Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T09:41:35.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2011

E. Mosnier ,
H. M. G. van der Werf ,
J. Boissy  and
J.-Y. Dourmad
E. Mosnier
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1079 SENAH, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, F-35000 Rennes, France
H. M. G. van der Werf
Affiliation:
Agrocampus Ouest, F-35000 Rennes, France INRA, UMR1069 Soil, Agro and hydroSystem, F-35000 Rennes, France
J. Boissy*
Affiliation:
Agrocampus Ouest, F-35000 Rennes, France INRA, UMR1069 Soil, Agro and hydroSystem, F-35000 Rennes, France
J.-Y. Dourmad*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1079 SENAH, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, F-35000 Rennes, France
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The incorporation of feed-use (FU) amino acids (AAs) in diets results in a reduced use of protein-rich ingredients such as soybean meal, recognized to have elevated contributions to environmental impacts. This study investigated whether the incorporation of l-lysine.HCl, l-threonine and FU-methionine reduces the environmental impacts of pig and broiler feeds using Life Cycle Assessment. The following impact categories were considered: climate change, eutrophication, acidification, terrestrial ecotoxicity, cumulative energy demand and land occupation. Several feeds were formulated either to minimize the cost of the formulation (with or without AA utilization), to maximize AA incorporation (i.e. the cost of AA was considered to be similar to that of soybean meal), or to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. For both pig and broiler feeds, calculations were made first using only cereals and soybean meal as main ingredients and then using cereals and several protein-rich ingredients (soybean meal, rapeseed meal and peas). In addition, these calculations were performed using two types of soybean meal (from Brazil, associated with recent deforestation or not). For broiler feeds, two types of maize (from France, irrigated, with mineral fertilization v. not irrigated, with animal manure fertilization) were also tested. Regarding the feeds formulated to minimize cost, incorporation of AA decreased the values for eutrophication, terrestrial ecotoxicity and cumulative energy demand of both pig and broiler feeds, regardless of the base ingredients. Reduction in climate change and acidification due to the incorporation of AA depended on the nature of the feed ingredients, with the effect of AA incorporation being greater when combined with ingredients with high impacts such as soybean meal associated with deforestation. Feeds formulated to maximize AA incorporation generally had a similar composition to those formulated to minimize cost, suggesting that the costs of AA were not the limiting factor in their incorporation. Feeds formulated to minimize greenhouse gas emissions had the lowest values for climate change and cumulative energy demand, but not for other impacts. Further research is needed to elucidate whether the incorporation of additional AA (tryptophan and valine) along with l-lysine, l-threonine and FU-methionine could decrease on the environmental impacts of pig and broiler feeds further.

Keywords

amino acidsfeedbroilerpigenvironmental impacts
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 12 , 10 November 2011 , pp. 1972 - 1983
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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

AGRESTE (La statistique, l’évaluation et la prospective agricole) 2006. Enquête pratiques culturales. Retrieved May 18, 2010, from http://agreste.maapar.lbn.fr/ReportFolders/ReportFolders.aspxGoogle Scholar
Althaus, HJ, Chudacoff, M, Hischier, R, Jungbluth, N, Osses, M, Primas, A 2007. Life cycle inventories of chemicals. Final report ecoinvent data v2.0, vol. 8. Swiss Centre for the Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Basset-Mens, C, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basset-Mens, C, van der Werf, HMG, Robin, P, Morvan, T, Hassouna, M, Paillat, JM, Vertès, F 2007. Methods and data for the environmental inventory of contrasting pig production systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 1395–1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, M 2003. Life cycle analysis of dl-methionine in broiler meat production. Amino News, Evonik Degussa. Retrieved May 18, 2010, from http://www.aminoacidsandmore.comGoogle Scholar
Blonk, H, Lafleur, M, van Zeijts, M 1997. Towards an environmental infrastructure for the Dutch food industry. Exploring the environmental information conversion of five food commodities. Screening LCA on pork. Appendix 4 of the report. IVAM Environmental Research, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Carlsson-Kanyama, A 1998. Climate change and dietary choices – how can emissions of greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced? Food Policy 23, 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cederberg, C, Sonesson, U 2006. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of future pig production with different feeding strategies and crop rotations. In Grain legumes and the environment: how to assess benefits and impacts (ed. AEP), Agroscope FAL Reckenholz, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Dalgaard, R, Schmidt, J, Halberg, N, Christensen, P, Thrane, M, Pengue, WA 2008. LCA of soybean meal. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13, 240–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vries, de, Boer, de 2010. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science 128, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dourmad, JY, Sève, B, Latimier, P, Boisen, S, Fernandez, J, van de Peet-Schwering, C, Jongbloed, AW 1999. Nitrogen consumption, utilisation and losses in pig production in France, the Netherlands and Denmark. Livestock Production Science 58, 261–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, IS, Elmquist, H, Stern, S, Nybrant, T 2005. Environmental systems analysis of pig production. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2002. Technical conversion factors (TCF) for agricultural commodities. Retrieved May 18, 2010, from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/methodology/tcf.pdfGoogle Scholar
Flysjö, A, Cederberg, C, Strïd, I 2008. LCA-databas för konventionella fodermedel, version 1.1, SIK-rapport.Google Scholar
Frischknecht, R, Jungbluth, N, Althaus, HJ, Bauer, C, Doka, G, Dones, R, Hischier, R, Hellweg, S, Humbert, S, Köllner, T, Loerincik, Y, Margni, M, Nemecek, T 2007. Implementation of life cycle impacts assessment methods. Ecoinvent report no. 3, v2.0. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dubendorf, Switzerland.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, van Dorland, R 2007. Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (ed. S Solomon, D Qin, M Manning, Z Chen, M Marquis, KB Averyt, M Tignor and HL Miller), pp. 129–234. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.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 2002. Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO standards. Centre of Environmental Science, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Information Science, Technology and Applications (ISTA) 2009. Oil world annual 2009, vol. 1 ISTA Mielke GmbH, Hamburg, Germany.Google Scholar
Institut du Porc (IFIP) 2009. Note de conjoncture aliment. Retrieved May 18, 2010, from http://www.itp.asso.frGoogle Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories (ed. HS Eggleston, L Buendia, K Miwa, T Ngara and K Tanabe), IGES, Japan.Google Scholar
Jungbluth, N, Chudacoff, M, Dauriat, A, Dinkel, F, Doka, G, Faist Emmenegger, M, Gnansounou, E, Kljun, N, Schleiss, K, Spielmann, M, Stettler, C, Sutter, J 2007. Life cycle inventories of bioenergy. Ecoinvent report no. 17. Swiss Centre for the Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Katajajuuri, JM, Grönroos, J, Usva, K 2008. Environmental impacts and related options for improving the chicken meat supply chain. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food Sector, November 12–14, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Lammers, PJ, Kenealy, MD, Kliebenstein, JB, Harmon, JD, Helmers, MJ, Honeyman, MS 2010. Non-solar energy use and 100-year global warming potential of Iowa swine feedstuffs and feeding strategies. Journal of Animal Science 88, 1204–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Food database 2007. Retrieved May 18, 2010, from http://www.lcafood.dk/Google Scholar
Mattsson, B, Cederberg, C, Blix, L 2000. Agricultural land use in life cycle assessment (LCA): case studies of three vegetable oil crops. Journal of Cleaner Production 8, 283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemecek, T, Kägi, T 2007. Life cycle inventories of Swiss and European agricultural production systems. Final report Ecoinvent report v2.0, no. 15, Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research Station ART. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich and Dübendorf, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Nguyen, TLT, Hermansen, JE, Mogensen, L 2010. Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU. Energy Policy 38, 2561–2571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, PH, Wenzel, H 2007. Environmental assessment of Ronozyme® P5000 CT phytase as an alternative to inorganic phosphate supplementation to pig feed used in intensive pig production. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12, 514–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payraudeau, S, van der Werf, H, Vertès, F 2007. Analysis of the uncertainty associated with the estimation of nitrogen losses from farming systems. Agricultural Systems 94, 416–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prudêncio da Silva, V, van der Werf, HMG, Spies, A, Soares, SR 2010. Variability in environmental impacts of Brazilian soybean according to crop production and transport scenarios. Journal of Environmental Management 91, 1831–1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M, de Haan, C 2006. Livestock's long shadow. Environmental issues and options. Livestock, environment and development initiative. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.Google Scholar
van der Peet-Schwering, CMC, Aarnink, AJA, Rom, HB, Dourmad, JY 1999. Ammonia emissions from pig houses in the Netherlands, Denmark and France. Livestock Production Science 58, 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Werf, H, Petit, J, Sanders, J 2005. The environmental impacts of the production of concentrated feed: the case of pig feed in Bretagne. Agricultural Systems 83, 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar