Triple Bottom-Line Evaluation of the Production of Animal Feed from Food Waste: A Life Cycle Assessment.

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Waste and biomass valorization, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Fermented agricultural by-products improve growth performance in indigenous chickens in association with altered ileal microbiota, microbial functional potential, and mucosal responses.Poultry science · 2026
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alla AlsalehIndustrial and Management Systems Engineering Department, Kuwait University, 13060 Safat, Kuwait.

Esra AleisaIndustrial and Management Systems Engineering Department, Kuwait University, 13060 Safat, Kuwait.ORCID 0000-0002-5301-468X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study applies a triple bottom line (TBL) framework that incorporates the environmental, economic, and social impacts of producing animal feed from food waste (FW) collected at the post-consumption stage of the food supply chain. The environmental bottom line (BL) is conducted using life cycle assessment (LCA), the economic BL is calculated using the net present value (NPV), while the social BL is assessed using the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis. The results within the environmental BL indicate that at a 13.8% recovery rate, animal feed produced from a ton of FW saves 0.33 m Graphical Abstract:

Indexed as

Animal feedEconomic evaluationFood wasteKuwaitLife cycle assessment (LCA)Multicriteria analysisOptimizationSensitivity analysisSocial evaluation

Identifiers

PMID36091663

DOI10.1007/s12649-022-01914-7

PMCPMC9442596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.