While all human activities impact the planet, livestock farming is under significant scrutiny for its carbon footprint and effect on climate change. Is it possible to reduce the environmental footprint of broiler farming by combining a sufficiently complex additive – ensuring consistent and repeatable effects – with a nutritional strategy aimed at reducing resource use without compromising performance?
The impact of livestock farming should not be reduced to just its carbon footprint and climate change effects. Even broiler farming consumes other resources such as water and agricultural land, and its emissions can negatively affect water quality and environmental acidification. This is why the Life Cycle Assessment approach is relevant, as it allows for the evaluation of 16 main indicators. Naturally, these indicators can never completely be free of negative impacts, as all production activities require resource consumption.
To avoid a defeatist perspective, it is essential to find ways to easily use active compounds that enable greater resource savings. This is the strategy we propose here.
First, it is necessary to select active compounds that have a known and consistent impact on feed efficiency in broiler production. Then, these compounds must be integrated into a nutritional strategy aimed at reducing the use of resources.
Selecting active compounds for improved feed efficiency
Carvacrol is a molecule of great interest for improving feed efficiency. However, its results are sometimes considered inconsistent. To enhance its effectiveness, carvacrol should be administered in combination with other synergistic ingredients:
Such a blend (containing spices, essential oils and oleoresins), with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, can also stimulate the digestive capacities of broilers. If this blend is validated through experimental trials and field testing for its effects on feed efficiency (ideally through meta-analysis), then it becomes a strong candidate for our strategy. At this point, it is necessary to calculate the Life Cycle Assessment indicators for this product.
What nutritional strategy could be used to optimise these active compounds?
As mentioned earlier, the direct impact of producing such a product must be counterbalanced by a nutritional strategy to maximise its benefits. The idea here is to assess whether a feed formulation that is more resource-efficient in terms of feed ingredients, energy, nitrogen and phosphorus, can still support optimal growth when supplemented with an additive such as the one defined above.
In an experimental trial with 288 day-old chicks, a group of chicks fed a standard diet was compared to a group of chicks fed our resource-efficient nutritional strategy.
The control group was fed a standard feed programme with normal nutrient specifications:
The Oleo group was fed a diet containing:
Live weight and feed intake at d36 were considered to estimate the effects of this nutritional strategy on animal performance and the environment thanks to Life Cycle Assessments according to the PEFCR Feed method.
Final live weight at d36 was significantly increased by 53 g in the Oleo group (2,622 vs. 2,568 g) while feed conversion ratio was decreased (1.672 vs. 1.740) compared to the control group.
Life Cycle Assessment of feed formulas to get 1 kg live weight showed a lower carbon footprint by 2.24% in the Oleo group compared to those in the control group (1.31 vs. 1.34 kg of CO2-eq), equivalent to 9.4 mt of CO2-eq saved per year for a 25,000 broiler barn. Water use, fossil resource and eutrophication of fresh water were also reduced in the Oleo group by 2.42% (1.21 vs. 1.24 m3), by 4.22% (6.35 vs. 6.63 MJ) and by 6.86% (326 vs. 350 mg P equivalent) respectively (Figure 2).
Conclusion
It is entirely possible to reduce the environmental footprint of broiler farming by combining a sufficiently complex additive – ensuring consistent and repeatable effects – with a nutritional strategy aimed at reducing resource use without compromising performance. The animals remain efficient, and their environmental footprint decreases. This approach is validated through Life Cycle Assessment analysis.