Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Feeding Strategies to Mitigate Cost and Environmental Footprint of Pig Production in the US

1,267 views

Published on

Full proceedings at: http://www.extension.org/72746 The livestock sector is one of main drivers of the environmental footprint. Animal feed is a key to sustainable meat production. Researchers are looking for environmentally sustainable feeding strategies that will lower diet cost, agricultural use of land, water depletion, and climate change impact. We used linear models to formulate 4 single-objective diets including least-cost, least-land use, least-water depletion, and least-climate change impact diets. Preliminary results showed that the use of wheat and wheat middlings hold potential to reduce pig diet cost and the environmental footprint.

Published in: Education
  • how to lose weight in a week without exercise ◆◆◆ https://tinyurl.com/y6qaaou7
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Feeding Strategies to Mitigate Cost and Environmental Footprint of Pig Production in the US

  1. 1. Feeding strategies to mitigate cost and environmental footprint of pig production in the US Jasmina Burek, Greg Thoma, Jennie Popp, Charles Maxwell, Rick Ulrich, William Putman University of Arkansas
  2. 2. Motivation - livestock sector – one of the main drivers of the environmental footprint including carbon footprint, water footprint, and land use (FAO 2013) - 50 % total GHG emissions of pig production and consumption stems from pig feed ingredient (Thoma 2011) - 180 feed ingredients (NRC 2012) Thoma et al. (2011) National Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Study for Production of US Swine. NRC (2012) Nutrient Requirements of Swine
  3. 3. Pig diets • Average US pig diet (corn and soybean meal) Objectives • Least cost • Least carbon footprint • Least water footprint • Least land use Cost effective and environmentally sound pig diets/ pig production Current
  4. 4. Pig production models Cradle-to-farm gate LCA of pig production model (environmental footprints of feed ingredients) Pig Production Environmental Calculator (PPEC) 1. 2. ANALYZE ALTER ANALYZE ALTER Diet/Ingredient Diet/Ingredient
  5. 5. Rethinking pig diets LCA cradle-to-farm gate of pig production (kg of market pig live weight) PPEC Pig Production Environmental Calculator Windows User-Friendly Feed Formulation (WUFFFDA) least cost linear optimization model ALTER +ANALYZE 3. MODEL
  6. 6. Modeling “least” pig diets (WUFFDA) Input data - top 100 feed ingredients - carbon footprint, water footprint, and land use of 100 feed ingredients - nutrient characteristics - average US feed ingredient cost Modeling parameters - nutrient constraints (Nursery-Grow-Sow) - maximum feed ingredient inclusion rates in a diet (NSNG, literature) Data intensive modeling
  7. 7. Model sensitivity Assumptions: - min and maximum inclusion rates - minerals, vitamins, amino acids fixed - input parameters: - all feeds are equally available - average pig production practices - national feed environmental footprints - average feed costs
  8. 8. Model sensitivity Maximuminclusionrate(%)Amounts(%) NSNG (2010) National swine nutrition guide tables on nutrient recommendations , ingredient composition, and use rates.
  9. 9. Average US pig diets Grow to Finish
  10. 10. Grow to Finish Least cost pig diets
  11. 11. Least carbon footprint pig diets Grow to Finish
  12. 12. Least water footprint pig diets Grow to Finish
  13. 13. Least land use pig diets Grow to Finish
  14. 14. WUFFFDA (Pesti et al. 2004) Average US Pig Diets Least Cost Least Carbon Footprint Least Water Footprint Least Land Use Feedingredients(%) LCA model (Simapro 8.3) Result: costs and environmental footprint per market pig live weight PPEC Output: kg of feed, energy, water, land requirements Pig Diets Analyes ALTER ANALYZE
  15. 15. Average US Pig Diets Least Cost Least Carbon Footprint Least Water Footprint Least Land Use Feedingredients (kg/kglivewt.) LCA LCA LCA LCA LCA Pig diet profiles
  16. 16. Average US Pig Diets Least Cost Pig Diets Least Carbon Footprint Pig Diets Least Water Footprint Pig Diets Least Land Use Pig Diets Cost ($/kg market pig, live weight) Carbon Footprint (IPCC, 2007) (kg CO2-eq/kg market pig, live weight) Water Footprint (ReCiPe, 2008) (m³/kg market pig, live weight) Land Use (ReCiPe, 2008) (m²a/kg market pig, live weight) 1.49 0.11 2.60 1.46 11.05 0.07 3.14 2.04 6.04 0.14 1.99 1.13 7.75 0.24 2.80 0.87 4.25 0.24 3.08 0.91 LCA results OBJECTIVES ALTERNATIVES
  17. 17. Weighted Product Model: -> Least carbon footprint the best alternative Ratio Analysis: -> Least water footprint the best alternative Multi-criteria analysis Average US Pig Diets Least Cost Pig Diets Least Carbon Footprint Pig Diets Least Water Footprint Pig Diets Least Land Use Pig Diets Cost ($/kg market pig, live weight) Carbon Footprint (IPCC, 2007) (kg CO2-eq/kg market pig, live weight) Water Footprint (ReCiPe, 2008) (m³/kg market pig, live weight) Land Use (ReCiPe, 2008) (m²a/kg market pig, live weight) 1.49 0.11 2.60 1.46 11.05 0.07 3.14 2.04 6.04 0.14 1.99 1.13 7.75 0.24 2.80 0.87 4.25 0.24 3.08 0.91 OBJECTIVES ALTERNATIVES
  18. 18. Conclusion We answered 4 important questions: LC, LCF, LWF, LLU Diversification of feed ingredients will help reduce cost and environmental footprint. Expanding on this research and analyze different assumptions: - Feed availability - Pig production practices - Environmental footprints - Maximum inclusion rates vary - Feed costs - Expanding criteria Robust conclusion Multi-criteria analysis
  19. 19. Posters 1. Environmental Footprint, Cost, and Nutrient Database of the US Animal Feed Ingredients 2. Reducing the Costs and Environmental Footprint of Pig Diets with the Experimental Optimum Synthetic Amino Acid Inclusion
  20. 20. Acknowledgments This research is part of the program “Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in Agriculture,” and is supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2011-68002- 30208 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture and has also been supported by the National Pork Board Checkoff Program through the Environment Committee

×