IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i18p8509-d1755269.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reducing the Environmental Impacts of Pig Production Through Feed Reformulation: A Multi-Objective Life Cycle Assessment Optimisation Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Somindu Wachong Kum

    (Department for Sustainable Food Process (DiSTAS), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Emilia Parmense 84, 29122 Piacenza, Italy)

  • Diego Voccia

    (Department for Sustainable Food Process (DiSTAS), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Emilia Parmense 84, 29122 Piacenza, Italy)

  • Maximilian Grimm

    (Department for Sustainable Food Process (DiSTAS), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Emilia Parmense 84, 29122 Piacenza, Italy)

  • Federico Froldi

    (Department of Animal Science, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Food and Nutrition (DiANA), Via Emilia Parmense 84, 29122 Piacenza, Italy)

  • Nicoleta Alina Suciu

    (Department for Sustainable Food Process (DiSTAS), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Emilia Parmense 84, 29122 Piacenza, Italy)

  • Lucrezia Lamastra

    (Department for Sustainable Food Process (DiSTAS), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Emilia Parmense 84, 29122 Piacenza, Italy)

Abstract

The pursuit of alternative ingredients with improved environmental sustainability, nutritive value, and cost efficiency is crucial for modern pork production systems. Replacing soybean meals has the potential to reduce environmental impacts. This study proposes a substitution framework in which alternative ingredients are introduced to replace a growing proportion of soybean meals based on net energy equivalence. Additionally, an optimisation framework has been proposed that simultaneously addresses multiple objectives, including cost, feed weight, environmental impacts, and essential nutritional requirements. Eighteen feed mixes were obtained by introducing alternative ingredients selected from an extensive, if not systematic, literature review. Therefore, black soldier fly meal (BSF), bakery by-product (BP), and pea (P) have been introduced in feed mixes, and feed mixes were evaluated across ten environmental impact categories via a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach (ISO 14040-44), with two different functional units: 1 kg of feed mix and 1 kg of pig meat at the slaughterhouse. To assess the robustness of the optimised feed mixes under uncertainty, a cost and climate change sensitivity analysis was conducted. The results demonstrated that the introduction of BSF increased costs and environmental impacts at the single-score level (by 280% and 118%, respectively), with differences at the single-impact category level. In contrast, BP and P emerged as the most effective solutions in the substitution and optimisation approaches, respectively. BP contributed to a reduction in environmental impacts of up to 9% in optimised diets, while P achieved economic cost savings of up to 28% compared to the original diet. These findings highlighted the need to strike a balance between environmental benefits and financial viability, underscoring the importance of policy support and market incentives to make sustainable practices more accessible.

Suggested Citation

  • Somindu Wachong Kum & Diego Voccia & Maximilian Grimm & Federico Froldi & Nicoleta Alina Suciu & Lucrezia Lamastra, 2025. "Reducing the Environmental Impacts of Pig Production Through Feed Reformulation: A Multi-Objective Life Cycle Assessment Optimisation Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-27, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:18:p:8509-:d:1755269
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/18/8509/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/18/8509/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:17:y:2025:i:18:p:8509-:d:1755269. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.