ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026
Reducing the Environmental Impact of Growing-Finishing Pig Production Through Daily Feed Adjustment: A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study comprehensively explores the environmental implications of two feeding strategies in pig farming, focusing on three scenarios: Brazilian tables (BT-2017), NRC (NRC-2012), and AGPIC (AGPIC-2021). The comparison involves conventional phase-feeding (CON) and the daily fit model (DFM). The five-phase system provided the same diet to all pigs within a group during each proposed phase. In contrast, the DFM adjusted the diet based on the nutritional requirements of pigs, anticipating subsequent diets through daily adjustments. We employed a cradle-to-gate approach, with the functional unit defined as one barrow with an initial body weight of 20.61 ± 0.85 kg, raised to 138.94 ± 0.90 kg over a 120-day growing-finishing period. Input data were sourced from observed commercial records from pig farms in Brazil, including over 1,000,000 data points from pigs raised under standard industry conditions. We evaluated the impact of the life cycle by considering factors such as acidification, climate change, ecotoxicity, eutrophication, land use, resource use, and water use. The OpenLCA software (version 1.11.0) and the Environmental Footprint 3.0 impact assessment method were used. Our results indicate that the DFM consistently outperforms the CON strategy in terms of reducing environmental impacts. Among the three scenarios, BT-2017 results in higher environmental impact reductions compared with NRC-2012 and AGPIC-2021. This is due to the higher concentration of corn and soybean meal in diets. Notable reductions include in relation to land use-related climate change impacts (12.55%), freshwater eutrophication (6.21%), mineral and metal resource depletion (6.11%), and fossil resource use (4.88%). These findings highlight that even modest adjustments to feeding strategies can effectively reduce the environmental footprint of pig farming.
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.