New research (Northumbria University) published in this month’s Poultry World shows a huge potential conflict between welfare and carbon foot prints, which could end up confusing consumers.

Conventional chicken - 4.6kg carbon dioxide/kg

Free range chicken 5.5kg carbon dioxide/kg

Organic chicken - 6.7kg carbon dioxide/kg

Intensive pigs - 6.7kg carbon dioxide/kg

Conventional beef - 15.6kg carbon dioxide/kg

Basically it shows that free range systems, particularly organic, are more harmful to the environment that intensive systems. This means that consumers opting for “higher welfare” products (chicken and eggs) are inadvertently adding to carbon dioxide emissions.

This shows how complex the whole carbon footprint argument is and shows that the poultry industry will need to tread carefully on this issue.

Also, the research shows that importing food only increased its carbon footprint by 8%, so UK producers need to be wary of claiming an advantage over imports.

So could we see cage egg producers and intensive chicken producers pushing their products as on their green credentials? What will consumers prioritise, any thoughts?

A similar picture applies to other sectors

Richard Allison:

So could we see cage egg producers and intensive chicken producers pushing their products as on their green credentials?

Probably - if they can find any spare room on the labels for a carbon footprint indicator.

Richard Allison:

What will consumers prioritise, any thoughts?

The hard-up will prioritise on price and the well off on flavour - no change then. 

The die-hard greens will probably also be welfare aware, so will stand in front of the chicken or egg display in the supermarket getting more and more confused until the staff call for the men in white coats to come and take them away.  If this group have got any sense, they will buy from a farmers' market where the vendors will probably not know what their carbon footprint is anyway!

Richard Allison:

What will consumers prioritise, any thoughts?

I reckon the public has now passed the point of 'information overload' in so far as food issues are concerned. They will thus, make decisions on the basis of affordability and trust.

They trust the supermarkets (rightly or wrongly) and so will continue to use them for their major purchases whilst making discretionary and/or token purchases from other sources.

more tripe.

did they count the fertiliser made from fossil fuel  needed to grow feed for intensive chickens?

what about the forced ventilation for big intensive sheds?

Richard Allison:

 

  

This shows how complex the whole carbon footprint argument is......

It is so complex that stand alone end result figures are almost worthless, no matter how erudite the source.

Would be nice to have some idea of thier resarch methods and measurements. Take, for example "Conventional beef - 15.6kg carbon dioxide/kg", based on inputs to the farm (diesel and straw), we produce beef at approx 1.5kgCO2/kg beef.

Assumptions being that we dont consider heating and cooking in the farm house, or the house of the accountant, vet, etc or the manufacture of the tractor which is, unfortuneately, a consumable! And that feeding them grass IS conventional (well it used to be).

So, lets talk substantiated facts and not "this is it because I say so" numbers.

what about the carbon footprint for the lorry loads of antibiotics needed for broiler/cage systems?

Trolls have been disposed of.

     Beowulf

Yes the researcher did admit that the calculation was so complicated, that he suggested a better approach was to use a pie chart to show the percentage energy used in each process for getting the product to market.

Yes glasshouse, they did include the fertiliser and ventilation energy cost and it seems the biggest driver is feed use ie the efficiency at which the bird uses it to produce a kg of meat.

With extensive systems, birds are slower growing and hence why they come out more poorly.  

Sorry to bring a young persons opinion on this subject but the way we have our chickens there can't be much of a carbon footprint...

They stay outside and a bag of feed lasts about a month and a half, we deliver the eggs on my bike (these aren't meat chickens) and they go in their shed at night. How can this possibly be polluting?!?!?

~Meggiewes~