Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:04:40.097Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental impacts of precision feeding programs applied in pig production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2017

I. Andretta ,
L. Hauschild ,
M. Kipper ,
P. G. S. Pires  and
C. Pomar
I. Andretta
Affiliation:
Faculdade de Agronomia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul 91540-000, Brazil
L. Hauschild
Affiliation:
Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Jaboticabal, São Paulo 14884.900, Brazil
M. Kipper
Affiliation:
Faculdade de Agronomia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul 91540-000, Brazil
P. G. S. Pires
Affiliation:
Faculdade de Agronomia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul 91540-000, Brazil
C. Pomar*
Affiliation:
Dairy and Swine Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Sherbrooke, QC, CanadaJ1M 0C8
*
†E-mail: Candido.pomar@agr.gc.ca
Get access

Abstract

This study was undertaken to evaluate the effect that switching from conventional to precision feeding systems during the growing-finishing phase would have on the potential environmental impact of Brazilian pig production. Standard life-cycle assessment procedures were used, with a cradle-to-farm gate boundary. The inputs and outputs of each interface of the life cycle (production of feed ingredients, processing in the feed industry, transportation and animal rearing) were organized in a model. Grain production was independently characterized in the Central-West and South regions of Brazil, whereas the pigs were raised in the South region. Three feeding programs were applied for growing-finishing pigs: conventional phase feeding by group (CON); precision daily feeding by group (PFG) (whole herd fed the same daily adjusted diet); and precision daily feeding by individual (PFI) (diets adjusted daily to match individual nutrient requirements). Raising pigs (1 t pig BW at farm gate) in South Brazil under the CON feeding program using grain cultivated in the same region led to emissions of 1840 kg of CO2-eq, 13.1 kg of PO4-eq and 32.2 kg of SO2-eq. Simulations using grain from the Central-West region showed a greater climate change impact. Compared with the previous scenario, a 17% increase in climate change impact was found when simulating with soybeans produced in Central-West Brazil, whereas a 28% increase was observed when simulating with corn and soybeans from Central-West Brazil. Compared with the CON feeding program, the PFG and PFI programs reduced the potential environmental impact. Applying the PFG program mitigated the potential climate change impact and eutrophication by up to 4%, and acidification impact by up to 3% compared with the CON program. Making a further adjustment by feeding pigs according to their individual nutrient requirements mitigated the potential climate change impact by up to 6% and the potential eutrophication and acidification impact by up to 5% compared with the CON program. The greatest environmental gains associated with the adoption of precision feeding were observed when the diet combined soybeans from Central-West Brazil with corn produced in Southern Brazil. The results clearly show that precision feeding is an effective approach for improving the environmental sustainability of Brazilian pig production.

Keywords

life-cycle assessmentnutrient requirementsprecision farmingswine
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 9 , September 2018 , pp. 1990 - 1998
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Minister of Health Canada 2017 

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

Agriness 2013. Melhores da suinocultura – Dados consolidados por estado (6a edição). Agriness, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.Google Scholar
Alvarenga, RAF 2010. Avaliação de métodos de AICV: um estudo de caso de quatro cenários de ração para frangos de corte. Master dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Santa Catarina, Brazil.Google Scholar
Alvarenga, RAF, Silva Júnior, VP da and Soares, SR 2012. Comparison of the ecological footprint and a life cycle impact assessment method for a case study on Brazilian broiler feed production. Journal of Cleaner Production 28, 25–32.Google Scholar
Andretta, I, Pomar, C, Rivest, J, Pomar, J, Lovatto, PA and Radünz Neto, J 2014. The impact of feeding growing–finishing pigs with daily tailored diets using precision feeding techniques on animal performance, nutrient utilization, and body and carcass composition. Journal of Animal Science 92, 3925–3936.Google Scholar
Andretta, I, Pomar, C, Rivest, J, Pomar, J and Radünz, J 2016. Precision feeding can significantly reduce lysine intake and nitrogen excretion without compromising the performance of growing pigs. Animal 10, 1137–1147.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
Brossard, L, Dourmad, J-Y, Rivest, J and van Milgen, J 2009. Modelling the variation in performance of a population of growing pig as affected by lysine supply and feeding strategy. Animal 3, 1114–1123.Google Scholar
Brossard, L, Vautier, B, van Milgen, J, Salaun, Y and Quiniou, N 2014. Comparison of in vivo and in silico growth performance and variability in pigs when applying a feeding strategy designed by simulation to control the variability of slaughter weight. Animal Production Science 54, 1939–1945.Google Scholar
Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada – Escola Superior de Agricultura ‘Luiz de Queiroz’ 2014. Indicadores de preços. CEPEA-ESALQ, Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.Google Scholar
Cherubini, E, Zanghelini, GM, Alvarenga, RAF, Franco, D and Soares, SR 2015a. Life cycle assessment of swine production in Brazil: a comparison of four manure management systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 87, 68–77.Google Scholar
Cherubini, E, Zanghelini, GM, Tavares, JMR, Belettini, F and Soares, SR 2015b. The finishing stage in swine production: influences of feed composition on carbon footprint. Environment, Development and Sustainability 17, 1313–1328.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
Ferket, PR, van Heugten, E, van Kempen, TATG and Angel, R 2002. Nutritional strategies to reduce environmental emissions from nonruminants. Journal of Animal Science 80 (E. Suppl. 2), E168–E182.Google Scholar
Guinée, JB 2002. Handbook on life cycle assessment: Operational guide to the ISO standards. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hauschild, L, Lovatto, PA, Pomar, J and Pomar, C 2012. Development of sustainable precision farming systems for swine: Estimating real-time individual amino acid requirements in growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 90, 2255–2263.Google Scholar
Hauschild, L, Pomar, C and Lovatto, PA 2010. Systematic comparison of the empirical and factorial methods used to estimate the nutrient requirements of growing pigs. Animal 4, 714–723.Google Scholar
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) 2014. Produção Agrícola Municipal de 2012. IBGE, Brasilia, Distrito Federal, Brazil.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2006. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. IPCC, Japan.Google Scholar
Kebreab, E, Liedke, A, Caro, D, Deimling, S, Binder, M and Finkbeiner, M 2016. Environmental impact of using specialty feed ingredients in swine and poultry production: a life cycle assessment. Journal of Animal Science 94, 2664–2681.Google Scholar
McAuliffe, GA, Chapman, DV and Sage, CL 2016. A thematic review of life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to pig production. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 56, 12–22.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.Google Scholar
Monteiro, AN, Garcia-Launay, F, Brossard, L, Wilfart, A and Dourmad, JY 2016. Effect of feeding strategy on environmental impacts of pig fattening in different contexts of production: evaluation through life cycle assessment. Journal of Animal Science 94, 4832–4847.Google 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.Google Scholar
Niemi, JK, Sevón-Aimonen, M-L, Pietola, K and Stalder, KJ 2010. The value of precision feeding technologies for grow–finish swine. Livestock Science 129, 13–23.Google Scholar
Pomar, C, Hauschild, L, Zhang, G-H, Pomar, J and Lovatto, PA 2009. Applying precision feeding techniques in growing-finishing pig operations. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 38, 226–237.Google Scholar
Pomar, C, Kyriazakis, I, Emmans, GC and Knap, PW 2003. Modeling stochasticity: dealing with populations rather than individual pigs. Journal of Animal Science 81 (E. suppl. 2), E178–E186.Google Scholar
Pomar, C, Pomar, J, Rivest, J, Cloutier, L, Letourneau-Montminy, M-P, Andretta, I and Hauschild, L 2014. Estimating real-time individual amino acid requirements in growing-finishing pigs: towards a new definition of nutrient requirements in growing-finishing pigs?. In Nutritional modelling in pigs and poultry (ed. NK Sakomura, RM Gous, I Kyriazakis and L Hauschild), pp. 157–174. CABI, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
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
Rostagno, HS, Albino, LFT, Donzele, JL, Gomes, PC, Oliveira, RF, de, Lopes, DC, Ferreira, AS, Barreto, SL, de, T and Euclides, RF 2011. Tabelas Brasileiras para Aves e Suínos. UFV, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.Google Scholar
Spies, A 2009. Avaliação de impactos ambientais da suinocultura através da análise de ciclo de vida – ACV. In Suinocultura e meio ambiente em Santa Catarina: indicadores de desempenho e avaliação sócio-econômica (ed. CR de Miranda and M Miele), pp. 13–43. Embrapa Suínos e Aves, Concórdia, Santa Catarina, Brazil.Google Scholar
Talamini, DJD, Martins, FM, Arboit, C and Wolozsim, N 2006. Custos agregados da produção integrada de suínos nas fases de leitões e de terminação. Custos e Agronegócio 2, 64–83.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 Zeist, WJ, Marinussen, M, Broekema, R, Groen, E, Kool, A, Dolman, M and Blonk, H 2012a. LCI data for the calculation tool Feedprint for greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization: crushing industry. Blonk Consultants, Gouda, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
van Zeist, WJ, Marinussen, M, Broekema, R, Groen, E, Kool, A, Dolman, M and Blonk, H 2012b. LCI data for the calculation tool Feedprint for greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization: dry milling industry. Blonk Consultants, Gouda, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wathes, CM, Kristensen, HH, Aerts, JM and Berckmans, D 2008. Is precision livestock farming an engineer’s daydream or nightmare, an animal’s friend or foe, and a farmer’s panacea or pitfall? Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 64, 2–10.Google Scholar