Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T19:41:36.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2015

H. H. E. van Zanten ,
P. Bikker ,
H. Mollenhorst ,
B. G. Meerburg  and
I. J. M. de Boer
H. H. E. van Zanten*
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, the Netherlands Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, the Netherlands
P. Bikker
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, the Netherlands
H. Mollenhorst
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, the Netherlands
B. G. Meerburg
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, the Netherlands
I. J. M. de Boer
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, the Netherlands
*
†E-mail: hannah.vanzanten@wur.nl
Get access

Abstract

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%.

Keywords

environmental impactpigsrapeseedsoybeanland use
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Supplement 11 , November 2015 , pp. 1866 - 1874
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarnink, AJA, Van Ouwerkerk, ENJ and Verstegen, MWA 1992. A mathematical model for estimating the amount and composition of slurry from fattening pigs. Livestock Production Science 31, 133–147.Google Scholar
Agrovision 2012. Annual published avarage company data of Dutch pig farms (in Dutch: Kengetallenspiegel). Agrovision, Deventer, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Audsley, E, Brander, M, Chatterton, J, Murphy-Bokern, D, Webster, C and Williams, A 2009. How low can we go? An sassessment of green-house gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope to reduce them by 2050. WWF, UK.Google Scholar
Basset-Mens, C and Van der Werf, HMG 2005. Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 105, 127–144.Google Scholar
Bauman, H and Tillman, AM 2004. The hitchhiker’s guide to LCA. Chalmers University of Technology, Götenborg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Cederberg, C and Flysjo, A 2004. Environmental assesment of future pig farming systems (SIK report 728). Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Coenen, PWHG, Van der Maas, CWM, Zijlema, PJ, Arets, EJMM, Baas, K, Van den Berghe, ACWM, Te Biesebeek, JD, Brandt, AT, Geilenkirchen, G, Van der Hoek, KW, Te Molder, R, Dröge, R, Montfoort, JA, Peek, CJ and Vonk, J 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions in the Netherlands 1990–2011. National Inventory Report 2013. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
CVB 2010. Feed tables (in Dutch: Tabellenboek veevoeding. CVB-reeks nr. 49.). Productschap Diervoeder, Centraal Veevoederbureau, Den Haag, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Dalgaard, R, Halberg, N and Hermansen, JE 2007. Danish pork production. An environmental assessment. University of Aarhus, Tjele, Denmark.Google Scholar
De Vries, M and De Boer, IJM 2010. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science 128, 1–11.Google Scholar
EcoinventCentre 2007. Ecoinvent data v2.0 Final reports econinvent 2007. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Elferink, EV, Nonhebel, S and Moll, HC 2008. Feeding livestock food residue and the consequences for the environmental impact of meat. Journal of Cleaner Production 16, 1227–1233.Google Scholar
Eriksson, IS, Elmquist, H, Stern, S and Nybrant, T 2005. Environmental systems analysis of pig production – the impact of feed choice. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10, 143–154.Google Scholar
Foley, JA, Asner, GP, Costa, MH, Coe, MT, DeFries, R, Gibbs, HK, Howard, EA, Olson, S, Patz, J, Ramankutty, N and Snyder, P 2007. Amazonia revealed: forest degradation and loss of ecosystem goods and services in the Amazon Basin. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5, 25–32.Google Scholar
Forster, P, Ramaswamy, V, Artaxo, P, Berntsen, T, Betts, R, Fahey, DW, Haywood, J, Lean, J, Lowe, DC, Myhre, G, Nganga, J, Prinn, R, Raga, G, Schulz, M and Van Dorland, R 2007. Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Garcia-Launay, F, Van der Werf, HMG, Nguyen, TTH, Le Tutour, L and Dourmad, JY 2014. Evaluation of the environmental implications of the incorporation of feed-use amino acids in pig production using Life Cycle Assessment (Livestock Science). Livestock Science 161, 158–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, P, Opio, C, Vellinga, T, Falcucci, A, Tempio, G, Gianni, G, Henderson, B, MacLeod, M, Makkar, H, Mottet, A, Robinson, T and Weiler, V 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains – a global life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Gerber, P, Steinfeld, H, Henderson, B, Mottet, A, Opio, C, Dijkman, J, Falcucci, A and Tempio, G 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock – a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Guinée, JB, Gorrée, M, Heijungs, R, Huppes, G, Kleijn, R, De Koning, A, Van Oers, L, Wegener Sleeswijk, A, Suh, S, Udo De Haes, HA, De Bruijn, H, Van Duin, R, Huijbregts, MAJ, Lindeijer, E, Roorda, AAH, Van der Ven, BL and Weidema, BP 2002. Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO standards. Centrum voor Milieukunde, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
IPCC 2006. 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 4: Agriculture, forestry and other land use. In Emissions from livestock and manure management (ed. HS Eggleston, L Buendia, K Miwa, T Ngara and K Tanabe). IGES, Japan.Google Scholar
Jungbluth, N, Chudacoff, M, Dauriat, A, Dinkerl, F, Doka, G, Faist Emmenegger, M, Gnansounou, E, Kljun, N, Schleiss, K, Spielmann, M, Stettler, C and Sutter, J 2007. Life cycle inventories of bioenergy (Ecoinvent Report No. 17). Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Invenotries, Dübendorf, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Macedo, MN, DeFries, RS, Morton, DC, Stickler, CM, Galford, GL and Shimabukuro, YE 2012. Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon during the late 2000s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, 1341–1346.Google Scholar
Makkar, HPS, Cooper, G, Weber, JA, Lywood, W and Pinkney, J 2012. Biofuel co-products as livestock feed.Opportunities and challenges. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Meul, M, Ginneberge, C, Van Middelaar, CE, De Boer, IJM, Fremaut, D and Haesaert, G 2012. Carbon footprint of five pig diets using three land use change accounting methods. Livestock Science 149, 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosnier, E, Van der Werf, HMG, Boissy, J and Dourmad, J-Y 2011. Evaluation of the environmental implications of the incorporation of feed-use amino acids in the manufacturing of pig and broiler feeds using Life Cycle Assessment. Animal 5, 1972–1983.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nemecek, T, Schnetzer, J and Reinhard, J (in press). Updated and harmonised greenhouse gas emissions for crop inventories. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 1–18.Google Scholar
Nuscience 2012. Quarterly published pricelist of feed ingredients. Nuscience, Utrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Persson, UM, Henders, S and Cederberg, C 2014. A method for calculating a land-use change carbon footprint (LUC-CFP) for agricultural commodities – applications to Brazilian beef and soy, Indonesian palm oil. Global Change Biology 20, 3482–3491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prudêncio da Silva, V, Van der Werf, HMG, Spies, A and Soares, SR 2010. Variability in environmental impacts of Brazilian soybean according to crop production and transport scenarios. Journal of Environmental Management 91, 1831–1839.Google Scholar
Quiniou, N and Noblet, J 2012. Effect of the dietary net energy concentration on feed intake and performance of growing-finishing pigs housed individually. Journal of Animal Science 90, 4362–4372.Google Scholar
Reinhard, J and Zah, R 2011. Consequential life cycle assessment of the environmental impacts of an increased rapemethylester (RME) production in Switzerland. Biomass and Bioenergy 35, 2361–2373.Google Scholar
Sasu-Boakye, Y, Cederberg, C and Wirsenius, S 2014. Localising livestock protein feed production and the impact on land use and greenhouse gas emissions. Animal 8, 1339–1348.Google Scholar
Staatsblad 2014. Regulation related to keeping livestock (Policy 210, 5 Juni 2014). Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, Den Haag, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M and De Haan, C 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Thamsiriroj, T and Murphy, JD 2010. Can rape seed biodiesel meet the european union sustainability criteria for biofuels? Energy & Fuels 24, 1720–1730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Peet-Schwering, CMC, Straathof, SB, Binnendijk, GP and Van Diepen, JTM 2012. Influence of diet composition and level of amino acids on performance of boars, barrows and gilts. Wageningen UR, Lelystad, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Van der Werf, HMG, Petit, J and Sanders, J 2005. The environmental impacts of the production of concentrated feed: the case of pig feed in Bretagne. Agricultural Systems 83, 153–177.Google Scholar
Van Middelaar, C, Cederberg, C, Vellinga, T, Van der Werf, HG and De Boer, IM 2013. Exploring variability in methods and data sensitivity in carbon footprints of feed ingredients. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18, 768–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Milgen, J, Valancogne, A, Dubois, S, Dourmad, J-Y, Sève, B and Noblet, J 2008. InraPorc: a model and decision support tool for the nutrition of growing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 143, 387–405.Google Scholar
Vellinga, T, Van Laar, H, Thomassen, MA, De Boer, IJM, Berkhout, P and Aiking, H 2009. Environmental impact of livestock feed (in Dutch: Milieu effecten van diervoeders.). Animal Sciences Group van Wageningen UR, Lelystad, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Vellinga, TV, Blonk, H, Marinussen, M, Van Zeist, WJ and De Boer, IJM 2013. Methodology used in feedprint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization. Wageningen UR, Lelystad, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

van Zanten supplementary material

Table S1-S6

Download van Zanten supplementary material(File)
File 36.3 KB