Eco-Friendly Feed Formulation and On-Farm Feed Production as Ways to Reduce the Environmental Impacts of Pig Production Without Consequences on Animal Performance

Abstract

Animal feeding has a major contribution to the environmental impacts of pig production. One potential way to mitigate such effects is to incorporate an assessment of these impacts in the feed formulation process. The objective of this study was to test the ability of innovative formulation methodologies to reduce the impacts of pig production while also taking into account possible effects on growth performance. We compared three different formulation methodologies: least-cost formulation, in accordance with standard practices on commercial farms; multiobjective (MO) formulation, which considered feed cost and environmental impacts as calculated by life cycle assessment (LCA); and MO formulation, which prioritized locally produced feed ingredients to reduce the impact of transport. Ninety-six pigs were distributed between three experimental groups, with pigs individually weighted and fed using an automatic feeding system from 40 to 115 kg body weight. Based on the experimental results, six categories of impacts were evaluated: climate change (CC), demand in non-renewable energy (NRE), acidification (AC), eutrophication (EU), land occupation (LO), and phosphorus demand (PD), at both feed plant gate and farm gate, with 1 kg of feed and 1 kg of live pig as functional units, respectively. At feed level, MO formulations reduced CC, NRE, AC, and PD impacts but sometimes increased LO and EU impacts. These formulations reduced the proportion of cereals and oil meals into feeds (feed ingredients with high impacts), while the proportion of alternative protein sources, like peas, faba beans, or high-protein agricultural coproducts increased (feed ingredients with low impacts). Overall, animal performance was not affected by the dietary treatment; because of this, the general pattern of results obtained with either MO formulation at farm gate was similar to that obtained at feed level. Thus, MO diet formulation represents an efficient way to reduce the environmental impacts of pig production without compromising animal performance.

Locally Grown Crops and Immunocastration in Fattening Heavy Pigs: Effects on Performance and Welfare

“…Therefore, our results suggest that the maximum dietary inclusion level based on economic evaluations may be lower than that deduced from biological restrictions. Auzins et al [26] pointed out that local pea has the highest cost-efficiency for pig feeding and stands out compared to soybean cake, which has twice the cultivation and processing costs (costs per tonne of crop protein and amino acids, including ideal amino acid balance), in addition to advantages of short supply chains [27] and various environmental and climate benefits [28]. Moreover, with regard to feeding behaviour traits, pigs fed a pea diet had a higher feeding rate (g/min) than those fed a soyabean diet during the majority of the fattening period.…”

Sclerocarya birrea caffra nut meal as a substitute to soyabean meal: Effects on growth performance, feed intake and utilisation and viscera macromorphometry of blue-helmeted guinea fowl

“…Feed ingredients and diet composition are fundamental factors that affect growth ( de Quelen, Brossard, Wilfart, Dourmad & Garcia-Launay, 2021 ), development and function of the gastrointestinal tract ( Celi et al., 2017 ). de Vries (2015) reports that moderate amounts of dietary fibre in poultry feeds to be beneficial for GIT development, health and function translating to enhanced nutrient digestion and absorption and increased growth performance.…”

The Influence of Farm Characteristics and Feed Compositions on the Environmental Impact of Pig Production in Flanders: Productivity, Energy Use and Protein Choices Are Key

“…As described above, feed compositions are determined by linear programming based on availability and price on the market, respecting animal-specific minima and maxima concerning energy needs, proteins, minerals and vitamins. For sure, there are possibilities to extend the linear programming concept to include the minimization of environmental impact indictors [15,19], which would lead to interesting potential new feed formulations. The possibilities in practice will need to be assessed, for example, by an appropriate label that can communicate which efforts have been made.…”

“…Due to fluctuations in prices and availabilities of feed ingredients on the world market, the optimal feed compositions are variable [13]. The variability in feed compositions influences the environmental impact of feed consumption and therewith the environmental impact of pig production [14,15].…”

“…Multiple studies have investigated the environmental impact of pig production [8,[16][17][18], including studies that particularly focus on the environmental impact of feed production [14,15,19,20]. While some of these studies include a comparison of different systems, for example between countries [16] or between different production systems [8,18,20], they do not consider variability in system characteristics between individual pig production farms, which also differ within countries and production systems.…”