As a general rule, farming with biological inputs appears to be significantly better from the energy perspective, whilst high-quality proteins provided by livestock come at the cost of a much higher energy embodied. The reduction of both pesticide-related and weather risks within the localized CEA supply chain ensures greater success in crop growth, and thus less crop and energy loss.Īccording to Fertilizers Europe, the production of fertilizers slowly adds to this energy usage, varying from 0.2-14 MJ/kg (nitrogen-based fertilisers commonly require 10-14 MJ/kg). Additionally, they are susceptible to unanticipated weather events that may cause disruptions to the growing cycle. In terms of crop growth success, in contrast to CEA-grown crops, soil-grown plants require the application of pesticides, which can cause harm to both human and environmental health. It has been estimated that in 2007 the energy embedded in the 27% share of edible food lost in the USA was equivalent to 2% of the annual energy consumption in the USA in the same year.Īccording to FAO, in the North American food supply chain, 30% of food waste occurs in the production and harvesting stage. The manufacturing sector is responsible for the next largest proportion of food waste but this is predominantly composed of inedible food waste. This is equivalent to $1.2 trillion, and is estimated to continue growing.Īs it turns out, households produce the largest proportion of food waste and generate predominantly avoidable food waste. A brief overview of the energy use and waste production for each step is provided, which will give an understanding on where changes can be made.Ī third of food produced, or 1.6 billion tons, is lost or wasted annually. To answer this question (and define the scope of research), the agricultural supply chain is understood to have the following steps: production, processing, distribution, and consumption. This creates an interesting question: How does reducing the length of a generalized food supply chain impact efficiency and waste production? However, it is important to understand where these potential changes can cause a significant impact in the supply chain. It is safe to assume that there are many benefits to reducing the steps in a supply chain, such as the reduction of waste and increased efficiency of the process.
The problems caused by disruption in the channels of distribution of raw materials, agricultural equipment, and finished products revealed the advantages of small, localized production chains. The recent global reckoning of food security has sparked an increase in investment in local supply chains.
0 kommentar(er)
