https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2025.1718

A study comparing energy consumption and environmental emissions in ostrich meat and egg production

Vol. 56 No. 1 (2025)
    Published:11 February 2025
    Energy use, human health, life cycle assessment, ostrich, sustainability
    Abstract Views: 0
    PDF: 0
    Publisher's note
    All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

    Authors

    Behrooz Behboodi
    Department of Biosystem Engineering, Takestan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Takestan, Iran, Islamic Republic of.
    Mohammad Gholami Parashkoohi
    mohammad.gholamiparashkoohi@gmail.com
    Department of Mechanical Engineering, Shahr-e-Qods Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of.
    Davood Mohammad Zamani
    Department of Biosystem Engineering, Takestan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Takestan, Iran, Islamic Republic of.
    Saeed Firouzi
    Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran, Islamic Republic of.

    The assessment of energy usage in the production of ostrich meat and eggs provides a comprehensive analysis of energy consumption and production efficiency. The energy consumption per 1000 units is 1,086,825.54 MJ for meat and 1,197,794.25 MJ for egg. When considering protein supply, egg production seems to be more justifiable in terms of energy efficiency compared to meat production. This study delves into the impact of egg and meat production on human health, revealing a slight difference of 0.23 disability adjusted life years (DALY), hinting that egg production could potentially have marginally more negative health effects than meat production. Artificial neural network (ANN) analysis indicates that optimizing machinery, diesel fuel, and energy usage can enhance the productivity of meat production. It also suggests that there is a possibility for greater resource efficiency in egg production as opposed to meat production, highlighting that a focus on resource efficiency within egg production could yield positive environmental and energy benefits. Additionally, the coefficient of determination in the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFI) 4 model indicates a more favorable outcome for factors related to meat production compared to those for eggs production. Moreover, the low mean squared error value reflects the high accuracy of the results obtained in the analysis.

    Dimensions

    Altmetric

    PlumX Metrics

    Downloads

    Download data is not yet available.

    Citations

    Crossref
    Scopus
    Google Scholar
    Europe PMC
    Abdollahizad, S., Balafar, M.A., Feizizadeh, B., et al. 2021. Using hybrid artificial intelligence approach based on a neuro-fuzzy system and evolutionary algorithms for modeling landslide susceptibility in East Azerbaijan Province, Iran. Earth Sci. Inform. 14:1861–82.
    Adams, J., Revell, B.J. 1998. Ostrich farming:-a review and feasibility study of opportunities in the EU. Newport, School of Management Harper Adams University College. Available from: https://macaulay.webarchive.hutton.ac.uk/livestocksystems/feasibility/osr.pdf
    Alluvione F, Moretti B, Sacco D, Grignani C. 2011. EUE (energy use efficiency) of cropping systems for a sustainable agriculture. Energy 36:4468–81.
    Alves, E.C., dos Santos Alves, I.H., Soares, B.B., et al. 2023. Resource recovery of biological residues from the Brazilian poultry industry in mitigating environmental impacts: A life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. J. Clean Prod. 416:137895.
    Asem-Hiablie, S., Battagliese, T., Stackhouse-Lawson, K.R., Alan Rotz, C. 2019. A life cycle assessment of the environmental impacts of a beef system in the USA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:441–55.
    Barends-Jones, V., Pienaar, L. 2020. The South African Ostrich Industry Footprint. Available from https://www.elsenburg.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2020-Ostrich-Industry-Footprint.pdf
    Bhavani, Y.V.K., Hatture, D.S.M., Pagi, D.V.B., Saboji, D.S.V. 2023. An analytical review on traditional farming and smart farming: various technologies around smart farming. Int. J. Innov. Eng. Manag. 12:66-85.
    Brand, Z., Brand, T.S., Brown, C.R. 2003. The effect of dietary energy and protein levels on production in breeding female ostriches. Br Poult Sci 44:598–606.
    Chau, C.K., Leung, T.M., Ng, W.Y. 2015. A review on life cycle assessment, life cycle energy assessment and life cycle carbon emissions assessment on buildings. Appl. Ener. 143:395–413.
    Cochran, W.G. 1977. The estimation of sample size. Sampl.Tech. 3:72-90.
    de Vries, M., de Boer, I.J.M. 2010. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments. Livest. Sci. 128:1–11.
    Dongare, A.D., Kharde, R.R., Kachare, A.D. 2008. Introduction to artificial neural network. Certif. Int. J. Eng. Innov. Technol. 9001:2277–3754.
    Estrada-González, I.E., Taboada-González, P.A., Guerrero-García-Rojas, H., Márquez-Benavides, L. 2020. Decreasing the environmental impact in an egg-producing farm through the application of LCA and lean tools. Appl Sci 10:1352.
    Fnais, A., Rezgui, Y., Petri, I., et al. 2022. The application of life cycle assessment in buildings: challenges, and directions for future research. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 27:627–54.
    Ghasemi-Mobtaker, H., Kaab, A., Rafiee, S., Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A. 2022. A comparative of modeling techniques and life cycle assessment for prediction of output energy, economic profit, and global warming potential for wheat farms. Energy Rep. 8:4922–34.
    Guinée, J.B., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., et al. 2010. Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45:90–6.
    Hakim, S.J.S., Razak, H.A. 2013. Adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) and artificial neural networks (ANNs) for structural damage identification. Struct. Eng. Mech. 45:779–802.
    Kaab, A., Sharifi, M., Mobli, H., et al. 2019. Combined life cycle assessment and artificial intelligence for prediction of output energy and environmental impacts of sugarcane production. Sci. Total Environ. 664:1005-1019.
    Kaab, A., Sharifi, M., Moradi, H. 2021. Analysis of energy indicators and environmental impacts of dryland cantaloupe production with life cycle assessment approach (case study: Ilam). J. Agric. Mach. 11:491–504.
    Kanwisher, N., Khosla, M., Dobs, K. 2023. Using artificial neural networks to ask ‘why’ questions of minds and brains. Trends Neurosci. 46:240–54.
    Khalid, M., ur Rehman, S., Muhammad Azam, S., et al. 2022. Effect of commercial & natural feeds on the growth performance of ostrich (Struthio camelus) in captivity. Front Chem. Sci. 3:25–30.
    Kitani, O. 1999. CIGR handbook of agricultural engineering, Volume V Energy and Biomass Engineering, Chapter 1 Natural Energy and Biomass, Part 1.3 Biomass Resources. St. Joseph, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. pp. 6-11.
    Kolawole, A.S., Iyiola, A.O. 2023. Environmental pollution: threats, impact on biodiversity, and protection strategies. In: Izah S.C., Ogwu M.C. (eds.), Sustainable utilization and conservation of Africa’s biological resources and environment. Sustainable development and biodiversity. Singapore, Springer. pp. 377–409.
    Kumar, S., Priyadarshini, M., Ahmad, A., Ghangrekar, M.M. 2023. Advanced biological and non-biological technologies for carbon sequestration, wastewater treatment, and concurrent valuable recovery: A review. J. CO2 Util. 68:102372.
    Lai, X., Chen, Q., Tang, X., et al. 2022. Critical review of life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles: A lifespan perspective. ETransportation 12:100169.
    Llonch, P., Haskell, M.J., Dewhurst, R.J., Turner, S.P. 2017. Current available strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in livestock systems: an animal welfare perspective. Animal 11:274–84.
    Liu, X., Elgowainy, A., Wang, M. 2020. Life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of ammonia production from renewable resources and industrial by-products. Green Chem. 22:5751–61.
    López-Andrés, J.J., Aguilar-Lasserre, A.A., Morales-Mendoza, L.F., et al. 2018. Environmental impact assessment of chicken meat production via an integrated methodology based on LCA, simulation and genetic algorithms. J. Clean Prod. 174:477–91.
    Maind, S.B., Wankar, P. 2014. Research paper on basic of artificial neural network. Int. J. Recent Innov. Trends Comput. Commun. 2:96-100.
    Manap, K., Serikkyzy, M. 2023. Production of ostrich meat pâtés: Design of a food safety management system. Food Sci Technol Int. 29:847-856.
    May, G., Barletta, I., Stahl, B., Taisch, M.2015. Energy management in production: A novel method to develop key performance indicators for improving energy efficiency. Appl Energy 149:46–61.
    Menghi, R., Papetti, A., Germani, M., Marconi, M. 2019. Energy efficiency of manufacturing systems: A review of energy assessment methods and tools. J. Clean Prod. 240:118276.
    Ministry of Agriculture Jihad, 2001. [Annual Agricultural Statistics].[in Persian]. Available from: www.maj.ir
    Mohammadi Kashka, F., Tahmasebi Sarvestani, Z., Pirdashti, H., et al. 2023. Sustainable systems engineering using life cycle assessment: application of artificial intelligence for predicting agro-environmental footprint. Sustainability (Basel) 15:6326.
    Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Amid, S., Shoja, H. 2014. Energy use and greenhouse gas emission analysis for sugar beet production under three cultivated area levels. Trends Life Sci. 3:10–22.
    Niaze, A.A., Sahu, R., Sunkara, M.K., Upadhyayula, S. 2023. Model construction and optimization for raising the concentration of industrial bioethanol production by using a data-driven ANN model. Renew. Energy 216:119031.
    Pahlavani hamid, Dehghani, A.A., Bahremand, A.R., Shojaei, S. 2017. Intelligent estimation of flood hydrographs using an adaptive neuro–fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 3:35.
    Ponnampalam, E.N., Holman, B.W.B. 2023. Sustainability II: Sustainable animal production and meat processing. Lawrie’s Meat Sci. 2023:727–98.
    Ramedani, Z., Alimohammadian, L., Kheialipour, K., et al. 2019. Comparing energy state and environmental impacts in ostrich and chicken production systems. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26:28284–93.
    Shibak, A., Maghsoudi, A., Rokouei, M., et al. 2023. Investigation of egg production curve in ostrich using nonlinear functions. Poult. Sci.102:102333.
    Subha, S., Nagalakshmi, S. 2021. Design of ANFIS controller for intelligent energy management in smart grid applications. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 12:6117–27.
    van der Werf, H.M.G., Knudsen, M.T., Cederberg, C. 2020. Towards better representation of organic agriculture in life cycle assessment. Nat. Sustain. 3:419–425.
    Zhang, Z., Jin, Y., Chen, B., Brown, P. 2019. California almond yield prediction at the orchard level with a machine learning approach. Front. Plant Sci. 10:444608.
    Zhu, X., Labianca, C., He, M., et al. 2022. Life-cycle assessment of pyrolysis processes for sustainable production of biochar from agro-residues. Bioresour. Technol. 360:127601.

    How to Cite

    Behboodi, B. (2025) “A study comparing energy consumption and environmental emissions in ostrich meat and egg production”, Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 56(1). doi: 10.4081/jae.2025.1718.
    Copyright (c) 2025 the Author(s) Creative Commons License

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

    PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.


    Similar Articles

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

    You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.