Purchase low-emission feed ingredients
System: Pigs
Applicability
Mainly applicable for: Farms with high external feed input
Not applicable or effective for: Farms with no or low external feed input (exceptional)
Description
Using feed ingredients with relatively low GHG emissions related to their production, processing, transport, and land use change (a low “carbon footprint”, expressed in g CO2-eq/kg product). Information about the carbon footprint of feed materials is available in several databases (see references below). Some feed suppliers provide information about the carbon footprint of their compound concentrate feed.
Mechanism of effect
Feed ingredients with a lower carbon footprint have lower emissions from crop cultivation activities and soil emissions, production and application of inputs for crop cultivation, post-harvest processes and transport, or land use change (LUC). Industrial by-products and crop residues often carry a low carbon footprint, because emissions are allocated to the main product, however emissions from processing wet by-products may be high. Using low-emission feed ingredients, and any other changes to the diet composition in case of re-formulation of the diet, can influence volatile solid excretion and composition, animal productivity, and/or emissions from enteric fermentation and manure.
At a higher system level there might be no or a less favorable effect when raw materials are just exchanged between sectors. Moreover, the availability of feedstuffs with a low carbon footprint may be limited and not consistent.
Effects on GHG emissions
Reference situation: Not using specified low-emission feed ingredients.
Effect on total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (kg CO2-eq)
| Mean effect and range in kg CO2-equivalents: | per kg product | per farm | Level of evidence | ||
| Mean | (min-max) | Mean | (min-max) | ||
| Use feed ingredients with a low(er) carbon footprint | ● | ●–●● | ● | ●–●● | Low |
Legend
| ● – Small effect (<5%) | o – No effect | ? – Effect unknown |
| ●● – Medium effect (5-20%) | ● – Unfavourable effect | |
| ●●● – Large effect (>20%) | ● – ● – Variable effect (depending on farm characteristics or way/level of implementation) | |
Effect per emission source
| Mean effect on absolute emission from | Manure storage | Animal | Feed and forage production | Barn | |||
| CH4 | N2O | CH4 | CO2 | N2O | LUC | CO2 | |
| Use feed ingredients with a low(er) carbon footprint | ? | ? | ? | ● | ? | ● | ? |
*risk of an adverse effect (see ’cause of variable or unfavourable effect’)
Legend
| ● – Small effect (<5%) | o – No effect | ? – Effect unknown |
| ●● – Medium effect (5-20%) | ● – Unfavourable effect | |
| ●●● – Large effect (>20%) | ● – ● – Variable effect (depending on farm characteristics or way/level of implementation) | |
Cause of variable or unfavourable effect
Use feed ingredients with a low(er) carbon footprint
The size of the effect depends on the carbon footprint associated with the original feeds and the replacement feed, the replacement rate, and effects on animal productivity. Changes to the diet composition and nutrional quality may lead to increased emissions from enteric fermentation or manure, or to higher emissions per kg of product when animal productivity is reduced.
Other Effects
Effects on yield and cost-effectiveness
| Yield | Labor | Costs and revenues | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animals | Crops | Time | Capital investment | Operational Costs | Revenues | |
| Buy feed ingredients with low carbon footprint | ●–● | o | ● | ●-o | ●-o | |
Legend (thresholds differ per indictor and can be found in the tooltip)
| ● – Small favorable effect | o – No effect | ? – Effect unknown |
| ●● – Medium favorable effect | ● – Unfavourable effect | |
| ●●● – Large favorable effect | ● – ● -Variable effect (depending on farm characteristics or way/level of implementation) | |
Effects on other sustainability aspects
| Risks of trade-offs | Potential synergies | |
|---|---|---|
| Buy feed ingredients with low carbon footprint | Societal and cultural acceptance |
| Literature references | Use feed ingredients with a low(er) carbon footprint |
|---|---|
| Meul et al., 2012 | Carbon footprint of five pig diets using three land use change accounting methods |
| van Zanten et al., 2015 | Environmental impact of replacing soybean meal with rapeseed meal in diets of finishing pigs |
| Gislason et al., 2024 | How methods to assess land-use changes influence the resulting global warming potential and cost of optimized diets: a case study on Danish pigs applying life cycle assessment methodology |
| Bikker and Jansman, 2023 | Review: Composition and utilisation of feed by monogastric animals in the context of circular food production systems |