IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i9p3184-d168066.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Production of Pig Feed under Future Atmospheric CO 2 Concentrations: Changes in Crop Content and Chemical Composition, Land Use, Environmental Impact, and Socio-Economic Consequences

Author

Listed:
  • Henrik Saxe

    (Mindful Food Solutions, Engbakkevej 3C, 2900 Charlottenlund, Denmark)

  • Lorie Hamelin

    (Department of Engineering of Biological Systems and Processes (LISBP), National Institute of Applied Sciences (INSA), INRA UMR792 and CNRS UMR5504, Federal University of Toulouse, 135 Avenue de Rangueil, F-31077 Toulouse, France)

  • Torben Hinrichsen

    (DSM Nutritional Products Ltd., Kirkebjerg Alle 88, 2605 Brøndby, Denmark)

  • Henrik Wenzel

    (Institute of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology and Environmental Technology, SDU Life Cycle Engineering, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense M, Denmark)

Abstract

With the rising atmospheric CO 2 , crops will assimilate more carbon. Yields will increase in terms of carbohydrates while diluting the content of protein and minerals in compound pig feed, calling for an altered formulation with more protein and less carbohydrate crops to maintain its nutritional value. Using crop response data from CO 2 exposures in a linear modeling of feed formulation, we apply a consequential life cycle assessment (cLCA) to model all of the environmental impacts and socio-economic consequences that altered crop yields and chemical composition at elevated CO 2 levels have on feed formulation, targeting altered amino acid contents rather than overall protein. An atmospheric CO 2 of 550 µmole mole −1 gives rise to a 6% smaller demand for land use for pig feed production. However, feed produced at this CO 2 must include 23% more soymeal and 5% less wheat than at present in order to keep its nutritional value. This counteracts the yield benefit. The monetized environmental cost of producing pig feed, where sunflower and soy contribute the most, equals the direct feed price in both scenarios. If external costs were internalized, honoring the Rio Declaration, feed prices would double. In contrast, the future composition of pig feed will increase the direct price by only 0.8%, while the external cost decreases by only 0.3%.

Suggested Citation

  • Henrik Saxe & Lorie Hamelin & Torben Hinrichsen & Henrik Wenzel, 2018. "Production of Pig Feed under Future Atmospheric CO 2 Concentrations: Changes in Crop Content and Chemical Composition, Land Use, Environmental Impact, and Socio-Economic Consequences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-18, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:9:p:3184-:d:168066
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/9/3184/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/9/3184/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. Hamelin, Lorie & Naroznova, Irina & Wenzel, Henrik, 2014. "Environmental consequences of different carbon alternatives for increased manure-based biogas," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 774-782.
    3. Matthew R. Smith & Samuel S. Myers, 2018. "Impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on global human nutrition," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(9), pages 834-839, September.
    4. Nonhebel, Sanderine, 2012. "Global food supply and the impacts of increased use of biofuels," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 115-121.
    5. Attavanich, Witsanu & McCarl, Bruce A., 2011. "The Effect of Climate Change, CO2 Fertilization, and Crop Production Technology on Crop Yields and Its Economic Implications on Market Outcomes and Welfare Distribution," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103324, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Madhu Khanna & Christine L. Crago, 2012. "Measuring Indirect Land Use Change with Biofuels: Implications for Policy," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 161-184, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ilkka Leinonen, 2019. "Achieving Environmentally Sustainable Livestock Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-5, January.
    2. Yayan Apriyana & Elza Surmaini & Woro Estiningtyas & Aris Pramudia & Fadhlullah Ramadhani & Suciantini Suciantini & Erni Susanti & Rima Purnamayani & Haris Syahbuddin, 2021. "The Integrated Cropping Calendar Information System: A Coping Mechanism to Climate Variability for Sustainable Agriculture in Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tonini, Davide & Vadenbo, Carl & Astrup, Thomas Fruergaard, 2017. "Priority of domestic biomass resources for energy: Importance of national environmental targets in a climate perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 295-309.
    2. Deepayan Debnath & Madhu Khanna & Deepak Rajagopal & David Zilberman, 2019. "The Future of Biofuels in an Electrifying Global Transportation Sector: Imperative, Prospects and Challenges," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(4), pages 563-582, December.
    3. Chen, Xiaoguang & Huang, Haixiao & Khanna, Madhu & Önal, Hayri, 2014. "Alternative transportation fuel standards: Welfare effects and climate benefits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 241-257.
    4. Austin, K.G. & Jones, J.P.H. & Clark, C.M., 2022. "A review of domestic land use change attributable to U.S. biofuel policy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    5. Khanna, Madhu & Wang, Weiwei & Hudiburg, Tara & DeLucia, Evan, 2016. "The Economic Cost of Including the Indirect Land Use Factor in Low Carbon Fuel Policy: Efficiency and Distributional Implications," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235774, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. John M. DeCicco, 2015. "The liquid carbon challenge: evolving views on transportation fuels and climate," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(1), pages 98-114, January.
    7. Turconi, Roberto & Tonini, Davide & Nielsen, Christian F.B. & Simonsen, Christian G. & Astrup, Thomas, 2014. "Environmental impacts of future low-carbon electricity systems: Detailed life cycle assessment of a Danish case study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 66-73.
    8. Mads Greaker & Michael Hoel & Knut Einar Rosendahl, 2014. "Does a Renewable Fuel Standard for Biofuels Reduce Climate Costs?," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(3), pages 337-363.
    9. Chen, Xiaoguang & Khanna, Madhu, 2014. "Indirect Land Use Effects of Corn Ethanol in the U.S: Implications for the Conservation Reserve Program," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170284, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Sexton, Steven & Eyer, Jonathan, 2016. "Leveling the playing field of transportation fuels: Accounting for indirect emissions of natural gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 21-31.
    11. Khanna, Madhu & Wang, Weiwei & Wang, Michael, 2018. "Assessing the Carbon Neutrality of Biofuel: An Anticipated Baseline Approach," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274450, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. de Castro, Carlos & Carpintero, Óscar & Frechoso, Fernando & Mediavilla, Margarita & de Miguel, Luis J., 2014. "A top-down approach to assess physical and ecological limits of biofuels," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 506-512.
    13. Chen, Xiaoguang & Khanna, Madhu, 2018. "Effect of corn ethanol production on Conservation Reserve Program acres in the US," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 124-134.
    14. Panichelli, Luis & Gnansounou, Edgard, 2015. "Impact of agricultural-based biofuel production on greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change: Key modelling choices," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 344-360.
    15. Schaffartzik, Anke & Plank, Christina & Brad, Alina, 2014. "Ukraine and the great biofuel potential? A political material flow analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 12-21.
    16. Suopajärvi, Hannu & Umeki, Kentaro & Mousa, Elsayed & Hedayati, Ali & Romar, Henrik & Kemppainen, Antti & Wang, Chuan & Phounglamcheik, Aekjuthon & Tuomikoski, Sari & Norberg, Nicklas & Andefors, Alf , 2018. "Use of biomass in integrated steelmaking – Status quo, future needs and comparison to other low-CO2 steel production technologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 384-407.
    17. Lotze-Campen, Hermann & von Witzke, Harald & Noleppa, Steffen & Schwarz, Gerald, 2015. "Science for food, climate protection and welfare: An economic analysis of plant breeding research in Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 79-84.
    18. Iriarte, Alfredo & Rieradevall, Joan & Gabarrell, Xavier, 2012. "Transition towards a more environmentally sustainable biodiesel in South America: The case of Chile," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 263-273.
    19. Kriegler, Elmar, 2011. "Comment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 594-596, July.
    20. Proost, Stef & Van Dender, Kurt, 2012. "Energy and environment challenges in the transport sector," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 77-87.

    Corrections

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:9:p:3184-:d:168066. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.