SUPPORT INFORMATION

Environmental, economic and social analysis of peri-urban

pig production

S. Wei a,b, Z.H. Bai b, W. Qin c, L.J. Xia a, O. Oenema c, R.F. Jiang*,a, L. Ma *,b

a College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agriculture University, Beijing

100193, P.R. China;

b Key Laboratory of Agricultural Water Resources, Center for Agricultural Resources

Research, Institute of Genetic and Developmental Biology, The Chinese Academy of

Sciences, 286 Huaizhong Road, Shijiazhuang 050021, Hebei, China

c Department of Soil Quality, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen,

The Netherlands;

Including 15pages, 4 tables and 2 figures

SI text

The main purpose of this supporting information (SI) is to explain the equations, parameters

and activity data used in calculated N and P flows, and in the economic analyses of pig

production in Beijing. Parameter values of the equations are presented in Tables S1 and S2.

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

12

Tables S3 and Figure S1-2 present additional results. Table S4 list FCR, NUE and PUE

values for different countries.

Model calculation

1. Feed input

Feed input calculation was based on animal population, total feed dry matter (DM)

requirement and feed composition of each animal for each growing stage (Bai et al., 2014).

The animal number, feedings days, feed intake and feed composition for each growing stage

and farm were based on results of the farm survey. The total N and P intake was calculated

from the crude protein content and total P content of feed (Ma et al., 2010a). It is assumed

that for animal product that are fed to animal no losses occur during feeding.

I feed=∑ Day feedi× A feed i×Comfeed ij [1]

¿ feed=I feed×NCfeed [2]

where I feed is feed intake (kg); Day feedi is the number of days of the growing period of

pigs; A feedi is feed intake amount; Com feedij is the j feed proportion of total feed input in i

growing period of pig production. ¿ feed is feed nutrient intake (kg head-1), NC feed is nitrogen or

phosphorus content of the feed (%).

NOanimal bodyweight=O animal bodyweight×NCanimal body weight [3]

2

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

34

where NOanimal bodyweight is the N and P retention in the live weight gain; Oanimal bodyweight is

the live weight gain; NCanimal body weight is the N and P contents of the live weight gain (%).

2. Manure production and losses

In total 7 manure treatment systems were distinguished in the farm survey. Treatment

system 1 (T1) includes direct sales of (part of) the solid fraction, and the direct discharge of

the remainder in lagoons and/or surface waters. Treatment system 2 (T2) includes direct sales

of part of the solid fraction and anaerobic digestion of the remainder in a biogas plant. After

treatment in the biogas plant, the digestate is discharged directly. Treatment system 3 (T3)

includes direct sales of part of the solid fraction and anaerobic digestion of the remainder.

Following the treatment in the biogas plant, the solid fraction of the digestate is exported to

other farms while the liquid fraction is treated in an oxidation pond, and thereafter discharged.

Treatment system 4 (T4) includes direct sales of part of the solid fraction and treatment of the

remainder in an oxidation pond. After aerobic treatment, the solid fraction of the digestate is

exported to other farms and the remainder discharged directly. Treatment system 5 (T5)

includes the composting of the solid fraction before it is exported to other farms, and the

anaerobic digestion of the liquid fraction in a biogas plant. Following the treatment in the

biogas plant, the solid fraction in exported to other farms and the remainder is discharged

directly. Treatment system 6 (T6) includes the composting of the solid fraction before it is

exported to other farms, and the anaerobic digestion of the liquid fraction. Following the

treatment in the biogas plant, the solid fraction is exported to other farms directly, while the

3

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

56

liquid fraction is treated further in an oxidation pond. Following the aerobic treatment, the

solid fraction is exported to other farms while the remainder is discharge directly. Treatment

system 7 (T7) includes the composting of the solid fraction before it is exported to other

farms, and the treatment of the liquid fraction in an oxidation pond Following the treatment in

the oxidation pond, the solid fraction is exported to other farms while the remainder is

discharged directly.

The total amounts of N and P in manure are derived from the difference between feed

input and products of the animals.

NOmanure=¿ feed−NOanimal body weight [4]

where NOmanure is the manure nutrient output (kg N (kg product)-1).

There are three parts for the manure including gas emission, sold out manure, manure

nutrient discharge and leaching. The total surplus was included three part which was gas

emission and leaching on farm and discharge to water body off-farm. The rate of manure for

sold out and discharge got from the survey data. The gas emission is including housing,

storage and treatment gas emission.

Omanuremanagement=Gas emission+Discharge+Leaching+Sold out [5]

Surplus=Gas emission+Discharge+Leaching [6]

Gas emission=Ehousing+E storage+Etreatment [7]

¿(Ehousing NH3+Ehousing N 2O+Ehousing N 2

)+(Estorage NH3+Estorage N2O+E storageN 2

)+(Etreatment NH 3+Etreatment N 2O+Etreatment N2

)

4

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

78

Ehousing=NOmanure×Ef 1 i [8]

E storage=NOmanure× (1−Ef 1 i )×Ef 2i [9]

Etreatment=NOmanure× (1−Ef 1 i−(1−Ef 1 i )×Ef 2 i )×Ef 3 i [10]

Discharge=Dhousing+D storage+LDtreatment [11]

Leaching=Lhousing+ Lstorage+Ltreatment [12]

Nitrogen discharge = Nitrogen of total manure - Nitrogen of sold out manure – Nitrogen of

gas emission- Nitrogen of leaching

where Ehousing, E storage and Etreatment is the emission from animal house, manure storage and

manure treatment. EhousingNH 3 , EhousingN 2O, Ehousing N 2,Dhousingand Lhousing is NH3, N2O, N2 emission,

discharge and leaching in the house;Ehousing NH 3 , E storageN2O, E storageN2,Dstorageand Lstorage is NH3,

N2O, N2 emission, discharge and leaching in the storage; Etreatment NH3 , Etreatment N2O, Etreatment N2,

Dtreatmentand Ltreatment is NH3, N2O, N2 emission, discharge and leaching in the treatment. Ef 1 i is

emission factor in housing for i gas; Ef 2 i is emission factor in storage for i gas; Ef 3 i is

emission factor in treatment for i gas.

5

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

910

Table S1. Data collected

Number

Survey data Statistics data

Literature data

Calculations data

1 Farm characteristics

type of farm, crop production, breeding structure, number of

labor2 Farm

performancedays to slaughter, slaughter weight, piglets per sow, litters per year, mortality rate

3 Farm inputs feed type, feed amount, live

animal

Emission factor

N and P content of

feed

Feed intake, feed conversion ratio, nutrient use efficiency

4 Housing and Floor type, Cleaning Emission Surplus, NH3

6

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

1112

manure management

time, Manure amount, Collect,

storage and treatment methods

factor emission

5 Farm outputs Slaughter pigs, eliminated sows,

sold manure

N and P content of

pig and feed

N and P in pig, eliminated sows and manure,

recycling, discharge

6 Economic costs

construction type , number and each construction cost, labor number and

cost; water resource, use quantity and cost, energy quantity and cost; land use cost

Pig price, feed

price,

Total costs and income

Table S2 Emission factors in housing, storage and treatment.

Type Unit NH3 N2O N2 Leaching

Housing cement floor % 18.0 0.5 5.0 0.0leakage floor % 15.0 0.5 5.0 0.0

Storage underground without cover % 20.0 0.5 5.0 0.0underground with cover % 10.0 0.5 5.0 0.0aboveground without cover % 30.0 0.5 5.0 1.0aboveground with cover % 10.0 0.5 5.0 1.0

Treatment composting % 30.0 0.5 5.0 1.0household biogas % 10.0 0.5 5.0 0.0industrial biogas % 2.7 0.5 5.0 0.0Oxidation pond % 19.5 0.5 5.0 0.0

7

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

1314

8

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

1516

List of the main results:

Table S3. Feed compositions according to the results of the survey.

Breeding system

Growing Stage Corn BranSoybean

mealSoybean Fishmeal

Whey powder

PremixPiglet feed

Small farm

Piglet 32 0 19 2 6 34 0 7Nursery 52 10 19 1 6 0 0 12

Fattening pig 69 9 17 0 2 0 3 0Pregnant sows 65 10 17 0 6 0 2 0Lactating sows 68.5 12 15.5 0 2 1 1 0Empty pregnant

sows60.5 15 20 0 2.5 0 2 0

Boar 65.5 14 15.5 0 1 0 4 0

Medium farm

Piglet 36 0 20 1 9 30 0 4Nursery 61 11 20 0 5 0 0 3

Fattening pig 70 10 14 0 3 0 3 0Pregnant sows 65 11 15 0 8 0 1 0Lactating sows 69 13 14 0 2 0 2 0Empty pregnant

sows59 16 20 0 3 0 2 0

Boar 65 14 16 0 2 0 3 0Large farm Piglet 35 0 21 2 9 29 0 4

Nursery 61 10 20 0 5 1 0 3Fattening pig 69 11 14 0 3 0 3 0Pregnant sows 64 11 16 0 9 0 0 0Lactating sows 69 12 14 0 2 0 3 0Empty pregnant

sows58.5 16.5 20 0 3 0 2 0

9

132

133

1718

Boar 65 15 15 0 2 0 3 0

Industrial farm

Piglet 28 0 11 1 4 17 0 39Nursery 60 8 18 0 4 0 1 9

Fattening pig 70 10 14 0 2 0 4 0Pregnant sows 63 12 16 0 8 0 1 0Lactating sows 68 11 15 0 2 0 4 0Empty pregnant

sows60 13 20 0 2.5 0 4.5 0

Boar 65 14 16 0 0 0 5 0

10

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

1920

Table S4. Feed conversion ratio (FCR), nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), phosphorus use efficiency (PUE) and crude protein content of feed

(CP) compared with other places

FCR(kg kg-1)

References NUE (%)

References PUE (%)

References CP(%)

References Mortality rate (%)

References

Beijing 2.8 This study 23 This study 31 This study 17.7 This study 14 This studyChina 3.0 [1] 28 [1] 30 [1] 15EU 2.9 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

[7] [8] [9]36 [14] 15.68 12(England

)4 (Spain)

[9][17]

USA 2.9 [10] [11] [12] 15 [18]Brazil 3.1 [13]Netherlands

34 [15] 37 [2] 14.5

Denmark 35 [15] 35 [2]France 33 [15] 34 [2] 14Spain 16 [17]Germany 17UK 16.9Global 20 [16]Note: FCR: feed conversion rate; NUE: nitrogen use efficiency; PUE: phosphorus use efficiency; CP: crude protein.

[1] Bai et al., 2014; [2] Poulsena et al., 1999; [3] Botermans et al., 2000; [4] Kadarmideen et al., 2004; [5] Xiccato et al., 2005; [6] Veizaj-Delia et al., 2010; [7] Shirali et al., 2012; [8] Laanen et al., 2013; [9] Agostini et al., 2013; [10] Williard, 1998; [11] Hyun et al, 2001; [12] Hyun et al, 2002; [13] Franzese et al., 2013; [14] Sutton et al., 2011; [15] Dourmad et al., 1999; [16] Hoek, 1998; [17] KilBride et al. 2012; [18] Sanz et al., 2007

11

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

2122

Fig S1. Relative changes in the area of arable land, and in the amounts of pork produced and pork

consumed in Beijin2010. Values in 2000 were set at 100. Source: Beijing Statistical Yearbook.

12

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

2324

Fig S2. Changes in the relative number of pigs per farm system in Beijing between 1980 and

2010. Four farm systems were distinguished, namely small farms with < 50 pigs yr -1, medium

farms with 50 to 500 pits, large farms with 500 to 10000 pigs, and intensive farms with >10000

pigs yr-1. Source: China Livestock Statistical Yearbook and Beijing Statistical Yearbook

13

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

2526

Reference

Agostini, P.S., Gasa, J., Manzanilla, E.G., Da Silva, C.A., de Blas, C., 2013. Descriptive study of

production factors affecting performance traits in growing-finishing pigs in Spain. Spanish J Agric.

Res. 11, 371-381.

Bai, Z.H., Ma, L., Qin, W., Chen, Q., Oenema, O., Zhang, F.S., 2014. Changes in pig production and

their effects on nitrogen and phosphorus use and losses in China. Environ Sci Technol. 48, 12742-

12749.

Botermans, J.A.M. and Svendsen, J., 2000. Effect of Feeding Environment on Performance, Injuries

and Behaviour in Growing–finishing Pigs: Group-Based Studies. Anim Sci. 50, 237-249.

Dourmad, J.Y., Sève, B., Latimier, P., Boisen, S., Fernández, J., Peet-Schwering, C., Jongbloed,

A.W., 1999. Nitrogen consumption, utilisation and losses in pig production in France, The

Netherlands and Denmark. Liv Produc Sci. 58, 261-264.

Franzese, P.P., Cavalett, O., Häyhä, T., D’Angelo, S., 2013. Integrated Environmental Assessment of

Agricultural and Farming Production Systems in the Toledo River Basin (Brazil).

Hoek, K.W.V., 1998. Nitrogen efficiency in global animal production. Environ Pollut. 102, Sl, 127-

132.

Hyun, Y. and Ellis, M., 2001. Effect of group size and feeder type on growth performance and

feeding patterns in growing pigs. J.Anim Sci. 79, 803-810.

Hyun, Y. and Ellis, M., 2002. Effect of group size and feeder type on growth performance and

feeding patterns in finishing pigs. J Anim Sci. 80, 568-574.

14

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

2728

Kadarmideen, H.N., Schwörer, D., Ilahi, H., Malek, M., Hofer, A., 2004. Genetics of osteochondral

disease and its relationship with meat quality and quantity, growth, and feed conversion traits in pigs.

J Anim Sci. 82, 3118-3127.

KilBride, A., Mendl, M., Statham, P., Held, S., Harris, M., Cooper, S., Green, L.E., 2012. A cohort

study of preweaning piglet mortality and farrowing accommodation on 112 commercial pig farms in

England. PrevVet Med. 104, 281-291.

Laanen, M., Persoons, D., Ribbens, S., de Jong, E., Callens, B., Strubbe, M., Maes, D., Dewulf, J.,

2013. Relationship between biosecurity and production/antimicrobial treatment characteristics in pig

herds. The Veterinary Journal. 198, 508-512.

Ma, L., Ma, W.Q., Velthof, G.L., Wang, F.H., Qin, W., Zhang, F.S., Oenema, O., 2010. Modelling

nutrient flows in the food chain of China. J Environ Qual. 39, 1279-1289.

Poulsena, H.D., Jongbloed, A.W., Latimier, P., Fernández, J.A., 1999. Phosphorus consumption,

utilisation and losses in pig production in France, The Netherlands and Denmark. Liv Produc Sci. 58,

251-259.

Sanz, M., Roberts, J.D., Perfumo, C.J., Alvarez, R.M., Donovan, T., Almond, G.W., 2007.

Assessment of sow mortality in a large herd. J Swine Health Prod. 15, 30-36.

Shirali, M., Doeschl-Wilson, A., Knap, P.W., Duthie, C., Kanis, E., van Arendonk, J.A.M., Roehe.

R., 2012. Nitrogen excretion at different stages of growth and its association with production traits in

growing pigs. J Anim Sci. 90, 1756-1765.

Sutton, M.A., Howard, C.M., Erisman, J.W., Billen, G., Bleeker, A., Grennfelt, P., Grinsven, H.V.,

Grizzetti, B., 2011. The European Nitrogen Assessment.

15

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

2930

Veizaj-Delia, E., Piu, T., Lekaj, P., Tafaj, M., 2010. Using combined probiotic to improve growth

performance of weaned piglets on extensive farm conditions. Livest Sci. 134, 249-251.

Williard, C.L., 1998. Feed-conversion ratio of finisher pigs in the USA. Preventive Veterinary

Medicine. 36, 287-305.

Xiccato, G., Schiavon, S., Gallo, L., Bailoni, L., Bittante, G., 2005. Nitrogen excretion in dairy cow,

beef and veal cattle, pig, and rabbit farms in Northern Italy. J Anim Sci. 4, 103-111.

16

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

3132