Life cycle assessment of high- and low-profitability commodity and deep-bedded niche swine production systems in the Upper Midwestern United States

We used ISO-compliant life cycle assessment to evaluate the comparative environmental performance of high- and low-profitability commodity and deep-bedded niche swine production systems in the Upper Midwestern United States. Specifically, we evaluated the contributions of feed production, in-barn energy use, manure management, and piglet production to farm-gate life cycle energy use, ecological footprint, and greenhouse gas (GHG) and eutrophying emissions per animal produced and per live-weight kg. We found that commodity systems generally outperform deep-bedded niche systems for these criteria, but that significant overlap occurs in the range of impacts characteristic of high- and low-profitability production between systems. Given the non-optimized status of current deep-bedded niche relative to commodity production, we suggest that optimizing niche systems through improvements in feed and sow herd efficiency holds significant environmental performance improvement potential. Drivers of impacts differed between commodity and deep-bedded niche systems. Feed production was the key consideration in both, but proportionally more important in niche production due to lower feed use efficiencies. Liquid manure management in commodity production strongly influenced GHG emissions, whereas solid manure management increased eutrophication potential due to outdoor storage in deep-bedded niche production. We further observe an interesting but highly imperfect relationship between economic and environmental performance measures, where profitability tracks well with resource (in particular, feed) throughput, but only indirectly with emissions intensity.

[1]  N. Pelletier,et al.  Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: Life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions , 2008 .

[2]  P. Lammers,et al.  The United States pork niche market phenomenon. , 2006, Journal of animal science.

[3]  J. Harmon,et al.  Performance of finishing pigs in hoop structures and confinement during winter and summer. , 2003, Journal of animal science.

[4]  N. Pelletier,et al.  Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States , 2010 .

[5]  Helmut Haberl,et al.  Global patterns of socioeconomic biomass flows in the year 2000: A comprehensive assessment of supply, consumption and constraints , 2008 .

[6]  Mathis Wackernagel,et al.  Ecological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: Measuring the Natural Capital Requirements of the Human Economy. , 1996 .

[7]  Helena Elmquist,et al.  Environmental Systems Analysis of Pig Production - The Impact of Feed Choice (12 pp) , 2005 .

[8]  Robert Costanza,et al.  Investing in natural capital: the ecological economics approach to sustainability. , 1994 .

[9]  R. Heijungs,et al.  Life cycle assessment An operational guide to the ISO standards , 2001 .

[10]  C. Basset-Mens,et al.  Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France , 2005 .

[11]  Marie-Josée Cros,et al.  Agricultural Systems , 2019, Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics.

[12]  U. Sonesson,et al.  Sustainable Development of Food Production: A Case Study on Scenarios for Pig Production , 2005 .

[13]  M. Honeyman,et al.  Extensive bedded indoor and outdoor pig production systems in USA: current trends and effects on animal care and product quality , 2005 .

[14]  G. Lesoing,et al.  Nutrient balance on Nebraska livestock confinement systems. , 1999, Journal of animal science.

[15]  Marc L. Imhoff,et al.  Global patterns in human consumption of net primary production , 2004, Nature.

[16]  P. Lammers,et al.  Nonsolar energy use and one-hundred-year global warming potential of Iowa swine feedstuffs and feeding strategies. , 2010, Journal of animal science.

[17]  P. Lammers,et al.  Growth performance, carcass characteristics, meat quality, and tissue histology of growing pigs fed crude glycerin-supplemented diets. , 2008, Journal of animal science.

[18]  N. Rabalais,et al.  Beyond Science into Policy: Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia and the Mississippi River , 2002 .

[19]  T. L. Richard,et al.  Carbon, nutrient, and mass loss during composting , 2002, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems.

[20]  P. Lammers,et al.  Energy and carbon inventory of Iowa swine production facilities , 2010 .

[21]  Nathan Pelletier,et al.  Co-product allocation in life cycle assessments of seafood production systems: Review of problems and strategies , 2007 .

[22]  Jay D. Harmon,et al.  Construction resource use of two different types and scales of Iowa swine production facilities. , 2009 .

[23]  H. Steinfeld,et al.  Livestock's Long Shadow , 2006 .

[24]  R. Rosenberg,et al.  Spreading Dead Zones and Consequences for Marine Ecosystems , 2008, Science.

[25]  R. Frischknecht,et al.  Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. ecoinvent report No. 3, v2.2 , 2010 .

[26]  N. Pelletier,et al.  Feeding farmed salmon: Is organic better? , 2007 .

[27]  E. V. van Ierland,et al.  Protein Chains and Environmental Pressures: A Comparison of Pork and Novel Protein Foods , 2004 .

[28]  Michael Jones,et al.  Generation of an Industry-specific Physico-chemical Allocation Matrix. Application in the Dairy Industry and Implications for Systems Analysis (9 pp) , 2007 .

[29]  N. Arsenault,et al.  Comparing the environmental impacts of pasture-based and confinement-based dairy systems in Nova Scotia (Canada) using life cycle assessment , 2009 .

[30]  N. Halberg,et al.  LCA of soybean meal , 2008 .

[31]  N. H. Ravindranath,et al.  2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories , 2006 .