Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Whole-chain intensification of pig and chicken farming could lower emissions with economic and food production benefits

Nature Food volume 5, pages 939–950 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Intensified monogastric livestock management could conserve feed inputs and mitigate some of the environmental and climate challenges associated with animal production. In this study, we used data from 166 countries to model the environmental, climate and economic impacts of pig and chicken intensification. We found that whole-chain intensification could reduce annual nitrogen and greenhouse gas emissions by 49% (4.6 Tg) and 68% (554 Tg CO2-equivalent), respectively. These changes translate to 5.0 Tg lower nitrogen fertilizer input for feed production, resulting in an overall benefit of US$93 billion. Integrated crop–livestock optimization under intensive management could release 27 Mha of cropland and provide additional food for 310 million people. A judicious promotion of intensification could alleviate global pressures related to food security, environment and climate change.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Nitrogen and carbon budgets before and after intensification of global extensive monogastric animals production in 2020.
Fig. 2: Changes in N and GHG emissions with intensification.
Fig. 3: Changes in whole-chain N and GHG emissions with optimized measures.
Fig. 4: Changes in feed, fertilizer, cropland use for feed and additional population being fed in each scenario.
Fig. 5: Costs and benefits for each scenario.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and the Supplementary Information. Source data are provided with this paper.

References

  1. Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision ESA Working Paper No. 12-03 (FAO, 2012).

  2. Mottet, A. et al. Livestock: on our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Glob. Food Sec. 14, 1–8 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alvarez, A., Del Corral, J., Solís, D. & Pérez, J. A. Does intensification improve the economic efficiency of dairy farms? J. Dairy Sci. 91, 3693–3698 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model. Version 3. Data Reference Year: 2015 (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/gleam/docs/GLEAM_3.0_Model_description.pdf

  5. Robinson, T. P. et al. Mapping the global distribution of livestock. PLoS ONE 9, e96084 (2014).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Tan, M. et al. Operational costs and neglect of end-users are the main barriers to improving manure treatment in intensive livestock farms. J. Clean. Prod. 289, 125149 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bai, Z. et al. Relocate 10 billion livestock to reduce harmful nitrogen pollution exposure for 90% of China’s population. Nat. Food 3, 152–160 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jin, S. et al. Decoupling livestock and crop production at the household level in China. Nat. Sustain. 4, 48–55 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Vol. 4 (eds Calvo Buendia, E. et al.) 5.49 (IPCC, 2019); https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf

  10. Woyengo, T. A., Beltranena, E. & Zijlstra, R. T. Nonruminant nutrition symposium: controlling feed cost by including alternative ingredients into pig diets: a review. J. Anim. Sci. 92, 1293–1305 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lindberg, J. E. Nutrient and energy supply in monogastric food producing animals with reduced environmental and climatic footprint and improved gut health. Animal 17, 100832 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Douglas, P., Robertson, S., Gay, R., Hansell, A. L. & Gant, T. W. A systematic review of the public health risks of bioaerosols from intensive farming. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 221, 134–173 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Westhoek, H. et al. The Protein Puzzle (PBL, 2011).

  14. Hu, Y., Cheng, H. & Tao, S. Environmental and human health challenges of industrial livestock and poultry farming in China and their mitigation. Environ. Int. 107, 111–130 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tullo, E., Finzi, A. & Guarino, M. Environmental impact of livestock farming and Precision Livestock Farming as a mitigation strategy. Sci. Total Environ. 650, 2751–2760 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gržinić, G. et al. Intensive poultry farming: a review of the impact on the environment and human health. Sci. Total Environ. 858, 160014 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kiambi, S. et al. Understanding antimicrobial use contexts in the poultry sector: challenges for small-scale layer farms in Kenya. Antibiotics 10, 106 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Eijrond, V., Claassen, L., van der Giessen, J. & Timmermans, D. Intensive livestock farming and residential health: experts’ views. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16, 3625 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Colina, J. J., Lewis, A. J., Miller, P. S. & Fischer, R. L. Dietary manipulation to reduce aerial ammonia concentrations in nursery pig facilities. J. Anim. Sci. 79, 3096–3103 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wu-Haan, W., Powers, W. J., Angel, C. R., Hale, C. R. & Applegate, T. J. Effect of an acidifying diet combined with zeolite and slight protein reduction on air emissions from laying hens of different ages. Poult. Sci. 86, 182–190 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ahmed, S. T. et al. Effects of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens as a probiotic strain on growth performance, cecal microflora, and fecal noxious gas emissions of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 93, 1963–1971 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Park, J. W., Jeong, J. S., Lee, S. I. & Kim, I. H. Effect of dietary supplementation with a probiotic (Enterococcus faecium) on production performance, excreta microflora, ammonia emission, and nutrient utilization in ISA brown laying hens. Poult. Sci. 95, 2829–2835 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lynch, M. B., Sweeney, T., Callan, B. F. J. J. & O’Doherty, J. V. The effect of high and low dietary crude protein and inulin supplementation on nutrient digestibility, nitrogen excretion, intestinal microflora and manure ammonia emissions from finisher pigs. Animal 1, 1112–1121 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bowles, T. M., Acosta-Martínez, V., Calderón, F. & Jackson, L. E. Soil enzyme activities, microbial communities, and carbon and nitrogen availability in organic agroecosystems across an intensively-managed agricultural landscape. Soil Biol. Biochem. 68, 252–262 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gu, B., Zhang, X., Bai, X., Fu, B. & Chen, D. Four steps to food security for swelling cities. Nature 566, 31–33 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chen, X. et al. Nitrogen in the Yangtze River Basin: pollution reduction through coupling crop and livestock production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 56, 17591–17603 (2022).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gu, B., Ju, X., Chang, S. X., Ge, Y. & Chang, J. Nitrogen use efficiencies in Chinese agricultural systems and implications for food security and environmental protection. Reg. Environ. Change 17, 1217–1227 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. De Vries, J. W. et al. Integrated manure management to reduce environmental impact: I. Structured design of strategies. Agric. Syst. 139, 29–37 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Müller-Lindenlauf, M., Deittert, C. & Köpke, U. Assessment of environmental effects, animal welfare and milk quality among organic dairy farms. Livest. Sci. 128, 140–148 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bilotta, G. S., Brazier, R. E. & Haygarth, P. M. The impacts of grazing animals on the quality of soils, vegetation, and surface waters in intensively managed grasslands. Adv. Agron. 94, 237–280 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Salou, T., Le Mouël, C. & van der Werf, H. M. G. Environmental impacts of dairy system intensification: the functional unit matters! J. Clean. Prod. 140, 445–454 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Berton, M. et al. Environmental impact and efficiency of use of resources of different mountain dairy farming systems. Agric. Syst. 181, 102806 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gu, B. et al. Cost-effective mitigation of nitrogen pollution from global croplands. Nature 613, 77–84 (2023).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Gu, B., Ju, X., Chang, J., Ge, Y. & Vitousek, P. M. Integrated reactive nitrogen budgets and future trends in China. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 8792–8797 (2015).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Wendołowsk, M. Fertilizer carbon footprint calculator. Fertilizer Focus 11, 8–12 (2019).

  36. PAS 2050—Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services (BSI, 2011).

  37. Chang, J. et al. The key role of production efficiency changes in livestock methane emission mitigation. AGU Adv. 2, e2021A–e2391A (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cheng, L. et al. A 12% switch from monogastric to ruminant livestock production can reduce emissions and boost crop production for 525 million people. Nat. Food 3, 1040–1051 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Costs and Benefits of Agricultural Products Yearbook (CNKI, accessed 14 October 2023); https://navi.cnki.net/knavi/yearbooks/YNCSY/detail?uniplatform=NZKPT

  40. Ji, B., Lv, Z., Sheng, X. & Zhang, G. Analysis of benefits and investment on different type of swine house in Inner Mongolia cold areas. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 13, 37–42 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Technical Support Document: ­ Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (EPA, 2016).

  42. Gu, B. et al. Abating ammonia is more cost-effective than nitrogen oxides for mitigating PM2.5 air pollution. Science 374, 758–762 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42325707 and 42261144001), the National Key Research and Development Project of China (2022YFE010118) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (226-2024-00002).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Luxi Cheng, Xiuming Zhang, Chen Wang, Ouping Deng & Baojing Gu

  2. Policy Simulation Laboratory, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Luxi Cheng

  3. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria

    Xiuming Zhang

  4. College of Resources, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China

    Ouping Deng

  5. Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Agricultural Resources and Environment, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Baojing Gu

  6. Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Environment Remediation and Ecological Health, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Baojing Gu

Authors
  1. Luxi Cheng
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiuming Zhang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chen Wang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ouping Deng
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Baojing Gu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

L.C. and B.G. designed the study. L.C. performed the research. X.Z. assisted with the cost–benefit analysis. L.C. prepared the distribution maps. L.C. and B.G. wrote the paper, X.Z. and C.W. revised the paper, and all other authors contributed to the discussion of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Baojing Gu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Food thanks Rui Feng and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Protein production in extensive monogastric production systems.

a, Protein production in extensive pig production systems. b, Protein production in extensive chicken production systems. This map was calculated from GLW (the Gridded Livestock of the World). The base map was applied from the Database of Global Administrative Areas (GADM; https://gadm.org/).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Nitrogen and carbon budgets before and after intensification of global extensive pigs.

LUC, GHG emission from land use change; Field, GHG emissions from field operations required for crop cultivation and methane emissions from rice cultivation; Process, GHG emissions from feed processing and blending; Transport, GHG emissions from transport of concentrate feed; Non-crop feed, GHG emissions from non-crop feed production (fishmeal, synthetic additives and limestone). N budget, in Tg N. Carbon emissions, in Tg CO2e. Credit: icons, Freepik.com.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Nitrogen and carbon budgets before and after intensification of global extensive chickens.

N budget, in Tg N. Carbon emissions, in Tg CO2e. Credit: icons, Freepik.com.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Unit N and GHG emission intensities for extensive and intensive monogastric production systems.

a, Unit N emission intensity. b, Unit GHG emission intensity. Feed, emissions from feed cultivation stage. Livestock, emissions from livestock raising stage.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 5 Changes in N and GHG emissions from global monogastric production intensification by regions.

a, Total N emission changes from intensification by regions. b, Total GHG emission changes from intensification by regions. c, N and GHG change ratios from intensification by regions. The division of regions is based on the GLEAM model. SSA, Sub-Saharan Africa. WE, Western Europe. EE, Eastern Europe. ESEA, East and Southeast Asia. LAC, Latin America, and Caribbean. NENA, Near East and Northern Africa. OCE, Oceania. RUS, Russian Federation. SA, South Asia.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 6 Optimizing whole-chain N and GHG emission reductions from livestock management under different scenarios.

a, b, N emission reduction for the feed cultivation stage and livestock raising stage under three scenarios, respectively. c, d, GHG emission reduction for the feed cultivation stage and livestock raising stage under three scenarios, respectively. Credit: icons, Freepik.com.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 7 Change ratio of N and GHG emissions from the whole chain under the Intensive Optimal and Comprehensive scenarios, respectively.

a, b, c, Change ratio of N emission for feed cultivation stage under Intensive, Optimal, and Comprehensive scenarios, respectively. d, e, f, Change ratio of N emission for livestock raising stage under three scenarios. g, h, i, Change ratio of GHG emission for feed cultivation stage under three scenarios. j, k, l, Change ratio of GHG emission for livestock raising stage under three scenarios. The base map was applied from the Database of Global Administrative Areas (GADM; https://gadm.org/). Credit: icons in a, d, g and j, Freepik.com.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 8 Changes in grain-feed consumption, fertilizer use, cropland for feed, and additional population being fed in each scenario.

a, Grain-feed use change under all scenarios. b, Fertilizer use change under all scenarios. c, Change in cropland for feed use under all scenarios. d, Additional population being fed under all scenarios. All data with error bar are presented as mean value with 95% confidence intervals.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 9 Nitrogen budget change under the implementation of optimized crop cultivation and livestock raising measures.

a, N budget change from BAU scenario to Optimal scenario. b, N budget change from Intensive scenario to Comprehensive scenario. The changes resulting from optimization are depicted by the blue dashed lines. The blue numerical values within parentheses represent the final values after optimization. Credit: icons, Freepik.com.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Discussion, Tables 1–8 and Figs. 1–4.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Data

Supplementary Data 1–6.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 2

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 4

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 5

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 5

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 6

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 7

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 8

Statistical source data.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheng, L., Zhang, X., Wang, C. et al. Whole-chain intensification of pig and chicken farming could lower emissions with economic and food production benefits. Nat Food 5, 939–950 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-01067-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-01067-x

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene