Reducing the Costs and Environmental Footprint of Pig Diets with the Experimental Optimum Synthetic Amino Acid Inclusion


Why Look at Reducing Crude Protein in Pig Diets

Nitrogen (N2) compounds from swine feces and urine are oxidized and reduced by soil and air, whereas some N2 is released into the atmosphere as nitrous oxide (N2O). Research has demonstrated that reducing crude protein (CP) and maximizing synthetic amino acids (SAA) in swine diets can reduce N2 excretion. Thus, there is strong push for more sustainable production of soy or replacement with other protein sources.

The preliminary cost and environmental evaluation showed that pig diets with higher amounts of SAAs have higher cost, climate change impact (CCI), and water depletion (WD) than the typical US diet defined. This is due to the increased amounts of corn in a diet. Thus, a list of alternative energy and protein feed ingredients were tested in WUFFDA with the goal to replace corn and further reduce the amount of soybean meal in pig diets.

What did we do? 

Windows-based User Friendly Feed Formulation (WUFFDA) linear models were used to formulate single-objective least cost and least environmental footprint pig. Control diet is a typical soybean-corn formulation which was used as a baseline to evaluate cost and environmental footprint of an alternate diet. The test diet is a reduced crude protein diet with max 0.75% added Lysine-HCL in nursery and max 0.56 % added Lysine-HCL grower-finisher phases. We also added the US pig industry top 80 most used feed ingredients to the WUFFDA. Nutrient characteristics, inclusion limits, environmental footprint, and cost data for feed ingredients were obtained from the US Animal Feed Database and incorporated into WUFFDA models.

What have we learned? 

It was found that reduction in cost of a diet formulation can be achieved by omitting the use of milk whey powder (nursery phase). Replacing corn with wheat middlings could reduce cost and CCI. CCI can be reduced by use of corn gluten meal, and corn gluten feed (grow phases).

Future Plans 

The projected diets will be further investigated for nutrient constraints, validated through PPEC, and Simapro 8.1. life cycle assessment (LCA) model as well as with other experts such as nutritionists and economists. The projected diets will be will be available in the Pig Production Environmental Calculator (PPEC).

Authors

Jasmina Burek, Research Associate, University of Arkansas jburek@uark.edu

Greg Thoma, Jennie Popp, Charles Maxwell, Rick Ulrich

Additional information 

Pig Production Environmental Calculator:

http://www.pork.org/production-topics/environmental-sustainability-effor…

Life-Cycle Assessment Modeling for the Pork Industry:

https://lpelc.org/life-cycle-assessment-modeling-for-the-pork-industry

National Pork Board (2015) Carbon Footprint of Pork Production Calculator – Pork Checkoff.

Pesti G, Thomson E, Bakalli R, et al. (2004) Windows User-Friendly Feed Formulation (WUFFF DA) Version1.02.

PRé Consultants (2014) SimaPro 8.3. 4555022.

Acknowledgements

This research is part of the program “Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in Agriculture,” and is supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2011-68002-30208 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Feeding Strategies to Mitigate Cost and Environmental Footprint of Pig Production in the US

The livestock sector is one of main drivers of the environmental footprint. Animal feed is a key to sustainable meat production. Researchers are looking for environmentally sustainable feeding strategies that will lower diet cost, agricultural use of land, water depletion, and climate change impact. We used linear models to formulate 4 single-objective diets including least-cost, least-land use, least-water depletion, and least-climate change impact diets. Preliminary results showed that the use of wheat and wheat middlings hold potential to reduce pig diet cost and the environmental footprint.

Purpose

Demand for sustainable food, which conserves the environment and meets the needs of human development and increasing population, is growing (SCAR 2014). Livestock production is one of the major causes of the world’s environmental impacts including agricultural land use, water depletion, and climate change impact (PEW Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production 2010). Feeding is the most important factor in livestock production cost and animal performance which includes growth, nutrition, health, sustainability, and productivity. Farmers are interested in producing animals with a better performance and need feeding strategies that will lower diet costs and conserve resource use (land and water). The objective of this study is to develop cost-effective diet formulations and mitigate the environmental footprint of pig production in the US.

What did we do?

Figure 1. Preliminary grow phase single-objective pig diets including typical US, least-cost, least-climate change impact, least-water depletion, and least-land use. Legend should be read left to right and top to bottom.

Figure 1. Preliminary grow phase single-objective pig diets including typical US, least-cost, least-climate change impact, least-water depletion, and least-land use. Legend should be read left to right and top to bottom.

Windows-based User Friendly Feed Formulation (WUFFDA) linear models are used to formulate single-objective pig diets including least-cost, least-water use, least-land use, and least-climate change impact diets (Figure 1) (Pesti et al. 2004). Models include typical feed ingredients and additional US pig industry top 50 used protein and energy feed ingredients (Table 1 and 2). Nutrient characteristics, inclusion limits, environmental footprint, and cost data for feed ingredients were obtained from the US Animal Feed Database  and incorporated into WUFFDA models (Burek et al. 2014). Theoretical diets are compared against typical US pig multi-phase diets which were obtained from a nutritionist (Figure 1).

Table 1. Typical feed ingredients in US pig diets.

Blood Plasma

L-Valine

Copper Sulfate

Milk, Lactose

Corn DDG

Milk, Whey Powder

Corn, Yellow Dent

Neo-Terramycin

Dicalcium Phosphate

Paylean

DL-Methionine

Potassium Sulfate

Ethoxiquin

Poultry By-Product

Fat (Poultry)

Ronozyme

Fish Meal

Sodium Chloride

Limestone, Ground

Soybean meal, 48%

L-Isoleucine

Trace Mineral Premix

L-Lysine-HCI

Vitamin premix

L-Threonine

Zinc Oxide

L-Tryptophan

 

 

Table 2. Top 50 protein and energy feed ingredients in US pig diets.

Alfalfa Meal

Oat Grains

Barley

Oyster Shell

Beet Pulp

Pea Protein Concentrate

Blood Meal Spray-Dried

Peas, Field Peas

Canola Meal, Expelled

Rice

Canola Oil

Rice Bran

Canola, Full Fat

Rice, Broken

Citrus Pulp

Rye

Corn Bran

Safflower Meal

Corn Gluten Feed

Sorghum

Corn Gluten Meal

Soy Protein Concentrate

Cotton Seed Meal

Soy Protein Isolate

Fat (A/V Blend)

Soybean Hulls

Fat (Beef Tallow)

Soybean Meal, 44%

Fat (Restaurant Grease)

Soybean Oil

Feather Meal

Soybean Seeds, Heat Processed

Flaxseed

Soybeans, High Protein, Full Fat

Flaxseed Meal

Sunflower Meal

Meat and Bone Meal

Sunflower, Full Fat

Milk, Casein

Wheat Bran

Milk, Whey Permeate

Wheat Middlings

Milk, Whey Protein Concentrate

Wheat Shorts

Molasses, Sugar Beets

Wheat, Hard Red

Molasses, Sugarcane

Wheat, Hard Red Winter

What have we learned?

The US producers use corn and soybean meal as a base for pig diets (Figure 1). The single-objective modeling shows that more sustainable and cost-effective diets can be formulated by diversifying protein and energy sources. For example, preliminary theoretical single-objective diets for one pig growing phase show that the use of wheat and wheat middlings may reduce multiple objectives (Figure 1). The least-cost diet includes wheat, sorghum, wheat middlings, and corn distillers grains (Figure 1). Wheat, wheat middlings, soybeans, soybean hulls, corn distillers grains are the main ingredients in the least-climate change impact diet (Figure 1). The least-water depletion diet includes wheat middlings, corn distillers grains, and canola meal (Figure 1). The least-land use includes corn distillers grains, wheat, rice bran, and corn gluten feed (Figure1). Theoretical diets serve as guidelines to develop realistic sustainable cost-effective pig diets that pig producers will be able to incorporate into their production system. 

Future Plans

The results presented in this manuscript are preliminary. Formulated diets will be analyzed using the Pig Environmental Calculator (PPEC) and Simapro 8.1 life cycle assessment (LCA) pig production model (PRé Consultants 2014; National Pork Board 2015). The PPEC calculates the actual amount of feeds and total costs (National Pork Board 2015). The Simapro 8.3 cradle-to-farm gate pig production life-cycle assessment model calculates environmental impacts of pig production (PRé Consultants 2014).

Animal feed availability, pig production practices, and environmental footprints vary for pig production regions in the US. Feed costs are dynamic including costs and geography. The intention is to develop pig diets for different pig production regions in the US. Thus, further research will focus on multi-objective analyses to evaluate potential to reduce simultaneously cost and environmental footprints under different constraints. We will verify results with nutritionists, economists, and other experts. The pig producers will have access to formulated diets through PPEC.

Authors

Jasmina Burek, Research Associate, University of Arkansas jburek@uark.edu

Greg Thoma, Jennie Popp, Charles Maxwell, Rick Ulrich

Additional information

Pig Production Environmental Calculator
Life-Cycle Assessment Modeling for the Pork Industry

References

Burek J, Thoma G, Popp J, et al. (2014) Developing Environmental Footprint, Cost, and Nutrient Database of US Animal Feed Ingredients.

National Pork Board (2015) Carbon Footprint of Pork Production Calculator – Pork Checkoff.

PEW Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (2010) Environmental Impact of Industrial Farm Animal Production.

PRé Consultants (2014) SimaPro 8.3.

SCAR (2014) Sustainable food. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/food.htm.

Acknowledgements

This research is part of the program “Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in Agriculture,” and is supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2011-68002-30208 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.