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.

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.

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

[2]  H. L. Miller,et al.  Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis , 2007 .

[3]  A. Flysjö,et al.  LCA-databas för konventionella fodermedel : miljöpåverkan i samband med produktion , 2008 .

[4]  J. Grönroos,et al.  Environmental impacts and related options for improving the chicken meat supply chain , 2008 .

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

[6]  H. M. G. Werf,et al.  The environmental impacts of the production of concentrated feed: the case of pig feed in Bretagne , 2005 .

[7]  S. Payraudeau,et al.  Analysis of the uncertainty associated with the estimation of nitrogen losses from farming systems , 2007 .

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

[9]  Lisbeth Mogensen,et al.  Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU , 2010 .

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

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

[12]  T. Nemecek,et al.  Life Cycle Inventories of Agricultural Production Systems , 2007 .

[13]  Vamilson Prudêncio da Silva,et al.  Variability in environmental impacts of Brazilian soybean according to crop production and transport scenarios. , 2010, Journal of environmental management.

[14]  Jean-Yves Dourmad,et al.  Ammonia emissions from pig houses in the Netherlands, Denmark and France , 1999 .

[15]  Ingrid Strid Eriksson,et al.  Environmental systems analysis of pig production , 2004 .

[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]  H. Steinfeld,et al.  Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options. , 2006 .

[18]  R. Betts,et al.  Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. Chapter 2 , 2007 .

[19]  C. Cederberg,et al.  Agricultural land use in life cycle assessment (LCA): case studies of three vegetable oil crops , 2000 .

[20]  Henrik Wenzel,et al.  Environmental assessment of Ronozyme® P5000 CT phytase as an alternative to inorganic phosphate supplementation to pig feed used in intensive pig production , 2007 .

[21]  A. Carlsson-kanyama Climate change and dietary choices -- how can emissions of greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced? , 1998 .

[22]  H. Poulsen,et al.  Phosphorus consumption, utilisation and losses in pig production in France, The Netherlands and Denmark , 1999 .

[23]  M. D. Vries,et al.  Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments , 2010 .

[24]  B. Séve,et al.  Nitrogen consumption, utilization and losses in pig production , 1997 .

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

[26]  H.M.G. van der Werf,et al.  Methods and data for the environmental inventory of contrasting pig production systems , 2007 .