Harriet Bartlett, Márcia Zanella, Beatriz Kaori, Leandro Sabei, Michelle S. Araujo, Tauana Maria de Paula, Adroaldo J. Zanella, Mark A. Holmes, James L. N. Wood, Andrew Balmford
{"title":"Trade-offs in the externalities of pig production are not inevitable","authors":"Harriet Bartlett, Márcia Zanella, Beatriz Kaori, Leandro Sabei, Michelle S. Araujo, Tauana Maria de Paula, Adroaldo J. Zanella, Mark A. Holmes, James L. N. Wood, Andrew Balmford","doi":"10.1038/s43016-024-00921-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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. Greenhouse gas emissions, antimicrobial use, land use and animal welfare data representing most global commercial pig production systems show that no single system performs well across all measures, but trade-offs may be avoidable if mitigation measures are implemented within farming systems.","PeriodicalId":94151,"journal":{"name":"Nature food","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":23.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-024-00921-2.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature food","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-024-00921-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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. Greenhouse gas emissions, antimicrobial use, land use and animal welfare data representing most global commercial pig production systems show that no single system performs well across all measures, but trade-offs may be avoidable if mitigation measures are implemented within farming systems.