ArticleJournal of animal science2022
Environmental impacts of eco-nutrition swine feeding programs in spatially explicit geographic regions of the United States.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Substituting maize and soybean meal with non-conventional feed ingredients: environmental trade-offs and resource-saving potential in China's pig production.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Big Data and AI-Powered Modeling: A Pathway to Sustainable Precision Animal Nutrition.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- The Piggy Solution: Harnessing Food Waste for Sustainable Hog Farming.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2025Review
- Revolutionizing pig farming: Japan's technological innovations and environmental strategies for sustainability.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2025Article
- The Effect of Dietary Protein Restriction in Phase Feeding Systems on Nitrogen Metabolism and Excretion in Pig Production.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Technologies and practices to improve feed and nutrient utilization by pigs.Journal of animal science · 2025Review
- A Life Cycle Assessment Study of the Impacts of Pig Breeding on the Environmental Sustainability of Pig Production.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- A systems approach to evaluate nitrogen utilization efficiency and environmental impacts of swine growing-finishing feeding programs in U.S. pork production systems.Journal of animal science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was conducted to determine greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water consumption, land use, as well as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and carbon (C) balance of five diet formulation strategies and feeding programs for growing-finishing pigs (25-130 kg body weight) in the three spatially explicit geographic regions where the majority of U.S. pork production occurs. Feeding programs evaluated consisted of 1) standard corn-soybean meal (CSBM) diets, 2) CSBM containing 15% corn distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS), 3) CSBM with 8.6% thermally processed supermarket food waste (FW), 4) low crude protein CSBM diets supplemented with synthetic amino acids (SAA), and 5) CSBM with phytase enzyme (PHY) added at 600 FTU (phytase units)/kg of diet. An attributional Life Cycle Assessment approach using a highly specialized, spatially explicit Food System Supply-Chain Sustainability (FoodS3) model was used to quantify GHG emissions, water consumption, and land use of corn, soybean meal, and DDGS based on county level sourcing. The DDGS, FW, and SAA feeding programs had less estimated N and P intake and excretion than CSBM, and the PHY feeding program provided the greatest reduction in P excretion. The FW feeding program had the least overall GHG emissions (319.9 vs. 324.6 to 354.1 kg CO2 equiv./market hog), land use (331.5 vs. 346.5 to 385.2 m2/market hog), and water consumption (7.64 vs. 7.70 to 8.30 m3/market hog) among the alternatives. The DDGS feeding program had the greatest GHG emissions (354.1 kg CO2 equiv./market hog) among all programs but had less impacts on water consumption (7.70 m3) and land use (346.5 m2) per market hog than CSBM and PHY. The SAA feeding program provided a 6.5-7.4% reduction in land use impacts compared with CSBM and PHY, respectively. Regardless of feeding program, the Midwest had the least contributions to GHG emissions and land use attributed to feed and manure among regions. Water consumption per market hog associated with feeding programs was much greater in the Southwest (59.66-63.58 m3) than in the Midwest (4.45-4.88 m3) and Mid-Atlantic (1.85-2.14 m3) regions. Results show that diet composition and U.S. geographic region significantly affect GHG emissions, water consumption, and land use of pork production systems, and the potential use of thermally processed supermarket food waste at relatively low diet inclusion rates (<10%) can reduce environmental impacts compared with other common feeding strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.