Abstract
AbstractFarming externalities are believed to co-vary negatively, yet trade-offs have rarely been quantified systematically. Here we present data from UK and Brazilian pig production systems representative of most commercial systems across the world ranging from ‘intensive’ indoor systems through to extensive free range, Organic and woodland systems to explore co-variation among four major externality costs. We found that no specific farming type was consistently associated with good performance across all domains. Generally, systems with low land use have low greenhouse gas emissions but high antimicrobial use and poor animal welfare, and vice versa. Some individual systems performed well in all domains but were not exclusive to any particular type of farming system. Our findings suggest that trade-offs may be avoidable if mitigation focuses on lowering impacts within system types rather than simply changing types of farming.
Funder
RCUK | Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
RCUK | Medical Research Council
The Alborada Trust
Royal Society
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference71 articles.
1. Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Gerber, P. & Reid, R. S. Livestock, livelihoods and the environment: understanding the trade-offs. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 1, 111–120 (2009).
2. Foley, J. A. et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574 (2005).
3. Xu, X. et al. Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nat. Food 2, 724–732 (2021).
4. Gerber, P. J. et al. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2013); http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3437e/i3437e.pdf
5. Van, T. T. H., Yidana, Z., Smooker, P. M. & Coloe, P. J. Antibiotic use in food animals worldwide, with a focus on Africa: pluses and minuses. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 20, 170–177 (2020).