News article, 30. November 2022
Feed with a lower carbon footprint
This year's feed company trial focuses on testing the productivity of various feed mixtures with a lower carbon footprint.
Agriculture has set itself the goal of being climate neutral before 2050. Through the Climate Act, the Danish Parliament has resolved that a 70 per cent reduction should be achieved before 2030. To achieve this, there is a need for research into all the parameters that impact CO2 emissions from Danish pigs. Around 70 per cent of a pig’s carbon footprint stems from feed, which therefore plays a decisive role.
Pig producers who purchase finished feed need to be able to choose feed mixtures with a lower carbon footprint. SEGES Innovation, therefore, invited the feed industry to submit mixtures for finishers with a lower carbon footprint compared to the average mixture, which usually comprises grain and soybean meal. Four companies - DLG, Danish Agro, BAT Agrar and Hedegaard – submitted their feed proposals for finishers with a smaller carbon footprint. The feed mixtures are not yet available in the market but are the companies’ proposed climate-friendly versions.
“We need solutions that help the industry to reduce CO2 emissions. And when a proposal is put forward for a CO2 tax on food in the middle of an election campaign, it’s important that we as an industry, together with innovation companies and universities, show that we can develop solutions that can reduce CO2 emissions from Danish pig meat,” says Christian Fink Hansen, Sector Director, the Danish Agriculture & Food Council, Pig Sector.
All companies supplied feed with a lower carbon footprint and reasonable productivity
All four companies delivered reasonable productivity compared with the control group, which was based on a traditional barley/wheat and soy mixture.
"All four companies have good and relevant proposals with a significantly lower carbon footprint value compared to the standard mixture. We worked with known protein sources such as rapeseed, broad beans and peas, but alternative protein sources were also used, such as green protein,” explains Tina Sødring Bech Petersen, Special Adviser, SEGES Innovation.
Feed from Hedegaard achieved particularly good productivity with high daily gain and good feed conversion compared to the control group. On the other hand, feed from the other three companies reduced the carbon footprint per FU/finisher by around 50 per cent compared to the control group, which is a greater reduction compared to feed from Hedegaard.
"When the carbon footprint and feed productivity are combined into an overall carbon footprint, all companies have a significantly lower footprint per kg of daily gain. This can also be seen from the index which goes from 42 to 62 in the table,” says Tina Sødring Bech Petersen.
"As the tested mixtures are not available in the market and contain raw materials that can be difficult to price, the same feed price was calculated for all mixtures. No account was therefore taken for any difference in this respect.”
Out with fat and soya
There was a considerable variation in the carbon footprint of the various raw materials in the feed. Two common raw materials have a particular impact on the accounts – soy products, of course, and also palm oil. Several companies, therefore, looked at other fat sources or reduced the fat content significantly to achieve a lower carbon footprint.
Soy products have a high footprint, especially when the effect of land use change (LUC) is included. When the content of the two raw materials is reduced or excluded, it is possible to reduce the feed’s carbon footprint by up to 50 per cent, including land use, and 20 per cent excluding land use change.