Hirst E
Science. 1974 Apr 12;184(4133):134-8. doi: 10.1126/science.184.4133.134.
I have used data from input-output studies to determine the quantities of primary and electric energy consumed in the agricultural, processing, transportation, wholesale and retail trade, and household sectors for personal consumption of food. Before one draws conclusions from these results, it is important to note the assumptions and approximations used in this analysis. First, the economic input-output data published by the Department of Commerce are subject to a number of inaccuracies, including lack of complete coverage for an industry, restriction of data for proprietary reasons, and use of different time periods for different data. Second, aggregation can combine within the same sector industries whose energy intensities differ widely. For example, eating and drinking establishments probably consume more energy per dollar of sales (because of refrigerators, stoves, and freezers) than do department stores. However, both types of establishment are included in retail trade. Thus energy use for food-related retail trade may be underestimated because of aggregation. Third, the energy coefficients are subject to error. In particular, the coefficients for the agricultural and trade sectors are vulnerable because energy use within these sectors is not well documented. Finally, the scaling factor used to estimate food-related energy use for the 1960's is approximate, in that it neglects the possibility that these energy coefficients changed differently with time. Because of these limitations, which are described more fully by Herendeen (6), a number of important issues were not addressed here. such as relative energy requirements for fresh, frozen, and canned vegetables; and for soybeans as compared to beef. This analysis shows that the U.S. food cycle consumes a considerable amount of energy, about 12 percent of the total national energy budget. The residential sector, which accounts for 30 percent of the total, is the most energy-intensive sector in terms of energy consumed per dollar of food-related expenditure. This is because food-related expenditures in homes are primarily for fuel to operate kitchen appliances and automobiles. The electricity consumed in these activities constitutes 22 percent of the total amount used in the United States. More than half of the electricity is used in homes, and more than two-thirds in the trade and household sectors. Thus agriculture and processing consume little electricity relative to the total amount used. From past trends, it appears that the amount of energy used in food-related activities will continue to increase at a rate faster than the population, principally because of growing affluence, that is, the use of processed foods, purchase of meals away from home, and the use of kitchen appliances equipped with energy-intensive devices, such as refrigerators with automatic icemakers. However, fuel shortages, rapidly increasing fuel prices, the growing need to import oil, and a host of other problems related to our use of energy suggest that these past trends will not continue. Fortunately, there are many ways to reduce the amounts of energy used for food-related activities. In the home, for example, smaller refrigerators with thicker insulation would use less electricity than do present units. If closer attention were given to the use of ranges and ovens (for example, if oven doors were not opened so often) energy would be saved. Changes in eating habits could also result in energy savings. Greater reliance on vegetable and grain products, rather than meats, for protein would reduce fuel use. Similarly, a reduction in the amounts of heavily processcd foods consumed-TV dinners and frozen desserts-would save energy. Retailers could save energy by using closed freezers to store food and by reducing the amount of lighting they use. Processors could use heat recovery methods, more efficient processes, and less packaging. Shipping more food by train rather than by truck would also cut energy use. Farmers could reduce their fuel use by combining operations (for example, by harrowing, planting, and fertilizing in the same operation), by reducing tillage practices, by increasing thc use of diesel rather than gasoline engines, and by increasing labor inputs. A partial return to organic farming (that is, greater use of animal manure and crop rotation) would save energy because chemical fertilizers require large energy inputs for their production.
我利用投入产出研究的数据,来确定农业、加工、运输、批发零售贸易以及家庭部门为个人食品消费所消耗的一次能源和电能的数量。在从这些结果得出结论之前,重要的是要注意本分析中所使用的假设和近似值。首先,商务部公布的经济投入产出数据存在一些不准确之处,包括对某个行业缺乏全面覆盖、因专有原因对数据的限制,以及对不同数据使用不同的时间段。其次,汇总可能会将能源强度差异很大的行业合并在同一部门内。例如,饮食场所每销售一美元可能消耗更多能源(因为有冰箱、炉灶和冰柜),比百货商店消耗的能源多。然而,这两种类型的场所都包含在零售贸易中。因此,由于汇总,与食品相关的零售贸易的能源使用可能被低估。第三,能源系数存在误差。特别是,农业和贸易部门的系数容易出现误差,因为这些部门内的能源使用记录不完善。最后,用于估计20世纪60年代与食品相关的能源使用的缩放因子是近似的,因为它忽略了这些能源系数随时间变化不同的可能性。由于这些局限性,赫伦丁更全面地描述了这些局限性(6),这里没有解决一些重要问题。例如,新鲜、冷冻和罐装蔬菜的相对能源需求;以及大豆与牛肉相比的能源需求。该分析表明,美国的食品循环消耗了大量能源,约占国家能源预算总额的12%。住宅部门占总数的30%,就每美元与食品相关的支出所消耗的能源而言,是能源密集度最高的部门。这是因为家庭中与食品相关的支出主要用于操作厨房电器和汽车的燃料。这些活动中消耗的电力占美国总用电量的22%。超过一半的电力用于家庭,超过三分之二用于贸易和家庭部门。因此,相对于总用电量而言,农业和加工消耗的电力很少。从过去的趋势来看,与食品相关活动中使用的能源量似乎将继续以高于人口增长的速度增加,主要是因为富裕程度的提高,即使用加工食品、在家庭以外购买餐食,以及使用配备能源密集型设备的厨房电器,如带有自动制冰机的冰箱。然而,燃料短缺、燃料价格迅速上涨、进口石油的需求不断增加,以及与我们能源使用相关的一系列其他问题表明,这些过去的趋势不会持续。幸运的是,有许多方法可以减少与食品相关活动中使用的能源量。例如,在家庭中,隔热层更厚的小型冰箱比现有冰箱用电更少。如果更密切地关注炉灶和烤箱的使用(例如,如果不那么频繁地打开烤箱门),就能节省能源。饮食习惯的改变也可以节省能源。更多地依赖蔬菜和谷物产品而不是肉类来获取蛋白质,将减少燃料使用。同样,减少食用大量加工食品——电视便餐和冷冻甜点——的量,也能节省能源。零售商可以通过使用封闭式冰柜储存食品和减少照明使用量来节省能源。加工商可以采用热回收方法、更高效的工艺和更少的包装。用火车而不是卡车运输更多食品也能减少能源使用。农民可以通过合并作业(例如,在同一次作业中进行耙地、种植和施肥)、减少耕作方式、增加柴油发动机而非汽油发动机的使用,以及增加劳动力投入来减少燃料使用。部分回归有机农业(即更多地使用动物粪便和轮作)将节省能源,因为化肥生产需要大量能源投入。