↓ Skip to main content

Towards a methodology to formulate sustainable diets for livestock: accounting for environmental impact in diet formulation

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Nutrition, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Towards a methodology to formulate sustainable diets for livestock: accounting for environmental impact in diet formulation
Published in
British Journal of Nutrition, March 2016
DOI 10.1017/s0007114516000763
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. G. Mackenzie, I. Leinonen, N. Ferguson, I. Kyriazakis

Abstract

The objective of this study was to develop a novel methodology that enables pig diets to be formulated explicitly for environmental impact objectives using a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach. To achieve this, the following methodological issues had to be addressed: (1) account for environmental impacts caused by both ingredient choice and nutrient excretion, (2) formulate diets for multiple environmental impact objectives and (3) allow flexibility to identify the optimal nutritional composition for each environmental impact objective. An LCA model based on Canadian pig farms was integrated into a diet formulation tool to compare the use of different ingredients in Eastern and Western Canada. By allowing the feed energy content to vary, it was possible to identify the optimum energy density for different environmental impact objectives, while accounting for the expected effect of energy density on feed intake. A least-cost diet was compared with diets formulated to minimise the following objectives: non-renewable resource use, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, global warming potential and a combined environmental impact score (using these four categories). The resulting environmental impacts were compared using parallel Monte Carlo simulations to account for shared uncertainty. When optimising diets to minimise a single environmental impact category, reductions in the said category were observed in all cases. However, this was at the expense of increasing the impact in other categories and higher dietary costs. The methodology can identify nutritional strategies to minimise environmental impacts, such as increasing the nutritional density of the diets, compared with the least-cost formulation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 112 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 17%
Researcher 19 16%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 36 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 24%
Environmental Science 15 13%
Engineering 5 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 48 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Nutrition
#4,877
of 6,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,586
of 315,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Nutrition
#81
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,372 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.