    (Consorzio Italbiotec, 20126 Milan, Italy)

  • Armando Toscano

    (Piperà—Persone per Ambienti, Professional Network for Society and Environment, 20127 Milan, Italy)

  • Melissa Balzarotti

    (Consorzio Italbiotec, 20126 Milan, Italy)

  • Ilaria Re

    (Consorzio Italbiotec, 20126 Milan, Italy)

  • Diego Bosco

    (Consorzio Italbiotec, 20126 Milan, Italy)

  • Maurizio Bettiga

    (Consorzio Italbiotec, 20126 Milan, Italy)

Abstract

Poultry livestock profitability significantly depends on feed, accounting for 60–70% of the total production cost, of which protein sources are among of the most expensive ingredients. The maintenance of profitability while meeting feed demand and reducing the environmental impact represents a considerable challenge driving research of alternative protein sources (APS), such as insects and algae meals. This study employs, for the first time, techno-economic assessment (TEA) methodology to evaluate the technological performance and the industrial feasibility of an APS-based poultry feed production method based on the valorization of the pre-treated organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) as a substrate for Hermetia illucens larval growth and microalgae cultivation. The Excel-based analysis, which evaluated the mass and energy balance as well as the income statement, was integrated with a thematic analysis focused on exploring how the overall value attributed to the sustainability concept is reflected in the willingness to adopt sustainable business models by entrepreneurs in the poultry sector. Despite the ability to generate revenues, the model cannot be said to be profitable for animal feed production due to the strong dependence of its profitability on scale economy logics. Enabling solutions could be derived from the recovery of abandoned infrastructures, government financial incentives, and integrated systems associating OFMSW treatment with poultry farming, thus resulting in marked economic sustainability and profitability: key elements from the poultry entrepreneurs’ point of view.

Suggested Citation

  • Marta Buccaro & Armando Toscano & Melissa Balzarotti & Ilaria Re & Diego Bosco & Maurizio Bettiga, 2023. "Techno-Economic Assessment of APS-Based Poultry Feed Production with a Circular Biorefinery Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2195-:d:1045879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2195/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2195/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anton Gligorescu & Christian Holst Fischer & Peter Foged Larsen & Jan Værum Nørgaard & Lars-Henrik Lau Heckman, 2020. "Production and Optimization of Hermetia illucens (L.) Larvae Reared on Food Waste and Utilized as Feed Ingredient," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-13, November.
    2. Walter R. Stahel, 2016. "The circular economy," Nature, Nature, vol. 531(7595), pages 435-438, March.
    3. Mojtaba Vaismoradi & Hannele Turunen & Terese Bondas, 2013. "Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 398-405, September.
    4. Fabio A. Madau & Brunella Arru & Roberto Furesi & Pietro Pulina, 2020. "Insect Farming for Feed and Food Production from a Circular Business Model Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-15, July.
    5. Tom Baum & Catherine Cheung & Haiyan Kong & Anna Kralj & Shelagh Mooney & Hải Nguyễn Thị Thanh & Sridar Ramachandran & Marinela Dropulić Ružić & May Ling Siow, 2016. "Sustainability and the Tourism and Hospitality Workforce: A Thematic Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-21, August.
    6. Armando Toscano & Melissa Balzarotti & Ilaria Re, 2022. "Sustainability Practices and Greenwashing Risk in the Italian Poultry Sector: A Grounded Theory Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-16, October.
    7. Tobias Hahn & Frank Figge & Jonatan Pinkse & Lutz Preuss, 2018. "A Paradox Perspective on Corporate Sustainability: Descriptive, Instrumental, and Normative Aspects," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 235-248, March.
    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. Sapanna Laysiriroj & Walter Wehrmeyer, 2020. "Intergenerational differences of CSR activities in family-run businesses in eastern Thailand," Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Annapia Ferrara & Concetta Ferrara & Sabrina Tomasi & Gigliola Paviotti & Giovanna Bertella & Alessio Cavicchi, 2023. "Exploring the Potential of Social Farmers’ Networking as a Leverage for Inclusive Tourism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-22, March.
    3. Maider Belintxon & Nisha Dogra & Paula McGee & Maria Jesus Pumar‐Mendez & Olga Lopez‐Dicastillo, 2020. "Encounters between children's nurses and culturally diverse parents in primary health care," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 273-282, June.
    4. Robert K. MacGregor & Radka MacGregor Pelikánova, 2019. "Shareholder Engagement for Corporate Governance in the Light of the Harmonization and Transposition," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(4), pages 22-34.
    5. Leticia Regueiro & Richard Newton & Mohamed Soula & Diego Méndez & Björn Kok & David C. Little & Roberto Pastres & Johan Johansen & Martiña Ferreira, 2022. "Opportunities and limitations for the introduction of circular economy principles in EU aquaculture based on the regulatory framework," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(6), pages 2033-2044, December.
    6. Kenzie Latham-Mintus & Brittney Ortiz & Ashley Irby & Jack Turman, 2024. "Supporting the Development of Grassroots Maternal and Childhood Health Leaders through a Public-Health-Informed Training Program," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(4), pages 1-16, April.
    7. Mario Vaupel & David Bendig & Denise Fischer-Kreer & Malte Brettel, 2023. "The Role of Share Repurchases for Firms’ Social and Environmental Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(2), pages 401-428, March.
    8. Emmanuelle Reuter, 2022. "Hybrid business models in the sharing economy: The role of business model design for managing the environmental paradox," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 603-618, February.
    9. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Durán-Romero, Gemma & López, Ana M. & Beliaeva, Tatiana & Ferasso, Marcos & Garonne, Christophe & Jones, Paul, 2020. "Bridging the gap between circular economy and climate change mitigation policies through eco-innovations and Quintuple Helix Model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    11. Simone Carmine & Valentina De Marchi, 2023. "Reviewing Paradox Theory in Corporate Sustainability Toward a Systems Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 139-158, April.
    12. Ana Cristina Lindsay & Sherrie F. Wallington & Faith D. Lees & Mary L. Greaney, 2018. "Exploring How the Home Environment Influences Eating and Physical Activity Habits of Low-Income, Latino Children of Predominantly Immigrant Families: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-13, May.
    13. Millar, Neal & McLaughlin, Eoin & Börger, Tobias, 2019. "The Circular Economy: Swings and Roundabouts?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 11-19.
    14. David P. Ashmore & Roselle Thoreau & Corina Kwami & Nicola Christie & Nicholas A. Tyler, 2020. "Using thematic analysis to explore symbolism in transport choice across national cultures," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 607-640, April.
    15. Satu Elo & Maria Kääriäinen & Outi Kanste & Tarja Pölkki & Kati Utriainen & Helvi Kyngäs, 2014. "Qualitative Content Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, February.
    16. Borch, Kristian & Munk, Anders K. & Dahlgaard, Vibeke, 2020. "Mapping wind-power controversies on social media: Facebook as a powerful mobilizer of local resistance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    17. Naci Akdemir & Serkan Yenal, 2021. "How Phishers Exploit the Coronavirus Pandemic: A Content Analysis of COVID-19 Themed Phishing Emails," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    18. Caro Wolfner & Corilyn Ott & Kalani Upshaw & Angela Stowe & Lisa Schwiebert & Robin Gaines Lanzi, 2023. "Coping Strategies and Help-Seeking Behaviors of College Students and Postdoctoral Fellows with Disabilities or Pre-Existing Conditions during COVID-19," Disabilities, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-25, February.
    19. Christopher Mulwanda & Vincent R. Nyirenda & Ngawo Namukonde, 2024. "Traditional ecological knowledge, perceptions and practices on insect pollinator conservation: A case of the smallholder farmers in Murundu ward of Mufulira mining district of Zambia," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 14(1), pages 24-35, March.
    20. Chiara Oppi & Cristina Campanale & Lino Cinquini, 2021. "Il problema dell?ambiguit? nei sistemi di misurazione della performance nel settore pubblico: un?analisi della letteratura internazionale," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2021(2), pages 11-38.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2195-:d:1045879. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.