Carbon Footprint Assessment of Large-scale Pig Production System in Northern China: a Case Study

Abstract. China raises 50% of global live pigs. However, few studies on the carbon footprint (CF) of large-scale pig production based on China‘s actual production conditions have been carried out. In this study, life cycle assessment (LCA) and actual production data of a typical large-scale pig farm in northern China were used to assess the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or CF associated with the whole process of pig production, including feed production (crop planting, feed processing, and transportation), enteric fermentation, manure management, and energy consumption. The results showed a CF of 3.39 kg CO2-eq per kg of live market pig and relative contributions of 55%, 28%, 13%, and 4% to the total CF by feed production, manure management, farm energy consumption, and enteric fermentation, respectively. Crop planting accounted for 66% of the feed production CF, while feed processing and transportation accounted for the remaining 34%. Long-distance transport of semi-raw feed materials caused by planting-feeding separation and over-fertilization in feed crop planting were two main reasons for the largest contribution of GHG emissions from feed production to the total CF. The CF from nitrogen fertilizer application accounted for 33% to 44% of crop planting and contributed to 16% of the total CF. The CF from the transport of feed ingredients accounted for 17% of the total CF. If the amount of nitrogen fertilizer used for producing the main feed ingredients is reduced from 209 kg hm-2 (for corn) and 216 kg hm-2 (for wheat) to 140 kg hm-2 (corn) and 180 kg hm-2 (wheat), the total CF would be reduced by 7%. If the transport distance for feed materials decreased from 325 to 493 km to 30 km, along with reducing the number of empty vehicles for transport, the total CF would be reduced by 18%. The combined CF mitigation potential for over-fertilization and transport distance is 26%. In addition, the use of pit storage, anaerobic digestion, and lagoon for manure management can reduce GHG emissions from manure management by 76% as compared to the traditional practice of pit storage and lagoon. This case study reveals the impact of planting-feeding separation and over-fertilization on the CF of the pig supply chain in China. The manure management practice of pit storage, anaerobic digestion, and lagoon is much more conductive to reducing the CF as compared to the traditional practice of pit storage and lagoon.

[1]  H. Steinfeld,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken supply chains – a global life cycle assessment , 2013 .

[2]  S. Wiedemann,et al.  Environmental impacts and resource use from Australian pork production assessed using life-cycle assessment. 1. Greenhouse gas emissions , 2016 .

[3]  K. Cassman,et al.  High-yield maize with large net energy yield and small global warming intensity , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  Sara González-García,et al.  Carbon and water footprint of pork supply chain in Catalonia: From feed to final products. , 2016, Journal of environmental management.

[5]  Takashi Osada,et al.  Life cycle assessment of Japanese pig farming using low-protein diet supplemented with amino acids , 2013 .

[6]  R. Dong,et al.  Anaerobic digestion characteristics of pig manures depending on various growth stages and initial substrate concentrations in a scaled pig farm in Southern China. , 2014, Bioresource technology.

[7]  Wang Yajing,et al.  Estimation of straw resources in China. , 2009 .

[8]  J. Holm‐Nielsen,et al.  The future of anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization. , 2009, Bioresource technology.

[9]  Xin-ping Chen,et al.  Reducing environmental risk by improving N management in intensive Chinese agricultural systems , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Lisbeth Mogensen,et al.  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF DANISH PORK , 2011 .

[11]  Hu Yuanchao,et al.  Carbon footprints of food production in China (1979–2009) , 2015 .

[12]  Ying Zhang,et al.  New technologies reduce greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogenous fertilizer in China , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  I. Shinzato,et al.  Potential reduction of greenhouse gas emission from swine manure by using a low-protein diet supplemented with synthetic amino acids , 2011 .

[14]  S. O. Petersen,et al.  Algorithms for calculating methane and nitrous oxide emissions from manure management , 2004, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems.

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

[16]  Ana Cláudia Dias,et al.  Life cycle assessment of pigmeat production: portuguese case study and proposal of improvement options , 2015 .

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

[18]  Joachim Krieter,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of pork production: A data inventory for the case of Germany , 2013 .

[19]  Pete Smith,et al.  Mitigating Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions from Swine Manure Management: A System Analysis. , 2017, Environmental science & technology.

[20]  G. Pan,et al.  Carbon footprint of China's livestock system – a case study of farm survey in Sichuan province, China , 2015 .

[21]  Adrian Leip,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions from the EU livestock sector: A life cycle assessment carried out with the CAPRI model , 2012 .

[22]  R. Omar,et al.  Anaerobic digestion technology in livestock manure treatment for biogas production: A review , 2012 .

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

[24]  Nathan Pelletier,et al.  Life cycle assessment of high- and low-profitability commodity and deep-bedded niche swine production systems in the Upper Midwestern United States , 2010 .

[25]  P. Weiland.  Biogas production: current state and perspectives , 2009, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology.

[26]  H. Blonk,et al.  Carbon footprints of conventional and organic pork : assessments of typical production systems in the Netherlands, Denmark, England and GermanyCarbon footprints of conventional and organic pork : assessments of typical production systems in the Netherlands, Denmark, England and Germany , 2009 .

[27]  R. Desjardins,et al.  Allocation factors and issues in agricultural carbon footprint: a case study of the Canadian pork industry , 2016 .

[28]  S. Ledgard,et al.  Environmental impacts and resource use of milk production on the North China Plain, based on life cycle assessment. , 2018, The Science of the total environment.

[29]  C. Cederberg.  Environmental assessment of future pig farming systems : quantifications of three scenarios from the FOOD 21 synthesis work , 2004 .

[30]  王效科 Wang Xiaoke,et al.  Estimation of greenhouse gases emission factors of China's nitrogen, phosphate and potash fertilizers , 2015 .

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

[32]  H. Witzke,et al.  Greenhouse gas emission profiles of European livestock sectors , 2011 .

[33]  Wang Fei,et al.  Research on the math models of the combustion oil consumption of the farm transp ort machineries. , 2003 .

[34]  Ying Lan,et al.  A comparative study on carbon footprints between plant- and animal-based foods in China , 2016 .

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

[36]  O. Oenema,et al.  Changes in pig production in China and their effects on nitrogen and phosphorus use and losses. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.