Click on “Download PDF” for the PDF version or on the title for the HTML version.


If you are not an ASABE member or if your employer has not arranged for access to the full-text, Click here for options.

Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Five Swine Production Systems Based on Life Cycle Assessment

Published by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan www.asabe.org

Citation:  2007 ASAE Annual Meeting  074142.(doi:10.13031/2013.23065)
Authors:   Frédéric Pelletier, Stéphane Godbout, Stéphane P Lemay, Robert D von Bernuth, Sylvain Pigeon, Jean-Yves Drolet
Keywords:   Greenhouse gas, Life cycle assessment, pig production, manure management

The goal of this paper was to compare greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced by different manure management strategies and using different nutrient to establish the farm manure management plan for a typical pig farm. Five scenarios were tested and the method used to compare GHG emissions was based on life cycle assessment. In scenarios #1 to #4, pigs were raised in a conventional building under liquid manure management. In scenario #5, pigs were raised in a building equipped with a V-shaped scraper installed underneath the slats. In scenario #1, the nutrient balance was based on nitrogen while, in scenarios #2 to #5, it was based on phosphorus. Results were expressed in terms of total GHG emissions and by two functional units: per kg of pig produced and per ha of land used. Total GHG emissions, in t CO2e per year, were 300.4 t CO2e for scenario #1, 448.4 t CO2e for scenario #2, 177.9 t CO2e for scenario #3, 278.7 t CO2e for scenario #4 and 200.5 t CO2e for scenario #5. The impact of the functional unit chosen to express the emissions and to compare scenarios had an influence on how the results were interpreted. If the pig produced were considered more representative, scenario #2 did not represent and interesting option in terms of GHG reduction while scenario #5 was the most interesting. Considering the area of land used, scenario #5 produced more GHG than scenario #2.

(Download PDF)    (Export to EndNotes)