IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

The life cycle impacts of feed for modern grow-finish Northern Great Plains US swine production


  • Stone, James J.
  • Dollarhide, Christopher R.
  • Benning, Jennifer L.
  • Gregg Carlson, C.
  • Clay, David E.


A life cycle assessment (LCA) model was developed to analyze the environmental impacts per head of swine for typical feed rations of Northern Great Plains (NGP) US grow-finish swine production. The all-inclusive ‘field to gate’ approach incorporated steps ranging from corn and soybean production to shipping the market weight pig to a slaughtering facility. Feed production scenarios included: (1) a standard feed diet of 72% corn and 28% soymeal using 100% synthetic fertilizer; (2) standard feed diet using 40% manure as fertilizer; (3) modified feed diet using dry distillers gains with solubles (DDGS), with 100% DDGS allocation towards ethanol production; and (4) modified feed diet with 50% DDGS allocation towards ethanol production. For the standard NGP feed diet, enteric emissions and feed production were the two largest contributors towards climate change impacts, while feed production further resulted in significant contributions towards human health damage (44.6%), ecosystem diversity (67.4%), and resource availability (75.0%). DDGS incorporation assuming 100% allocation reduced corn and soymeal inputs considerably, resulting in overall decrease in impacts associated with climate change (−2.7%), terrestrial acidification (−7.1%), and both marine (−14.6%) and freshwater eutrophication (−22.7%); however terrestrial ecotoxicity increased (+22.9%) due to natural gas drying. 50% DDGS allocation increased all impact categories, with the greatest change found for terrestrial ecotoxicity (48.4%). The study results highlight the significant LCA impact contributions associated with feed during grow-finish swine production, and the benefits associated with DDGS incorporation; however, LCA benefits were realized only if 100% DDGS allocation was applied towards ethanol production.

Suggested Citation

  • Stone, James J. & Dollarhide, Christopher R. & Benning, Jennifer L. & Gregg Carlson, C. & Clay, David E., 2012. "The life cycle impacts of feed for modern grow-finish Northern Great Plains US swine production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 1-10.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:106:y:2012:i:1:p:1-10
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2011.11.002

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Lammers, P.J. & Kenealy, J.B. & Kliebenstein, James & Harmon, Jay D. & Helmers, Matthew J. & Honeyman, Mark, 2010. "Nonsolar Energy Use and One-Hundred-Year Global Warming Potential of Iowa Swine Feedstuffs and Feeding Strategies," Staff General Research Papers Archive 31866, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. Y. Nunez & J. Fermoso & N. Garcia & R. Irusta, 2005. "Comparative life cycle assessment of beef, pork and ostrich meat: a critical point of view," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(2), pages 140-151.
    3. Pelletier, N. & Lammers, P. & Stender, D. & Pirog, R., 2010. "Life cycle assessment of high- and low-profitability commodity and deep-bedded niche swine production systems in the Upper Midwestern United States," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(9), pages 599-608, November.
    4. Shapouri, Hosein & Duffield, James A. & Wang, Michael Q., 2002. "The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update," Agricultural Economics Reports 34075, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Lammers, P.J. & Honeyman, M.S. & Harmon, J.D. & Helmers, M.J., 2010. "Energy and carbon inventory of Iowa swine production facilities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(8), pages 551-561, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Tuomisto, H.L. & Hodge, I.D. & Riordan, P. & Macdonald, D.W., 2012. "Comparing energy balances, greenhouse gas balances and biodiversity impacts of contrasting farming systems with alternative land uses," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 42-49.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:106:y:2012:i:1:p:1-10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.