## 3 Results
### Integrated Value Stream Mapping with Life Cycle Analysis  
The VSM results of the current state production process are shown in Figure 7. It was identified that 5.58 kg CO\({}_{2}\)/kg would be emitted, similar to that reported in other countries (Table 1). The results of the VSM, considering equipment with greater energy efficiency in the production stages, are presented in Figure 8. It was identified that the farm has an energy demand of 14,646.3 kWh in the production cycle, and that fluorescent bulbs for lighting are the equipment with the highest units, number of hours in function, and the highest energy consumption. The specific energy used in the production of 1 kg of eggs from the studied farm was 0.0081 kWh/kg, and the energy productivity was 122.6 kg/kWh. This value is higher than that found by [26], who reported specific energy of 0.004 kWh/kg for eggs, due to energy consumption of 365,770 kWh/production cycle, and production of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Current Process Scenario**} \\ \cline{2-5}
**Impact Category** & **Breeding** & **Process Stage** & & **Total Impact** \\  & & **Development** & **Posture** & **Potential per** \\  & & **Contribution** & & **kWh/kg Egg** \\ \hline
**Climate change (kg CO\({}_{2}\) eq)** & \(1.31\times 10^{-3}\) & \(2.85\times 10^{-4}\) & \(3.55\times 10^{-3}\) & \(5.14\times 10^{-3}\) \\
**Human toxicity (kg 14-DB eq)** & \(4.62\times 10^{-4}\) & \(1.01\times 10^{-4}\) & \(1.26\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.26\times 10^{-3}\) \\
**Ecotoxicity of fresh water (kg 94-DB eq)** & \(1.25\times 10^{-5}\) & \(2.73\times 10^{-6}\) & \(3.40\times 10^{-5}\) & \(3.40\times 10^{-5}\) \\
**Ecotoxicity of sea water (kg 14-DB eq)** & \(1.14\times 10^{-5}\) & \(2.48\times 10^{-6}\) & \(3.40\times 10^{-5}\) & \(3.08\times 10^{-5}\) \\
**Use of agricultural land (m\({}^{2}\)a)** & \(4.99\times 10^{-5}\) & \(1.09\times 10^{-5}\) & \(1.35\times 10^{-4}\) & \(1.35\times 10^{-4}\) \\ Natural land use (m\({}^{2}\)a) & \(2.34\times 10^{-7}\) & \(5.05\times 10^{-8}\) & \(6.30\times 10^{-7}\) & \(6.30\times 10^{-7}\) \\
**Depletion of fossil resources (kg oil eq)** & \(4.15\times 10^{-4}\) & \(9.01\times 10^{-5}\) & \(1.12\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.12\times 10^{-3}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Potential impacts of egg production related to the use of process electricity. Figure 7: Climate change emissions from the current egg production process. 65,084,680 kilograms of eggs. However, the differences are possibly explained by the differing degrees of each farm's technicification. One of the sources that does not provide added value to operations within the energy efficiency of a process is the overvaluation of consumption per power equipment. This is where adjustments are made for efficient operation, reducing consumption without compromising production. When looking for efficiency in lighting by replacing bulbs, it is advisable to look for the equivalent in lumen (lm) rather than watts, because lumen indicate the amount of light emitted rather than the energy consumed. When the motors are working at a high torque they slowly accelerate from low revolutions, thus maintaining better efficiency in transporting material. Figure 9 shows the VSM of the expected future state of the shelf egg production process. Subsequently, Table 7 shows the possible energy saving per operation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Unit Operation** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Current Scenario** \\ **Expenditure (kWh)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Eco-Efficient Scenario** \\ **Expenditure (kWh)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Reduction (\%)** \\ \hline
**Illumination** & 6298.1 & 2448.4 & 61.1 \\
**Water pump** & 3867.7 & 1933.6 & 50.0 \\
**Food supply** & 1481.6 & 987.0 & 33.4 \\
**Extraction** & 2961.4 & 1984.5 & 33.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Comparison of the energy expenditure of the current state vs. the eco-efficient scenario for the egg production process at _Laguna Colorada_ farm.