Accounting for uncertainty in the quantification of the environmental impacts of Canadian pig farming systems

Journal of Animal Science

Volumn 93, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 3130-3143

  Mackenzie, S G ^a   Leinonen, I ^a   Ferguson, N ^b   Kyriazakis, I ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b Nutreco Canada Inc   (Canada)

Author keywords

Canada; Life cycle assessment; Pig production; Uncertainty analysis

Indexed keywords

MANURE;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL HOUSING; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; CANADA; ENVIRONMENT; MANURE; PHYSIOLOGY; PIG; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNCERTAINTY;

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ANIMALS; CANADA; ENVIRONMENT; HOUSING, ANIMAL; MANURE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; SWINE; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84957854560     PISSN: 00218812     EISSN: 15253163     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2527/jas.2014-8403     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Basset-Mens, C., and H. M. G. Van Der Werf. 2005. Scenariobased environmental assessment of farming systems: The case of pig production in France. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 105:127–144. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2004.05.007.
2. Basset-Mens, C., H. M. G. Van Der Werf, P. Durand, and P. Leterme. 2006. Implications of uncertainty and variability in the life cycle assessment of pig production systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11:298–304. doi:10.1065/lca2005.08.219.
3. Beaulieu, M. 2004. Manure management in Canada. Farm Environ. Manag. Canada 1:1–52.
4. Bouwman, A. F., L. J. M. Boumans, and N. H. Batjes. 2002. Emissions of N2O and NO from fertilized fields: Summary of available measurement data. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 16:1058–1071.
5. Boyd, G., R. Cady, L. Wittig, G. Bryan, D. Anderson, A. Sutton, P. Holden, and G. Thoma. 2012. A 50-year comparison of the carbon footprint and resource use of the US swine herd: 1959–2009. http://old.pork.org/filelibrary/researchdocuments/10-174-boydcamco-final-5-22-12.pdf (Accessed 14 March 2013)
6. Brisson, Y. 2014. The changing face of the Canadian hog industry. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/96-325-x/2014001/article/14027-eng.pdf. (Accessed 12 May 2014.)
7. Cederberg, C., and A. Flysjö. 2004. Environmental assessment of future pig farming systems – Quantifications of three scenarios from the FOOD 21 synthesis work. http://www.vaxteko.nu/html/sll/institutet_livsm_bioteknik/sik-rapport/SIK723/SIK723.PDF. (Accessed 12 March 2013.)
8. Ecoinvent Centre. 2007. Ecoinvent data 2.2. Final reports no. 1-25. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
9. Eriksson, I. E., H. Elmquist, S. Stern, and T. Nybrant. 2005. LCA case studies. Environmental systems analysis of pig production. The impact of feed choice. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 10:143–154.
10. Garcia-Launay, F., H. M. G. van der Werf, T. T. H. Nguyen, L. Le Tutour, and J. Y. Dourmad. 2014. Evaluation of the environmental implications of the incorporation of feed-use amino acids in pig production using life cycle assessment. Livest. Sci. 161:158–175. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.11.027.
11. Goedkoop, M., R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, A. De Schryver, J. Struijs, and R. Van Zelm. 2009. ReCiPe 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and endpoint level. http://www.presustainability.com/recipe-report. (Accessed May 14 2013.)
12. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 4: Agriculture, forestry and other land use. http://www. ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html. (Accessed 12 November 2012.)
13. Jiao, Y., W. H. Hendershot, and J. K. Whalen. 2004. Agricultural practices influence dissolved nutrients leaching through intact soil cores. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68:2058–2068. doi:10.2136/sssaj2004.2058.
14. Jolliet, O., M. Margni, R. Charles, S. Humbert, J. Payet, and G. Rebitzer. 2003. Presenting a new method IMPACT 2002 +: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8:324–330. doi:10.1007/BF02978505.
15. Korol, M. 2004. Fertilizer and pesticide management in Canada. Farm Environ. Manag. Canada 1:1–41.
16. Lammers, P. J., M. S. Honeyman, J. D. Harmon, and M. J. Helmers. 2010. Energy and carbon inventory of Iowa swine production facilities. Agric. Syst. 103:551–561. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.06.003.
17. Leinonen, I., A. G. Williams, and I. Kyriazakis. 2014. Comparing UK turkey production systems using analytical error propagation in uncertainty analysis. In: 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food sector. San Francisco, CA. p. 721-729.
18. Leinonen, I., A. G. Williams, A. H. Waller, and I. Kyriazakis. 2013. Comparing the environmental impacts of alternative protein crops in poultry diets: The consequences of uncertainty. Agric. Syst. 121:33–42. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2013.06.008.
19. Leinonen, I., A. G. Williams, J. Wiseman, J. Guy, and I. Kyriazakis. 2012. Predicting the environmental impacts of chicken systems in the United Kingdom through a life cycle assessment: Broiler production systems. Poult. Sci. 91:8–25. doi:10.3382/ps.2011-01634.
20. Lenis, N. P. and A. W. Jongbloed. 1994. Modelling animal feed and environment to estimate nitrogen and mineral excretion by pigs. In: D. J. A. Cole, J. Wiseman and M. A. Varley Editors. Principles of Pig Science. Nottingham University Press, UK, p. 355-373.
21. Liu, Z., W. Powers, and H. Liu. 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from swine operations: Evaluation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approaches through meta-analysis 1. J. Anim. Sci. 91:4017–4032. doi:10.2527/jas.2012-6147.
22. Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance (LEAP). 2014. Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
23. Lloyd, S. M., and R. Ries. 2008. Characterizing, propagating, and analyzing uncertainty in life-cycle assessment: A survey of quantitative approaches. J. Ind. Ecol. 11:161–179. doi:10.1162/jiec.2007.1136.
24. Macleod, M., P. Gerber, C. Opio, A. Falcucci, G. Tempio, B. Henderson, A. Mottet, and H. Steinfield. 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken supply chains. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
25. Meul, M., C. Ginneberge, C. E. Van Middelaar, I. J. M. de Boer, D. Fremaut, and G. Haesaert. 2012. Carbon footprint of five pig diets using three land use change accounting methods. Livest. Sci. 149:215–223. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2012.07.012.
26. Middelaar, C. E. Van, C. Cederberg, T. V. Vellinga, and H. M. G. Van Der Werf. 2013. Exploring variability in methods and data sensitivity in carbon footprints of feed ingredients. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18:768–782. doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0521-9.
27. Nemecek, T., and T. Kagi. 2007. Life cycle inventories of agricultural production systems, ecoinvent report No. 15. Agroscope Reckenholz-Tanikon Research Station ART. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich and Dübendorf, Switzerland.
28. Nguyen, T. L. T., J. E. Hermansen, and L. Mogensen. 2011. Environmental assessment of Danish Pork. http://web.agrsci. dk/djfpublikation/djfpdf/ir_103_54761_indhold_internet.pdf. (Accessed 29 January 2013.)
29. NRC. 2012. Nutrient requirement tables. In: Nutrient requirements of swine. 11th ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC. p. 208–239.
30. Pelletier, N., N. Arsenault, and P. Tyedmers. 2008. Scenario modeling potential eco-efficiency gains from a transition to organic agriculture: Life cycle perspectives on Canadian canola, corn, soy, and wheat production. Environ. Manage. 42:989–1001. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9155-x.
31. Pelletier, N., P. Lammers, D. Stender, and R. Pirog. 2010. Life cycle assessment of high- and low-profitability commodity and deep-bedded niche swine production systems in the upper midwestern United States. Agric. Syst. 103:599–608. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.07.001.
32. Reckmann, K., I. Traulsen, and J. Krieter. 2013. Life cycle assessment of pork production: A data inventory for the case of Germany. Livest. Sci. 157:586–596. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.09.001.
33. Rigolot, C., S. Espagnol, C. Pomar, and J.-Y. Dourmad. 2010. Modelling of manure production by pigs and NH3, N2O and CH4 emissions. Part I: Animal excretion and enteric CH4, effect of feeding and performance. Animal 4:1401–1412. doi:10.1017/S1751731110000492.
34. Rochette, P., D. E. Worth, R. L. Lemke, B. G. Mcconkey, D. J. Pennock, C. Wagner-Riddle, R. L. Desjardins, A. Canada, B. Hochelaga, Q. City, and C. Gv. 2008. Estimation of N2O emissions from agricultural soils in Canada. I. Development of a country-specific methodology. Can. J. Soil Sci. 88:641–654. doi:10.4141/CJSS07025.
35. Schmidt, J. H. 2007. Life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Part 3: Life Cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. PhD thesis, Department of Planning and Development, Aalborg University, Aalborg Denmark.
36. Sheppard, S. C., S. Bittman, and T. W. Bruulsema. 2010a. Monthly ammonia emissions from fertilizers in 12 Canadian ecoregions. Can. J. Soil Sci. 90:113–127. doi:10.4141/CJSS09006.
37. Sheppard, S. C., S. Bittman, M. L. Swift, and J. Tait. 2010b. Farm practices survey and modelling to estimate monthly NH3 emissions from swine production in 12 ecoregions of Canada. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 90:145–158. doi:10.4141/CJAS09050.
38. Statistics Canada. 2001. Livestock feed requirements study: 1999–2001. http://publications.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/23-501-X/23-501-XIE2003001.pdf. (Accessed 12 June 2013.)
39. Statistics Canada. 2003. Manure storage in Canada. http://www. statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-021-m/2003001/pdf/4193743-eng.pdf (Accessed July 23 2013.)
40. Statistics Canada. 2013. Table 127-0002 – Electric power generation, by class of electricity producer, annual (megawatt hour). http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&id=10010 (Accessed 2 May 2014.)
41. Statistics Canada. 2014. Estimated areas, yield, production and average farm price of principle crops. Cansim Table 001-0010. http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&id=10010 (Accessed 2 May 2014.)
42. Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales, and C. De Haan. 2006. Livestocks long shadow – Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
43. Symeou, V., I. Leinonen, and I. Kyriazakis. 2014. Modelling phosphorus intake, digestion, retention and excretion in growing and finishing pigs: Model description. Animal 8:1612–1621. doi:10.1017/S1751731114001402.
44. Thoma, G., D. Nutter, R. Ulrich, M. Charles, J. Frank, and C. East. 2011. National life cycle carbon footprint study for production of US swine. National Pork Board, Des Moines, IA.
45. U.S. Climate Data. 2014. Climate Mason City, Iowa. http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/mason-city/iowa/united-states/ usia0541. (Accessed 10 July 2014.)
46. Vergé, X. P. C., J. A. Dyer, R. L. Desjardins, and D. Worth. 2009. Greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian pork industry. Livest. Sci. 121:92–101. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2008.05.022.
47. Weatherbase. 2014. Canada – Weather averages. http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/state.php3?c=CA. (Accessed 16 May 2014.)
48. Wellock, I. J., G. C. Emmans, and I. Kyriazakis. 2004. Describing and predicting potential growth in the pig. Anim. Sci. 78:379–388.
49. Wiedemann, S., E. Mcgahan, S. Grist, and T. Grant. 2010. Environmental assessment of two pork supply chains using life cycle assessment. RIRDC 09/176. https://rirdc.infoservices.com.au/items/09-176. (Accessed 12 February 2013.)
50. Wiltshire, J., G. Tucker, A. G. Williams, C. Foster, S. Wynn, R. Thorn, and D. Chadwick. 2009. Supplementary technical report to “Scenario building to test and inform the development of a BSI method for assessing GHG emissions from food”. Final report to Defra on research project FO0404. http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None &Completed=0&ProjectID=15650 (Accessed 12 March 2013.)
51. Woyengo, T. A., E. Beltranena, and R. T. Zijlstra. 2014. Nonruminant nutrition symposium: Controlling feed cost by including alternative ingredients into pig diets: A review. J. Anim. Sci. 92:1293–1305. doi:10.2527/jas.2013-7169.