Energy use in pig production: An examination of current Iowa systems

This paper compares energy use for different pig production systems in Iowa, a leader in US swine production. Pig production systems include not only the growth and performance of the pigs, but also the supporting infrastructure of pig production. This supporting infrastructure includes swine housin...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of animal science 2012-03, Vol.90 (3), p.1056-1068
Hauptverfasser: Lammers, P. J, Kenealy, M. D, Kliebenstein, J. B, Harmon, J. D, Helmers, M. J, Honeyman, M. S
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1068
container_issue 3
container_start_page 1056
container_title Journal of animal science
container_volume 90
creator Lammers, P. J
Kenealy, M. D
Kliebenstein, J. B
Harmon, J. D
Helmers, M. J
Honeyman, M. S
description This paper compares energy use for different pig production systems in Iowa, a leader in US swine production. Pig production systems include not only the growth and performance of the pigs, but also the supporting infrastructure of pig production. This supporting infrastructure includes swine housing, facility management, feedstuff provision, swine diets, and manure management. Six different facility type x diet formulation x cropping sequence scenarios were modeled and compared. The baseline system examined produces 15,600 pigs annually using confinement facilities and a corn-soybean cropping sequence. Diet formulations for the baseline system were corn-soybean meal diets that included the synthetic AA L-lysine and exogenous phytase. The baseline system represents the majority of current US pork production in the Upper Midwest, where most US swine are produced. This system was found to require 744.6 MJ per 136-kg market pig. An alternative system that uses bedded hoop barns for grow-finish pigs and gestating sows would require 3% less (720.8 MJ) energy per 136-kg market pig. When swine production systems were assessed, diet type and feed ingredient processing were the major influences on energy use, accounting for 61 and 79% of total energy in conventional and hoop barn-based systems, respectively. Improving feed efficiency and better matching the diet formulation with the thermal environment and genetic potential are thus key aspects of reducing energy use by pig production, particularly in a hoop barn-based system. The most energy-intensive aspect of provisioning pig feed is the production of synthetic N for crop production; thus, effectively recycling manure nutrients to cropland is another important avenue for future research. Almost 25% of energy use by a conventional farrow-to-finish pig production system is attributable to operation of the swine buildings. Developing strategies to minimize energy use for heating and ventilation of swine buildings while maintaining pig comfort and performance is a third critical area for future research. The hoop barn-based alternative uses 64% less energy to operate buildings but requires bedding and 2.4% more feed. Current Iowa pig production systems use energy differently but result in similar total energy use. Compared with 1975, current farrow-to-finish systems in Iowa require 80% less energy to produce live market pigs.
doi_str_mv 10.2527/jas.2010-3782
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_922507461</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>922507461</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-f267t-83298b7281c2b9ef78f208a016715ac3c2ca7229f2be57833068af3a179d43883</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90DFPwzAQBWALgWgpjKzgDZaU8zmOz2xVKVCpEgN0jpzUrlI1SYkTQf89QS0rt5xO-vR0eoxdCxijQv2wsWGMICCSmvCEDYVCFUmRyFM2BEAREQkcsIsQNgAClVHnbIAI2hgjh-xpVrlmveddcLyo-K5Y811Tr7q8LerqkU8q7r5tWVT29-a153nXNK5q-bz-sjzsQ-vKcMnOvN0Gd3XcI7Z8nn1MX6PF28t8OllEHhPdRiTRUKaRRI6ZcV6TRyALItFC2VzmmFuNaDxmTmmSEhKyXlqhzSqWRHLE7g65_YufnQttWhYhd9utrVzdhdQgKtBxInp5_68UAERIkuKe3hxpl5Vule6aorTNPv3rqAe3B-Btndp1U4R0-d5XHkM_hgDkDzo0b4w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1008828384</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Energy use in pig production: An examination of current Iowa systems</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Lammers, P. J ; Kenealy, M. D ; Kliebenstein, J. B ; Harmon, J. D ; Helmers, M. J ; Honeyman, M. S</creator><creatorcontrib>Lammers, P. J ; Kenealy, M. D ; Kliebenstein, J. B ; Harmon, J. D ; Helmers, M. J ; Honeyman, M. S</creatorcontrib><description>This paper compares energy use for different pig production systems in Iowa, a leader in US swine production. Pig production systems include not only the growth and performance of the pigs, but also the supporting infrastructure of pig production. This supporting infrastructure includes swine housing, facility management, feedstuff provision, swine diets, and manure management. Six different facility type x diet formulation x cropping sequence scenarios were modeled and compared. The baseline system examined produces 15,600 pigs annually using confinement facilities and a corn-soybean cropping sequence. Diet formulations for the baseline system were corn-soybean meal diets that included the synthetic AA L-lysine and exogenous phytase. The baseline system represents the majority of current US pork production in the Upper Midwest, where most US swine are produced. This system was found to require 744.6 MJ per 136-kg market pig. An alternative system that uses bedded hoop barns for grow-finish pigs and gestating sows would require 3% less (720.8 MJ) energy per 136-kg market pig. When swine production systems were assessed, diet type and feed ingredient processing were the major influences on energy use, accounting for 61 and 79% of total energy in conventional and hoop barn-based systems, respectively. Improving feed efficiency and better matching the diet formulation with the thermal environment and genetic potential are thus key aspects of reducing energy use by pig production, particularly in a hoop barn-based system. The most energy-intensive aspect of provisioning pig feed is the production of synthetic N for crop production; thus, effectively recycling manure nutrients to cropland is another important avenue for future research. Almost 25% of energy use by a conventional farrow-to-finish pig production system is attributable to operation of the swine buildings. Developing strategies to minimize energy use for heating and ventilation of swine buildings while maintaining pig comfort and performance is a third critical area for future research. The hoop barn-based alternative uses 64% less energy to operate buildings but requires bedding and 2.4% more feed. Current Iowa pig production systems use energy differently but result in similar total energy use. Compared with 1975, current farrow-to-finish systems in Iowa require 80% less energy to produce live market pigs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2527/jas.2010-3782</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22079993</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Society of Animal Science</publisher><subject>agricultural land ; Air Pollutants ; Animal Feed ; Animal Husbandry - economics ; Animal Husbandry - methods ; animal manure management ; Animals ; barns ; crop production ; cropping sequence ; diet ; Diet - veterinary ; energy ; feed conversion ; Greenhouse Effect ; growth performance ; heat treatment ; infrastructure ; ingredients ; Iowa ; Manure - analysis ; markets ; Models, Theoretical ; Nitrogen - chemistry ; nutrients ; phytases ; pork ; production technology ; sows ; Swine ; swine housing</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2012-03, Vol.90 (3), p.1056-1068</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27929,27930</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22079993$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lammers, P. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kenealy, M. D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kliebenstein, J. B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harmon, J. D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Helmers, M. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Honeyman, M. S</creatorcontrib><title>Energy use in pig production: An examination of current Iowa systems</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><addtitle>J Anim Sci</addtitle><description>This paper compares energy use for different pig production systems in Iowa, a leader in US swine production. Pig production systems include not only the growth and performance of the pigs, but also the supporting infrastructure of pig production. This supporting infrastructure includes swine housing, facility management, feedstuff provision, swine diets, and manure management. Six different facility type x diet formulation x cropping sequence scenarios were modeled and compared. The baseline system examined produces 15,600 pigs annually using confinement facilities and a corn-soybean cropping sequence. Diet formulations for the baseline system were corn-soybean meal diets that included the synthetic AA L-lysine and exogenous phytase. The baseline system represents the majority of current US pork production in the Upper Midwest, where most US swine are produced. This system was found to require 744.6 MJ per 136-kg market pig. An alternative system that uses bedded hoop barns for grow-finish pigs and gestating sows would require 3% less (720.8 MJ) energy per 136-kg market pig. When swine production systems were assessed, diet type and feed ingredient processing were the major influences on energy use, accounting for 61 and 79% of total energy in conventional and hoop barn-based systems, respectively. Improving feed efficiency and better matching the diet formulation with the thermal environment and genetic potential are thus key aspects of reducing energy use by pig production, particularly in a hoop barn-based system. The most energy-intensive aspect of provisioning pig feed is the production of synthetic N for crop production; thus, effectively recycling manure nutrients to cropland is another important avenue for future research. Almost 25% of energy use by a conventional farrow-to-finish pig production system is attributable to operation of the swine buildings. Developing strategies to minimize energy use for heating and ventilation of swine buildings while maintaining pig comfort and performance is a third critical area for future research. The hoop barn-based alternative uses 64% less energy to operate buildings but requires bedding and 2.4% more feed. Current Iowa pig production systems use energy differently but result in similar total energy use. Compared with 1975, current farrow-to-finish systems in Iowa require 80% less energy to produce live market pigs.</description><subject>agricultural land</subject><subject>Air Pollutants</subject><subject>Animal Feed</subject><subject>Animal Husbandry - economics</subject><subject>Animal Husbandry - methods</subject><subject>animal manure management</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>barns</subject><subject>crop production</subject><subject>cropping sequence</subject><subject>diet</subject><subject>Diet - veterinary</subject><subject>energy</subject><subject>feed conversion</subject><subject>Greenhouse Effect</subject><subject>growth performance</subject><subject>heat treatment</subject><subject>infrastructure</subject><subject>ingredients</subject><subject>Iowa</subject><subject>Manure - analysis</subject><subject>markets</subject><subject>Models, Theoretical</subject><subject>Nitrogen - chemistry</subject><subject>nutrients</subject><subject>phytases</subject><subject>pork</subject><subject>production technology</subject><subject>sows</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>swine housing</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp90DFPwzAQBWALgWgpjKzgDZaU8zmOz2xVKVCpEgN0jpzUrlI1SYkTQf89QS0rt5xO-vR0eoxdCxijQv2wsWGMICCSmvCEDYVCFUmRyFM2BEAREQkcsIsQNgAClVHnbIAI2hgjh-xpVrlmveddcLyo-K5Y811Tr7q8LerqkU8q7r5tWVT29-a153nXNK5q-bz-sjzsQ-vKcMnOvN0Gd3XcI7Z8nn1MX6PF28t8OllEHhPdRiTRUKaRRI6ZcV6TRyALItFC2VzmmFuNaDxmTmmSEhKyXlqhzSqWRHLE7g65_YufnQttWhYhd9utrVzdhdQgKtBxInp5_68UAERIkuKe3hxpl5Vule6aorTNPv3rqAe3B-Btndp1U4R0-d5XHkM_hgDkDzo0b4w</recordid><startdate>20120301</startdate><enddate>20120301</enddate><creator>Lammers, P. J</creator><creator>Kenealy, M. D</creator><creator>Kliebenstein, J. B</creator><creator>Harmon, J. D</creator><creator>Helmers, M. J</creator><creator>Honeyman, M. S</creator><general>American Society of Animal Science</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120301</creationdate><title>Energy use in pig production: An examination of current Iowa systems</title><author>Lammers, P. J ; Kenealy, M. D ; Kliebenstein, J. B ; Harmon, J. D ; Helmers, M. J ; Honeyman, M. S</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-f267t-83298b7281c2b9ef78f208a016715ac3c2ca7229f2be57833068af3a179d43883</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>agricultural land</topic><topic>Air Pollutants</topic><topic>Animal Feed</topic><topic>Animal Husbandry - economics</topic><topic>Animal Husbandry - methods</topic><topic>animal manure management</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>barns</topic><topic>crop production</topic><topic>cropping sequence</topic><topic>diet</topic><topic>Diet - veterinary</topic><topic>energy</topic><topic>feed conversion</topic><topic>Greenhouse Effect</topic><topic>growth performance</topic><topic>heat treatment</topic><topic>infrastructure</topic><topic>ingredients</topic><topic>Iowa</topic><topic>Manure - analysis</topic><topic>markets</topic><topic>Models, Theoretical</topic><topic>Nitrogen - chemistry</topic><topic>nutrients</topic><topic>phytases</topic><topic>pork</topic><topic>production technology</topic><topic>sows</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>swine housing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lammers, P. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kenealy, M. D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kliebenstein, J. B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harmon, J. D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Helmers, M. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Honeyman, M. S</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lammers, P. J</au><au>Kenealy, M. D</au><au>Kliebenstein, J. B</au><au>Harmon, J. D</au><au>Helmers, M. J</au><au>Honeyman, M. S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Energy use in pig production: An examination of current Iowa systems</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><addtitle>J Anim Sci</addtitle><date>2012-03-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>90</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1056</spage><epage>1068</epage><pages>1056-1068</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>This paper compares energy use for different pig production systems in Iowa, a leader in US swine production. Pig production systems include not only the growth and performance of the pigs, but also the supporting infrastructure of pig production. This supporting infrastructure includes swine housing, facility management, feedstuff provision, swine diets, and manure management. Six different facility type x diet formulation x cropping sequence scenarios were modeled and compared. The baseline system examined produces 15,600 pigs annually using confinement facilities and a corn-soybean cropping sequence. Diet formulations for the baseline system were corn-soybean meal diets that included the synthetic AA L-lysine and exogenous phytase. The baseline system represents the majority of current US pork production in the Upper Midwest, where most US swine are produced. This system was found to require 744.6 MJ per 136-kg market pig. An alternative system that uses bedded hoop barns for grow-finish pigs and gestating sows would require 3% less (720.8 MJ) energy per 136-kg market pig. When swine production systems were assessed, diet type and feed ingredient processing were the major influences on energy use, accounting for 61 and 79% of total energy in conventional and hoop barn-based systems, respectively. Improving feed efficiency and better matching the diet formulation with the thermal environment and genetic potential are thus key aspects of reducing energy use by pig production, particularly in a hoop barn-based system. The most energy-intensive aspect of provisioning pig feed is the production of synthetic N for crop production; thus, effectively recycling manure nutrients to cropland is another important avenue for future research. Almost 25% of energy use by a conventional farrow-to-finish pig production system is attributable to operation of the swine buildings. Developing strategies to minimize energy use for heating and ventilation of swine buildings while maintaining pig comfort and performance is a third critical area for future research. The hoop barn-based alternative uses 64% less energy to operate buildings but requires bedding and 2.4% more feed. Current Iowa pig production systems use energy differently but result in similar total energy use. Compared with 1975, current farrow-to-finish systems in Iowa require 80% less energy to produce live market pigs.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Society of Animal Science</pub><pmid>22079993</pmid><doi>10.2527/jas.2010-3782</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8812
ispartof Journal of animal science, 2012-03, Vol.90 (3), p.1056-1068
issn 0021-8812
1525-3163
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_922507461
source MEDLINE; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)
subjects agricultural land
Air Pollutants
Animal Feed
Animal Husbandry - economics
Animal Husbandry - methods
animal manure management
Animals
barns
crop production
cropping sequence
diet
Diet - veterinary
energy
feed conversion
Greenhouse Effect
growth performance
heat treatment
infrastructure
ingredients
Iowa
Manure - analysis
markets
Models, Theoretical
Nitrogen - chemistry
nutrients
phytases
pork
production technology
sows
Swine
swine housing
title Energy use in pig production: An examination of current Iowa systems
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-14T01%3A47%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Energy%20use%20in%20pig%20production:%20An%20examination%20of%20current%20Iowa%20systems&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Lammers,%20P.%20J&rft.date=2012-03-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1056&rft.epage=1068&rft.pages=1056-1068&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/10.2527/jas.2010-3782&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E922507461%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1008828384&rft_id=info:pmid/22079993&rfr_iscdi=true