Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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