Reducing environmental impacts of feed using multiobjective formulation: What benefits at the farm gate for pig and broiler production?

Citizens' willingness to support farmers' adoption of low crude protein diet in pig production

Livestock farming has a detrimental effect on the environment since it generates a lot of gas emissions. In pig farming, the use of feed is among the substantial sources of animal farm emissions among the European Union. Nevertheless, the use of Low Dietary Crude Protein (LCP) may reduce the environmental impacts of pig farming and provide diverse ecosystem services (ESs). Concurrently, these pig diets alternatives may result more expensive than the conventional ones, which may negatively affect farmers' intention to adopt these alternatives. Citizens' payment for ESs may be a viable strategy to motivate farmers to implement more sustainable pig diets. The primary objective of this study is to assess the extent to which citizens of Catalonia (Spain) are willing to pay for the ESs generated by the implementation of a LCP diet in pig production. In pursuit of this goal, we conducted an online survey among 501 citizens, including a Discrete Choice Experiment. Participants evaluated three feed scenarios, and their choices were scrutinized using conditional logit model. Results revealed that citizens prefer the new pig diets, including both LCP and Very LCP (VLCP) diets, over the conventional pig diet. However, there is a clear preference toward the VLCP diet justified by their willingness to pay (WTP) of €67/year/adult.

A systematic review of life-cycle GHG emissions from intensive pig farming: Accounting and mitigation

Pork accounts for approximately 35 % of the global meat supply, with approximately 747 million tons of CO2e greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions annually. To meet the increasing demand for pork, intensive farming is becoming the priority rearing system owing to its higher productivity. Given the climate transformation ambitions of the pig industry but the lack of knowledge and data, we conducted a systematic review of studies published in the period of 2010-2022 from a life-cycle perspective, with a focus on greenhouse gas emissions accounting and mitigation. The significant variations in systematic harmonized global warming intensities (GWIs) can be primarily attributed to differences in accounting approaches, activity data, technologies and geographical conditions. To understand more, we broke down the entire life cycle and revealed the underlying reasons for modelling mechanisms and data from the main emitters (e.g., feeding, pig rearing, and manure management). These findings are expected to support and improve the transparency, consistency, and comprehensiveness of life-cycle GHG emissions accounting in pig farming. Potential mitigation measures were also reviewed and discussed to provide insights to support the sustainable development of the pig industry.

Eco-friendly diet: nutrient digestibility, nitrogen and energy balances and growth performance of growing pigs

The traditional approach to formulating pig diets is based only on minimizing cost while meeting nutritional requirements and thus does not consider the environmental impacts associated with producing feed ingredients. To reduce the overall environmental impact of pork production, feed ingredients can be considered to formulate environmentally friendly diets. However, their potential effects on pig performance could decrease environmental benefits at the farm gate. The objective of this study was to quantify the effects of such eco-friendly pig diets on nitrogen (N) and energy (E) balances, the components of heat production (HP), and the performance of growing pigs. Digestibility coefficients of dry matter (84.5% vs. 88.2%, P < 0.01) and N (80.4% vs. 86.3%, P < 0.01) were significantly lower for the eco-friendly diet than the Control-diet (a commercial diet used in France). N excretion in feces was significantly higher for the group of pigs fed the eco-friendly diet than for the group fed the Control-diet (9.8 vs. 6.9 g/d, respectively, P = 0.01), while the N retention tended to be lower (27.8 vs. 30.3 g/d, respectively; P = 0.06). The metabolizable E:digestible E ratio did not differ between diets, but total HP was significantly lower for the eco-friendly diet group than for the Control-diet group (1,340 vs. 1,388 kJ/kg body weight0.60/d, respectively, P = 0.03). Using feed ingredients with lower environmental impacts, such as locally produced protein or co-products from wheat processing, is an effective way to decrease the environmental impacts of pig production. However, the nutritional composition of these eco-friendly ingredients could be overestimated, in particular the true digestibility of amino acids. This indicates the need to better estimate and consider the true digestibility of eco-friendly diets to decrease environmental impacts of livestock production without decreasing animal performance.

Environmental impacts of eco-nutrition swine feeding programs in spatially explicit geographic regions of the United States

This study was conducted to determine greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water consumption, land use, as well as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and carbon (C) balance of five diet formulation strategies and feeding programs for growing-finishing pigs (25-130 kg body weight) in the three spatially explicit geographic regions where the majority of U.S. pork production occurs. Feeding programs evaluated consisted of 1) standard corn-soybean meal (CSBM) diets, 2) CSBM containing 15% corn distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS), 3) CSBM with 8.6% thermally processed supermarket food waste (FW), 4) low crude protein CSBM diets supplemented with synthetic amino acids (SAA), and 5) CSBM with phytase enzyme (PHY) added at 600 FTU (phytase units)/kg of diet. An attributional Life Cycle Assessment approach using a highly specialized, spatially explicit Food System Supply-Chain Sustainability (FoodS3) model was used to quantify GHG emissions, water consumption, and land use of corn, soybean meal, and DDGS based on county level sourcing. The DDGS, FW, and SAA feeding programs had less estimated N and P intake and excretion than CSBM, and the PHY feeding program provided the greatest reduction in P excretion. The FW feeding program had the least overall GHG emissions (319.9 vs. 324.6 to 354.1 kg CO2 equiv./market hog), land use (331.5 vs. 346.5 to 385.2 m2/market hog), and water consumption (7.64 vs. 7.70 to 8.30 m3/market hog) among the alternatives. The DDGS feeding program had the greatest GHG emissions (354.1 kg CO2 equiv./market hog) among all programs but had less impacts on water consumption (7.70 m3) and land use (346.5 m2) per market hog than CSBM and PHY. The SAA feeding program provided a 6.5-7.4% reduction in land use impacts compared with CSBM and PHY, respectively. Regardless of feeding program, the Midwest had the least contributions to GHG emissions and land use attributed to feed and manure among regions. Water consumption per market hog associated with feeding programs was much greater in the Southwest (59.66-63.58 m3) than in the Midwest (4.45-4.88 m3) and Mid-Atlantic (1.85-2.14 m3) regions. Results show that diet composition and U.S. geographic region significantly affect GHG emissions, water consumption, and land use of pork production systems, and the potential use of thermally processed supermarket food waste at relatively low diet inclusion rates (<10%) can reduce environmental impacts compared with other common feeding strategies.

Wheat litter and feed with aluminosilicates for improved growth and meat quality in broiler chickens

BACKGROUND

Natural minerals have many beneficial properties in poultry production, taking into account production as well as hygiene, health, safety, and quality of broiler meat. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of aluminosilicates in feed and litter on the growth performance and meat quality in chickens. Aluminosilicates, including halloysite and zeolite, could be a good alternative for synthetics, as a good solution for the environment in line with the current trends.

METHODS

Five-hundred male Ross 308 chickens were managed in 5 groups (10 replicates/group): LITTER: 1, control; 2, 0.95 kg/m2 of halloysite; 3, 0.475 kg/m2 of halloysite and 0.475 zeolite; 4, 0.95 kg/m2 of zeolite; 5, 0.25 kg/m2of halloysite and 0.7 kg/m2 of zeolite. FEED: groups 2-5, halloysite and zeolite addition (25:75 ratio; 0.5-2%). Growth performance (body weight and feed indicators), carcass, and meat quality (pH, colour, water-holding capacity, chemical composition of muscles) were recorded. The experimental setup, where the aluminosilicate additives were applied simultaneously, was proposed and approved by experts after pilot testing and on the basis of extensive literature where feed or litter additives were tested.

RESULTS

Body weight and its gain were higher in groups 3 and 4 than in 1, and feed intake was higher in 4. The weight of the carcass and some of its components, including muscles and skin with subcutaneous fat, were higher in 2-4. Water loss from leg muscles was lower in 4. The content of protein in muscles was significantly higher in 3. The addition of aluminosilicates in feed and litter had a positive effect on the growth performance and some traits of carcasses and meat quality, especially in group 3. Halloysite and zeolite can be used in feed and litter (especially 0.475 kg/m2 for each mineral in the wheat litter).

Eco-Friendly Feed Formulation and On-Farm Feed Production as Ways to Reduce the Environmental Impacts of Pig Production Without Consequences on Animal Performance

Animal feeding has a major contribution to the environmental impacts of pig production. One potential way to mitigate such effects is to incorporate an assessment of these impacts in the feed formulation process. The objective of this study was to test the ability of innovative formulation methodologies to reduce the impacts of pig production while also taking into account possible effects on growth performance. We compared three different formulation methodologies: least-cost formulation, in accordance with standard practices on commercial farms; multiobjective (MO) formulation, which considered feed cost and environmental impacts as calculated by life cycle assessment (LCA); and MO formulation, which prioritized locally produced feed ingredients to reduce the impact of transport. Ninety-six pigs were distributed between three experimental groups, with pigs individually weighted and fed using an automatic feeding system from 40 to 115 kg body weight. Based on the experimental results, six categories of impacts were evaluated: climate change (CC), demand in non-renewable energy (NRE), acidification (AC), eutrophication (EU), land occupation (LO), and phosphorus demand (PD), at both feed plant gate and farm gate, with 1 kg of feed and 1 kg of live pig as functional units, respectively. At feed level, MO formulations reduced CC, NRE, AC, and PD impacts but sometimes increased LO and EU impacts. These formulations reduced the proportion of cereals and oil meals into feeds (feed ingredients with high impacts), while the proportion of alternative protein sources, like peas, faba beans, or high-protein agricultural coproducts increased (feed ingredients with low impacts). Overall, animal performance was not affected by the dietary treatment; because of this, the general pattern of results obtained with either MO formulation at farm gate was similar to that obtained at feed level. Thus, MO diet formulation represents an efficient way to reduce the environmental impacts of pig production without compromising animal performance.