Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Pig Farms in Selected European Countries: Combining LCA and Key Performance Indicators for Biodiversity Assessment

Access to bedding and outdoor runs for growing-finishing pigs: is it possible to improve welfare without increasing environmental impacts?

Providing bedding or access to an outdoor run are husbandry aspects intended to improve pig welfare, which is currently financially supported through animal welfare schemes in several European countries. However, they may significantly affect the environment through changes in feed efficiency and manure management. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to compare farms differing in animal welfare relevant husbandry aspects regarding (1) the welfare of growing-finishing pigs and (2) environmental impact categories such as global warming (GW), acidification (AC), and freshwater (FE) and marine eutrophication (ME), by employing an attributional Life Cycle Assessment. We collected data on 50 farms with growing-finishing pigs in seven European countries. Ten animal-based welfare indicators were aggregated into three pig welfare indices using principal component analysis. Cluster analysis of farms based on husbandry aspects resulted in three clusters: NOBED (31 farms without bedding or outdoor run), BED (11 farms with bedding only) and BEDOUT (eight farms with bedding and outdoor run). Pigs on farms with bedding (BED and BEDOUT) manipulated enrichment more often (P < 0.001), pen fixtures less frequently (P = 0.003) and showed fewer oral stereotypies (P < 0.001) than pigs on NOBED farms. There were fewer pigs with a short(er) tail on farms with than without bedding (P < 0.001). Acidification of BEDOUT and BED farms was significantly higher (compared to NOBED farms P = 0.002) due to higher ammonia emissions related to farmyard manure. Also, BEDOUT farms had higher ME than NOBED farms (P = 0.035). There were no significant differences regarding GW and FE between husbandry clusters, due to the large variability within clusters regarding feed composition and conversion. Therefore, both husbandry aspects associated with improved animal welfare have a significant influence on some environmental impacts, such as acidification and marine eutrophication. Nevertheless, the large variation within clusters suggests that trade-offs may be minimised through e.g. AC and ME.

Trade-offs in the externalities of pig production are not inevitable

Farming externalities are believed to co-vary negatively, yet trade-offs have rarely been quantified systematically. Here we present data from UK and Brazilian pig production systems representative of most commercial systems across the world ranging from 'intensive' indoor systems through to extensive free range, Organic and woodland systems to explore co-variation among four major externality costs. We found that no specific farming type was consistently associated with good performance across all domains. Generally, systems with low land use have low greenhouse gas emissions but high antimicrobial use and poor animal welfare, and vice versa. Some individual systems performed well in all domains but were not exclusive to any particular type of farming system. Our findings suggest that trade-offs may be avoidable if mitigation focuses on lowering impacts within system types rather than simply changing types of farming.

Using an economic simulation model to identify key drivers of profitability and estimate the environmental sustainability impact of immunization against gonadotropin-releasing factor (GnRF) in male and female pigs intended for market

An existing model was used to identify key drivers of profitability and estimate the impact on environmental sustainability when immunizing finishing pigs against GnRF with Improvac®. The model estimated performance and economic differences between immunized (IM) and non-IM pigs from the perspective of producers and packers, based on two recent meta-analyses in male and female pigs. It was populated with data from 9 countries in four continents (Europe, Asia, North and Latin-America). One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were used to define key drivers of profitability. When changing the country specific input data over a range of ±20%, most OWSA did not reverse the mathematical sign of incremental net return between IM and non-IM pigs as calculated in base case analyses. Only the difference in feed conversion rate between IM and untreated female pigs was a key driver of profitability. The parameters with the highest impact on outcomes were similar across countries and expectable (feed costs), or explainable (parameters with statistical differences between IM and non-IM pigs in meta-analyses). In both single-gender herds, Improvac® reduced the environmental impact of pig production by improving feed efficiency (FE), the key driver of environmental burden. In a 50/50 mixed gender herd, IM pigs consumed less feed and gained more weight in 7 out of 9 countries; in the other two countries the FE calculated for the additional weight gain in IM pigs was >1.00, i.e., each additional kilogram of weight gain was associated with less than one additional kilogram of feed consumed.

Integrative Sustainability Analysis of European Pig Farms: Development of a Multi-Criteria Assessment Tool

Societal interest in all aspects of sustainability has increased. Therefore, pig farmers need to be aware of their strengths and weaknesses in all dimensions of sustainability: economy, environment, social wellbeing, and animal health and welfare. Our aim was to describe and critically discuss the development of a sustainability assessment tool for pig farms and to evaluate its suitability by applying it to 63 European pig farms (13 breeding, 27 breeding-to-finishing, and 23 finishing farms). The multi-criteria assessment tool was developed in several steps (the selection and scaling of indicators and their aggregation and weighting) in order to summarise the indicators into subtheme and theme scores. The indicators contributing the most to the subtheme/theme scores were identified and discussed in order to evaluate the procedure of the development. For example, some indicators, such as Ecological compensation area, Fairness of prices, and Tail docking, for which farms were scored low, were also identified as “real world problems” in other studies. For other sustainability aspects with low performance, the threshold might have been set too ambitiously, e.g., for Number of sows per annual working unit. Furthermore, to analyse the suitability of the tool, we assessed the best and worst median theme scores (good and poor performances) for each dimension, as well as the variability of the performances of the farms within the themes. Some themes were found to be moderate, such as Pig comfort, Biodiversity, or Resilience, whereas others were found to be good, e.g., Water and the Human–animal relationship, as well as several themes of the social wellbeing dimension. Overall, the sustainability tool provides a comprehensive assessment of the sustainability of pig production. Furthermore, this publication contributes to both the theory (development of a robust sustainability tool) and the practice (provision of a tool to assess and benchmark the sustainability on farms). As a next step, a sensitivity analysis should be performed, and the tool should be applied for further development.