养猪生产的外部效应并非不可避免

IF 23.6 Q1 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Nature food Pub Date : 2024-04-11 DOI:10.1038/s43016-024-00921-2
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":"养猪生产的外部效应并非不可避免","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

养殖业的外部效应被认为是负向共变的,但却很少对权衡进行系统量化。在此,我们提供了英国和巴西养猪生产系统的数据,这些系统代表了全球大多数商业系统,从 "集约化 "室内系统到大范围自由放养、有机系统和林地系统,以探索四大外部性成本之间的共变。我们发现,在所有领域中,没有一种特定的养殖类型始终与良好的绩效相关联。一般来说,土地使用量低的系统温室气体排放量低,但抗菌素使用量高,动物福利差,反之亦然。有些单个系统在所有领域都表现良好,但并不局限于任何特定类型的耕作系统。我们的研究结果表明,如果缓解措施侧重于降低系统类型内部的影响,而不是简单地改变耕作类型,那么权衡可能是可以避免的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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. 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
28.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Improved modelling of carbon sequestration potential on agricultural land. Diets, health and the environment Enhanced agricultural carbon sinks provide benefits for farmers and the climate Regenerative aquatic foods can be a win–win for human and planetary health Intra-growing season dry–wet spell pattern is a pivotal driver of maize yield variability in sub-Saharan Africa
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1