Integrated Resource Management

Tool to Mitigate the Carbon

Footprint of Swine Produced in the

U.S.

A NIFA Research, Extension, and Class Room Teaching Project

An Example of Leveraging

National Pork Board & University

Resources to Address Pork

Industry and Societal Concerns

Background/Foundational Information

Background/Foundational

Information

Integrated Resource Management

Tool to Mitigate the Carbon

Footprint of Swine Produced in the

U.S.

A Research, Extension, and Class Room Teaching Project

Project Rationale

• Climate change is a complex issue with

questions on causes and impacts

• Global increase animal products demand

• Knowledge gaps impair our ability to make

fully informed decisions

• Project is to fill some of the gaps and

refine an existing decision making tool

This Project Builds on

• Based on LCA and

CF model

– University of Arkansas

– National Pork Board

• Released at 2011

World Pork Expo

• Available at

www.pork.org

Project Objectives

• Research the effectiveness of select strategies:

– Dietary • Reduced nitrogen

• Growth enhancers

– Health status • Viral exposure

– Manure management • Solids separation

• Algal nutrient removal

• Thermo-conversion

Project Objectives

• Expand and enhance LCA/CF model to

– Include

• Research results

• Economic component

– Enable improved analysis of production

options to manage sustainability

• Production

• Economics

• GHG emissions

Project Objectives

• Implement education and outreach

programs linking

– life cycle analysis

– climate and swine science

• To foster life cycle thinking

(“understanding the system”)

Achieving The Objectives

• An Integrated Effort

– Research

– Extension

– Class Room Teaching

• More Info details at www.eXtension.org

– Animal Manure Management Resource Area • June 2012 webcast

• July 2012 webcast

• Soon to be posted project pages

Nutritional Effects on Nutrient

Excretion and Gas Emissions

and the Carbon Footprint of

Swine

GHG Gasses from Swine

CO2

Methane

21 times CO2

Nitrogen compounds

Nitrous oxide – 298-310 times CO2

Production, Manure Storage and

Manure Land Application

Diet Manipulation Approaches

Provide balance of digestible nutrients

based upon genetic growth potential and

stage of growth to reduce excretion

levels

Alter microflora in GIT to inhibit certain

strains/alter fermentation patterns

Change diet to affect physical

characteristics of urine and feces

Change the physical characteristics of

the diet

Feeding Management

• Precision nutrition • Phase feeding • Split-sex feeding • Synthetic amino acids • Dietary enzymes • Balancing for

digestible nutrients • Pellets vs. mash • Particle size • Feeder design • Waterer type • Feed additives

Evaluate the effects of amino acid supplementation with reduced dietary

crude protein on growth performance of grower and finisher pigs

B. E. Bass1, T. C. Tsai1, J. J. Chewning1, M. D. Hanigan2, J. K. Apple1, R. Ulrich1, J. S. Radcliffe3, B T. Richert3, J. S. Popp1, and C. V. Maxwell1

1University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR; 2Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University, Blacksburg, VA; 3Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

#208

Supported by a grant from USDA, NIFA-AFRI Climate Change: Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in Agriculture, Program Code, A3141

Materials and Methods

Pigs fed one of five dietary treatments from weaning until approximately 24 kg

Phase 1 = increasing increments of 0.19% LYS HCL Phase 2 = increasing increments of 0.18% LYS HCL Phase 3 = increasing increments of 0.15% LYS HCL Phase 4 = increasing increments of 0.12% LYS HCL Phase 5 = increasing increments of 0.15% LYS HCL (with

Paylean)

420 pigs

PIC C-29 x 380 Initial BW = 21.7 kg (47.8 lb) Final BW = 129.2 kg (284.9 lb) Blocked by weight within sex 4 replications per sex/treatment (6pigs/pen)

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5

CP (%)

Treatment 1 23.67 21.53 18.97 17.66 20.24

Treatment 2 21.59 19.46 17.34 16.30 18.60

Treatment 3 19.56 17.44 15.74 14.96 17.01

Treatment 4 17.59 15.49 14.16 13.64 15.44

Treatment 5 15.74 13.61 12.68 12.31 13.93

SID Lys (%) 1.01 0.86 0.74 0.65 0.90

Added Lys (%)

Treatment 1 --- --- --- --- ---

Treatment 2 0.188 0.179 0.147 0.121 0.149

Treatment 3 0.375 0.358 0.293 0.242 0.299

Treatment 4 0.563 0.536 0.439 0.362 0.448

Treatment 5 0.750 0.715 0.585 0.483 0.598

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5

CP, Analyzed (%)

Treatment 1 23.67 21.53 18.97 17.66 20.24

Treatment 2 21.59 19.46 17.34 16.30 18.60

Treatment 3 19.56 17.44 15.74 14.96 17.01

Treatment 4 17.59 15.49 14.16 13.64 15.44

Treatment 5 15.74 13.61 12.68 12.31 13.93

SID Lys, Calculated (%) 1.01 0.86 0.74 0.65 0.90

Added Lys, Calculated (%)

Treatment 1 --- --- --- --- ---

Treatment 2 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.15

Treatment 3 0.38 0.36 0.30 0.24 0.30

Treatment 4 0.56 0.54 0.44 0.36 0.45

Treatment 5 0.75 0.72 0.59 0.48 0.60

Description of Treatments

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Overall

Kg

/d

Average Daily Gain

Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4 Treatment 5

Quadratic

P < 0.01

Cubic

P < 0.03

Quadratic

P < 0.01

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Overall

Gain:Feed Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4 Treatment 5

Linear

P < 0.01

Quadratic

P < 0.11 Quadratic

P < 0.01

94.10

94.68

95.62

96.04

92.97

91.00

91.50

92.00

92.50

93.00

93.50

94.00

94.50

95.00

95.50

96.00

96.50

Quadratic Effect, P < 0.01

Kg

Trt 1

Trt 2

Trt 3

Trt 4

Trt 5

Effect of dietary CP in carcass weight

Conclusions

Overall, carcass weight, ADG, ADFI and G:F improved with lower inclusions of synthetic amino acids and declined at the highest inclusion

Our research indicates that synthetic amino acids up to 0.56% Lysine HCL in phase 1, 0.54% in phase 2, 0.44% in phase 3, 0.36% in phase 4, and 0.45% in phase 5 (with Paylean) without negatively impacting gain and feed intake as long as all amino acid SID requirements are met

Next studies are planned to determine the impact these diets will have on N excretion, GHG emissions, and carbon footprint using deep pit storage in a wean to finish swine production setting.

Swine Environmental

Research Barn

http://vimeo.com/pigguy/serb

An Example of Leveraging

National Pork Board & University

Resources to Address Pork

Industry and Societal Concerns