The Reduction of Crude Protein with the Supplementation of Amino Acids in the Diet Reduces the Environmental Impact of Growing Pigs Production Evaluated through Life Cycle Assessment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. General
2.2. System and Functional Unit Limits
2.3. Life Cycle Inventory
2.4. Grain Production
2.5. Uncultivated Raw Materials
2.6. Transport Specifications
2.7. Feed Formulation and Production
2.8. Experiment I
2.9. Experiment II
2.10. Laboratory Analysis
2.11. Life Cycle Impact
2.12. Interpretation and Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Life Cycle Assessment of Feed
3.2. Metabolism and Performance
3.3. Life Cycle Analysis of Growing Pigs Production
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Reckmann, K.; Traulsen, I.; Krieter, J. Life cycle assessment of pork production: A data inventory for the case of Germany. Livest. Sci. 2013, 157, 586–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dourmad, J.Y.; Ryschawy, J.; Trousson, T.; Bonneau, M.; Gonzàlez, J.; Houwers, H.W.J.; Hviid, M.; Zimmer, C.; Nguyen, T.L.T.; Mongesen, L. Evaluating environmental impacts of constracting pig farming systems with life cycle assessment. Animal 2014, 8, 2027–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Weidemann, S.G.; McGahan, E.J.; Murphy, M. Environmental impacts and resource use from Australian pork production determined using life cycle assessment. 2. Energy, water and land occupation. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2018, 58, 1153–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mackenzie, S.G.; Leinonen, I.; Ferguson, N.; Kyriazakis, I. Can the environmental impact f pig systems be reduced by utilizing co-products as feed? J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 115, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reyes, Y.A.; Barrera, E.L.; Valle, A.S.; Gil, M.P.; García, O.H.; Dewulf, J. Life cycle assessment for the Cuban pig production: Case study in Sancti Spiritus. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 219, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bava, L.; Zucali, M.; Sandrucci, A.; Tamburini, A. Environmental impact of the typical heavy pig production in Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 685–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monteiro, A.N.T.R.; Dourmad, J.Y.; Fachinello, M.R.; Diaz-Huepa, L.M.; Sitanaka, N.Y.; Sturzenegger, A.V.; Pozza, P.C. Effect of observed individual data of performance and excretion on life cycle assessment of piglets. Sci. Agric. 2019, 76, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- He, L.; Wu, L.; Xu, Z.; Li, T.; Yao, K.; Cui, Z.; Yin, Y.; Wu, G. Low-protein diets affect ileal amino acid digestibility and gene expression of digestive enzymes in growing and finishing pigs. Amino Acids 2016, 48, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reckmann, K.; Blank, R.; Traulsen, I.; Krieter, J. Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of pork using different protein sources in pig feed. Arch. Anim. Breed. 2016, 59, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Garcia-Launay, F.; Van der Werf, H.M.G.; Nguyen, T.T.H.; Le Tutour, I.; Dourmad, J.Y. Evaluation of the environmental implications of the incorporation on feed-use amino acids in pig production using life cycle assessment. Livest. Sci. 2014, 161, 158–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.L.T.; Hermansen, J.E.; Mongensen, L. Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 2561–2571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sommer, S.G.; Maahn, M.; Poulsen, H.D.; Hjorth, M.; Sehested, J. Interactions between phosphorus feeding strategies for pigs and dairy cows and separation efficiency of slurry. Environ. Technol. 2008, 29, 75–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arrieta, E.Z.; González, A.D. Energy and carbono footprints of chicken and pork from intensive production systems in Argentina. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 673, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conab; Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. Acompanhamento da Safra Brasileira: Café. Monit. Agric. Safra 2017, 4, 1–98. Available online: http://www.conab.gov.br (accessed on 10 August 2019).
- Silva, V.P.; Van der Werf, H.M.G.; Spies, A.; Soares, S.R. Variability in environmental impacts of Brazilian soybean according to crop production and transport scenarios. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 1831–1839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avarenga, R.A.F.; Silva Jr, V.P.; Soares, S.R. Comparison of the ecological footprint and a life cycle impact assessment method for a case study on Brazilian broiler feed production. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 28, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilfart, A.S.; Espagnol, S.; Dauguet, A.; Tailleur, A.; Gac, A.; Garcia-Launay, F. ECOALIM: A dataset of environmental impacts of feed ingredients used in animal production. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0167343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mosnier, E.; Van der Werf, H.M.G.; Boissy, J.; Dourmad, J.Y. 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 2011, 5, 1972–1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- ABPA Relatorio anual da Associação Brasileira de Proteina Animal. 2018. Available online: http://abpa-br.com.br/storage/files/relatorio-anual-2018.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2019).
- Rostagno, H.S.; Albino, L.F.T.; Hannas, M.I.; Donzele, J.L.; Sakomura, N.K.; Perazzo, F.G.; Saraiva, A.; Teixeira, M.L.; Rodrigues, P.B.; Oliveira, R.F.; et al. Tabelas Brasileiras Para Aves e Suínos: Composição de Alimentos e Exigências Nutricionais, 4th ed.; UFV: Viçosa, Brazil, 2017; 488p. [Google Scholar]
- Toledo, J.B.; Furlan, A.C.; Pozza, P.C.; Carraro, J.; Moresco, G.; Ferreira, S.L.; Gallego, A.G. Reduction of the crude protein content of diets supplemented with essential amino acids for piglets weighing 15 to 30 kilograms. R. Bras. Zootec. 2014, 43, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dutra Jr, W.M.; Ferreira, A.S.; Tarouco, J.U.; Euclydes, R.F.; Donzele, J.L.; Lopes, O.S.; Cardoso, L.L. Estimativas de rendimentos de cortes comerciais e de tecidos de suínos em diferentes pesos de abate ela técnica de ultra-sonografia em tempo real. R. Bras. Zootec. 2001, 30, 1243–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Association of Official Analytical Chemists—International. Official Methods of Analysis, 18th ed.; AOAC: Gaithesburg, MD, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Nogueira, A.R.A.; Missaglia, A.P.; Zani, A.; Pellegrino, A.N.; Caputi, B.; Souza, G.B.; Olivares, I.R.B.; Palhares, J.C.P.; Duarte, K.F.; Vieira, O.V.; et al. Compêndio Brasileiro de Alimentação Animal; Ed. Sindicato Nacional da Indústria de Alimentação Animal—Sindirações: Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2017; pp. 1–477. [Google Scholar]
- Monteiro, A.N.T.R.; Garcia-Launay, F.; Brossard, L.; Wilfart, A.; Dourmad, J.Y. Effect of feeding strategy on environmental impacts of pig fattening in different contexts of production: Evaluation through life cycle assessment. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 4832–4847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rigolot, C.; Espagnol, S.; Pomar, C.; Dourmad, J.Y. 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 2010, 4, 1401–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rigolot, C.; Espagnol, S.; Robin, P.; Hassouna, M.; Béline, F.; Paillat, J.M.; Dourmad, J.Y. Modelling of manure production by pigs and NH3, N2O and CH4 emissions. Part II. Effect of animal housing, manure storage and treatment practices. Animal 2010, 4, 1413–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management. 2006. Available online: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2018).
- Le Gall, M.; Warpechowski, M.; Jaguelin-Peyraud, Y.; Noblet, J. Influence of dietary fibre level and pelleting on the digestibility of energy and nutrients in growing pigs and adult sows. Animal 2009, 3, 352–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ferreira, R.A.; Oliveira, R.F.M.; Donzele, J.L.; Araújo, C.V.; Silva, F.C.O.; Fontes, D.O.; Saraiva, E.P. Redução do nível de proteína bruta e suplementação de aminoácidos em rações para suínos machos castrados mantidos em ambiente termoneutro dos 30 aos 60 kg. R. Bras. Zootec. 2005, 34, 548–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, T.H.; Chae, C.U. Environmental impact analysis of acidification and eutrophication due to emissions from the production of concrete. Sustainability 2016, 8, 578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schiavon, S.; Dalla Bona, M.; Carcò, G.; Carraro, L.; Bunger, L.; Gallo, L. Effects of feed allowance and indispensable amino acid reduction on feed intake, growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing pigs. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0195645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Remus, A.; Pomar, C.; Perondi, D.; Gobi, J.P.; Silva, W.C.; Souza, L.J.; Hauschild, L. Response to dietary methionine supply of growing pigs fed daily tailored diets or fed according to a conventional phase feeding system. Livest. Sci. 2019, 222, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pasquetti, T.J.; Pozza, P.C.; Moreira, I.; Santos, T.C.; Diaz-Huepa, L.M.; Castilha, L.D.; Perondi, D.; Carvalho, P.L.O.; Kim, S.W. Simultaneous determination of stardardized ileal digestible tryptophan and lysine for barrows from 15 to 30 kg live weight. Livest. Sci. 2015, 181, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lenis, N.P.; Jongbloed, A.W. New technologies in low pollution swine diets: Diet manipulation and use of synthetic amino acids, phytase and phase feeding for reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus excretion and ammonia emission—Review. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 1999, 12, 305–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandekar, P.A.; Leh, M.; Bautista, R.; Matlock, M.D.; Thoma, G.; Ulrich, R. Life cycle assessment of alternative swine management practices. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 979, 472–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basset-Mens, C.; Van der Werf, H.M.G. Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: The case of pig production in France. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2005, 105, 127–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guinée, J.; de Bruijn, H.; van Duin, R.; Huijbregts, M.A.J. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards, 2nd ed.; Guinée, J., Ed.; Springer: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2002; 708p. [Google Scholar]
- Ogino, A.; Osada, T.; Takada, R.; Takagi, T.; Tsujimoto, S.; Tonoue, T.; Matsui, D.; Katsumata, M.; Yamashita, T.; Tanaka, Y. Life cycle assessment of japanese pig farming using low-protein diet supplemented with amino acids. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2013, 59, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ingredients (%) | Crude Protein Content (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
18.15 | 17.15 | 16.15 | 15.15 | |
Maize | 66.18 | 69.10 | 72.05 | 75.06 |
Soybean meal | 27.48 | 24.39 | 21.24 | 18.01 |
Soybean oil | 2.73 | 2.60 | 2.47 | 2.31 |
Dicalcium phosphate | 1.43 | 1.46 | 1.48 | 1.50 |
Limestone | 0.70 | 0.713 | 0.725 | 0.737 |
Sodium bicarbonate | - | 0.155 | 0.314 | 0.475 |
Salt | 0.460 | 0.343 | 0.236 | 0.127 |
Vitamin-mineral premix 1 | 0.400 | 0.400 | 0.400 | 0.400 |
L-Lysine HCl 78.0% | 0.305 | 0.400 | 0.497 | 0.597 |
DL-Methionine 99.0% | 0.115 | 0.142 | 0.170 | 0.199 |
L-Threonine 98.5% | 0.128 | 0.170 | 0.213 | 0.258 |
L-Tryptophan 98.0% | 0.033 | 0.049 | 0.065 | 0.082 |
L-Valine 98.0% | - | 0.034 | 0.088 | 0.143 |
L-Isoleucine 100.0% | - | - | 0.011 | 0.066 |
Antioxidant 2 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 |
Growth promoter 3 | 0.020 | 0.020 | 0.020 | 0.020 |
Calculated composition (%) | ||||
Calcium | 0.722 | 0.722 | 0.722 | 0.722 |
Available phosphorus | 0.357 | 0.357 | 0.357 | 0.357 |
Sodium | 0.195 | 0.190 | 0.190 | 0.190 |
Potassium | 0.715 | 0.668 | 0.619 | 0.570 |
Chlorine | 0.407 | 0.356 | 0.313 | 0.268 |
SID lysine | 1.069 | 1.069 | 1.069 | 1.069 |
SID methionine | 0.357 | 0.370 | 0.385 | 0.399 |
SID met + cys | 0.631 | 0.631 | 0.631 | 0.631 |
SID threonine | 0.695 | 0.695 | 0.695 | 0.695 |
SID tryptophan | 0.214 | 0.214 | 0.214 | 0.214 |
SID valine | 0.755 | 0.738 | 0.738 | 0.738 |
SID isoleucine | 0.680 | 0.629 | 0.588 | 0.588 |
SID histidine | 0.435 | 0.408 | 0.380 | 0.351 |
SID phenylalanine | 0.796 | 0.741 | 0.686 | 0.629 |
Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg) | 3350 | 3350 | 3350 | 3350 |
Items 1 | Crude Protein Content (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
18.15 | 17.15 | 16.15 | 15.15 | |
GWP (g CO2-eq.) | 410 | 424 | 440 | 461 |
AP (g SO2-eq.) | 10.61 | 11.07 | 11.55 | 12.05 |
EP (g PO4-eq.) | 4.38 | 4.39 | 4.40 | 4.42 |
CED (MJ-eq.) | 5.37 | 5.66 | 6.02 | 6.50 |
TE (g 1,4-DCB-eq.) | 4.63 | 4.75 | 4.89 | 5.07 |
LO (m2 year) | 1.11 | 1.08 | 1.06 | 1.03 |
Items | Crude Protein Content (%) | SEM 1 | p-Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
18.15 | 17.15 | 16.15 | 15.15 | Lin. | Quad. | ||
N intake (g/d) | 42.69 | 40.12 | 38.01 | 35.60 | 0.889 | <0.001 2 | 0.895 |
N in feces (g/d) | 5.23 | 4.58 | 4.89 | 4.30 | 0.167 | 0.111 | 0.926 |
N in urine (g/d) | 11.27 | 9.49 | 8.53 | 6.47 | 0.514 | <0.001 3 | 0.655 |
N excreted (g/d) | 16.50 | 14.07 | 13.42 | 10.76 | 0.628 | <0.001 4 | 0.819 |
N Retention (%) | 61.48 | 65.02 | 64.74 | 69.93 | 0.923 | 0.003 5 | 0.479 |
P intake (g/d) | 7.96 | 7.56 | 7.41 | 7.38 | 0.139 | 0.004 6 | 0.146 |
P in feces(g/d) | 4.04 | 3.52 | 3.52 | 3.24 | 0.111 | 0.002 7 | 0.146 |
P absorbed (%) | 49.39 | 53.50 | 52.50 | 56.05 | 0.904 | 0.017 8 | 0.857 |
Items 1 | Crude Protein Content (%) | SEM 2 | p-Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
18.15 | 17.15 | 16.15 | 15.15 | Lin. | Quad. | ||
Final weight (kg) | 49.84 | 50.25 | 52.65 | 52.12 | 0.426 | 0.020 3 | 0.578 |
DWG (kg) | 1.034 | 1.045 | 1.184 | 1.150 | 0.029 | 0.011 4 | 0.594 |
FCR (kg) | 1.933 | 1.879 | 1.851 | 1.840 | 0.022 | 0.133 | 0.634 |
DFI (kg) | 1.991 | 1.967 | 2.185 | 2.105 | 0.039 | 0.128 | 0.717 |
BT (cm) | 0.56 | 0.59 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.028 | 0.062 | 0.718 |
LL (cm) | 3.80 | 3.82 | 3.68 | 4.00 | 0.079 | 0.459 | 0.294 |
Urea (mg/dL) | 28.38 | 22.75 | 18.40 | 22.58 | 1.557 | 0.085 | 0.083 |
Items 1 | Crude Protein Content (%) | SEM 2 | p-Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
18.15 | 17.15 | 16.15 | 15.15 | Lin. | |||
GWP (g CO2-eq.) | 2.95 | 2.87 | 2.82 | 2.80 | 0.033 | 0.398 | - |
AP (g SO2-eq.) | 35.34 | 34.25 | 33.18 | 31.58 | 0.442 | 0.015 | 0.002 |
EP (g PO4-eq.) | 11.90 | 11.36 | 10.87 | 10.31 | 0.156 | 0.001 | <0.001 |
CED (MJ-eq.) | 17.35 | 17.44 | 17.22 | 18.36 | 0.214 | 0.224 | - |
TE (g 1,4-DCB-eq.) | 11.89 | 11.09 | 11.58 | 11.69 | 0.144 | 0.253 | - |
LO (m2 year) | 2.15 | 2.03 | 1.96 | 1.89 | 0.027 | 0.005 | <0.001 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Esteves, L.A.C.; Monteiro, A.N.T.R.; Sitanaka, N.Y.; Oliveira, P.C.; Castilha, L.D.; Paula, V.R.C.; Pozza, P.C. The Reduction of Crude Protein with the Supplementation of Amino Acids in the Diet Reduces the Environmental Impact of Growing Pigs Production Evaluated through Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4815. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094815
Esteves LAC, Monteiro ANTR, Sitanaka NY, Oliveira PC, Castilha LD, Paula VRC, Pozza PC. The Reduction of Crude Protein with the Supplementation of Amino Acids in the Diet Reduces the Environmental Impact of Growing Pigs Production Evaluated through Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainability. 2021; 13(9):4815. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094815
Chicago/Turabian StyleEsteves, Lucas A. C., Alessandra N. T. R. Monteiro, Natália Y. Sitanaka, Paula C. Oliveira, Leandro D. Castilha, Vinicius R. C. Paula, and Paulo C. Pozza. 2021. "The Reduction of Crude Protein with the Supplementation of Amino Acids in the Diet Reduces the Environmental Impact of Growing Pigs Production Evaluated through Life Cycle Assessment" Sustainability 13, no. 9: 4815. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094815