Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T09:27:42.792Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: integrated evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2014

M. Bonneau ,
T. N. Klauke ,
J. Gonzàlez ,
L. Rydhmer ,
E. Ilari-Antoine ,
J. Y. Dourmad ,
K. de Greef ,
H. W. J. Houwers ,
M. U. Cinar  and
E. Fàbrega
...Show all authors
M. Bonneau*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint Gilles, France
T. N. Klauke
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science (ITW), Universität Bonn, DE-53115 Bonn, Germany
J. Gonzàlez
Affiliation:
IRTA, Veïnat de Sies, ES-17121 Monells (Girona), Spain
L. Rydhmer
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
E. Ilari-Antoine
Affiliation:
IFIP, Pôle Economie, 34 Boulevard de la Gare, F-31500 Toulouse, France
J. Y. Dourmad
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint Gilles, France
K. de Greef
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, NL-8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
H. W. J. Houwers
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, NL-8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
M. U. Cinar
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science (ITW), Universität Bonn, DE-53115 Bonn, Germany
E. Fàbrega
Affiliation:
IRTA, Veïnat de Sies, ES-17121 Monells (Girona), Spain
C. Zimmer
Affiliation:
Bäuerliche Erzeugergemeinschaft Schwäbisch Hall, DE-74549 Schwäbisch Hall, Germany
M. Hviid
Affiliation:
Danish Technological Institute, Maglegaardsvej 2, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark
B. van der Oever
Affiliation:
Nutreco R&D, Swine Research Centre, NL-3818KC Amersfoort, The Netherlands
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, GB-NE1 7RU Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
*
†E-mail: michelbonneaupro@orange.fr
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to present an approach for an integrated evaluation of the sustainability of pig farming systems, taking into account the three classical pillars: economy, environment and society. Eight sustainability themes were considered: Animal Welfare (AW), Animal Health (AH), Breeding Programmes (BP), Environment (EN), Meat Safety (MS), Market Conformity (MC), Economy (EC) and Working Conditions (WC). A total of 37 primary indicators were identified and used for the evaluation of 15 much contrasted pig farming systems in five EU countries. The results show that the eight themes were not redundant and all contributed to the observed variation between systems. The tool was very robust for highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the systems along the eight themes that were considered. The number of primary indicators could be reduced from 37 to 18 with limited impact on the strengths/weaknesses profile of the individual systems. Integrating the eight theme evaluations into a single sustainability score is based on hypotheses or presumptions on the relative weights that should be given to the eight themes, which are very dependent on the context and on the purpose of the users of the tool. Therefore, the present paper does not have the ambition to provide a ready-for-use tool, rather to suggest an approach for the integrated evaluation of the sustainability of pig farming systems.

Keywords

pigfarming systemsustainabilityevaluation
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 12 , December 2014 , pp. 2058 - 2068
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barba, C, Delgado, JV, Sereno, JRB, Dieguez, E, Forero, J, Jaume, J and Peinado, B 2001. Performances of the Iberian and other local breeds of Spain. In Pig genetic resources in Europe: characterisation and conservation (ed. L Ollivier, F Labroue, P Glodek, G Gandini and JV Delgado), pp 77–83. Wageningen Press, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Basset-Mens, C and Van der Werf, HMG 2005. Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 105, 127–144.Google Scholar
Binder, CR, Feola, G and Steinberger, JK 2010. Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30, 71–81.Google Scholar
Binder, CR, Schmid, A and Steinberger, JK 2012. Sustainability solution space of the Swiss milk value added chain. Ecological Economics 83, 210–220.Google Scholar
Bongers, P, Houthuijs, D, Remijn, B, Brouwer, R and Biersteker, K 1987. Lung function and respiratory symptoms in pig farmers. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 44, 819–823.Google Scholar
Bonneau, M, De Greef, K, Brinkman, D, Cinar, MU, Dourmad, JY, Edge, HL, Fàbrega, E, Gonzàlez, J, Houwers, HWJ, Hviid, M, Ilari-Antoine, E, Klauke, TN, Phatsara, C, Rydhmer, L, Van der Oever, B, Zimmer, C and Edwards, SA 2014. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming system: the procedure, the evaluated systems and the evaluation tools. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731114002110.Google Scholar
Boogaard, BK, Boekhorst, LJS, Oosting, SJ and Sørensen, JT 2011. Socio-cultural sustainability of pig production: citizen perceptions in the Netherlands and Denmark. Livestock Science 140, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brundtland, GH 1987. Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Casabianca, F and Vallerand, F 1994. Gérer les races locales d’animaux domestiques - Une dialectique entre ressources génétiques et développement régional [Management of local breeds of domestic animals: a dialectic between genetic resources and regional development.]-. Genetics Selection Evolution 26 (suppl. 1), 343s–357s.Google Scholar
De Greef, KH, Houwers, HWJ and Bonneau, M 2013. Societal conformity of European pig production systems. 64th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Nantes, France, 26–30 August.Google Scholar
Dourmad, JY, Ryschawy, J, Trousson, T, Bonneau, M, Gonzàlez, J, Houwers, HWJ, Hviid, M, Zimmer, C, Nguyen, TLT and Morgensen, L 2014. Evaluating environmental impacts of contrasting pig farming systems with life cycle assessment. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731114002134.Google Scholar
Fosse, J, Seegers, H and Magras, C 2009. Prevalence and risk factors for bacterial food-borne zoonotic hazards in slaughter pigs: a review. Zoonoses Public Health 56, 429–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fosse, J, Laroche, M, Oudot, N, Seegers, H and Magras, C 2011. On-farm multi-contamination of pigs by food-borne bacterial zoonotic hazards: an exploratory study. Veterinary Microbiology 147, 209–213.Google Scholar
Gonzàlez, J, Gispert, M, Gil, M, Hviid, M, Dourmad, JY, De Greef, K, Zimmer, C and Fàbrega, E 2014. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: development of a market conformity tool for pork products based on technological quality traits. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731114002146.Google Scholar
Ilari-Antoine, E, Bonneau, M, Klauke, TN, Gonzàlez, J, Dourmad, JY, De Greef, K, Houwers, HWJ, Fàbrega, E, Zimmer, C, Hviid, M, Van der Oever, B and Edwards, SA 2014. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig husbandry systems: economy. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731114002158.Google Scholar
Labroue, F, Marsac, H, Luquet, M, Gruand, J, Mourot, J, Neelz, V, Legault, C and Ollivier, L 2001. Performances of French local breeds. In Pig genetic resources in Europe: characterisation and conservation (ed. L Ollivier, F Labroue, P Glodek, G Gandini and JV Delgado), pp 51–57. Wageningen Press, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Lopez-Bote, CJ 1998. Sustained utilization of the Iberian pig breed. Meat science 49 (suppl. 1), S17–S27.Google Scholar
López-Ridaura, S, Masera, O and Astier, M 2002. Evaluating the sustainability of complex socio-environmental systems. The MESMIS framework. Ecological Indicators 2, 135–148.Google Scholar
Mollenhorst, H, Berentsen, PBM and De Boer, IJM 2006. On farm quantification of sustainability indicators: an application to egg production systems. British Poultry Science 47, 405–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Porcher, J 2011. The relationship beween workers and animals in the pork industry: a shared suffering. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24, 3–17.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2008. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Retrieved August 19, 2012, from http://www.R-project.org Google Scholar
Ribbens, S, Dewulf, J, Koenen, F, Mintiens, K, De Sadeleer, L, de Kruif, A and Maes, D 2008. A survey on biosecurity and management practices in Belgian pig herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 83, 228–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ripoll-Bosch, R, Diez-Unquera, B, Ruiz, R, Villalba, D, Molina, E, Joy, M, Olaizola, A and Bernues, A 2012. An integrated sustainability assessment of Mediterranean sheep farms with different degrees of intensification. Agricultural Systems 105, 46–56.Google Scholar
Rydhmer, L, Gourdine, JL, De Greef, K and Bonneau, M 2014. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: breeding programmes. Animal, doi:10.1017/S175173111400216X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaarst, M, Padel, S, Hovi, M, Younie, D and Sundrum, A 2005. Sustaining animal health and food safety in European organic livestock farming. Livestock Production Science 94, 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Calker, KJ, Berentsen, PBM, Giesen, GWJ and Huirne, RBM 2005. Identifying and ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming. Agriculture and Human Values 22, 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Cauwenbergh, N, Biala, K, Bielders, C, Brouckaert, V, Franchois, L, Garcia Cidad, V, Hermy, M, Mathijs, E, Muys, B, Reijnders, J, Sauvenier, X, Valckx, J, Vanclooster, M, Van der Veken, B, Wauters, E and Peeters, A 2007. SAFE – a hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 120, 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vilain, L 2003. La méthode IDEA – Guide d’utilisation, deuxième édition enrichie et élargie à l’arboriculture, au maraîchage et à l’horticulture. [The IDEA method, user’s guide, second version enriched and extended to arboriculture, market gardening and horticulture], Educagri éditions, 151p.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bonneau Supplementary Material

Tables S1-S10

Download Bonneau Supplementary Material(File)
File 214.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bonneau Supplementary Material

Tables S1-S10

Download Bonneau Supplementary Material(File)
File 50.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bonneau Supplementary Material

Figure S1

Download Bonneau Supplementary Material(File)
File 986.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bonneau Supplementary Material

Figure S2

Download Bonneau Supplementary Material(File)
File 986.2 KB