Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Determination of environmental impacts of antimicrobial usage for US Northern Great Plains swine-production facilities: a life-cycle assessment approach

  • LCA FOR AGRICULTURE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study used life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to examine the environmental effects associated with sub-therapeutic tylosin and chlortetracycline (CTC) antimicrobial use within US Northern Great Plains (NGP) swine-production facilities. Antimicrobial feed-additive use is widespread within this industry and is expected to play an integral role within future carbon-management strategies due to its ability to increase feed efficiency and control disease.

Materials and methods

The LCA model system boundaries for this study were: (1) antimicrobial manufacturing; (2) feed manufacturing; (3) transport of antimicrobials to the feed-mill and completed feed to the swine-production facility; (4) electricity and propane use associated with swine-production operations; and (5) swine enteric and manure-storage and handling emissions. The functional unit is the growth life cycle of one head of swine from starter (7 kg) to finisher (111 kg market weight; “wean-to-finish”) production stages. Environmental impacts considered include global warming, acidification and eutrophication, ecotoxicity, and fossil-fuel use following EcoIndicator 99 assessment methodology.

Results and discussion

High-estimated energy requirements associated with CTC and tylosin manufacturing, coupled with the large transportation distances to the feed manufacturing and swine-production facilities increased climate change and ecotoxicity impacts compared with a no antimicrobial-use scenario. However, feeding CTC resulted in several local positive changes including increased feed utilization, lower producer costs due to shortened production times, and reduced manure greenhouse gas emissions. These positive changes in the local environment however did not offset negative global impacts associated with material manufacturing and transport for the specific scenarios analyzed. Increased use of renewable-energy sources for both swine and antimicrobial production resulted in net environmental enhancement.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates both the beneficial and negative environmental aspects associated with sub-therapeutic antimicrobial within the swine-production industry, and provides swine producers and environmental practitioners with tangible alternatives for meeting both livestock-health management and future carbon-management constraints within a reduced-carbon-emission consumer and regulatory marketplace.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agerso Y, Wulff G, Vaclavik E, Halling-Sorensen B, Jensen LB (2006) Effect of tetracycline residues in pig manure slurry on tetracycline-resistant bacteria and resistance gene tet(M) in soil microcosms. Environ Int 32(7):876–882. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2006.05.008

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Allaire SE, Del Castillo J, Juneau V (2006) Sorption kinetics of chlortetracyline and tylosin on sandy loam and heavy clay soils. J Environ Qual 35(4):969–972. doi:10.2134/jeq2005.0355

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Biffi G, Boretti A, Di Marco A, Pennela P (1954) Metabolic behavior and chlortetracycline production by Streptomyces aureofaciens in liquid culture. Appl Environ Microbiol 2(5):288–293

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Caltrider PG, Hayes HB (1969) Process for tylosin production. US Patent 3(433):711

    Google Scholar 

  • Clay SA, Liu Z, Thaler R, Kennouche H (2005) Tylosin sorption to silty clay loam soils, swine manure, and sand. J Environ Sci Health B 40(6):841–850. doi:10.1080/03601230500227533

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cromwell GL (2002) Why and how antibiotics are used in swine production. Anim Biotechnol 13(1):7–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalgaard R, Halberg N, Kristensen IS, Larsen I (2006) Modelling representative and coherent Danish farm types based on farm accountancy data for use in environmental assessments. Ag Eco Env 117(4):223–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalgaard R, Halberg N, Hermansen JE (2007) Danish pork production: an environmental assessment. DJF Animal Science No. 82. Tjele, Denmark

  • Dewey CE, Cox BD, Straw BE, Bush EJ, Hurd S (1999) Use of antimicrobials in swine feeds in the United States. Swine Health Prod 7(1):19–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong H, Zhu Z, Shang B, Kang G, Zhu H, Xin H (2007) Greenhouse gas emissions from swine barns of various production stages in suburban Beijing, China. Atmos Environ 41(11):2391–2399

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • EcoIndicator-99 (2000) Manual for designers; a damage oriented method for life cycle assessment. Swiss ministry of housing, spatial planning, and the environment, Switzerland

  • Eriksson I, Elmquist H, Stern S, Nybrant T (2005) Environmental systems analysis of pig production—the impact of feed choice. Int J LCA 10(2):143–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grote M, Schwake-Anduschus C, Michel R, Stevens H, Heyser W, Langenkamper G, Betsche T, Freitag M (2007) Incorporation of veterinary antibiotics into crops from manured soil. Landbauforsch Volkenrode 57(1):25–32

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Halling-Sorensen B, Jacobsen AM, Jensen J, Sengelov G, Vaclavik E, Ingerslev F (2005) Dissipation and effects of chlortetracycline and tylosin in two agricultural soils: a field-scale study in southern Denmark. Environ Toxicol Chem 24(4):802–810

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006) 14040: environmental management-life cycle assessment-principles and framework. International Standardization Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

  • Jindal A, Kocherginskaya S, Mehboob A, Robert M, Mackie RI, Raskin L, Zilles JL (2006) Antimicrobial use and resistance in swine waste treatment systems. Appl Environ Microbiol 72(12):7813–7820. doi:10.1128/aem.01087-06

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kolz AC, Moorman TB, Ong SK, Scoggin KD, Douglass EA (2005a) Degradation and metabolite production of tylosin in anaerobic and aerobic swine-manure lagoons. Water Environ Res 77(1):49–56

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kolz AC, Ong SK, Moorman TB (2005b) Sorption of tylosin onto swine manure. Chemosphere 60(2):284–289. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.02.094

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar K, Gupta SC, Baidoo SK, Chander Y, Rosen CJ (2005) Antibiotic uptake by plants from soil fertilized with animal manure. J Environ Qual 34(6):2082–2085. doi:10.2134/jeq2005.0026

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindors LG, Christiansen K, Hoffman L, Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hassen OJ, Ronning A, Ekwall T, Finnveden G (1995) Nortic guidelines on life-cycle assessments. The Nortic Council of Minersters Nord 1995:20. The Nortic Council of Ministers. Copenhagen, Denmark

  • Mackie RI, Koike S, Krapac I, Chee-Sanford J, Maxwell S, Lin Y, Aminov RI (2006) Fate and transport of antibiotic residues and antibiotic genetic determinatns during manure storage, treatment, and land application with emphasis on the environmental persistence and transferability of these determinants. National Pork Board NPB #04-161. Des Moines, IA

  • Masse DI, Lu D, Masse L, Droste RL (2000) Effect of antibiotics on psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of swine manure slurry in sequencing batch reactors. Bioresour Technol 75(3):205–211

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick JRD, Miller PA, Growich JA, Sjolander NO, Doerschuk AP (1958) Two new tetracycline-related compounds: 7-chloro-5a(11a)-dehydrotetracycline and 5a-epi-tetracycline. A new route to tetracycline. J Am Chem Soc 80(20):5572–5573. doi:10.1021/ja01553a066

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen P, Oxenbøll K, Wenzel H (2007) Cradle-to-gate environmental assessment of enzyme products produced industrially in Denmark by novozymes A/S. Int J LCA 12(6):432–438

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peters GM, Rowley HV, Wiedemann S, Tucker R, Short MD, Schulz M (2010) Red meat production in Australia: life cycle assessment and comparison with overseas studies. Environ Sci Technol 44(4):1327–1332. doi:10.1021/es901131e

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sarmah AK, Meyer MT, Boxall ABA (2006) A global perspective on the use, sales, exposure pathways, occurrence, fate and effects of veterinary antibiotics (VAs) in the environment. Chemosphere 65(5):725–759

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • See T (2008) Pork industry handbook 151. Purdue University Extension, West Lafayette, IN

  • Stokes A (2009) Investigating pork’s carbon footprint. National Pork Board. August 1, 2009. Washington, DC

  • Stone JJ, Clay SA, Zhu ZW, Wong KL, Porath LR, Spellman GM (2009) Effect of antimicrobial compounds tylosin and chlortetracycline during batch anaerobic swine manure digestion. Water Res 43(18):4740–4750. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2009.08.005

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thiele-Bruhn S (2003) Pharmaceutical antibiotic compounds in soils—a review. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 166(2):145–167

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • USDA (2007) Swine 2006, Part II: reference of swine health and health management practices in the United States. vol N479-1207. Fort Collins, CO

  • USDA (2009) Overview of the U.S. Hog Industry. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Washington, DC

  • US-EIA (2010) Energy sources United States. Available at: www.eia.doe.gov. Accessed January 10 2010

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is supported from a grant from the US National Science Foundation CBET (award 0606986) and REU (awards 0724917 and 0823853) programs. Additional funding was provided by US NASA EPSCoR through Cooperative Agreement NNX07AL04A and by the South Dakota Corn Growers Association in collaboration with South Dakota State University. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, SD, 57701, USA

    James J. Stone, Katherine R. Aurand & Ramith Jinka

  2. Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, SD, 57701, USA

    Christopher R. Dollarhide

  3. Department of Animal and Range Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, 57007, USA

    Robert C. Thaler

  4. Department of Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, 57007, USA

    David E. Clay & Sharon A. Clay

Authors
  1. James J. Stone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine R. Aurand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher R. Dollarhide
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ramith Jinka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert C. Thaler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David E. Clay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sharon A. Clay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James J. Stone.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stone, J.J., Aurand, K.R., Dollarhide, C.R. et al. Determination of environmental impacts of antimicrobial usage for US Northern Great Plains swine-production facilities: a life-cycle assessment approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16, 27–39 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0241-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0241-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation