Sustainable Production and Consumption 24 (2020) 181–193

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Production and Consumption

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spc

Research article

Assessing the eco-efficiency of different poultry production systems:

an approach using life cycle assessment and economic value added
Gabrielli Martinelli a, Everton Vogel b, Michel Decian c,
Maycon Jorge Ulisses Saraiva Farinha c, Luciana Virginia Mario Bernardo d,
João Augusto Rossi Borges c, Régio Marcio Toesca Gimenes c, Rodrigo Garofallo Garcia c,
Clandio Favarini Ruviaro c,∗
a
Federal University of Grande Dourados, Dourados, Brazil
b
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, GZG, Germany
c
Federal University of Grande Dourados, Dourados, Brazil, Cep 79.804-970
d
Western Paraná State University- Unioeste, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The consumption of poultry meat as a source of animal protein has been increasing worldwide, espe-
Received 26 March 2020 cially in emerging countries’ economies. Due to the growing demand for this protein, we seek to evaluate
Revised 13 July 2020
the eco-efficiency of poultry production systems, namely positive pressure, dark house, and organic sys-
Accepted 13 July 2020
tems, in the South region of Brazil. To achieve the proposed objective, two methods were used: life cycle
Available online 15 July 2020
assessment and economic value added, considering the functional unit of one kg of live chicken ready
Keywords: for slaughter, specifically from the cradle to farm gate. The results show that most of the environmental
Environmental and economic performance impacts are from the production of grains for the manufacture of animal feed and, consequently, from
Value added the electric energy consumed by the equipment of the aviaries. Conventional systems show negative re-
Risk analysis sults for economic value added/kg, evidencing the destruction of the producers’ economic value, that is,
Aninal protein the capital invested is not remunerated proportionally to the risk assumed in the activity, with envi-
Sales price of product
ronmental impacts similar as dark house systems. Poultry produced in organic systems showed the best
economic performance (economic value added/kg). However, they cause a slightly greater environmental
impact than other systems. In order to minimize uncertainties regarding the results obtained, a sensitiv-
ity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation were performed, identifying net operating revenue and invested
capital as the variables with the greatest and least impacts on the value of economic value added/kg in
all types of production systems analyzed.
© 2020 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction produced using relatively fast production cycle systems, is efficient

Animal foods are important sources of nutrients, such as vi-
tamins and minerals, and concentrate a significant amount of
amino acids essential for maintaining human health (De Smet and
Vossen, 2016). In addition, the increase in income and in the global
urban population, among other factors, have transformed the way
people eat, increasing the demand for proteins of animal origin in
recent decades (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012; Boland et al.,
2013). In this context, poultry meat is considered a driving force
in the supply of animal protein for the coming decades, as it is
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: joaoborges@ufgd.edu.br (J.A.R. Borges),
regiogimenes@ufgd.edu.br (R.M.T. Gimenes), rodrigogarcia@ufgd.edu.br (R.G.
Garcia), clandioruviaro@ufgd.edu.br (C.F. Ruviaro).
in feed conversion, and requires little land use during the animal
breeding stage (OECD, 2015; FAO, 2016).
Brazil is the largest exporter of poultry meat in the world
and the second in production, competing directly with the United
States and China. Such production is mainly carried out in the
southern region of Brazil (62%) (ABPA, 2018). Of its production,
on average 70% is consumed by the domestic market and 30% is
destined for export (ABPA, 2018; Valdes et al., 2015). The process
of integration of the production chain is led preferably by com-
panies or cooperatives. Different production systems are adopted,
with a more or less intense use of technologies and characteris-
tics of organic or conventional production (Valdes et al., 2015). On
the other hand, aspects observed in intensive poultry farming, as
is the case in Brazil, indicate a potential of environmental impacts
related to natural resources such as air, water and soil in the sites

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.07.007
2352-5509/© 2020 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
182 G. Martinelli, E. Vogel and M. Decian et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 24 (2020) 181–193
where the productive systems are installed (Steinfeld et al., 2006;
Gerber et al., 2007; Macleod et al., 2013).
Gases and residues emitted during the breeding of chickens
contribute to the greenhouse effect, such as methane from manure
management and ammonia from the decomposition of excreta. An-
other aggravating factor refers to changes in land use caused by the
demand for grains used for animal feed, which are also important
sources of emissions (Gerber et al., 2007; Macleod et al., 2013).
This demand for land can modify ecosystems and reduce nat-
ural habitats, putting biodiversity at risk. It is estimated that 30%
of the area where there is no ice on the planet is used for graz-
ing and 33% of the arable land is used to produce animal feed
(Aiking, 2011; Foley et al., 2011). Therefore, it is predicted that the
proportion of arable lands to produce animal feed cereals will con-
tinue to increase (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012). Thus, the an-
thropic occupation, which has introduced significant amounts of
pollutants in the water, air and soil by conventional agriculture
and livestock, tends to worsen the environmental scenario of pro-
ducing countries if there is no sustainable intensification with a
proper management of water and fertilizers, thus blocking agri-
cultural expansion and reducing food waste (Mueller et al., 2012;
Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012; Godfray et al., 2010).
As a result of such current and future challenges, several
studies have been carried out in recent years seeking to an-
alyze mainly the environmental impacts on the poultry sector
in several countries. As examples, we cite Norway, the United
States of America, Italy, United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil/France,
Portugal, France and Australia (Ellingsen and Aanondsen, 2006;
Pelletier, 2008; Boggia et al., 2010; Castellini et al., 2012; Leinonen
et al., 2012; Leinonen et al., 2013; Bengtsson and Seddon, 2013;
Prudêncio da Silva et al., 2014; Van der Werf and Salou 2015;
Cesari et al., 2016; Paolotti et al., 2016; and Wiedemann et al.,
2016, respectively). However, these thirteen studies evaluate only
the environmental impacts of the production systems of this
animal protein, disregarding the economic perspective, mak-
ing eco-efficiency analysis impossible. The studies by López-
Andrés et al. (2018), carried out in Mexico, and Rocchi et al. (2019),
carried out in Italy, have analyzed both the environmental and the
economic impacts on poultry production systems, applying statisti-
cal methods in order to increase the reliability of the results. How-
ever, simultaneous analysis (environmental and economic) is still
incipient.
Therefore, seeking to jointly integrate the performance of a sys-
tem or a product, in the late 1980s, Schaltegger and Sturm intro-
duced the term eco-efficiency as a cross-relation between socio-
economic rationality and ecological issues, associating environ-
mental impacts with the value of production of goods and ser-
vices (Ehrenfeld, 2005; Huppes and Ishikawa, 2005; Kicherer et al.,
2007). One of the main objectives of eco-efficiency is the cor-
porate environmental management operated at various levels
of an organizational structure and applied to different projects
(Kicherer et al., 2007), enabling i) maximizing the results of an
economic resource, ii) increasing ecological efficiency interpreted
from a purely environmental view, and iii) crossing the previous
items, which can be understood as economic-ecological efficiency
resulting from the measurement of the added environmental im-
pacts caused by the generated monetary unit.
Thus, there was a need to measure the eco-efficiency of pro-
duction systems, whereas eco-efficiency is a management tool that
aims to create value while improving the environmental and eco-
nomic performance of products or services along the entire pro-
duction chain in parallel with its value. It can still contribute to an-
alyze which system or product is less unsustainable (ABNT, 2014).
Thereby, no study has been found linking life cycle assessment
(LCA) and economic value added (EVA) methodologies to analyze
environmental and economic performance. Mainly measuring the
eco-efficiency in poultry production systems, namely positive pres-
sure (PP), dark house (DH), and organic systems (ORG), in the
South region of Brazil,
These methodologies are qualified of assessing eco-efficiency.
LCA estimates the environmental impacts (e.g. positive or nega-
tive) that products or services carry from their source to their final
disposal. LCA uses a holistic view of the entire supply chain that
supplies a given product system and responsibly attributes to it a
fraction of the environmental loads from other production systems
(Guinée et al. 2011; Hauschild et al., 2013). On the other hand, the
basic principle of EVA is to evaluate the performance of projects
based on the economic value that managers add to the business
and return to the owners or shareholders. Unlike traditional mea-
sures (eg return on investment, earnings per share, return on net
assets and weighted average profit) of financial performance, EVA
links a company’s book value to its real market value, adjusting its
operating profit net and subtracting the amount of money used to
finance a project at the weighted average cost of each fraction of
that invested capital (Malmi; Ikäheimo, 2003; Stern value manage-
ment, 2018).
Therefore, the goal of the study was to evaluate the eco-
efficiency of different poultry production systems. For this, we
specifically seek: a) inventory and evaluate the environmental per-
formance of the production of one kg of live weight of chicken; b)
calculate the added economic value of the production of one kg of
live weight of chicken; c) compare the economic and environmen-
tal indicators of the types of systems investigated using life cycle
assessment and economic value added.
This study, in addition to this introduction, is structured as fol-
lows: in section 2, the methodological procedures are described by
describing the study area, the life cycle assessment and the eco-
nomic value added methods, as well as the sensitivity analysis and
the Monte Carlo simulation; in sections 3 and 4, the results, dis-
cussions and conclusions are presented, ending by explaining the
main limitations of the study, as well as recommendations and
suggestions for future lines of research on the topic addressed.
2. Materials and methods
The methodological procedures of this study go through the fol-
lowing steps: i) analysis of the environmental impacts of produc-
tion systems using the methodological framework of the life cy-
cle assessment (LCA) (ISO 14040, 2006; ISO 14044, 2006), ii) eval-
uation of the economic performance of production systems using
the economic value added (EVA) method, iii) measurement of eco-
efficiency (ISO 14045; ABNT, 2014), iv) reduction of uncertainties
regarding the estimates of EVA/kg calculated in different produc-
tion systems through sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simula-
tion. It is worth noting that Supplementary Information (SI) (see.
Table S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, S10, S11, S12) provides es-
sential data for understanding the results.
2.1. Location of the study area
Brazilian broiler production is concentrated in the southern re-
gion. The state of Paraná is the largest producer, followed by Santa
Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul (ABPA, 2018). Most of the pro-
duction is carried out in high productivity housing systems, more
precisely the positive pressure (PP) and the dark house (DH) sys-
tems. In addition, organic systems (ORG) represent a growing mar-
ket niche in Brazil. In the evaluated organic systems, the final prod-
uct follows a single weight standard for slaughter, i.e., an average
of 3.3 kg. In high production systems, however, birds with differ-
ent weights are produced according to the integrating company’s
market focus. The study considers the production of Griller, Broiler
 G. Martinelli, E. Vogel and M. Decian et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 24 (2020) 181–193
Fig. 1. South region of Brazil.
and Heavy chickens, with average slaughter weights of 1.4, 2.9 and
3.5 kg, respectively.
Given the concentration of the production in the south of the
country and the convenience for data collection, this study inves-
tigated the production of the states of Paraná and Santa Catarina
(Fig. 1). In Paraná, the data for the DH and PP systems were ob-
tained from the database of the Federation of Farmers of Paraná
(FAEP) on the following municipalities: Castro, Toledo, Londrina,
Dois Vizinhos, Chopinzinho, Cambará, and Cascavel. In Santa Cata-
rina, data for the ORG system were collected in the municipality of
Santa Rosa de Lima.
The FAEP database is constructed by panels with producers and
technicians who represent the typical farm in the inventoried mu-
nicipalities. The database is made up of data referring to produc-
tion using the DH and PP systems, collecting zootechnical and
production indexes from 125 lots over a three-year period (2015-
2017). The use of this database made it possible to conduct a ro-
bust LCA linked to the economic evaluation of the systems.
In addition, data regarding poultry production using the organic
system were collected directly from producers in the municipality
of Santa Rosa de Lima, state of Santa Catarina. Semi-structured in-
terviews with producers and processors were conducted in 2017.
The interviews were directed in order to collect the data necessary
to conduct the LCA and the economic evaluation. More precisely,
data on the structure used for production, zootechnical indexes, in-
gredients and formulations of feed, origin of inputs, and economic
indicators (prices, costs and investments) were obtained.
The PP systems, also known as conventional, are semi-climatic
systems and are considered intensive. They have an average area of
1200 m2 and can house 10-18 birds/m2 . They use little technology
compared to automated systems and have fallen out of favor with
the growing use of modern and technologically equipped poultry,
such as DH. These aviaries use PP fans to renew the air inside the
house and provide a feeling of thermal comfort to animals. Feeders
can be tubular, automatic and pendant, or nipple drinkers. In this
system, the control of environmental thermal conditions is less in-
183
tense. Yellow, blue, white or reflective raffia curtains are adopted
and do not have an internal cooling and heating system. The types
can be bell, wood or electric heaters (Abreu and Abreu, 2011).
The negative pressure DH poultry houses enable a control of in-
ternal environment factors, isolating them from externalities, with
an average area of 2400 m2 . The shed is closed and the level of
automation in these systems is higher than in the others used
commercially in Brazil. Dark curtains and seals prevent light and
air from entering, and the light control allows regulating the light
intensity. Temperature and humidity are measured by sensors di-
rectly connected to a control panel that activate equipment such
as nebulizers, exhaust fans, evaporative panels, feeders, drinking
fountains, and air inlet curtains (Abreu and Abreu, 2011).
In the ORG production system, the main difference is not the
physical structure, but the inputs used in the breeding process. The
birds are restricted as to the use of certain inputs of conventional
production and in sanitary management. The inventoried produc-
tion systems are similar to PP, however with hatches for chickens
to go out for grazing. The aviaries have the capacity to house be-
tween 2500 and 6000 chicks; the average is up to ten birds per
m2 . The housing systems are covered by a bed made of eucalyptus
shavings with particle sizes ranging from 1 to 8 mm.
2.2. Environmental assessment
The tool used for environmental assessment was the life cycle
assessment (LCA). This technique estimates the potential environ-
mental impacts that products or services may cause from their in-
stallation to final disposal, providing a holistic view of the entire
supply chain that supplies a given product system and attributing
it a fraction of the environmental loads of other production sys-
tems in a responsible way (Hauschild et al., 2013).
According to the studies found in the literature regarding the
application of LCA to assess poultry, the most used method to as-
sess impacts is the CML-IA 2 baseline 20 0 0, and the most ana-
lyzed impact categories are climate change, potential acidification,
184 G. Martinelli, E. Vogel and M. Decian et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 24 (2020) 181–193

Table 1
Technical coefficients for poultry production in dark house systems, conventional positive pressure, and organic systems.

DH 2400 PP 1200 ORG 600

Coefficienta
Griller Broiler Heavy Griller Broiler Heavy Organic

Slaughter age (days) 28 42 49 28 42 49 71

Feed conversionb (kg feed/kg weight gain) 1.40 1.67 1.82 1.40 1.67 1.82 2.57
Final weight (kg) 1.50 2.90 3.50 1.50 2.90 3.50 3.30
Birds per m2 18.00 13.00 12.00 17.00 13.00 12.00 7.50
Mortality (%) 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00
No. of lots/year 8.70 6.20 6.00 8.70 6.30 6.00 4.30
Interval between lots (days) 12.00 15.00 12.00 12.00 15.00 12.00 14.00
Water (L/bird) 2.50 3.98 5.78 2.50 3.98 5.78 9.94
Electricity (kWh/bird) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
Bed, shavings (m3 /bird) 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.16 0.16 0.01
Firewood (m3 /bird) 0.35 0.79 0.27 0.37 0.43 0.38 0.94

DH 2400 - Dark house 2400 m2 ; PP 1200 - Positive pressure 1200 m2 ; ORG 600 - Positive pressure 600 m2 .
a
Technical indicators - Federation of Agriculture of the State of Paraná (FAEP).
b
Feed ingredients - Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA).

potential eutrophication, and land use changes. Thus, for this study,
the choice was the CML-IA 2 baseline 20 0 0, version 4.2, which in-
cludes global characterization models for the categories acidifica-
tion, eutrophication, and global warming (100yr). The functional
unit (FU) refers to one kilogram of chicken in live weight. The ap-
proach is called “cradle to gate,” since it covers the stages of grain
production as raw materials up to the delivery of live chicken by
slaughter weight. The steps for transporting inputs and poultry to
the slaughterhouse were not considered in this study. It should
be noted the investigation is focused on the production process,
which shows differences between the types of chickens investi-
gated.
For non-organic feed, an animal nutrition expert from Brazil-
ian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) pigs and poultry
of Concordia/SC was asked to assist in the formulation. The five
types of feeds created are of vegetable origin because, according to
the expert, many foreign markets do not consume meat from ani-
mals fed on animal protein. The feed for the pre-initial, growth 1,
growth 2, final 1 and final 2 phases are shown in Supplementary
Information (see. Table S13 and S14). The atmospheric emissions
from nitrogen flow were estimated using the Tier 2 method of
EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook (Amon et al.,
2016). The method estimates atmospheric emissions of ammonia
(NH3), nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen gas (N2), and nitric oxide
(NO) from the total ammoniacal nitrogen (TAN) flow of handling
animal excreta from a flow approach based on kg of nitrogen.
Methane emissions (CH4) were estimated using the Tier 2 method.
The method uses emission factors over the rate of production of
poultry residues inside the aviary and outside the aviary, when this
residue is handled and stored before its application in vegetable
crops.
Furthermore, the production coefficients shown in Table 1 were
used to quantify the inputs and outputs of raw material and energy
from the production systems, an information necessary to identify
the results related to the environmental issue considering average
data for each item inventoried in all evaluated systems.
2.3. Evaluation of the value of the product system
The economic value added (EVA) performance measurement
was used in order to identify whether the investment made in dif-
ferent broiler production systems in the southern region of Brazil
creates or destroys economic value for producers. If this mea-
sure is positive, there is the creation of economic value; other-
wise, the negative value signals the destruction of economic value
(Stern value management, 2018).
The EVA is determined by the following expression:
EVA = [(NOPAT/IC ) × 100] − (MARR × IC ) (1)
Where:
EVA economic value added
NOPAT net operating profit after taxes
IC invested capital
MARR minimum attractiveness rate of return
The adjusted hybrid capital asset pricing model (CAPM) was
used to estimate minimum attractiveness rate of return (MARR)
because, given the asset pricing models that explain how produc-
ers assess risk, the CAPM is the most used model in practice as it
makes possible to ascertain through a linear relationship between
the risk and the return of an investment project, given a level
of risk assumed by the producer, the rate of return that rewards
this risk, or that is, by taking into account systematic risk (non-
diversifiable or market risk), using the Beta coefficient, it is as-
sumed to be the most appropriate model for this study (Ross et al.,
2002; Póvoa, 2007; Blank et al., 2014; Graham and Harvey, 2001).
Although the CAPM model in its original formulation
(Markowitz, 1959; Sharpe, 1964; Lintner, 1965; Mossin, 1966)
presents limitations for the application to emerging countries
(low expressiveness of capital companies open in the stock
market, reduced participation of common shares in the stock
exchange, share control concentrated in a few investors, reduced
liquidity of traded papers, low disclosure of accounting infor-
mation, high volatility of information), hence the need for the
adjustments proposed in this study to minimize such limita-
tions (Godfrey and Espinosa, 1996; Lessard, 1996; Mariscal and
Hargis, 1999; Pereio, 2001; Damodaran, 2002; Assaf Neto, 2014).
The MARR estimate is given by the following expression:
 
MARR = Rfg + Rc + β CLG [βGG (RMG − Rfg )] 1 − R2 (2)
Where:
MARR minimum attractiveness rate of return
Rfg global risk-free rate
Rc country risk
β CLG country beta
β GG industry’s average unlevered beta
RMG global market return
R2 coefficient of determination
The global risk-free rate (Rfg ) represents the return on a risk-
free investment, in this case the interest rate paid on bonds is-
sued by the United States Government Treasury (T-Bond) with a
 G. Martinelli, E. Vogel and M. Decian et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 24 (2020) 181–193
Table 2
Eco-efficiency indicators
Indicator Unit
EVA/kg SO2 eq $ / sulfur dioxide eq
EVA/PO4 eq $ / phosphate equivalent
EVA/CO2 eq $ / kg of carbon dioxide eq
redemption term of ten years. For country risk (Rc ), the Emerging
Markets Bond Index (EMBI) + Brazil is suggested, measured by the
JP Morgan bank and based on the risk premium for Brazilian for-
eign debt securities in relation to the papers issued by the North
American treasury. The country beta (β CLG ) is determined by the
regression between the local stock market index and the global
market index. As a local stock market index, it is suggested to use
the daily variation of the IBOVESPA (São Paulo stock exchange in-
dex) and, in the case of the global market, the Morgan Stanley Cap-
ital International (MSCI); all country world index (ACWI).
This index is calculated by the Morgan Stanley bank and mea-
sures the performance of the stock market in 46 countries (23 de-
veloped and 23 emerging). As for the unlevered beta of comparable
companies in the global market (β GG ), it is suggested to deleverage
the average beta of comparable companies. The coefficient of deter-
mination (R2 ) is calculated by the regression between the volatil-
ity of local market stocks and the variation of country risk (see.
Damodaran, 2002; Pereio, 2001; Assaf Neto, 2014; Martinelli et al.,
2019; Souza, Gimenes and Binotto, 2019; Cavalheiro, Kremer and
Gimenes, 2019).
2.3.1. Quantification of eco-efficiency
To calculate the eco-efficiency indicator, the value of the prod-
uct system was related to environmental influence. Eq. (3) demon-
strates that eco-efficiency is defined as the ratio of economic per-
formance to environmental impact.
EP
EE = (3)
EI
Where:
EE eco-efficiency
EP economic performance
EI environmental impact
Finally, according to the international organization for standard-
ization (ISO) 14045, the comparison of the results of the eco-
efficiency assessment is only conducted when based on the same
indicator, or indicators, and when the systems analyzed are within
the same scope (ABNT, 2014).Thus, the following comparisons are
made from the main indicators of environmental impact, acidi-
fication, eutrophication and global warming (100a) for DH, con-
ventional and organic aviaries. It is possible to observe how the
economic indicator is related to environmental impact indicators
(Table 2).
2.4. Measurements of uncertainty and risk
2.4.1. Sensitivity analysis
In short, all investments are subject to risk. In order to mini-
mize uncertainty and better guide rural producers in decision mak-
ing, sensitivity analysis is applied. Sensitivity analysis and Monte
Carlo simulation start from the assumption that the behavior of the
variables is probabilistic. Therefore, with its application, we seek
to analyze how the magnitude of predetermined changes in one
or more input variables can influence the value of output variables
(Acuña et al., 2018; Talavera et al., 2011).
In this specific case, the variation in EVA/kg is determined in
face of variations in endogenous and exogenous variables used in
185
Result
Value added by air acidification
Value added by aquatic eutrophication
Value that contributes to global warming
the preparation of investment cash flow (Coelho Júnior et al., 2008;
Casarotto Filho and Kopittke, 2010; Gitman, 2010). In this study,
we opt for the sensitivity analysis of EVA/kg due to changes in the
following variables: i) net operating revenue, ii) lot operating cost;
iii) minimum attractiveness rate of return, and iv) invested capital.
2.4.2. Risk analysis
In order to simulate the possible results of the EVA/kg of the
investment from probabilistic changes in the magnitude of those
previously selected for the sensitivity analysis and already men-
tioned at the end of the previous paragraph, the Monte Carlo simu-
lation was performed using the software Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS), version 26, developed by the International
Business Machines Corporation (IBM).
The Monte Carlo method or simulation explicitly introduces un-
certainty in the variables that most affect the EVA/kg results in
order to observe its behavior in a risky environment (Martínez-
Paz et al., 2014), that is, when using random numbers and proba-
bility distributions from a random procedure, a value is generated
for each input variable, allowing observing the variability and risk
of a proposed investment (Arnold and Yildiz, 2015).
In Monte Carlo simulation applications, triangular and nor-
mal distributions are more commonly observed. In a triangular
distribution, three parameters are established, namely, the mini-
mum, maximum and the mode of the uncertain input; in a nor-
mal distribution, it is necessary to know the mean and the stan-
dard deviation of the variables whose behavior will be simulated
(Lukuyu et al., 2019).
In this study, 10,0 0 0 iterations are carried out for the variables
considered inputs with uncertainty, the variations of which were
suggested by a panel of experts in the sector of activity, which is
object of this study, in order to verify the behavior of the output
variable, in this case the value of EVA/kg. For each input, a prob-
ability distribution and its respective parameters are associated, as
shown in (Table S2).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Environmental assessment
From the information shown in Table 1, it was possible to esti-
mate the values referring to gas emissions inside and outside the
aviary (Table S3). The volume of methane gas emission is equiva-
lent between DH and conventional systems. It only increases when
there is a greater consumption of feed; therefore, the Griller prod-
uct has almost half of the CH4 emissions of Heavy chicken. The
ingredients of plant origin have a certain digestibility content: the
lower the consumption of these ingredients, the lower the amount
of volatile solids found in animal excreta that will be available for
decomposition by methanogenic bacteria, which will subsequently
release methane gas.
The amount of ammonia from nitrogen in the excreta is greater
inside the aviary than outside, when the litter is removed after a
few lots and stored. There is at least 50% more ammonia emitted
inside the house than outside it. The values are between 0.0016 kg
NH3 for Griller products and 0.0047 kg NH3 for organic chickens.
Other gases, such as nitric oxide and nitrogen gas, are emitted only
after the storage of the litter, when the nitrogen that has not been
186 G. Martinelli, E. Vogel and M. Decian et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 24 (2020) 181–193
Table 3
Global warming, acidification and eutrophication for the three production systems.
DHa 2400
Impact category
Griller
Global Warming/kg CO2 eq 1.334
Acidification/kg SO2 eq 0.015
Eutrophication/kg PO4 eq 0.029
a
DH 2400 - Dark house 2400 m2
b
PP 1200 - Positive pressure 1200 m2
c
ORG 600 - Positive pressure 600 m2 - organic production.
volatilized inside the aviary is in constant interaction with external
environmental factors, such as humidity and aeration. For the soil,
there is deposition of phosphorus from the non-metabolization of
P available in diets, called phytic phosphorus. For this estimation,
values from the Brazilian Tables for Poultry and Swine, recorded by
Rostagno et al. (2017), were used based on the standardized ideal
digestibility, obtaining an amount of phytic phosphorus for each
type of feed and consequently for each type of animal throughout
its life cycle.
Another aspect to be considered is the environmental impacts
caused by each of the categories analyzed. In the Table 3, the
Global Warming impact category shows emissions related to tradi-
tional productions, such as DH and PP systems, between 1.33 and
1.55 kg CO2 equivalent per kilogram of live weight. The agricul-
tural phase of grain production for feed has the largest contribu-
tions of CO2 equivalent. Corn production contributes with almost
9% of emissions to climate change and soybean production turns
into bran and contributes with over 6%, with no significant differ-
ence between DH and conventional systems in the global warm-
ing category because the feed conversions are similar, therefore
the amount of grains eaten for each kilogram of meat produced is
practically the same. The consumption of electric energy was the
second process with the greatest contributions. The largest con-
sumption came from the feed factory where all engines are elec-
tric. The chickens’ housing phase did not show any significance in
the total electricity collected, even though it was necessary to op-
erate equipment such as feeders, control panels, and aerators.
However, the ORG system showed slightly greater values in all
categories of environmental impacts analyzed compared to the tra-
ditional system (Table 3). The explanation for these values in rela-
tion to the other systems begins from unitary processes chosen at
the inventory stage; the agricultural inputs to produce feed were
based on the Swiss production of soy and organic corn. The Ecoin-
vent library, which made the Swiss inventories of organic inputs
available, lists a global mix of fertilizers applied to the organic corn
culture, and chicken litter appears as the basis of this type of fer-
tilization, being a source of the mineralized nutrients nitrogen (N),
phosphorus (P2 O5 ), and potassium (K2 O).
The inventories use unitary heat generation processes to dry
the chicken litter. These processes cause the greatest impacts be-
cause their energy matrix is supplied with mineral coal and fos-
sil fuels. The finishing ration for the organic product presented
46.7% of the total emissions of CO2 equivalent for one kilogram of
chicken. This feed contains in its formulation approximately 73.3%
of ground corn, which was also the process of greatest contribution
in all types of feed.
3.2. Economic evaluation
After environmental estimates, economic information (prices,
costs and investments) related to the different types of chicken
production systems addressed in this study were obtained. Re-
garding the necessary investments, average prices considered were
obtained in the market directly with the industries that supply
PPb 1200 ORGc 600
Broiler Heavy Griller Broiler Heavy Heavy
1.488 1.550 1.335 1.466 1.556 1.620
0.017 0.018 0.015 0.016 0.018 0.028
0.034 0.035 0.029 0.033 0.035 0.044
housing systems and equipment sales, earthworks, construction of
sheds, and freight (Table S4). The value of buildings was converted
into the average dollar rate for November 2017 ($ 3,257) and the
value of housing systems was converted into average dollar rate for
January 2018 ($ 3,213). Investment in working capital was also es-
timated in order to finance the operational activities provided for
in the production systems under study. The budgeted amount for
the working capital investment was converted into average dollar
rate for October 2017 ($ 3,196). Investment specifications can be
read in (Table S11).
Table 4 shows summary information regarding the calculation
of unit costs per chicken produced and per functional unit in kilo-
grams. Detailed information is available in (Table S12).
It also happens that the volumes of firewood consumed by lots
are similar when compared to the size of the aviaries. The aver-
age price was $ 12.52 per cubic meter of firewood, and the vol-
umes consumed varied from 0.010 m3 to 0.012 m3 of firewood per
square meter. This small variation is due to the need for firewood
for heat generation in the first 25 days of age of chicken in any of
the analyzed systems.
The chicken litter, composed of wood shavings in the south of
Brazil, is the most expensive item for the producer. In all produc-
tion systems, the amount of shavings for bedding was ten centime-
ters per square meter, with a replacement of another five centime-
ters when passing six lots through the DH and conventional sys-
tems, and the same five centimeters for organic aviaries with re-
placement every four lots.
Maintenance and insurance costs related to infrastructure are
also absorbed by the producer. The insurance rate for poultry
houses is 0.036% of the total value of housing systems, and for
maintenance the percentage is on average 1%. The values of the
Tax on Rural Territorial Property (ITR) were not available, therefore
a rate of 0.2% was applied to the land price of an area of up to 50
hectares with 80% use based on the premise that most aviaries are
located on small rural properties. The size of the area considered
for this calculation was 20,0 0 0 m2 , and the average value of bare
land consulted in the archives of the National Institute of Coloniza-
tion and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) was $ 1,826.03 for the cities of
the state of Paraná and $ 1,318.52 for the cities of the state of Santa
Catarina.
Thus, the costs per functional unit produced in conventional
poultry houses are close to the costs of DH poultry houses. The
decimal difference is greater when compared to the volumes pro-
duced annually. When comparing the cost of organic chicken with
Griller chicken, there is a significant difference (300%) in the case
of the 71-day organic product. The earned costs increase over time
so that each lot reaches slaughter weight. There is a singularity
for aviaries that produce organic chickens, where labor is the most
expressive item due to the average slaughter period of 71 days, ac-
cumulating approximately 2.4 wages per unit of work/month. Re-
garding the poultry for organic production, it is noted that the
electricity costs are much lower than the others, even with the
amount paid of $ 0.16/kWh versus the $ 0.11 paid by producers
in Paraná. Two reasons explain this lower cost. The first reason is
 G. Martinelli, E. Vogel and M. Decian et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 24 (2020) 181–193
Table 4
Unit costs.
DHa 2400
Griller
Final lodging (birds/lot) 46,146
Average slaughter weight (kg) 1.50
Total cost ($) 4,993.09
Cost per chicken delivered ($) 0.11
Cost per kg of chicken delivered ($) 0.07
a
DH 2400 - Dark house 2400 m2
b
PP 1200 - Positive pressure 1200 m2
c
ORG 600 - Organic positive pressure 600 m2 .
that the management of organic chickens follows its own regula-
tion, where there is a minimum requirement of a dark period per
day for birds, leading a 600 m2 aviary to consume an average of
680 kWh per lot versus an average of 5206 kWh for DH and 2800
kWh for conventional poultry houses. The second reason regards
equipment powered by electric energy. The poultry for production
and organic chickens follow the standards of PP aviaries, adding
only an open area for grazing.
In relation to the revenue related to the production sale, the in-
formation is available in Table S5. The average prices paid to pro-
ducers range from $ 0.10/bird for Griller products to $ 0.21/bird for
Heavy products. Again, there is a singularity for organic chicken.
The amount paid by the cooperative to the producer is $ 2.11 per
kilogram of live weight. It begins with operating income, which
for the analyzed lots comes from the sale of poultry for slaughter
and from litter as organic fertilizer. The only deduction is made at
the time of sale, where the 2.3% rate, referring to social security
contribution tax (FUNRURAL), is applied to the total amount of the
invoice.
From these data, it was necessary to determine the operating
results of each production system for the period of one year (Table
S7), whose values were converted into average dollar rate of Oc-
tober 2017 ($ 3.196). Then, the productivity of the invested capital
and the operating margin of each production system were deter-
mined in order to subsequently calculate the return on investment
(ROI). Productivity relates revenues to the total value of the capital
invested, identifying the number of times (turnover) this capital is
realized in the year.
The 2.75% rate was applied to provision the income tax and to
calculate the NOPAT. The operating margin, given by the relation
between NOPAT and total annual revenue, was 24-37% for conven-
tional and DH systems, respectively.
The following information was used to determine the MARR us-
ing the AH-CAPM model: a) global risk-free rate (Rfg : interest rate
paid on bonds issued by the United States Government Treasury
with a 30-year redemption term obtained on 7/31/2019, https://
www.treasury.gov); b) country risk (Rc : JP Morgan’s EMBI + Brazil
index obtained on 7/31/2019, http: //www.ipeadata.gov.br); c) re-
turn on the global market (RMG ): annual average of the Morgan
Stanley Capital International MSCI ACWI index for the period from
01/01/2004 to 07/31/2019, http://msci.com); d) country beta (β CLG :
regression between the daily variation of the IBOVESPA index from
01/10/2016 to 07/31/2019 and the daily variation of the MSCI ACWI
index in the same period); d) unlevered beta (β GG ): the average
unlevered beta of the companies JBS SA and BRF SA was used
as a proxy for the sector’s risk. The beta was unlevered by the
βNA = {βA /[1 + (1 − t ) × ( DE )]}, model, being β NA the non-levered
beta, β A the levered beta of each of the companies obtained by
the regression between the daily variations of the IBOVESPA index
and the daily variations of the share prices of the respective com-
panies in B3 from 08/01/2016 to 07/31/2019 (http://investing.com),
t corresponds to the Income Tax and Social Contribution rate, D are
187
PPb 1200 ORGc 600
Broiler Heavy Griller Broiler Heavy Organic
33,469 31,968 20,095 14,400 13,440 4,560
2.90 3.50 1.50 2.90 3.50 3.30
5,816.26 5,962.09 2,546.25 2,927.80 3,174.17 3,213.50
0.18 0.19 0.13 0.20 0.23 0.70
0.06 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.21
the company’s debts, and E is the value of net worth; f) coefficient
of determination (R2 ): regression between the IBOVESPA index and
the EMBI + Brazil index from 10/01/2016 to 7/31/2019. The values
calculated for the variables used in the AH-CAPM model are shown
in (Table S6).
The results in (Table S6) evidence that the EVA is positive, that
is, it creates economic value for investors in all production systems,
except for the PP 1200 system (Heavy), whose EVA is equal to -$
235.68.
Regarding the added value for the analyzed categories, the re-
sults can be identified in Fig. 2.
In acidification, negative pressure DH systems and conventional
systems show similarities to the acidification category, but there
is a disparity in the economic vector (Fig. 2-b). Each kilogram of
chicken produced in DH systems generates approximately 0.02 kg
SO2 eq. For the Broiler product, the ratio of this system is 1:1. In
conventional production systems, emissions are also close to 0.02
kg SO2 eq. However, values have shown destruction of economic
value for all products. The negative highlight of this system is the
production of Heavy chickens, which remained at the average of
the emissions of the same product produced in the DH aviary but
presented a negative economic result of $ -0.001. None of the sys-
tems presented an economic or environmental performance similar
as the ORG system. The emissions are 0.028 kg SO2 eq., but with
an economic gain of $ 1.12 per FU. Thus, as the comparisons with
systems that produce organic chicken were also represented graph-
ically (see Fig. 2), despite the ORG system presenting the highest
EVA when compared to the other systems.
For the sake of example, we made a comparative analysis with
the DH 2400 Broiler production system. This was done to justify
the EVA/kg of the ORG 600 production system. The result depends
on the values calculated for the following elements of revenues
and costs.:
a) Net Operating Revenue (NOR): Net Operating Revenue is com-
pound by the multiplication of the quantity sold (lots or kg)
at the unit sale price of the product, deducting the taxes
paid by the producer. When comparing the ROL obtained in
the ORG 600 with that of DH 2400 Broiler system, it is
noted that the ORG 600 system ROL is 1.52 times higher
($96,211.14/$63,178.26), as shown in Table S7.
Although the production obtained in the DH 2400 system is
9.57 times greater than that obtained in the ORG 600 system
(626.661kg/65.511kg), see Table S7, the selling price per bird ob-
tained in the ORG 600 system is 24.75 times higher ($4.95/$0.20),
see Table S5. The price received per bird in the ORG 600 system
was gathering directly in an ecological association producers lo-
cated in the South Region of Brazil, specifically in the state of Santa
Catarina (Santa Rosa de Lima city), consisted by 50 families of eco-
logical farmers, all smallholders, whose mission is to unveil actions
in the area of ecological agriculture and solidary popular economy,
aiming to build sustainable rural development for the communities
188 G. Martinelli, E. Vogel and M. Decian et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 24 (2020) 181–193
Fig. 2. Added value for cases of global warming, acidification and eutrophication.
of the region, always guided by ethical principles and human and
community values of common good and solidarity.
The retail organic chicken price paid by the consumer, on aver-
age, is equal to $6.07/kg (Will Orgânicos, 2020), by the exchange
of the data collection date for October 2017 ($3.196). On the other
hand, the chicken price produced in conventional systems, on av-
erage, is equal to $1.34/kg (Notícias Agrícolas, 2020). Thereby, the
price paid by the consumer in kg of organic chicken is 4.53 times
higher than the price paid for the chicken produced in conven-
tional systems, specifically in the DH 2400 Broiler system. How-
ever, although the organic chicken sale price is significantly higher,
it is noteworthy that the market share of this product in the Brazil-
ian market is lower than that of other products, given the income
inequality, the low per capita income of Brazilians and the high
unemployment rate in the country.
Although there are still few organic chicken producers in Brazil,
this market grows at surprising rates, based on information ob-
tained from these producers. Korin, one of the main companies
operating in this sector has been exporting organic chicken to
Hong Kong since 2016. According to Korin, Hong Kong is one of
the largest consumers of organic chicken in the world, being a
demanding and well-informed market, paying a higher price for
higher quality products. Also, according to the company, it was
sought to produce antibiotic-free chickens, catering to animal wel-
fare and based on natural agriculture. Korin carried out the first
export of organic chickens from Brazil and other countries have
already shown interest in buying their chickens, such as Peru,
Colombia, Chile, Angola, United Arab Emirates, and some European
countries, these in the study period. Korin grew 380% in the last
7 years and, in 2016, started its sales in the international mar-
ket, exporting to Hong Kong, Europe, and the United Arab Emirates
(Korin, 2020).
According to producers’ association it is estimated that the vol-
ume of organic production in Brazil is circa of 300 mil t/year,
which generates a market of US$200 million/year. Most of the
Brazilian organic production (80%) is in the South and Southeast
region. Around 85% of production is exported, mainly to Europe,
the United States, and Japan. The remaining (15%) is distributed
on the domestic market (CPT, 2020). On the website of the Arab-
Brazilian News Agency is available some information on the ex-
port of organic chicken from Brazil to the United Arab Emirates
(AnBA, 2020).
The organic food consumption in Brazil grows at a rate of
25% per year, with 17,0 0 0 certified properties in all the federa-
tion units; 63% are exclusive organic producers that use around
one million hectares. In 2018, organic products’ consumption in
Brazil was estimated at $1,029,866.12 (to the average dollar of
$3,884), which requires regulation to assure consumers that they
are purchasing an organic product, that is, a product that com-
plies with legal regulations (Law No. 10,831 / 2003 and Decree No.
6,323 / 2007), established for organic agriculture in the country
(Sebrae, 2020).
a) Operating Costs (OC): the ORG 600 system has the lowest
Operating Cost ($13,430.47) when compared to the other
production systems. The OC of the DH 2400 Broiler system,
 G. Martinelli, E. Vogel and M. Decian et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 24 (2020) 181–193
i.e., is 2.8 times greater than the operating cost of the ORG
600 ($37,551.80/$13,430.47), see Table S7.
b) NOPAT: the NOPAT value is produced by the difference be-
tween NOR, OC, and taxes paid by the producer, therefore it
identifies the profitability of the production system. In Ta-
ble S7 can be seen that NOPAT obtained in the ORG 600 is
3.36 times greater than that obtained in the DH 2400 Broiler
system ($80,072.58/$23,848.15), that is, the NOPAT magni-
tude of the ORG 600 system is derived from a higher NOR
and lower OC compared to the values identified in the DH
2400 Broiler system (items a and b, described above).
c) Invested Capital (IC): the amount of Invested Capital in the
ORG 600 system is much lower than that invested in other
production systems. The DH 2400 Broiler system, for in-
stance, is found to demand 2.35 times more IC than the ORG
600 system ($226,465.98/$96,519.65), see Table S7.
d) Return on Invested Capital (ROIC): ROIC is a rate assem-
bled by the relationship between NOPAT and invested cap-
ital. Among the production systems analyzed the ORG 600
showed the highest NOPAT and the lowest capital invested,
thus justifying the value of its ROIC (82.96%) significantly
higher than the other rates of return, see Table S7.
e) Cost of Invested Capital (CIC): the CIC depends on the
amount of resources invested in the production system and
on the attractiveness of the investment to the producer,
called MARR. In this study, the MARR was determined at
6.75% (see Table S6), therefore, given the amount of IC and
MARR, it is noted that the ORG 600 system had the lowest
CIC ($65.511 × 0.0675 = $4,421.99).
Based on the explanations given in the previous items, the
EVA/kg of the ORG 600 production system is justified. The mag-
nitude of its value ($1.123/kg) concerning the other systems is de-
termined by the higher sale price of the product (24.75 and 4.53
times higher for the producer and the consumer, respectively), the
lower operating cost ($13,430.47) and the lower demand for in-
vested capital ($96,519.65). The higher price and lower cost in-
crease profitability ($80,072.58). Higher profit with less demand for
invested capital produces a higher rate of return (82.96%). A higher
rate of return with a lower cost of capital increases the value of
EVA/kg ($1.123).
Fig. 3. Histogram of the EVA/kg value in function of changes in input variables with uncertainty for the positive pressure production system (organic 600).
189
For aquatic eutrophication, the results are similar to those for
acidification (Fig. 2-c). The products that most affected this cate-
gory were Heavy chickens, with emission values of 0.04 kg PO4 eq.
per functional unit and with positive EVA values for DH aviaries
and negative for conventional aviaries. In relation to the category
global warming (100 yr) (Fig. 2-a) for DH systems and for conven-
tional systems, the values were established between 1.3 kg CO2 eq
and 1.6 kg CO2 eq. The amount of equivalent gases emitted in or-
ganic systems by UF is almost the same as in the systems in com-
parison, not exceeding 2%, that is 1.62 kg CO2 eq. for an average of
1.55 kg CO2 eq per UF. The EVA that the organic product generates
represents approximately 80 times the EVA of the Broiler product
in DH systems.
When results are normalized for each $ 1.00 EVA, it is possi-
ble to note that organic systems are the lowest emitters regarding
the global warming (100 yr) impact category (Table S8). The re-
sults show that for each $ 1.00 of EVA, the organic system emits
1,44 kg CO2 eq. These values very close to the PP 1200 Heavy and
DH 2400 broiler systems. The difference is the number of FUs that
each system needs to generate this economic value. In the second
column of the same table, it is observed that to generate $ 1.00 of
EVA, the organic system needs only one FU, whereas the DH 2400
Griller and DH 2400 Broiler systems need 83 and 71 FUs, respec-
tively.
3.3. Measurements of uncertainty and risk
After observing the data in (Table S7) the variables that most
influenced the economic value added (EVA) of the production
systems were I - net operating revenue, II - lot operating cost,
III - minimum attractiveness rate of return and, IV - invested
capital. Thus, by analyzing the production systems after obtain-
ing the sensitivity analysis in the three systems, it appears that,
when considering the variable net operating revenue, the organic
production system has a greater significance among the others,
while the other input variables had little influence in the final re-
sult of EVA/kg (Table S9). The variables lot operating cost, min-
imum attractiveness rate of return and invested capital have a
percentage variation between products of the three systems of
about 4%.
190 G. Martinelli, E. Vogel and M. Decian et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 24 (2020) 181–193
Fig. 4. Tornado chart of the EVA/kg value in function of changes in the input variables with uncertainty for the positive pressure production system (organic 600).
In order to verify which of the poultry production systems has
the greatest risk for the investor, the Monte Carlo simulation was
developed. It is a modeling and simulation measurement widely
used in scientific works. Table S10 shows that the organic produc-
tion system is the only one that does not destroy economic value,
since, by considering a 95% probability in estimating EVA values
within the proposed confidence interval, all values remain positive.
Subsequently, by analyzing the results in (Table S10) the prob-
ability of EVA/kg being lower than zero was simulated. This situa-
tion only occurs in the organic production system (Table 5).
As observed in Table S9, 10 and Table 5, the production system
with the best economic performance considering the simulations
obtained in this study is the organic Positive Pressure (Organic
600), precisely because of the differential in productive manage-
ment. The behavior of the variable EVA/kg is graphically illustrated
in function of changes in the input variables only for this system
through a histogram and a rendered graph (Figs. 3 and 4).
Fig. 3 shows, with a 95% probability, the EVA/kg variation range
of the organic production system, established between $ 0.94 and $
1.29. Therefore, these are positive values that identify the creation
of economic value for producers when they opt for this production
system.
Fig. 4 identifies the impacts of changes in the input variables I
- net operating revenue, II - lot operating cost, III - minimum at-
tractiveness rate of return, and IV - invested capital on the value of
Table 5
Probability of EVA/kg being negative for each production sys-
tem.
Production System Probability of EVA < 0
Dark House 2400 Griller 14.4%
Dark House 2400 Broiler 7.6%
Dark House Heavy 13.0%
Negative Pressure Griller 51.8%
Negative Pressure Broiler 27.0%
Negative Pressure Heavy 62.7%
Negative Pressure 600 Organic 62.7%
EVA/kg generated in the positive pressure system (organic 600). It
can be seen that the greatest impact on EVA/kg in this production
system occurs when there are variations in net operating revenue
(95.18%), followed by the impact produced by changes in MARR
(2.73%), operating cost (1.86%) and invested capital (0.22%).
4. Conclusions
The food production chain has faced pressures from the con-
sumer market in relation to the way production has been carried
out (Boer, 2002; Macleod et al., 2013) because of the context of
climate change and the tendency of the need to increase food pro-
duction considering the predictions of global population increase
(Wiedemann et al., 2017), which, in this context, is the control over
the use of productive inputs, considering that natural resources are
scarce and need to be well used, and the need to know the emis-
sions that cause recurrent environmental impacts to the produc-
tion process (Macleod et al., 2013). The pressure on the produc-
tion chain refers to the need to establish strategies so that it be
more effective and, at the same time, reduce negative externalities
(Notarnicola et al., 2012; González-Gracía et al., 2013; Dick et al.,
2015). This need is reinforced upon observing the productive im-
portance of the food industry, as well as its consumption of en-
ergy and resources, considering that it is one of the largest global
industrial sectors (Roy et al., 2012).
It is also noteworthy that the demand for animal protein con-
sumption has increased worldwide due to the increase in con-
sumption by emerging countries (Ciolos, 2012) justified by the
population increase and the availability of people’s economic re-
sources, expanding the demand for this protein (Edjabou and
Smed, 2013; Boer et al., 2014). In the case of poultry meat, it has
gained the consumer market due to i) its low price, ii) for provid-
ing a source of necessary nutritional components for people such
as vitamin B, and iii) for its low fat contents, in the latter case
being able to meet certain niche markets (Windhorst, 2006; Food
Agriculture Organization – FAO, 2012). In addition, its production
can be carried out using less space when compared to beef, for
example, implying small changes in land use (OECD; FAO, 2016),
which is a significant issue given that the change in land use is
 G. Martinelli, E. Vogel and M. Decian et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 24 (2020) 181–193
often related to the replacement of natural vegetation (Liu et al.,
2018) and because changes in land use are considered one of the
five main factors that cause the loss of biodiversity in the world
(WRI, 2005).
To assess the use of natural resources and the emissions dur-
ing the life cycle of a product, process or service, the life cycle
assessment (LCA) is a recurring technique, considered a standard-
ized technique and accepted internationally (Rebitzer et al., 2004;
Rousset et al., 2011). Regarding measurements in the context of
food production, different products have been evaluated based on
LCA (Eady et al., 2012; Pirlo et al., 2014; Kwofie and Ngadi, 2017;
Vasconcelos et al., 2018; Nikkhah et al., 2019). As advantages, the
use of LCA makes it possible to make comparisons between similar
products or processes to identify critical points during the produc-
tion process and, from there, to establish improvement strategies
(Vasconcelos et al., 2018). The LCA allows investigating different
impacts generated by the production process, such as acidification
and eutrophication (Yasar et al., 2017). It can influence the produc-
tion decision-making process, as it assists in the choice of inputs
that cause less environmental impacts (Liu et al., 2010). In addi-
tion, it has become the main method to establish policies that aim
to equalize the production process and the environmental impacts
related to production (Nikkhah et al., 2019).
In recent years, there has been an increase in the attention
that society has paid to the sustainability of products, processes
and services made available for consumption (Bauman and Till-
man, 2004). However, a sustainable production must consider the
issue of the environmental impact generated and the economic
value created by the production (Desimone and Popoff, 20 0 0). For
this reason, we decided to use the concept of eco-efficiency in this
research. It is a tool to compare products or production processes
that can result in buying options and use options (Desimone and
Popoff, 20 0 0). Thus, the consumer, among the available alterna-
tives, can choose the one that maximizes the producer’s income
and minimizes the environmental impact, that is, the one with
the greatest eco-efficiency (Middelaar et al., 2011). In this context,
the number of variables that can be analyzed by the consumer in-
creases in relation to the product that one wishes to consume, en-
abling a more assertive decision (Middelaar et al., 2011).
This study allowed a holistic view of the poultry production
chain in Brazil and the main product of poultry, chicken, consid-
ering that we used information from the places with the greatest
productive representativeness in Brazil. The quantification of the
main environmental impacts was possible because there are na-
tional inventories of the main inputs to produce broilers, grains,
and electricity.
Regarding the economic issue addressed, negative values for
EVA/kg in a conventional system indicate the need for an analy-
sis on the return of this productive system for those who work
with it and even in the case of new investments. However, in
Brazil, this productive form has not been stimulated for use and
yet there are prospects for replacing systems that are in oper-
ation for the DH system. In addition, the type of chicken used
in the production process can influence the results of productive
eco-efficiency. However, before deciding the production process in
a substitution, one needs to study if the type of chicken is ac-
cepted by the consumer market, that is, if it meets consumption
needs.
It is also suggested that future work encompasses the anal-
ysis and scope of factories that process different types of agro-
industrial by-products. The purpose of the research would change
because the focus would be to compare the impacts of livestock
production fed with different sources of proteins. Therefore, both
tools have replicable structures in different production systems, be-
ing able to analyze eco-efficiency in different countries, even to
compare whether there is a relationship between them.
191
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.07.007.
References
ABNT, 2014. NBR ISO 14045: Avaliação da ecoeficiência de sistemas de produto -
Princípios, requisitos e orientações. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas,
Rio de Janeiro.
ABPA, 2018. Relatório anual 2018. Associação Brasileira de Proteína animal. http:
//abpa- br.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/10/relatorio- anual- 2018.pdf.
Abreu, V.M.N., Abreu, P.G.de, 2011. Os desafios da ambiência sobre
os sistemas de aves no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 40,
1–14. https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/42704/1/
os- desafios- da- ambiencia- sobre- os- sistemas.pdf.
Acuña, E., Rubilar, R., Cancino, J., Albaugh, T.J., Maier, C.A., 2018. Economic assess-
ment of Eucalyptus globulus short rotation energy crops under contrasting sil-
vicultural intensities on marginal agricultural land. Land Use Policy 76, 329–337.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.028.
Aiking, H., 2011. Future protein supply. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 22, 112–120. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2010.04.005.
Alexandratos, N., Bruinsma, J., 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012
revision. ESA Work. Pap. 288998, Food Agric. Organ. United Nations, Agric. Dev.
Econ. Div. (ESA). https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.288998.
Amon, B., Hutchings, N., Dämmgen, U., Webb, J., 2016. Manure management.
EMEP/EEA air polutant emission inventory guidebook 2016. Eur. Environ.
Agency. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep- eea- guidebook- 2016/
part- b- sectoral- guidance- chapters/4- agriculture/3- d- crop- production- and.
AnBA, 2020. Agência de notícias Brasil-Árabe. https://tinyurl.com/yay4kmsb (Ac-
cessed 9 July 2020).
Arnold, U., Yildiz, O., 2015. Economic risk analysis of decentralized renewable en-
ergy infrastructures – a Monte Carlo simulation approach. Renew. Energy 77,
227–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.11.059.
Assaf Neto, A., 2014. Finanças Corporativas e Valor. BR, Atlas, São Paulo.
Bauman, H., Tillman, A.M., 2004. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to LCA. Chalmers University
of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden.
Bengtsson, J., Seddon, J., 2013. Cradle to retailer or quick service restaurant gate life
cycle assessment of chicken products in Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 41, 291–300.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.034.
Boer, J., Schosler, H., Aiking, H., 2014. "Meatless days" or "less but better"? Explor-
ing strategies to adapt Western meat consumption to health and sustainability
challenges. Appetite 76, 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.002.
Boer, D.I.J.M., 2002. Environmental impact assessment of conventional and or-
ganic milk production. Livest. Prod. Sci. 80 (1-2), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0301- 6226(02)00322- 6.
Boggia, A., Paolotti, L., Castellini, C., 2010. Environmental impact evaluation of
conventional, organic and organic-plus poultry production systems using life
cycle assessment. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 66, 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0 043933910 0 0 0103.
Boland, M.J., Rae, A.N., Vereijken, J.M., Meuwissen, M.P.M., Fischer, A.R.H., van
Boekel, M.A.S.J., Rutherfurd, S.M., Moughan, H.J., Hendriks, W.H., 2013. The fu-
ture supply of animal-derived protein for human consumption. Trends Food Sci.
Technol. 29 (1), 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2012.07.002.
Blank, F.F., Samanez, C.P., Baidya, T.K.N., Aiube, F.A.L., 2014. CAPM Condi-
cional: Betas Variantes no Tempo no Mercado Brasileiro. Revista Brasileira
de Finanças 12, 163–199. http://www.spell.org.br/documentos/ver/32621/
capm- condicional–betas- variantes- no- tempo- no- mercado- brasileiro.
Casarotto Filho, N., Kopittke, B.H., 2010. Análise De Investimentos: Matemática Fi-
nanceira, Engenharia Econômica, Tomada De Decisões, Estratégia Empresarial.
BR, Atlas, São Paulo.
Castellini, C., Boggia, A., Cortina, C., Dalbosco, A., Paolotti, L., Novelli, E., Mugnai, C.,
2012. A multicriteria approach for measuring the sustainability of different
poultry production systems. J. Clean. Prod. 37, 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2012.07.006.
Cavalheiro, R.T., Gimenes, R.M.T., Binotto, E., Fietz, C.R., 2019. Fair value for biological
assets: an interdisciplinary methodological proposal. J. Contemp. Admin. 23 (4),
543–563.
Cesari, V., Zucali, M., Sandrucci, A., Tamburini, A., Baval, L., Toschi, I., 2016. Envi-
ronmental impact assessment of an Italian vertically integrated broiler system
through a life cycle approach. J. Clean. Prod. 143, 904–911. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.030.
Cioloş, D., 2012. Europe’s path towards sustainable agriculture. https://europa.eu/
rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-480_en.htm.
CPT, 2020. Centro de Produções Técnicas e Editora Ltda. https://tinyurl.com/
y86cxfpu (accessed 10 July 2020).
Damodaran, A., 2002. Investiment Valuation. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
192 G. Martinelli, E. Vogel and M. Decian et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 24 (2020) 181–193
Desimone, L.D., Popoff, F., 20 0 0. Eco-efficiency: the Business Link to Sustainable De-
velopment. MIT Press, London, England.
DE Smet, S., Vossen, E., 2016. Meat: The balance between nutrition and health. A
review. Meat Sci. 120, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.008.
Dick, M., Abreu Da Silva, M., Dewes, H., 2015. Mitigation of environmental impacts
of beef cattle production in southern Brazil - evaluation using farm-based life
cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.
10.087.
Eady, S., Carre, A., Grant, T., 2012. Life cycle assessment modelling of complex agri-
cultural systems with multiple food and fibre co-products. J. Clean. Prod. 28,
143–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.005.
Edjabou, L.D., Smed, S., 2013. The effect of using consumption taxes on foods to
promote climate friendly diets - the case of Denmark. Food Policy 39, 84–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.12.004.
Ehrenfeld, J.R., 2005. Eco-efficiency: philosophy, theory, and tools. J. Ind. Ecol. 9 (4),
6–8. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819805775248070.
Ellingsen, H., Aanondsen, S.A., 2006. Environmental impacts of wild caught cod and
farmed Salmon-a comparison with chicken. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11, 60–65.
https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.01.236.
FAO, 2012. Poultry in human nutrion. http://www.fao.org/
poultry-production-products/products-processing/poultry-in-human-nutrition/
en/.
Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M.,
Muller, N.D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D.K., West, P.C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E.M., Carpen-
ter, S.R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockstrom, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S.,
Tilman, D., Zaks, D.P., 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–
342. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452.
Gitman, L.J., 2010. Princípios de administração financeira. Pearson Education do
Brasil, São Paulo.
Gerber, P., Opio, C., Steinfeld, H., 2007. Poultry production and the environment -
a review. animal production and health division, food and agriculture organi-
zation of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/events/bangkok2007/docs/part2/2_2.pdf.
Godfrey, S., Espinosa, R., 1996. A practical approach to calculating costs of equity
for investments in emerging markets. J. Appl. Corp. Financ. Fall 80–89. https:
//doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6622.1996.tb0 030 0.x.
Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F.,
Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M., Toulmin, C., 2010. Food security: the chal-
lenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1185383.
González-Gracía, S., Castanheira, E.G., Dias, A.C., Arroja, L., 2013. Environmental life
cycle assessment of dairy product: the yoghurt. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (4),
796–811. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367- 012- 0522- 8.
Graham, J.R., Harvey, C.R., 2001. The theory and practice of corporate finance:
evidence from the field. J. Financ. Econ. 60, 187–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0304-405X(01)0 0 044-7.
Hauschild, M.Z., Goedkoop, M., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., Jolliet, O.,
Margni, M., de Schryver, A., Humbert, S., Laurent, A., Sala, S., Pant, R., 2013. Iden-
tifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact
assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (3), 683–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11367- 012- 0489- 5.
Huppes, G., Ishikawa, M., 2005. Eco-efficiency and its terminology. J. Ind. Ecol. 9 (4),
43–46. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819805775247891.
Kicherer, A., Schaltegger, S., Tschochohei, H., Ferreira Pozo, B., 2007. Eco-efficiency:
combining life cycle assessment and life cycle costs via normalization. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 12 (7), 537–543. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.01.305.
Korin, 2020. https://tinyurl.com/ya43p47b (accessed 10 July 2020).
Kwofie, E.M., Ngadi, M., 2017. A comparative lifecycle assessment of rural parboiling
system and an integrated steaming and drying system fired with rice husk. J.
Clean. Prod. 140, 622–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.008.
Leinonen, I., Williams, G.A., Waller, H.A., Kyriazakis, I., 2013. Comparing the environ-
mental impacts of alternative protein crops in poultry diets: The consequences
of uncertainty. Agric. Syst. 121, 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.06.008.
Lintner, J., 1965. The valuation of risk assets and the selection of risky investments
in stock portfolios and capital budgets. Rev. Econ. Stat. 47 (1), 13–37. http://
www.aea.ru/data/pdf/lintner1965.pdf.
Liu, S., Du, W., Su, H., Wang, S., Guan, Q., 2018. Quantifying impacts of land-
use/cover change on urban vegetation gross primary production: a case study
of Wuhan, China. Sustainability 10 (3), 714. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030714.
Liu, Y., Langer, V., Høgh-Jensen, H., Egelyng, H., 2010. Life Cycle Assessment of fossil
energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in Chinese pear production. J. Clean.
Prod. 18, 1423–1430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.05.025.
Lessard, D., 1996. Incorporating country risk in the valuation of offshore projects. J.
Appl. Corp. Financ. 9, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6622.1996.tb00298.x.
López-Andrés, J.J., Aguilar-Lasserre, A.A., Morales-Mendoza, L.F., Azzaro-Pantel, C.,
Pérez-Gallardo, J.R., Rico-Contreras, J.O., 2018. Environmental impact assessment
of chicken meat production via an integrated methodology based on LCA, sim-
ulation and genetic algorithms. J. Clean. Prod. 174, 477–491. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.307.
Lukuyu, J.M., Blanchard, R.E., Rowley, P.N., 2019. A risk-adjusted techno-economic
analysis for renewable-based milk cooling in remote dairy farming communi-
ties in East Africa. Renew. Energy 130, 700–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.
2018.06.101.
Macleod, M., Gerber, P., Mottet, A., Tempio, G., Falcucci, A., Opio, C., Vellinga, T., Hen-
derson, B., Steinfeld, H., 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken
supply chains–A global life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO), Roma http://www.fao.org/3/i3460e/i3460e.pdf.
Mariscal, J., Hargis, K., 1999. A long-term perspective on short-term risk. Goldman
Sachs, Portf. Strateg.. http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jmei/hargis.pdf.
Martinelli, G.do C., Schlindwein, M.M., Padovan, M.P., Gimenes, R.M.T., 2019. De-
creasing uncertainties and reversing paradigms on the economic performance
of agroforestry systems in Brazil. Land Use Policy 80, 274–286. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.019.
Markowitz, H.M., 1959. Portfolio Selection: Efficient diversification of investments.
Copyright by Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics at Yale University,
New York https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/mon/m16-all.pdf.
Martínez-Paz, J., Pellicer-Martínez, F., Colino, J., 2014. A probabilistic approach for
the socioeconomic assessment of urban river rehabilitation projects. Land Use
Policy 36, 468–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.09.023.
Middelaar, C.E., Van Berentsen, P.B.M., Dolman, M.A., Boer, I.J.M.de, 2011. Eco-
efficiency in the production chain of Dutch semi-hard cheese. Livest. Sci. 139,
91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.013.
Mossin, J., 1966. Equilibrium in a capital asset Market. Econometrica 34, 768–783.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1910098.
Mueller, N.D., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Ray, D.K., Ramankutty, N., Foley, J.A., 2012.
Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 490 (7419),
254–257. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11420.
Nikkhah, A., Firouzi, S., El Haj Assad, M., Ghnimi, S., 2019. Application of analytic hi-
erarchy process to develop a weighting scheme for life cycle assessment of agri-
cultural production. Sci. Total Environ. 665, 538–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.02.170.
Notarnicola, B., Hyashi, K., Curran, M.A., Huisingh, D., 2012. Progress in working
towards a more sustainable agri-food industry. J. Clean. Prod. 28, 1–8. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.007.
Notícias Agrícolas, 2020. https://tinyurl.com/y8x32hzg (accessed 11 July 2020).
OECD/FAO, 2015. Oecd/food And Agriculture Organization of The United Na-
tions. Agricultural Outlook, 2015-2024, Paris http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_
outlook- 2015- en.
OECD/FAO, 2016. Agricultural Outlook 2016-2025. OECD Publishing, Paris http://dx.
doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook- 2016- en.
Paolotti, L., Boggia, A., Castellini, C., Rocchi, L., Rosati, A., 2016. Combining livestock
and tree crops to improve sustainability in agriculture: a case study using the
life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. J. Clean. Prod. 131, 351–363. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.024.
Pelletier, N., 2008. Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: Life
cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophy-
ing emissions. Agric. Syst. 98 (2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2008.03.
007.
Pereiro, L.E., 2001. The valuation of closely-held companies in Latin America. Emerg.
Mark. Rev. 2, 330–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1566-0141(01)0 0 024-3.
Pirlo, G., Carè, S., Fantin, V., Falconi, F., Buttol, P., Terzano, G.M., Masoni, P., Pacelli, C.,
2014. Factors affecting life cycle assessment of milk produced on 6 Mediter-
ranean buffalo farms. J. Dairy Sci. 97 (10), 6583–6593. https://doi.org/10.3168/
jds.2014-8007.
Prudêncio da Silva, V., van der Welf, H.M.G., Soares, S.R., Corson, M.S., 2014. Envi-
ronmental impacts of French and Brazilian broiler chicken production scenar-
ios: an LCA approach. J. Environ. Manag. 133, 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2013.12.011.
Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G., Rydberg, T.,
Schmidt, W.P., Suh, S., Weidema, B.P., Pennington, D.W., 2004. Life cycle as-
sessment part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and
applications. Environ. Int. 30, 701–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2003.11.
005.
Rousset, P., Caldeira-Pires, A., Sablowski, A., Rodrigues, T., 2011. LCA of eucalyptus
wood charcoal briquettes. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (14), 1647–1653. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.015.
Rostagno, H.S., Albino, L.F.T., Hannas, M.I., Donzele, J.L., Sakomura, N.K., Perazzo, G.F.,
Saraiva, A., Teixeira, L.M., Rodrigues, P.B., de Oliveira, R.F., de Toledo Barreto, S.L.,
Brito, C.O., 2017. Tabelas Brasileiras Para Aves e Suínos. Composição de alimen-
tos e exigências nutricionais. Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Departamento de
Zootecnia, Viçosa.
Roy, P., Orikasa, T., Thammawong, M., Nakamura, N., Xu, Q., Shiina, T., 2012. Life
cycle meats: an opportunity to abate the greenhouse gas emission from meat
industry in Japan. J. Environ. Manag. 93 (1), 218–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2011.09.017.
Sebrae, 2020. Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas. https://
tinyurl.com/y97kb9qu (Accessed 10 July 2020).
Souza, S.V., Gimenes, R.M.T., Binotto, E., 2019. Economic viability for deploying sys-
tem in emerging countries: a differentiated risk adjustment proposal. Land Use
Policy 83, 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.020.
Sharpe, W.F., 1964. Capital asset prices: a theory of market equilibrium under condi-
tions of risk. J. Financ. 19 (3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1964.
tb02865.x.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P.J., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., DE Haan, C., 2006.
Livestock’s long shadow environmental issues and options. Food Agric. Organ.
United Nations 3 (1), 1–377. http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e.pdf.
Stern Value Management, 2018. Consulting Services: Train-
ing. EUA, Nova York http://sternvaluemanagement.com/
consulting- services- strategy- governance- financial- policy- operations/
eva-training/.
 G. Martinelli, E. Vogel and M. Decian et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 24 (2020) 181–193
Talavera, D.L., Muñoz-Cerón, E., De La Casa, J., Ortega, M.J., Almonacid, G., 2011. En-
ergy and economic analysis for large-scale integration of small photovoltaic sys-
tems in buildings: The case of a public location in Southern Spain. Renew. Sus-
tain. Energy Rev. 15 (9), 4310–4319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.119.
Valdes, C., Hallahan, C., Harvey, D., 2015. Brazil’s broiler industry: Increasing ef-
ficiency and trade. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 18, 263–275. https://www.
ifama.org/resources/Documents/v18ia/Valdes- Hallahan- Harvey.pdf.
Vasconcelos, K., Farinha, M., Bernardo, L., Lampert, V.do N., Gianezini, M., da
Costa, J.S., Soares Filho, A., Genro, T.C.M., Ruviaro, C.F., 2018. Livestock-derived
greenhouse gas emissions in a diversified grazing system in the endangered
Pampa biome, Southern Brazil. Land Use Policy 75, 442–448. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.056.
Van Der Werf, H.M.G, Salou, T., 2015. Economic value as a functional unit for en-
vironmental labelling of food and other consumer products. J. Clean. Prod. 94,
394–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.077.
193
Wiedemann, S.G., Mcgahan, E.J., Murphy, C.M., 2016. Resource use and environmen-
tal impacts from Australian chicken meat production. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 675–
684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.086.
Will Orgânicos, 2020. https://tinyurl.com/y7vcjpke (accessed 10 July 2020).
Windhorst, H.W., 2006. Changes in poultry production and trade worldwide.
World’s Poult. Sci. J. 62, 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0 0439339060 01140.
WRI, 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC https://www.
millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf.
Yasar, A., Rasheed, R., Tabinda, A.B., Tahir, A., Sarwar, F., 2017. Life cycle assessment
of a medium commercial scale biogas plant and nutritional assessment of ef-
fluent slurry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67, 364–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2016.09.026.