We found trade-offs among the environmental and animal welfare impacts of pig farms — those that had low greenhouse gas emissions typically had low land use but poor animal welfare and high antimicrobial use. Some farms performed well in all four impacts, but these farms were not consistently associated with any particular farm or label type.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Balmford, A. et al. The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming. Nat. Sustain. 1, 477–485 (2018). This article highlights how few studies examine more than one impact of farming systems.
Van Boeckel, T. P. et al. Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 5649–5654 (2015). This article quantifies current and future antimicrobial use in livestock and finds pigs to be the highest users.
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018). This article quantifies the environmental impacts of farming sectors and highlights the relatively high impacts of pig production relative to many other sectors.
Balmford, A. Concentrating vs. spreading our footprint: how to meet humanity’s needs at least cost to nature. J. Zool. 315, 79–109 (2021). This article explains the importance and relevance of land-use footprints for biodiversity.
Bartlett, H., Balmford, A., Holmes, M. A. & Wood, J. L. N. Advancing the quantitative characterization of farm animal welfare. Proc. R. Soc. B 290, 20230120 (2023). This article describes the methods we used to quantify animal welfare.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This is a summary of: Bartlett, H. et al. Trade-offs in the externalities of pig production are not inevitable. Nat. Food https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-00921-2 (2024).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reconciling trade-offs in pig farming requires a change in mitigation approach. Nat Food 5, 279–280 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-00922-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-00922-1
