115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27471980)
1. A bio-economic analysis of a sustainable agricultural transition using green biorefinery.
Cong RG; Termansen M
Sci Total Environ; 2016 Nov; 571():153-63. PubMed ID: 27471980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Can farmers mitigate environmental impacts through combined production of food, fuel and feed? A consequential life cycle assessment of integrated mixed crop-livestock system with a green biorefinery.
Parajuli R; Dalgaard T; Birkved M
Sci Total Environ; 2018 Apr; 619-620():127-143. PubMed ID: 29145050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Methods and consequences of including reduction in greenhouse gas emission in beef cattle multiple-trait selection.
Barwick SA; Henzell AL; Herd RM; Walmsley BJ; Arthur PF
Genet Sel Evol; 2019 Apr; 51(1):18. PubMed ID: 31035930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Future global pig production systems according to the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways.
Lassaletta L; Estellés F; Beusen AHW; Bouwman L; Calvet S; van Grinsven HJM; Doelman JC; Stehfest E; Uwizeye A; Westhoek H
Sci Total Environ; 2019 May; 665():739-751. PubMed ID: 30790747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Consequential environmental life cycle assessment of a farm-scale biogas plant.
Van Stappen F; Mathot M; Decruyenaere V; Loriers A; Delcour A; Planchon V; Goffart JP; Stilmant D
J Environ Manage; 2016 Jun; 175():20-32. PubMed ID: 27017269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effect of farming practices for greenhouse gas mitigation and subsequent alternative land use on environmental impacts of beef cattle production systems.
Nguyen TT; Doreau M; Eugène M; Corson MS; Garcia-Launay F; Chesneau G; van der Werf HM
Animal; 2013 May; 7(5):860-9. PubMed ID: 23190866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Using the product environmental footprint to strengthen the green market for sustainable feed ingredients; Lessons from a green biomass biorefinery in Denmark.
Khoshnevisan B; Fog E; Baladi S; Chan SWS; Birkved M
Sci Total Environ; 2023 Jun; 877():162858. PubMed ID: 36944388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Economic and environmental assessments of combined genetics and nutrition optimization strategies to improve the efficiency of sustainable pork production.
Soleimani T; Hermesch S; Gilbert H
J Anim Sci; 2021 Mar; 99(3):. PubMed ID: 33587146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Nitrogen in global animal production and management options for improving nitrogen use efficiency.
Oenema O; Tamminga S
Sci China C Life Sci; 2005 Sep; 48 Suppl 2():871-87. PubMed ID: 20549442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Mitigating environmental impacts using net energy system in feed formulation in China's pig production.
Hu Q; Shi H; Wang L; Wang L; Hou Y; Wang H; Lai C; Zhang S
Sci Total Environ; 2023 Jan; 856(Pt 1):159103. PubMed ID: 36181803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Energy use in pig production: an examination of current Iowa systems.
Lammers PJ; Kenealy MD; Kliebenstein JB; Harmon JD; Helmers MJ; Honeyman MS
J Anim Sci; 2012 Mar; 90(3):1056-68. PubMed ID: 22079993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Improving pig husbandry in tropical resource-poor communities and its potential to reduce risk of porcine cysticercosis.
Lekule FP; Kyvsgaard NC
Acta Trop; 2003 Jun; 87(1):111-7. PubMed ID: 12781385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Developments in greenhouse gas emissions and net energy use in Danish agriculture - how to achieve substantial CO(2) reductions?
Dalgaard T; Olesen JE; Petersen SO; Petersen BM; Jørgensen U; Kristensen T; Hutchings NJ; Gyldenkærne S; Hermansen JE
Environ Pollut; 2011 Nov; 159(11):3193-203. PubMed ID: 21454001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Nitrogen in global animal production and management options for improving nitrogen use efficiency.
Oenema O; Tamminga S
Sci China C Life Sci; 2005 Dec; 48 Spec No():871-87. PubMed ID: 16512209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. How can we improve the environmental sustainability of poultry production?
Leinonen I; Kyriazakis I
Proc Nutr Soc; 2016 Aug; 75(3):265-73. PubMed ID: 26935025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Defining a land boundary for sustainable livestock consumption.
Van Zanten HHE; Herrero M; Van Hal O; Röös E; Muller A; Garnett T; Gerber PJ; Schader C; De Boer IJM
Glob Chang Biol; 2018 Sep; 24(9):4185-4194. PubMed ID: 29788551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Nonruminant Nutrition Symposium: Controlling feed cost by including alternative ingredients into pig diets: a review.
Woyengo TA; Beltranena E; Zijlstra RT
J Anim Sci; 2014 Apr; 92(4):1293-305. PubMed ID: 24492540
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Nitrous oxide and methane emissions from optimized and alternative cereal cropping systems on the North China Plain: a two-year field study.
Gao B; Ju X; Su F; Meng Q; Oenema O; Christie P; Chen X; Zhang F
Sci Total Environ; 2014 Feb; 472():112-24. PubMed ID: 24291136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Multiobjective formulation is an effective method to reduce environmental impacts of livestock feeds.
Garcia-Launay F; Dusart L; Espagnol S; Laisse-Redoux S; Gaudré D; Méda B; Wilfart A
Br J Nutr; 2018 Dec; 120(11):1298-1309. PubMed ID: 30378514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Localising livestock protein feed production and the impact on land use and greenhouse gas emissions.
Sasu-Boakye Y; Cederberg C; Wirsenius S
Animal; 2014 Aug; 8(8):1339-48. PubMed ID: 26263191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
