Pigs- Improve animal management

Improve Animal Management

System: Pigs

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’.

Reference situation

Average farm

Legend

● – Small effect (<5%)	● – small unfavourable effect (<5%)	o – no effect
●● – Medium effect (5-20%)	●● – Unfavourable effect (>=5%)	N/A – Unknown effect
●●● – Large effect (>20%)	● – ● – Variable effect (depending on farm characteristics or way/level of implementation)

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

Effect per emission source

Mean effect on emission from	Manure		Animal	Feed and forage production			Barn & farm inputs
	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’)

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.

*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
O’Brien et al., 2020	LIFE BEEF CARBON: a common framework for quantifying grass and corn based beef farms’ carbon footprints
Samsonstuen et al., 2020	Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from beef cattle production systems
Quinton et al., 2018	Prediction of effects of beef selection indexes on greenhouse gas emissions

	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