Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Towards a methodology to formulate sustainable diets for livestock: accounting for environmental impact in diet formulation

  • S. G. Mackenzie (a1), I. Leinonen (a1), N. Ferguson (a2) and I. Kyriazakis (a1)

Abstract

The objective of this study was to develop a novel methodology that enables pig diets to be formulated explicitly for environmental impact objectives using a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach. To achieve this, the following methodological issues had to be addressed: (1) account for environmental impacts caused by both ingredient choice and nutrient excretion, (2) formulate diets for multiple environmental impact objectives and (3) allow flexibility to identify the optimal nutritional composition for each environmental impact objective. An LCA model based on Canadian pig farms was integrated into a diet formulation tool to compare the use of different ingredients in Eastern and Western Canada. By allowing the feed energy content to vary, it was possible to identify the optimum energy density for different environmental impact objectives, while accounting for the expected effect of energy density on feed intake. A least-cost diet was compared with diets formulated to minimise the following objectives: non-renewable resource use, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, global warming potential and a combined environmental impact score (using these four categories). The resulting environmental impacts were compared using parallel Monte Carlo simulations to account for shared uncertainty. When optimising diets to minimise a single environmental impact category, reductions in the said category were observed in all cases. However, this was at the expense of increasing the impact in other categories and higher dietary costs. The methodology can identify nutritional strategies to minimise environmental impacts, such as increasing the nutritional density of the diets, compared with the least-cost formulation.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Towards a methodology to formulate sustainable diets for livestock: accounting for environmental impact in diet formulation
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Towards a methodology to formulate sustainable diets for livestock: accounting for environmental impact in diet formulation
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Towards a methodology to formulate sustainable diets for livestock: accounting for environmental impact in diet formulation
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

* Corresponding author: S. G. Mackenzie, email s.g.mackenzie@ncl.ac.uk

References

Hide All
1. Ferguson, N (2014) Commercial application of integrated models to improve performance and profitability in pigs and poultry. In Nutritional Modelling in Pigs and Poultry, pp. 141156 [N Sakmoura, R Gous, I Kyriazakis, et al., editors]. Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI.
2. Saddoris-Clemons, K, Schneider, J, Feoli, C, et al. (2011) Cost-effective feeding strategies for grow-finish pigs. Adv Pork Prod 22, 187194.
3. Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, et al. (2006) Livestocks Long Shadow-Environmental Issues and Options. Rome: FAO.
4. Macleod, M, Gerber, P, Opio, C, et al. (2013) Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Pig and Chicken Supply Chains. Rome: FAO.
5. Mackenzie, SG, Leinonen, I, Ferguson, N, et al. (2015) Accounting for uncertainty in the quantification of the environmental impacts of Canadian pig farming systems. J Anim Sci 93, 31303143.
6. Basset-Mens, C & Van Der Werf, HMG (2005) Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France. Agric Ecosyst Environ 105, 127144.
7. Guinée, JB, Gorrée, M, Heijungs, R, et al., (editors) (2002) Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
8. Weidmann, T & Minx, J (2008) A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. In Ecological Economics Research Trends, pp. 111 [CC Perstova, editor]. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
9. de Vries, M & de Boer, IJM (2010) Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livest Sci 128, 111.
10. Williams, AG, Audsley, E & Sandars, DL (2006) Determining the Environmental Burdens and Resource Use in the Production of Agricultural and Horticultural Commodities. Defra Research Project IS0205. Bedford: Cranfield University and Defra.
11. Eshel, G, Shepon, A, Makov, T, et al. (2014) Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. PNAS 111, 1199612001.
12. Eriksson, IE, Elmquist, H, Stern, S, et al. (2005) LCA case studies environmental systems analysis of pig production the impact of feed choice. Int J Life Cycle Assess Environ Anal Syst 10, 143154.
13. Reckmann, K, Traulsen, I & Krieter, J (2013) Life Cycle Assessment of pork production: a data inventory for the case of Germany. Livest Sci 157, 586596.
14. Dourmad, JY, Ryschawy, J, Trousson, T, et al. (2014) Evaluating environmental impacts of contrasting pig farming systems with life cycle assessment. Animal 8, 20272037.
15. PorkCheckoff (2009) Quick facts: the pork industry at a glance. http://www.extension.umn.edu/youth/mn4-H/events/project-bowl/docs/pb-gl-Quick-Facts-The-Pork-Industry-at-a-Glance.pdf (accessed March 2013).
16. Thoma, G, Nutter, D, Ulrich, R, et al. (2011) National Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Study for Production of US Swine. Des Moines, IA: National Pork Board.
17. Patience JF, Thacker PA & de Lange CFM (editors) (1995) Diet formulation. In Swine Nutrition Guide, 2nd ed., pp. 119132. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada: Prairie Swine Centre.
18. Van Der Werf, HMG, Petit, J & Sanders, J (2005) The environmental impacts of the production of concentrated feed: the case of pig feed in Bretagne. Agric Syst 83, 153177.
19. Food and Agriculture Organization (2014) Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains. Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partnership. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a-mj751e.pdf (accessed October 2015).
20. Pelletier, N, Arsenault, N & Tyedmers, P (2008) Scenario modelling potential eco-efficiency gains from a transition to organic agriculture: life cycle perspectives on Canadian canola, corn, soy, and wheat production. Environ Manage 42, 9891001.
21. Garcia-Launay, F, van der Werf, HMG, Nguyen, TTH, et al. (2014) Evaluation of the environmental implications of the incorporation of feed-use amino acids in pig production using Life Cycle Assessment. Livest Sci 161, 158175.
22. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories (2007) Ecoinvent Data 2.2 Final Reports No. 1-25. Dubendorf: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.
23. Mackenzie, SG, Leinonen, I, Ferguson, N, et al. (2016) Can the environmental impact of pig systems be reduced by utilising co-products as feed. J Clean Prod 115, 172181.
24. Nielsen, P, Nielsen, A, Weidema, B, et al.2003) LCA food database. www.lcafood.dk (accessed April 2014).
25. Ramirez, AD, Humphries, AC, Woodgate, SL, et al. (2012) Greenhouse gas life cycle assessment of products arising from the rendering of mammalian animal byproducts in the UK. Environ Sci Technol 46, 447453.
26. Blasi, D, Kuhl, GL, Drouillard, JS, et al. (1998) Wheat middlings-composition, feed value and storage guidelines. Kansas State University. http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/bookstore/pubs/MF2353.pdf (accessed February 2015).
27. Food and Agriculture Organization (2009) Agribusiness Handbook Wheat Flour. Agribusiness. Rome: FAO. https://www.responsibleagroinvestment.org/sites/responsibleagroinvestment.org/files/FAO_Agbiz handbook_Wheat Flour.pdf (accessed March 2013).
28. IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Green House Gas Inventories. Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html (accessed December 2013).
29. Sheppard, SC, Bittman, S, Swift, ML, et al. (2010) Farm practices survey and modelling to estimate monthly NH3 emissions from swine production in 12 Ecoregions of Canada. Can J Anim Sci 90, 145158.
30. Weatherbase (2014) Canada-weather averages. http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/state.php3?c=CA (accessed May 2014).
31. Beaulieu, M (2004) Manure Management in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada. http://publications.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/21-021-M/21-021-MIE2004001.pdf (accessed February 2014).
32. Statistics-Canada (2003) Manure storage in Canada. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/21-021-MIE/free.htm (accessed March 2013).
33. Nguyen, TLT, Hermansen, JE & Mogensen, L (2011) Environmental Assessment of Danish Pork. Aarhaus: Aarhus University. http://web.agrsci.dk/djfpublikation/djfpdf/ir_103_54761_indhold_internet.pdf (accessed June 2013).
34. Korol, M (2004) Fertilizer and pesticide management in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada. 1–41. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/21-021- MIE/free.htm (accessed June 2013).
35. Lammers, PJ, Honeyman, MS, Harmon, JD, et al. (2010) Energy and carbon inventory of Iowa swine production facilities. Agric Syst 103, 551561.
36. US Climate Data (2014) Climate-Mason City, Iowa. http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/mason-city/iowa/united-states/usia0541 (accessed May 2014).
37. Statistics-Canada (2013) Table 127-0002-electric power generation, by class of electricity producer, annual (megawatt hour). http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=1270003&paSer=&pattern=&stByVal=1&p1=1&p2=-1&tabMode=dataTable&csid= (accessed April 2014).
38. British Standards Institution (2011) PAS 2050: 2011 Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services. London: British Standards Institution.
39. Institute of Environmental Sciences at Leiden University (CML) (2002) CML-IA characterisation factors. http://cml.leiden.edu/software/data-cmlia.html (accessed November 2012).
40. Huijbregts, MAJ, Breedveld, L, Huppes, G, et al. (2003) Normalisation figures for environmental life-cycle assessment: The Netherlands (1997/1998), Western Europe (1995) and the world (1990 and 1995). J Clean Prod 11, 737748.
41. Mason, A (2011) OpenSolver – an open source add-in to solve linear and integer progammes in Excel. In Operations Research Proceedings, pp. 401406 [D Klatte, H-J Lüthi and K Schmedders, editors]. Berlin: Springer.
42. Stein Monogastric Nutrition Laboratory (2014) Feed ingredient database. http://nutrition.ansci.illinois.edu/feed_database.html (accessed July 2014).
43. National Research Council (2012) Feed ingredient composition. In Nutrient Requirements of Swine, 11th ed. pp. 239367. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
44. Hazzeldine MJ (2010) Premier Atlas 2010: Ingredient Matrix [I Mackinson, editor]. Rugeley, UK: Premier Nutrition Products Ltd.
45. National Research Council (2012) Nutrient requirement tables. In Nutrient Requirements of Swine, 11th ed. pp. 208239. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
46. Kyriazakis, I & Emmans, GC (1995) The voluntary feed intake of pigs given feeds based on wheat bran, dried citrus pulp and grass meal in relation to measurements of feed bulk. Br J Nutr 73, 191207.
47. Patience, JF (2012) The influence of dietary energy on feed efficiency in grow-finish swine. In Feed Efficiency in Swine, pp. 101130 [JF Patience, editor]. Wageningen: Wagengen Academic Publishers.
49. Brisson, Y (2014) The changing face of the Canadian hog industry. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/96-325-x/2014001/article/14027-eng.pdf (accessed December 2014).
50. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (2012) Comparative feed values for swine. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/swine/facts/03-003.htm#composition (accessed August 2014).
51. Wellock, IJ, Emmans, GC & Kyriazakis, I (2003) Modelling the effects of thermal environment and dietary composition on pig performance: model logic and concepts. Anim Sci 77, 255266.
52. Symeou, V, Leinonen, I & Kyriazakis, I (2014) Modelling phosphorus intake, digestion, retention and excretion in growing and finishing pigs: model description. Animal 8, 16121621.
53. Rigolot, C, Espagnol, S, Pomar, C, et al. (2010) Modelling of manure production by pigs and NH3, N2O and CH4 emissions. Part I: animal excretion and enteric CH4, effect of feeding and performance. Animal 4, 14011412.
54. Lloyd, SM & Ries, R (2007) Characterizing, propagating and and analyzing uncertainty in Life-Cycle Assessment – a survey of quantitative approaches. J Ind Ecol 11, 161179.
55. Leinonen, I, Williams, AG, Wiseman, J, et al. (2012) Predicting the environmental impacts of chicken systems in the United Kingdom through a life cycle assessment: broiler production systems. Poult Sci 91, 825.
56. Leinonen, I, Williams, AG, Waller, AH, et al. (2013) Comparing the environmental impacts of alternative protein crops in poultry diets: the consequences of uncertainty. Agric Syst 121, 3342.
57. Meul, M, Ginneberge, C, Van Middelaar, CE, et al. (2012) Carbon footprint of five pig diets using three land use change accounting methods. Livest Sci 149, 215223.
58. Ogino, A, Osada, T, Takada, R, et al. (2013) Life cycle assessment of Japanese pig farming using low-protein diet supplemented with amino acids. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 59, 107118.
59. Nguyen, TTH, Bouvarel, I, Ponchant, P, et al. (2012) Using environmental constraints to formulate low-impact poultry feeds. J Clean Prod 28, 215224.
60. Moe, A, Koehler-munro, K, Bryan, R, et al. (2014) Multi-criteria decision analysis of feed formulation for laying hens. In Proceedings of 9th International Conference on LCA in the Agri-food Sector, pp. 647653 [R Schenck and D Huizenga, editors]. San Francisco, CA: American Center for Life Cycle Assessment.
61. van Milgen, J, Valancogne, A, Dubois, S, et al. (2008) InraPorc: a model and decision support tool for the nutrition of growing pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 143, 387405.
62. Pomar, C, Dubeau, F, Létourneau-Montminy, M-P, et al. (2007) Reducing phosphorus concentration in pig diets by adding an environmental objective to the traditional feed formulation algorithm. Livest Sci 111, 1627.
63. Moraes, LE & Fadel, JG (2013) Minimising environmental impacts of livestock production using diet optimization models. In Sustainable Animal Agriculture, pp. 6782 [E Kebreab, editor]. Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing.
64. Thomassen, MA, Dalgaard, R, Heijungs, R, et al. (2008) Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13, 339349.
65. Finnveden, G, Hauschild, MZ, Ekvall, T, et al. (2009) Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. J Environ Manage 91, 121.
66. Goedkoop, M & Spriensma, R (2001) The Eco-indicator 99 – a damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. http://www.pre-sustainability.com/download/EI99_annexe_v3.pdf (accessed March 2013).
67. Soares, SR, Toffoletto, L & Deschênes, L (2006) Development of weighting factors in the context of LCIA. J Clean Prod 14, 649660.
68. International Organisation for Standardisation (2006) EN ISO 14044. Brussels: European Commission for Standardisation.
69. Weidema, BP (2009) Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results. Ecol Econ 68, 15911598.
70. Finnveden, G, Eldh, P & Johansson, J (2006) Weighting in LCA based on ecotaxes-development of a mid-point method and experiences from case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11, 8188.
71. Mosnier, E, van der Werf, HMG, Boissy, J, et al. (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, 19721983.
72. Krautgartner, R, Henard, M, Rehder, LE, et al. (2013) Oilseeds and Products Annual: Ample Soybean World Supplies to Boost EU-27 Soybean Meal Consumption. Global Agricultural Information Network Report. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent GAIN Publications/Oilseeds and Products Annual_Vienna_EU-27_4-5-2013.pdf (accessed August 2015).
73. Stone, JJ, Dollarhide, CR, Benning, JL, et al. (2012) The life cycle impacts of feed for modern grow-finish Northern Great Plains US swine production. Agric Syst 106, 110.
74. ECOTEC Research and Consulting (2001) Taxes on fertilisers and mineral surpluses. In Study on the Economic and Environmental Implications of the Use of Environmental Taxes and Charges in the European Union, pp. 129–151. Brussels: ECOTEC Research and Consulting. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/taxation/pdf/ch9_fertilisers.pdf (accessed August 2015).
75. Department of Environment – Australian Government (2012) About the carbon farming initiative. http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-fund/cfi/about (accessed August 2015).

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Mackenzie supplementary material
Mackenzie supplementary material 1

 Word (28 KB)
28 KB

Towards a methodology to formulate sustainable diets for livestock: accounting for environmental impact in diet formulation

  • S. G. Mackenzie (a1), I. Leinonen (a1), N. Ferguson (a2) and I. Kyriazakis (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed