integrated resource management tool to mitigate the carbon...
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
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.