Accepted Manuscript

Carbon footprint analysis in the aquaculture industry: Assessment of an ecological

shrimp farm

Ching-Chih Chang, Kuei-Chao Chang, Wen-Chun Lin, Ming-His Wu

PII: S0959-6526(17)32099-1

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.109

Reference: JCLP 10614

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 09 February 2017

Revised Date: 13 July 2017

Accepted Date: 11 September 2017

Please cite this article as: Ching-Chih Chang, Kuei-Chao Chang, Wen-Chun Lin, Ming-His Wu,
Carbon footprint analysis in the aquaculture industry: Assessment of an ecological shrimp farm,
Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.109

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights
1. The carbon footprint of an ecological shrimp farm is studied.
2. The lifecycle total carbon footprint of white shrimp is 6.9389 kgCO2e/kg.
3. The greatest emissions come from the electricity (2.0093 kgCO2e/kg).
4. Alternative energy solutions should be encouraged in the aquaculture industry.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Carbon footprint analysis in the aquaculture industry:

Assessment of an ecological shrimp farm

Ching-Chih Chang1, Kuei-Chao Chang2, Wen-Chun Lin3, Ming-His Wu3

ABSTRACT

The study uses life cycle assessment to analyze the carbon footprint of an
ecological shrimp farm located at Yijhu, Taiwan. The procedural study contains
primary and secondary data. The quantization procedure follows the ISO/TS 14067.
This study aims to estimate the white shrimp full life cycle carbon footprint using a
function unit per kilogram. SimoPro 8.0 is used to calculate the carbon footprint in
this study. The results show that the life cycle total carbon footprint of white shrimp is
6.9389 kgCO2e/kg. The top five factors in terms of carbon emissions were as follows:
electricity (2.0093 kgCO2e/kg, 29.39%), feed (1.6395 kgCO2e/kg, 23.98%), indirect
raw materials (1.4782 kgCO2e/kg, 21.62%), waste treatment (0.7783 kgCO2e/kg,
11.40%) and transport and refrigerant (0.7524 kgCO2e/kg, 11.01%). The results
showed that wastewater treatment is one of the emission hotspots over the whole life
cycle. To conclude, the carbon footprint of the shrimp supply chain can be reduced by
employing energy-conserving technology, by utilizing simple wastewater treatment
procedures, and by using territorial plants as feed, and such moves could help this
industry achieve its goals with regard to a sustainable environment.

Key words: carbon footprint, white shrimp, life cycle, electricity, feed

1 Department of Transportation and Communication Management Science and the Research Center for
Energy Technology and Strategy, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1, University Road, Tainan
70101, Taiwan. E-mail: chan5305@mail.ncku.edu.tw
2 The Research Center for Energy Technology and Strategy, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1,

University Road, Tainan 70101, Taiwan

3 Department of Transportation and Communication Management Science, National Cheng Kung

University, No. 1, University Road, Tainan 70101, Taiwan

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Introduction
Greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to rise each year, which causes the
global temperature to rise. In its 2014 Synthesis Report (AR5), the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) points out that we are now facing a number of
climate anomalies. For instance, an increased frequency and intensity of extreme
weather events are caused by rising temperature. The IPCC (2014) also noted that
rising temperatures are changing the rainfall patterns, which subsequently leads to
water shortages in some areas. Most importantly, glacial melting in polar areas has
caused an increase in sea levels, which is deteriorating the ecosystems. Such changes
in the climate system are likely to affect both natural and human systems, including
food production and supply. Indeed, the FAO (2009) Climate Change Report strongly
emphasized that climate change and environmental degradation are the main reasons
for food shortages.

In addition, IPCC (2014) pointed out that there is considerable evidence showing
that human activities are one of the factors associated with greater GHG in the
atmosphere in recent decades, and reported the GHG emissions associated with each
sector of the economy, using the GWP100 standard, which means that emissions are
converted into CO2-equivalents based on the 100-year Global Warming Potential. The
data showed that the emissions from the electricity and heat production sector (24%)
were the largest, followed by industry (21%), transportation (14%), agriculture (14%),
forestry and other land-uses (11%), and buildings (6.3%). It can thus be seen that
agriculture was the third greatest producer of emissions, producing the same amount
as the transportation sector. While agriculture is not the largest producer of emissions,
it still releases alarming levels that should be addressed.

The United Nations Environment Programme (2008) released Kick the Habit: A
UN Guide to Climate Neutrality Report, which revealed the emissions related to the
production of 100 kcal of food. Figure 1 shows that the food associated with the
highest emissions is shrimp (3.0799 kgCO2/100kcal), followed by lamb (2.5900
kgCO2/100kcal), beef (1.3789 kgCO2/100kcal), and pork (0.9026 kgCO2/100kcal).
The high carbon emissions associated with shrimp production mean that it is
important to develop more sustainable approaches to the production and distribution
of this product.

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Unit : kgCO2/100kcal
4 3.0799
2.5900
3
2 1.3789
0.9026 0.6033
1 0.4853 0.2903 0.1678 0.0272
0
Shrimp Lamb Beef, Pork Fish, avg Salmon, Eggs Chicken Apples
grain fed value farmed

Figure 1. Carbon emissions related to producing various foods (kgCO2/100kcal)

The concept of a carbon footprint originated from that of an ecological footprint,

which is used to assess the consumption of natural resources due to certain activities
(Wackernagel & Rees, 1998). The carbon footprint is used to evaluate the total
greenhouse gases released during the complete life cycle of certain products and
services, from the gathering of raw materials to manufacturing, assembly, and
transportation, as well as use, disposal and waste treatment(Williams, 2009). The
system boundaries of a carbon footprint are cataloged into three levels, which are the
energy consumption and emissions of the related country or region, the emissions of
the local enterprise or organization, and the life cycle emissions of a single product or
service (Galli et al., 2012). With the aid of carbon footprint values both governments
and enterprises have the data needed to plan and achieve reduction targets, and thus
promote a low-carbon lifestyle and carbon-reduction policies.

There are two specifications for computing carbon footprints, which are known
as PAS 2050 and ISO 14040/44. Many studies have used Pas 2050, includingYen
(2014), which estimated the carbon footprint of oyster, and Ku and Miao (2013),
which evaluated the carbon footprint of tilapia. Studies that adopted the ISO 14040/44
include Henriksson et al. (2014), which assessed the carbon footprint of shrimp;
Ziegler et al. (2013), which evaluated the carbon footprint of Norwegian seafood; and
Adom et al. (2013) calculated the carbon footprint of a dairy feed mill.

ISO later proposed the ISO/TS 14067 standard, which was based on the previous
ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044 standards, with a greater focus on the environmental
impact of climate change. All these standard share common qualitative criteria,
including the system’s organizational boundaries, base year, and identification of
GHG sources. As for quantitative methodology, there are three steps, which are the
calculation of GHG emissions, selection and collection of data and factors, and
documenting the GHG inventory, as illustrated in Figure 2.

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Qualitative Quantitative
Methodology Process Methodology Process

Organizational Calculation of GHG

Boundaries Emission

Setting Base Year Selection and Collection of

Activity Data and emission factor

Identification of GHG sources

Document the GHG Inventory

Results Explanation

Figure 2. Carbon footprint assessment phases

In contrast to the previous standards, which only provided two scenarios of from-
cradle-to-gate and from-cradle-to-grave, the ISO/TS 14067 further provides from-
gate-to-gate and partial carbon footprint scenarios. Studies that applied ISO/TS 14067
in their work include Fantozzi et al. (2015), which discussed the carbon footprint of
truffle sauce produced in Italy, and Svanes and Aronsson (2013), which evaluated the
carbon footprint of the banana supply chain.

The current study aims to calculate the carbon footprint of white shrimp
(Penaeus vannamei) from an ecological farm, with the goal of showing how GHG
emissions can be minimized, based on the ISO/TS 14067 standard. We address two
existing knowledge gaps in the literature by examining the following: 1) the carbon
footprint associated with shrimp production from cradle-to-grave, rather than from
cradle-to-gate, and 2) the potential of reducing the carbon footprint associated with
shrimp production by focusing our assessment on an ecological shrimp farm. The
cooking methods examined are those that are commonly used by local shrimp farmers
in Yijhu, and which are believed to provide especially tasty shrimp.

2. Methodology
2.1 The environmental overview

Yijhu, together with nearby Budai, Yanshuei, and Beimen townships, is one of
the main aquaculture areas in southern Taiwan, as illustrated in Figure 3. Due to the
outbreak of shrimp disease in recent years, few farmers only raise shrimp in their
ponds. Instead, they raise shrimp with other fish species, such as tilapia or milkfish, to
maintain their living. To avoid the inclusion of these other species during the carbon
footprint inventory, this study examines an ecological shrimp farm located in Yijhu.
The inventory period was in 2014.

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 3. Yijhu, Chiayi in Taiwan. Source: The Ministry of the Interior.

2.2 The aquaculture procedure and data collection process

The shrimp farmer’s activity data boundary started from when the shrimp farmer
bought the post-larvae and put them into the pond (52 shrimp per square meter). After
3 to 3.5 months the shrimp were harvested and sent to the processing factory. This
period includes the raw material and aquaculture phases of the carbon footprint life
cycle.

In the raw material phase, the shrimp go through nauplius and protozoa periods
when they need to be raised in a dark place, until they grow up and enter the mysis
and post-larva periods. Due to limited information about the nauplius to post-larva
period, and based on the experience of Macías (2012) and Cao et al. (2011), which
reported that the carbon emissions of larvae production are less than 5% of the partial
carbon footprint, this study only calculated the data for the post-larva to adult shrimp.
In addition, the main sources of electricity consumption were the waterwheel and
aeration systems, which are used to maintain the circulation and oxygen content of the
pond, and they need to run 24 hours a day. The electricity and water consumption data
was based on the monthly records of these.

In the aquaculture phase, the carbon footprint included the manufacturing of

direct and indirect materials. The direct materials included the commercial and
biological feeds. Of these, the commercial feed was made of fish, while the biological
feed was composed of rice bran, pearl powder, squid powder, molasses, soybean
powder, sesame powder, photosynthetic bacteria, effective microorganism bacteria
(EM bacteria), foremilk and fish meal. The use of biological feeds is expected to
foster healthy living environments. In addition, indirect materials like tea meal, lime
and zeolite powder are used to help neutralize the pH value and balance the ecological
5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

cycle. To be specific, lime was used to adjust the pH value of the water, while zeolite
powder was used to capture toxic substances and make them precipitate. Tea meal is a
natural material which can eliminate fish, and thus prevent them from eating the
shrimp. The activity data was collected by the weight of the material used.

Next, we consider the activity data boundary of the distribution, usage, and waste
treatment stages. In the distribution phase, the carbon footprint of diesel combustion
contains three parts. The first part of transportation started from the raw material firms
to the shrimp farm, and the second part started from the harvest at the shrimp farm
and lasted until the shrimps were transported to the processing factory. The third part
of transportation started from the shrimp farm and ended at the incinerator.
Nevertheless, we ignored the transportation of shrimp from the process factory to
customers, as we assumed these shrimp were sold locally and bought by people living
nearby.

The amount of refrigerant used for frozen transportation was also taken into
account in the distribution phase. The truck was assumed to be a Mitsubishi Delica
double AC, and its activity data with regard to the refrigerant was taken from Formosa
Robin (2014).

As for the usage phase, we estimated the carbon emissions of fuel and of water
based on the shrimp cooking method used. The activity data contained the harvest
weight of the shrimp; while the fuel used was based on a scenario. Due to the lack of
related product category rules (PCR) for shrimp in Taiwan, this study used the
average cooking tips provided by local shrimp farmers to evaluate the energy
consumption when cooking.

The last phase is the waste treatment phase, which includes the treatment of
wastewater, recycle of empty packages and the disposal of heads and shells of shrimp.
Although the ecological shrimp farm only replaced the pool water once a year, the
wastewater needed to be purified (such as by removing the biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) in the water) before being released to the nearby environment. In this
case, we assumed pond water was treated in the Southern Taiwan Science Park. The
waste disposals phase was related to head and shell of shrimp. Based on a survey from
shrimp processing factories, the heads and shells of shrimp accounted for 40% of the
entire shrimp product. This waste was disposed of using incineration, and the empty
packages used to transport this were recycled.

In short, the life cycle carbon footprint of shrimp was separated into five stages,
as shown in Figure 4. These five stages include the phases of raw materials,
aquaculture, distribution, usage and waste treatment.

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

System Boundary of White Shrimp Life Cycle Carbon Footprint in Chiayi Township

Raw Material Phase Aquaculturing Phase Distribution Phase Usage Phase Waste Treatment Phase

Direct Raw Materials Energy Resource Input

Feed Electricity
Photosynthetic Bacteria Water
EM Bacteria

Foremilk
Wholesaler
Other Materials
Consumer
Broodstock Trpt Freezing treatment
Postlarva Trpt Put Postlarva into pond
Farm

Cooking Waste Treatment

Indirect Raw Materials
Trpt Distributor
Shrimp grows out
Tea Meal
Lime
ReTrpt ReTrpt ReTrpt Empty Packages Recycle
Zoelite Powder Shrimp harvest
Super Restaurant
Retailer
Market & Hotel

Packaging Materials Trpt Clean and package ReTrpt

Traditional
Market

Trpt
Trpt
Trpt
: Included in System
Waste Waste Waste Water Waste
: Excluded from System
Trpt Trpt Trpt
Trpt : Transportation
Waste Waste Waste Water Waste ReTrpt : Refrigerated Transportation
Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment

Figure 4. System boundary of the white shrimp carbon footprint

2.3 Carbon footprint calculation with life cycle analysis

The carbon footprint framework was based on the ISO/TS 14067 standard.
Because ISO/TS 14067 does not provide any quantification method; we adopted the
emission factor method of PAS 2050 to analyze the data, which is the most widely
used approach. This method uses the GHG activity data multiplied by GHG emissions
or removal factors, as illustrated in equation (1).

𝐶𝐸𝑗 = 𝐴𝐶𝑗 × 𝐸𝐹𝑗𝑘 (1)

In which,
CE𝑗: GHG emissions of material j (kgCO2e);
ACj: The input amount of activity data of material j (unit);
EFjk: The life cycle missions factor of material j (kgCO2e /unit);

That is, this article used equation (1) to quantify the carbon footprint for the raw
material and aquaculture phases. The emission factors were primarily based on the
dataset released by the Environmental Protection Administration (2013), and the rest
were based on the SimaPro 8.0 database and other public data. However, there was no
dataset available for the emission factors of photosynthetic bacteria and EM bacteria,
and thus we referred to the experience of Pattara et al. (2012) and set it to be zero.

Next, the carbon emissions during transportation were estimated, as follows. The
total transportation distance was the sum of the transportation distance multiplied by
7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the replacement rate of each material. To be specific, the transportation distance was
measured using Google Maps, and the replacement rate was provided by the shrimp
farmer. The total transportation distance was then multiplied by the fuel consumption
rate per kilometer to be the total diesel consumption. Afterward, we used equation (1)
to estimate the carbon emissions of transportation.

For the refrigerant, the GHG emissions were set equal to the emissions of
refrigerant production, using equation (1), plus the refrigerant leakage during
functioning. The leakage of refrigerant was estimated by equation (2) (Environmental
Protection Administration, 2014):

𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑟𝑖 = 𝐴𝐶 × 𝐺𝑊𝑃 × (1 ‒ 𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 × 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒) (2)

In which,
𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒: The collection rate multiplied by the damage rate, which was assumed
to be 0.7;
𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒: The commute time multiplied by days in a year;

The emissions of the usage phase are assumed to be the fuel used when water is
heated from 20℃ to 100℃, and then the shrimp is boiled for three minutes. The stove
was a Sakura G2922G with a power of 9.0kW (7,740kcal/h or 32.38416MJ/h) using
natural gas (SAKURA, 2012). We also assumed from experience that one needs 3,000
c.c. of water to boil 1 kilogram of white shrimp. We thus used equation (3) to
calculate the time needed to boil water, plus the three-minute cooking time to get the
total time need. The total time was then multiplied by the power to get the energy
used (activity data). Finally, the emissions for this period were calculated by equation
(1).

𝑝×𝑡= 𝑚×𝑠×𝑇 (3)

The emissions of the waste treatment phase are the disposal of the heads and
shells of shrimp, and wastewater treatment, with equation (1) used to calculate these.

In short, the life cycle carbon footprint quantitative formulas are show in
equation (4), which is the summation of all emissions using equation (1) plus the
emissions using equation (2). The emissions factors are shown in Table 1, and the
carbon footprint per unit is the life cycle carbon footprint divided by production mass
in equation (5):

𝑇𝐶𝐸 = ∑𝑗𝐶𝐸𝑗 + 𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑟𝑖 (4)

TCE
CFP = M (5)

In which,
8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

𝑇𝐶𝐸: Total life cycle carbon emissions of a white shrimp farm (kgCO2e);
CFP: Carbon footprint of white shrimp per kilogram (kgCO2e/kg);
M: Production mass (kilogram).

Table 1. The emission factors of the various materials.

Ingredient Description Emission factor references
Raw material
phase
water Aquaculture water in Environmental Protection Administration
tank (2013)-
Taiwan tap water (2011)
electricity Waterwheel and Environmental Protection Administration
aeration systems (2013)-
Electrical carbon footprint (2013)
Aquaculture
phase
milk One of the ingredients SimaPro 8.0- Raw Milk, at dairy
of biological feed farm/NL Economic
rice bran One of the ingredients SimaPro 8.0- Rice bran meal solvent
of biological feed extracted consumption mix at feed
compound plant NL Economic
peal powder Ingredients of SimaPro 8.0- Lime GLO market for cons
biological feed. Use the U
coefficient of lime as a
substitute
squid powder One of the ingredients SimaPro 8.0- Protein feed 100% crude
of biological feed GLO market for cons U
molasses One of the ingredients Environmental Protection Administration
of biological feed (2013)- molasses
soybean One of the ingredients SimaPro 8.0- Soybean meal consumption
powder of biological feed mix
sesame One of the ingredients Environmental Protection Administration
powder of biological feed (2013)- sesame powder
To help the shrimp -No data available-
Photosynthetic keep healthy
bacteria
EM bacteria To help the shrimp -No data available-
keep healthy
fish meal Ingredient of SimaPro 8.0- Fishmeal, LCA Food DK
9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

commercial feed and

biological feed
lime powder To maintain the PH SimaPro 8.0- Lime GLO market for cons
value U
tea meal To kill fish and protect SimaPro 8.0- Coffee and tea
shrimp manufacturing SE
zeolite Used to capture toxic SimaPro 8.0- Zeolite powder GLO
powder substances market for alloc Def U
Distribution
phase
diesel Used for transportation Environmental Protection Administration
(2013)-
Diesel oil, used for mobile pollution
source,2013
refrigerant Used for freezing SimaPro 8.0-Refrigerant R134a(Row)
Usage phase
water Water to cook shrimp Environmental Protection Administration
(2013)-
Taiwan tap water (2011)
natural gas Used for cooking Environmental Protection Administration
(2013)-
Liquefied Natural Gas, used for
stationary pollution source,2012
Waste
treatment
phase
burning trash The treatment of the Environmental Protection Administration
heads and shells of (2013)-
shrimp Service of waste clearance and
incineration in Tainan Science Park
(2009)
package The packaging of Assumed zero
recycling shrimp
wastewater The water treatment of Environmental Protection Administration
treatment the pond water (2013)-
Wastewater treatment, Southern
Taiwan Science Park- Tainan Park

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3. Empirical Analysis
The carbon footprint of the ecological shrimp farm is detailed in Table 2. In, this,
the whole life cycle carbon footprint (from cradle-to-grave) was 6.9389 kgCO2e/kg,
and the partial carbon footprint (from cradle-to-farm-to-gate, and the transport for
waste disposal was excluded from this) was 5.7127 kgCO2e/kg, which was a little
higher than the figure of intensive in Cao et al. (2011), but still higher than the figure
of semi-intensive in Cao et al. (2011). In the case of Yijhu, the electricity phase was
the largest contributor to carbon emissions, accounting for 28.96% of the total. As
mentioned in the previous section, the waterwheel and aeration systems need to run
24 hours a day to maintain the circulation and oxygen content of the pond, and hence
produce a lot of emissions.

Table 2. Carbon footprints of various aspects of ecological white shrimp production.

Carbon footprint Cao et al. (2011)
Phase Percentage
(kgCO2e/kg) Intens./ semi-intens.
Raw material phase 29.10% 2.0193
Electricity 28.96% 2.0093 2.450 0.526
Aquaculture water 00.14% 0.0100
Aquaculture phase 45.66% 3.1688
Commercial feed 10.12% 0.7023 2.110 1.280
Biological feed 14.24% 0.9883
Tea meal 02.46% 0.1708
Lime powder 00.31% 0.0216 0.275 0.453
Zeolite powder 18.53% 1.2858
Other materials 0.305 0.363
Distribution phase 07.88% 0.5470
Transport and refrigerant - raw materials 06.87% 0.4765 0.140 0.128
Transport and refrigerant - harvest 00.69% 0.0481
Transport – disposals 00.32% 0.0224
Usage phase 01.89% 0.1306
Natural gas 01.88% 0.1301
Cooking water 00.01% 0.0005
Waste treatment phase 15.47% 1.0732
Burning shrimp heads and shells 04.25% 0.2949
Wastewater treatment 11.22% 0.7783
Total 100.00% 6.9389 5.280 2.750

Several approaches can be used to reduce the carbon emissions of this part. First
of all, the farmer can employ energy-conserving waterwheels to reduce, such as the
new waterwheels that have been promoted by these Taiwanese government and which
11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

can use save up to 33% less energy than the conventional ones, due to a higher
oxygen content rate and less time needed to work. As such, for the same amount of
oxygen dissolved, the carbon emissions can be reduced by 38,369.07 kgCO2e.
Second, since the farmer conducted an extensive aquaculture method, the waterwheel
can operate for less than 24 hours a day. If the operating time can be halved by using a
half hour on and half hour off with conventional waterwheels, the carbon emissions
can be reduced by 58,134.95 kgCO2e (or 1.0046 kgCO2e/kg).

Similar to Cao et al. (2011), this article also found that the feed (commercial plus
biological) was one of the emission hotspots during the life cycle of shrimp, which
accounted for 24.36% of the total. To reduce the carbon emissions of this part, Doris
Soto (2011) of the FAO proposed replacing fish meal with local plants. In addition,
Sookying et al. (2013) mentioned that it is possible to replace 100% of the fish meal
with soybean meal. Based on the crude protein data provided by Sookying et al.
(2013), we assumed that 1.32 kilograms of fish meal can be replaced by 1 kilogram of
soybean meal. Because the biological feed was partly made of soybean meal, the
carbon emissions were reduced by 3,317.74 kgCO2e (or 0.0573 kgCO2e/kg). In
addition, there is still room to further reduce the carbon emissions because this farmer
used fish meal as the main source of protein.

Next, the zeolite powder was also one of the main emission sources, accounting
for 18.53% of total carbon emissions. Compared to the inventory results in Cao et al.
(2011), we initially thought the farmer in this study may not need so much zeolite to
capture toxic substances as he thought. If the farmer reduced the weight of zeolite, the
carbon emissions could be cut by up to 74,402.47 kgCO2e (or 1.2857 kgCO2e/kg).
Under this circumstance, the partial carbon footprint figure of Yijhu shrimp would be
lower than that of intensive farming of Cao et al. (2010), but would still higher than
the semi-intensive one. However, the farmer responded that the local water quality is
different from that of other aquaculture areas, so he indeed needs a considerable
amount of zeolite to purify aqua-water.

Transportation was another of the emission hotspots (accounting for 7.88 %)

over the whole life cycle of shrimp. Reducing the replacement rates of these materials
is the most convenient way to reduce this figure.

The waste treatment phase is the fourth largest contributor to carbon emissions,
accounting for 15.47%, of which most was due to wastewater treatment (11.22%).
One of the reasons for this is that the water treatment process in the science park is
designed to reduce the heavy metals dissolved in the water. However, the aquaculture
wastewater does not contain heavy metals, but only various kinds of organic matter.
Several journal papers, such as Fish Information & Services (2017), have proposed
12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the simple water treatment equipment for use with aquaculture. Use of such
equipment would be thus expected to reduce the carbon emissions associated with the
aquaculture water treatment, although more detailed information is needed to estimate
the carbon mitigation effect of this.

Burning the waste shrimp heads and shells is an emission source that adds to the
carbon footprint, and it is almost impossible to collect such materials from consumers
to control their disposal. However, one way to reduce carbon emissions from these
would be to make shrimp meal out of them, which could be done by selling the
shrimp products without the shells or heads. Still, the success of this would depend on
the preferences of consumers, and not only the actions of shrimp farmers.

If we use the database of the Food and Drug Administration (2015), the average
calories in white shrimp are 1,030 kcal per kilogram. Therefore, we can obtain an
estimate of the carbon footprint arising from the production of 100kcal of shrimp, and
compare it with the estimates produced by United Nations Environment Programme
(2008). Our study indicates that the carbon footprint of the studied farm is 0.6737
kgCO2e/100kcal. As shown in Figure 5, this number is somewhat larger than that for
fish, but is smaller than that for the original shrimp. Since the United Nations
Environment Programme (2008) did not mention its boundary and the target farmer in
the current study used alternative raw materials as feed to lower the carbon footprint,
nevertheless, we cannot compare these results in more detail.

kgCO2/100kcal
4.00 3.0799
3.00 2.5900

2.00 1.3789
0.9026 0.6033 0.6737
1.00 0.4853 0.2903
0.1678 0.0272
0.00
Shrimp Lamb Beef, Pork Fish, avg Salmon, Eggs Chicken Apples Yijhu
grain fed value farmed shrimp

Figure 5. Carbon emissions related to producing various foods (kgCO2/100kcal)

4. Conclusions and Suggestions

This study followed the ISO/TS 14067 standards to carry out data collection and
quantization. The data for the full year of 2014 was collected, and the carbon footprint
of an ecological white shrimp farm was thus separated into four stages and twelve
carbon emission sectors. Based on the raw material, manufacturing, distribution,
usage and waste treatment phases, this study divided the results into eleven carbon
emission parts, which included electricity, aquaculture water, commercial feed,

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

biological feed, tea meal, lime powder, zeolite powder, transports and refrigerants,
wastewater treatment, burning disposals, nature gas, and cooking water.

The results showed that the total carbon footprint of ecological white shrimp was
6.9389 kgCO2e/kg. In addition, electricity was the largest contributor to these
emissions, accounting for 28.96% of the total, followed by the feed (24.36%), indirect
raw materials (21.30%), waste treatment (15.47%), transport and refrigerant (7.88%),
and food usage (1.89%). As for the lowest carbon emissions, these were from the
water phase, and this was mainly because of the use of groundwater. Similar to other
papers, this study found that electricity and feed were main emission hotspots over the
whole life cycle of producing and consuming shrimp. In addition, this paper also
found that the wastewater treatment was another emission hotspot.

Comparing the results with that of Cao et al., the figure of partial carbon
footprint was a little higher than the intensive case due to local water quality.
Otherwise, the use of terrestrial plants as feed indeed mitigates GHG emissions.

To conclude, the management implications of this study indicate that the carbon
footprint of the shrimp supply chain can be reduced by employing energy-conserving
technology or by adopting a simple wastewater treatment process. In addition, the
target farmer in this study used low-carbon-emission territorial plants to reduce the
carbon footprint, as suggested by Doris Soto (2011). Such approaches can help this
industry achieve its goals with regard to more sustainable operations.

Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan,
ROC for providing partial funding to support under contract numbers MOST 105-
2410-H-006-053-MY2 and MOST 103-2633-B-006-004.

References
Adom, F., Workman, C., Thoma, G., & Shonnard, D. (2013). Carbon footprint
analysis of dairy feed from a mill in Michigan, USA. International Dairy
Journal, 31, Supplement 1, S21-S28.
Cao, L., Diana, J. S., Keoleian, G. A., & Lai, Q. M. (2011). Life Cycle Assessment of
Chinese Shrimp Farming Systems Targeted for Export and Domestic Sales.
Environmental Science & Technology, 45(15), 6531-6538.
Doris Soto, J. M. a. M. H. (2011). Reducing GHG emissions in aquaculture: changing
behaviors and systems. Retrieved Mar. 15, 2016, from
ftp://ftp.fao.org/Fi/DOCUMENT/R1073/Presentations/DSoto/aqua_mitigation
.pdf
Environmental Protection Administration. (2013). Carbon Footprint Calculation
14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Platform. Retrieved Jul. 7, 2016, from https://cfp-

calculate.tw/cfpc/WebPage/LoginPage.aspx
Environmental Protection Administration. (2014). Table of greenhouse gas emission
factors. from Taiwan's National Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Registry website:
http://ghgregistry.epa.gov.tw/upload/Tools
Fantozzi, F., Bartocci, P., D'Alessandro, B., Testarmata, F., & Fantozzi, P. (2015).
Carbon footprint of truffle sauce in central Italy by direct measurement of
energy consumption of different olive harvesting techniques. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 87, 188-196.
FAO. (2009). Profile for Climate Change. Rome: FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS.
Fish Information & Services. (2017). Simple wastewater treatment system could boost
aquaculture. World news. Retrieved Apr. 26, 2017, from
https://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=3-
2017&day=9&id=90392&l=e&country=0&special=&ndb=1&df=0
Food and Drug Administration. (2015). Smart Food Composition Analysis System.
Retrieved from: https://consumer.fda.gov.tw/Food/TFND.aspx?nodeID=178
Formosa Robin. (2014). MITSUBISHI Refrigerant filling capacity. Retrieved Jul.
1, 2014, from
http://www.robin123.com.tw/mbantreef.asp?BBanNo=G&MBanNo=G27
Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., & Giljum, S. (2012).
Integrating Ecological, Carbon and Water footprint into a “Footprint Family”
of indicators: Definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet.
Ecological Indicators, 16, 100-112.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.017
Henriksson, P., Zhang, W., Nahid, S., Newton, R., Phan, L., Dao, H., . . .
Chaimanuskul, K. (2014). Final LCA case study report—results of LCA
studies of Asian aquaculture systems for tilapia, catfish, shrimp, and
freshwater prawn.
IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report to the Fifth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel o Climate Change Retrieved from
http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/
ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Principles
and framework.
ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment --
Requirements and guidelines.
ISO/TS 14067: 2013. Greenhouse gases — Carbon footprint of products —
Requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication.
Ku, Y. C., & Miao, S. (2013). Investigation the Carbon Footprint of Tilapia-The

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Maliao Farmers for example. Retrieved from

http://ethesys.lib.ntou.edu.tw/cgi-
bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22G0010033015%22.&searchmode=b
asic#XXXX
Macías, C. (2012, Oct. 22-25). Estimación de la huella de carbono del camarón de
cultivo en una camaronera de la provincia de Esmeraldas, Ecuador. Paper
presented at the XIV Congreso Ecuatoriano de Acuicultura & Aquaexpo,
Guayaquil, Ecuador.
Pattara, C., Raggi, A., & Cichelli, A. (2012). Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon
Footprint in the Wine Supply-Chain. Environmental Management, 49(6),
1247-1258. doi:10.1007/s00267-012-9844-3
SAKURA. (2012). Official webpage. Retrieved Jun. 24 2014, from
http://www.sakura.com.tw/kitchenlife/equipmentMain.aspx?tp=5&d=111
Sookying, D., Davis, D. A., & Soller Dias da Silva, F. (2013). A review of the
development and application of soybean-based diets for Pacific white shrimp
Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquaculture Nutrition, 19(4), 441-448.
Svanes, E., & Aronsson, A. K. S. (2013). Carbon footprint of a Cavendish banana
supply chain. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(8),
1450-1464.
United Nations Environment Programme. (2008). Kick the Habit: A UN Guide to
Climate Neutrality (A. Kirby, J. Bogdanovic, C. Heberlein, O. Simonett & C.
Stuhlberger Eds.): /Earthprint.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint: reducing human
impact on the earth: New Society Publishers.
Williams, A. S. (2009). Life cycle analysis: A step by step approach: Champaign, IL:
Illinois Sustainable Technology Center.
Yen, M. C. (2014). Estimation on The Carbon Footprint of Oyster Aquaculture – A
Case Study in Chiku Lagoon. (Master), National Cheng Kung University
(NCKU), Tainan, Taiwan. (U0026-1009201418231000)
Ziegler, F., Winther, U., Hognes, E. S., Emanuelsson, A., Sund, V., & Ellingsen, H.
(2013). The Carbon Footprint of Norwegian Seafood Products on the Global
Seafood Market. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(1), 103-116.

16