Life Cycle Assessment of a Modern Northern Great Plains U.S. Swine Production Facility

Stone, Jeff; Dollarhide, Christopher R.; Jinka, Ramith; Thaler, R.C.; Hostetler, Chris E.; Clay, David E.

doi:10.1089/ees.2010.0051

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Seventeen LCA-related articles deal with ABs, of which two consider indirect toxic impacts related to AB production and transportation (Stone et al 2010(Stone et al , 2011, three calculate freshwater ecotoxicity CFs for ABs and use them in LCAs (Muñoz et al 2008;Henriksson et al 2015;Li et al 2019), two only calculate CFs for ABs (Alfonsín et al 2014;Ortiz de García et al 2017) and eight use available CFs for ABs to conduct LCAs (Muñoz et al 2009;Hospido et al 2010;Igos et al 2012Igos et al , 2013Lorenzo-Toja et al 2016;Rahman et al 2018;Tarpani and Azapagic 2018;Tarpani et al 2020). Meanwhile, Morais et al (2013) compare the uncertainty and variability of characterization results at various pH using the USEtox scientific consensus model V1.01 (Rosenbaum et al 2008) (Guinée et al 2002).…”

Section: Findings Of the Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing antibiotics in LCA—a review of current practices and proposed novel approaches for including resistance

Nyberg

Rico

Guinée

et al. 2021

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose With antibiotic resistance (ABR) portrayed as an increasing burden to human health, this study reviews how and to what extent toxicological impacts from antibiotic use are included in LCAs and supplement this with two novel approaches to include ABR, a consequence of antibiotic use, into the LCA framework. Methods We review available LCA studies that deal with toxicological aspects of antibiotics to evaluate how these impacts from antibiotics have been characterized. Then, we present two novel approaches for including ABR-related impacts in life cycle impact assessments (LCIAs). The first approach characterizes the potential for ABR enrichment in the environmental compartment as a mid-point indicator, based on minimum selective concentrations for pathogenic bacteria. The second approach attributes human health impacts as an endpoint indictor, using quantitative relationships between the use of antibiotics and human well-being. Results and discussion Our findings show that no LCA study to date have accounted for impacts related to ABR. In response, we show that our novel mid-point indicator approach could address this by allowing ABR impacts to be characterized for environmental compartments. We also establish cause-effect pathways between antibiotic use, ABR, and human well-being that generate results which are comparable with USEtox and most endpoint impact assessment approaches for human toxicology. Conclusions Our proposed methods show that currently overlooked impacts from ABR enrichment in the environment could be captured within the LCA framework as a robust characterization methodology built around the established impact model USEtox. Substantial amounts of currently unavailable data are, however, needed to calculate emissions of antibiotics into the environment, to develop minimum selective concentrations for non-pathogenic bacteria, and to quantify potential human health impacts from AB use.

show abstract

Section: Findings Of the Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing antibiotics in LCA—a review of current practices and proposed novel approaches for including resistance

Nyberg

Rico

Guinée

et al. 2021

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3 generally treated in lagoon systems, which causes high emissions of methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide (Stone et al, 2010). This treatment is generally selected, because, in general, pig production is seen as a commercial operation, while manure management remains a non-commercial end of pipe treatment activity (Vu et al, 2007).…”

Section: A N U S C R I P Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Incidental common use products used within production facility operations like cleaning supplies, disinfectants, antibiotics or antimicrobials, were not accounted for in the inventory. It is assumed that these products have an insignificant contribution to environmental impacts when compared with the primary production processes evaluated (Stone et al, 2010). Building infrastructure materials were also not accounted for.…”

Section: Inventorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental assessment of pig production in Cienfuegos, Cuba: alternatives for manure management

Gutiérrez

Eras

Billen

et al. 2016

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Unfortunately, pork production facilities are also known to have negative environmental impacts such as emissions to air and water, odors, and contribute to noise and traffic in the areas they are located [2][3][4][5]. The number of swine producing facilities in the U.S. has decreased from 660,000 to 69,000 from 1980, but the total annual swine production has remained constant [6]. This is a result in a shift from small farms to large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) in recent decades.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pork Production Survey to Assess Factors of Facility Design and Operation

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pork producers can have difficulty operating or expanding existing facilities or establishing new facilities based on perceived negative impacts to the environment and surrounding community. It is critical to understand the characteristics and practices adopted in swine facilities to evaluate the extend of these impacts. A survey, completed by 69 pork producers in Wisconsin, was conducted to assess how facility design and management affect odor, water quality, water consumption, air quality, traffic, and noise. A wide range of production facilities participated in the survey where 29% of respondents were classified as very small (<35 animal units, AU), 16% as small (35–70 AU), 20% as medium (70–300 AU), 23% as large (300–1000 AU), and 12% as permitted (>1000 AU) facilities. Generally, facilities integrated numerous odor control strategies which resulted in high calculated odor scores and the absence of odor complaints. However, the lack of nutrient management planning and other practices for water quality, particularly for facilities with less than 300 AU, indicates there are areas that need improvement. Regardless of facility size, water reduction practices were very commonly reported indicating water conservation is important. Pit ventilation and mechanical ventilation was reported at 58 and 85% of the surveyed facilities, which highlights the need to increase the adoption of mechanical ventilation for air quality, especially in farms with under-barn storage. Using trucks instead of tractors and pumping instead of trucks and tractors can reduce traffic around facilities during manure hauling season.

show abstract

Life Cycle Assessment of a Modern Northern Great Plains U.S. Swine Production Facility

Abstract: to perform well in southeastern South Dakota, canola performed well in northeastern North Dakota, and camelina and carinata remained strong alternatives comparatively across the region.

Cited by 10 publications

References 19 publications

Characterizing antibiotics in LCA—a review of current practices and proposed novel approaches for including resistance

Characterizing antibiotics in LCA—a review of current practices and proposed novel approaches for including resistance

Environmental assessment of pig production in Cienfuegos, Cuba: alternatives for manure management

Pork Production Survey to Assess Factors of Facility Design and Operation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About