Pigs- Improve animal management

Improve Animal Management

System: Pigs

Applicability

Mainly applicable for: Farms with poor technical results and poor sanitary conditions.

Description

Improving the survival, feed efficiency and growth of fattening animals, and reproductive performance and longevity of the breeding stock, by improving animal housing, feeding and health management (incl. veterinary services), reproductive management, and genetic selection. The number of finished pigs per sow can be increased by larger litter sizes, improved piglet and finisher survival, and improved reproductive performance of sows. For the effect of genetic selection, see factsheet ‘Selective breeding’.

Mechanism of effect

Improved health, feed efficiency, larger litter sizes, and increased survival and growth rates reduce emissions per kg meat. Healthier animals show higher growth rates, better fertility and less mortality, leading to more efficient use of resources and lower GHG emissions per kg of meat produced. Better feed efficiency (lower feed conversion ratio) and faster growth reduce emissions from related feed production, enteric fermentation and manure. More finished pigs per sow (larger litters, pig survival, sow longevity and reproductive performance) dilute emissions related to the “breeding overhead“. Net effects depend on accompanied changes in the footprint of pig diets and changes in farm management (e.g. energy use for heating and ventilation). As reduction of emissions due to genetic change involves a rate of change per year, the achieved reduction potential depends on the period of time considered.

It should be noted that, in case the feed formulation is changed to reduce the feed conversion ratio, there is a risk of increased emissions related to deforestation (e.g., for soy production). For more information on reducing the carbon footprint of feed ingredients, see factsheet ‘Purchase low-emission feed ingredients’.

Effects on GHG emissions

Reference situation: Average farm

Effect on total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

Mean effect and range in kg CO2-equivalents	per kg product
	Mean	min-max	Level of evidence
Reduce feed conversion ratio	●●	●–●●	Low
Reduce mortality	●	●–●	Low
Reduce number of sows per growing pig	●	●–●	Low

Legend

● – Small effect (<5%)	o – No effect	? – Effect unknown
●● – Medium effect (5-20%)	● – Unfavourable effect
●●● – Large effect (>20%)	● – ● – Variable effect (depending on farm characteristics or way/level of implementation)

Effect per emission source

Mean effect on emission per kg product from	Manure storage		Animal	Feed and forage production			Barn
	CH₄	N₂O	CH₄	CO₂	N₂O	LUC	CO₂
Reduce feed conversion ratio	●	●	●	●●	●●	●●*	o
Reduce mortality	●	●	●	●	●	●	●
Reduce number of sows per growing pig	●	●	●	●	●	●	●	●

*risk of an adverse effect (see ’cause of variable or unfavourable effect’)

Legend

● – Small effect (<5%)	o – No effect	? – Effect unknown
●● – Medium effect (5-20%)	● – Unfavourable effect
●●● – Large effect (>20%)	● – ● – Variable effect (depending on farm characteristics or way/level of implementation)

Explanation of variable effect

Reduce feed conversion ratio

The effect depends on the extent of reduction in feed conversion ratio, and the way it is realized. For example, if realized through changes in the feed ration, the effect depends on the carbon footprint of the feed ration in the old and new situation. For more information on reducing the carbon footprint of feed ingredients, see factsheet ‘Purchase low-emission feed ingredients’.

Reduce mortality

The effect depends on the extent of reduction, hence the mortality rate in the old and new situation.

Reduce number of sows per growing pig

The effect depends on the extent of reduction in number of sows per growing pig, and the way it is realized. For example, if realized through changes in the feed ration, the effect depends on the carbon footprint of the feed ration in the old and new situation.

Other Effects

Effects on yield and cost-effectiveness

	Yield		Labor	Costs and revenues
	Animals	Crops	Time	Capital investment	Operational Costs	Revenues
Reduce feed conversion ratio	●		o	●		o-●
Reduce mortality	●		o	●	●-o	o-●
Reduce number of sows per growing pig	●–●		●●	●		o-●

Legend (thresholds differ per indictor and can be found in the tooltip)

● – Small favorable effect	o – No effect	? – Effect unknown
●● – Medium favorable effect	● – Unfavourable effect
●●● – Large favorable effect	● – ● -Variable effect (depending on farm characteristics or way/level of implementation)

Effects on other sustainability aspects

	Risks of trade-offs	Potential synergies
Reduce feed conversion ratio	Societal and cultural acceptance	Ammonia emission, Water use, Land use or occupation
Reduce mortality		Ammonia emission, Water use, Land use or occupation, Animal welfare, Societal and cultural acceptance
Reduce number of sows per growing pig	Societal and cultural acceptance	Ammonia emission, Water use, Land use or occupation

*Literature references*	Reduce feed conversion ratio
Soleimani and Gilbert, 2021	An approach to achieve overall farm feed efficiency in pig production: environmental evaluation through individual life cycle assessment
Reckmann and Krieter, 2014	Environmental impacts of the pork supply chain with regard to farm performance
Groen et al., 2016	Sensitivity analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from a pork production chain
Gislason et al., 2023	A systematic literature review of life cycle assessments on primary pig production: Impacts, comparisons, and mitigation areas

	Reduce mortality
Groen et al., 2016	Sensitivity analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from a pork production chain
Reckmann and Krieter, 2014	Environmental impacts of the pork supply chain with regard to farm performance

	Reduce number of sows per growing pig
Groen et al., 2016	Sensitivity analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from a pork production chain
Reckmann and Krieter, 2014	Environmental impacts of the pork supply chain with regard to farm performance