Advertisement

A Comparison Between the Monetary, Resource and Energy Costs of the Conventional Industrial Supply Path and the “Simpler Way” Path for the Supply of Eggs

  • T. TrainerEmail author
  • A. Malik
  • M. Lenzen
Original Paper

Abstract

Global sustainability requires large-scale reductions in rich world per capita resource use rates. Globalised, industrialised and commercialised supply paths involve high resource, energy, dollar and other costs. However, “The Simpler Way” involving small-scale integrated localised settlements and economies can enable enormous reductions in these costs. Most transport, packaging and marketing costs can be eliminated, and various outputs such as animal manures, kitchen scraps, garden biomass, household grey and black water can be transformed from costly “waste” disposal problems into direct inputs to other functions such as methane digesters, composting, and fish and animal feeds. Thus, there are also savings on the cost of inputs of fertilizer and water, etc. In addition the industrial supply path tends to have many negative “co-products”, most obviously pollution effects, whereas the local path avoids these while providing important positive co-products and social benefits. This study uses input–output analysis of one product, eggs, to illustrate how big the difference between the two paths can be. The implications for sustainable development are profound. If the findings of this study are sound and generalizable the Simpler Way would enable very large reductions in resource and ecological impacts for sustainability to be achieved, but only if extremely radical changes are made in economic, political and cultural systems.

Keywords

Sustainability Production costs Alternative economics Local economies 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No human or animal ethical issues are raised by this study.

References

  1. ABS (2016a) Australian national accounts, input-output tables (product details), 2013–2014. ABS catalogue no. 5215.0.55.001. Australian Bureau of Statistics, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  2. ABS (2016b) Australian national accounts: input-output tables, 2013–2014. catalogue no. 5209.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  3. AgriFutures (2017) Eggs (chicken), 25.4. http://www.agrifutures.com.au/farm-diversity/eggs-chicken/
  4. Australian Wheat Board (2018) https://www.awb.com.au
  5. Backyard Chicken Coops (2018) What is grit and why is it important? https://www.backyardchickencoops.com.au/what-is-grit-and-why-is-it-important
  6. BREE (2013) Australian energy statistics. Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  7. Department of Primary Industry (2018) Buying feed at th right price. https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/animals-and-livestock/nutrition/costs-and-nutritive-value/price
  8. Deže J, Ranogajec L, Crnčan A, Kristić J (2010) Break-even analysis (BEA) in egg production. POLJOPRIVREDA 16(2):47–50Google Scholar
  9. Foodwise (2018) Fast facts on food waste. http://www.foodwise.com.au/foodwaste/food-waste-fast-facts/
  10. Grinde B et al (2017) The quality of life in intentional communities, Social Indictors ResearchGoogle Scholar
  11. Hammond G, Jones C (2011) Inventory of carbon and energy, version 2. Sustainable Energy Research Team, University of Bath, BathGoogle Scholar
  12. Lockyer J (2017) Community, commons, and de-growth at dancing rabbit ecovillage. Political Ecol 24:519–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pelletier N (2017) Lifecycle assessment of Canadian egg products, with differentiation by housing system type. J Clean Prod 152:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pelletier N, Ibarburu M, Xin H (2013) A carbon footprint analysis of egg production and processing supply chains in the Midwestern United States. J Clean Prod 54:108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Safeedpari P, Rafiee S, Akram A (2013) Fossil-based fuels and electricity energy inputs effect on egg production in poultry farms of Iran. J Livest Sci 4:1–61Google Scholar
  16. St-Onge E (2015) Senegal transforming 14,000 villages into eco-villages!, Collective Evolution, June 17. https://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/06/17/senegal-transforming-14000-villages-into-ecovillages/
  17. Trainer T (2019) Remaking settlements for sustainability; the simpler way. J Political Ecol 26:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. TSW (2017) The simpler way. thesimplerway.info/TSWMain.htmGoogle Scholar
  19. van Asselt ED, van Bussel LGJ, van Horne P, van der Voet H, van der Heijden GWAM, van der Fels-Klerx HJ (2015) Assessing the sustainability of egg production systems in the Netherlands. Poult Sci 94(8):1742–1750.  https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. World Wildlife Fund (2016) The living planet report. World Wildlife Fund and London Zoological Society, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.PhysicsUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations