Environmental Systems Analysis of Pig Production - The Impact of Feed Choice (12 pp)

Strid, Ingrid; Elmquist, Helena; Stern, Susanne; Nybrant, Thomas

doi:10.1065/lca2004.06.160

Cited by 131 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the first instance, our results seem to contradict the results of Eriksson et al (2005) and Meul et al (2012). Differences result from differences in impact values and system boundaries.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 95%

“…Our results are within the range of results reviewed by De Vries and De Boer (2010) (GWP between 4.64 and 4.67 kg CO 2 − eq, an EU between 33 and 34 MJ and a LU between 7.25 and 8.28 m 2 ), although LU was a bit lower. Furthermore, our study supports the earlier finding that feed production causes the majority of GWP, EU and LU (Eriksson et al, 2005;Dalgaard et al, 2007). To gain insight into the full environmental impact of replacing SBM by RSM, and to prevent burden shifting the environmental impacts, eutrophication and acidification should be assessed as well.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Eriksson et al (2005) found a reduction in GWP up to 13% and in EU up to 22%. They concluded that feeding strategies have the potential to reduce environmental impacts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…To our knowledge, no other studies aimed to assess the environmental impact of replacing SBM with RSM in finishing pig diets, although some assessed the impact of replacing SBM with locally produced protein sources such as peas, lupines and rapeseed products (Eriksson et al, 2005;Meul et al, 2012;Sasu-Boakye et al, 2014). Eriksson et al (2005) found a reduction in GWP up to 13% and in EU up to 22%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meul et al (2012) used impact values of 0.555 kg CO 2 − eq and 3.06 m 2 per kg SBM and 0.437 kg CO 2 − eq and 1.14 m 2 per kg RSM. Eriksson et al (2005) used impact values of 0.73 kg CO 2 − eq and 5.02 MJ per kg SBM and 0.37 kg CO 2 − eq and 2.39 MJ per kg RSM, whereas we used 0.652 kg CO 2 − eq, 3.1 m 2 and 6.1 MJ per kg SBM and 0.454 kg CO 2 − eq, 1.2 m 2 and 3.1 MJ per kg RSM. The relative high reduction found by Eriksson et al (2005) (reduction in GWP up to 13%), for example, can be explained by the relatively high difference in CO 2 − eq per kg between SBM and RSM.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Environmental impact of replacing soybean meal with rapeseed meal in diets of finishing pigs

Zanten

Bikker

Mollenhorst

et al. 2015

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The major impact of the livestock sector on the environment may be reduced by feeding agricultural co-products to animals. Since the last decade, co-products from biodiesel production, such as rapeseed meal (RSM), became increasingly available in Europe. Consequently, an increase in RSM content in livestock diets was observed at the expense of soybean meal (SBM) content. Cultivation of SBM is associated with high environmental impacts, especially when emissions related to land use change (LUC) are included. This study aims to assess the environmental impact of replacing SBM with RSM in finishing pig diets. As RSM has a lower nutritional value, we assessed the environmental impact of replacing SBM with RSM using scenarios that differed in handling changes in nutritional level. Scenario 1 (S1) was the basic scenario containing SBM. In scenario 2 (S2), RSM replaced SBM based on CP content, resulting in reduced energy and amino acid content, and hence an increased feed intake to realize the same growth rate. The diet of scenario 3 (S3) was identical to S2; however, we assumed that pigs were not able to increase their feed intake, leading to reduced growth performance. In scenario 4 (S4), the energy and amino acid content were increased to the same level of S1. Pig performances were simulated using a growth model. We analyzed the environmental impact of each scenario using life-cycle assessment, including processes of feed production, manure management, piglet production, enteric fermentation and housing. Results show that, expressed as per kg of BW, replacing SBM with RSM in finishing pig diets marginally decreased global warming potential (GWP) and energy use (EU) but decreased land use (LU) up to 12%. Between scenarios, S3 had the maximum potential to reduce the environmental impact, due to a lower impact per kg of feed and an increased body protein-to-lipid ratio of the pigs, resulting in a better feed conversion ratio. Optimization of the body protein-to-lipid ratio, therefore, might result in a reduced environmental impact of pig production. Furthermore, the impact of replacing SBM with RSM changed only marginally when emissions related to direct (up to 2.9%) and indirect LUC (up to 2.5%) were included. When we evaluated environmental impacts of feed production only, which implies excluding other processes along the chain as is generally found in the literature, GWP decreased up to 10%, including LUC, EU up to 5% and LU up to 16%.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 95%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Eriksson et al (2005) found a reduction in GWP up to 13% and in EU up to 22%. They concluded that feeding strategies have the potential to reduce environmental impacts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%