Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:43:32.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: the procedure, the evaluated systems and the evaluation tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2014

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

Abstract

Although a few studies consider the sustainability of animal farming systems along the three classical main pillars (economy, environment and society), most studies on pig farming systems address only one of these pillars. The present paper is the introduction to a series of companion papers presenting the results of a study undertaken within the EU-supported project Q-PorkChains, aiming at building a comprehensive tool for the evaluation of pig farming systems, which is robust to accommodate the large variability of systems existing in Europe. The tool is mostly based on questions to farmers and comprises a total of 37 dimensions distributed along eight themes: Animal Welfare, Animal Health, Breeding Programmes, Environmental Sustainability, Meat Safety, Market Conformity, Economy and Working Conditions. The paper describes the procedure that was used for building the tool, using it on 15 contrasted pig farming systems and analysing the results. The evaluated systems are briefly described and a short overview of the dimensions is provided. Detailed descriptions of the theme-wise tools and results, as well as the results of an integrated evaluation, are available in the companion papers.

Keywords

pigfarming systemsustainableassessment
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 12 , December 2014 , pp. 2011 - 2015
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

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berns, G 1996. Einbindung von Checklisten und mobile Analyselabor in Beratungskonzepte zur Erweiterung von Gesundheitsvorsorge- und Qualitätsmanagementsystemen in der Schweinefleischerzeugung. Thesis, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
Bonneau, M, Antoine, E, Phatsara, C, Brinkmann, D, Hviid, M, Groes-Christiansen, M, Fabrega, E, Rodriguez, P, Rydhmer, L, Enting, I, De Greef, K, Edge, H, Dourmad, JY and Edwards, S 2011. Diversity of pig production systems at farm level in Europe. Journal on Chain and Network Science 11, 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonneau, M, Klauke, TN, Gonzàlez, J, Rydhmer, L, Ilari-Antoine, E, Dourmad, JY, De Greef, K, Houwers, HWJ, Cinar, MU, Fàbrega, E, Zimmer, C, Hviid, M, Van der Oever, B and Edwards, SA 2014. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: integrated evaluation. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731114002122.Google ScholarPubMed
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
De Vries, M and De Boer, IJM 2010. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessment. Livestock Science 128, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doyle, MP and Erickson, MC 2012. Opportunities for mitigating pathogen contamination during on-farm food production. International Journal of Food Microbiology 152, 54–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, SA, Dourmad, JY, Antoine, E, Edge, HL, Fàbrega, E, de Greef, K, Ilari, E, Phatsara, C, Rydhmer, L, Bonneau, M 2008. Tools for assessing sustainability of pig meat production systems. Proceedings of the 59th meeting of the EAAP, August 24–27, Vilnius, Lithuania, 7pp.Google Scholar
European Commission 2007. Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Official Journal of the European Union L 189, 1–23.Google Scholar
European Commission 2008. Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal of the European Union L 47, 5–13.Google Scholar
FAWC 1993. Second report on priorities for research and development in farm animal welfare. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Tolworth, UK.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
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IFOAM 2005. The IFOAM norms for organic production and processing. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from http://www.ifoam.org 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenson, I and Sumner, J 2012. Performance standards and meat safety – developments and direction. Meat Science 92, 260–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mack, A 2007. Concept for the application of an integrated audit and document management system in the inter-organisational health management in meat supply chains. Thesis, Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn, Germany.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
Norrung, B and Buncic, S 2008. Microbial safety of meat in the European Union. Meat Science 78, 14–24.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruane, J 1999. Selecting breeds for conservation. In Genebanks and management of farm animal genetic resources (ed. JK Oledbroek), pp. 59–73. IDO-DLO, Lelystad, The Netherlands.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
Stretch, T 2005. HACCP-based standard operating 585 procedures (SOPs), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service & National Food Service Management Institute. University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA.Google 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
Van der Wolf, PJ, Mack, A, Gymnich, S, Schulze Althoff, G and Petersen, B 2004. Improving herd health through useful information. In Proceedings of the in-between congress of the International Society for Animal Hygiene, 11–13 October, Saint-Malo, France (ed. F Madec and G Clément), pp. 479–480. ISPAIA, Saint Brieuc, France.Google Scholar
Von Borell, E, Bockisch, FJ, Büscher, W, Hoy, S, Krieter, J, Mueller, C, Parvizi, N, Richter, T, Rudovsky, A, Sundrum, A and Van den Weghe, H 2001. Critical control points for on-farm assessment of pig housing. Livestock Production Science 72, 177–184.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, Dijon, France. 151pp. Retrieved October 15, 2013, from http://www.idea.portea.fr/26.0.html Google Scholar
Webster, AJF 2001. Farm animal welfare: the five freedoms and the free market. Veterinary Journal 161, 229–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woolliams, J, Berg, P, Mäki-Tanila, A, Meuwissen, T and Fimland, E 2005. Sustainable management of animal genetic resources. Nordic Gene Bank Farm Animals, Norway. ISBN: 82-997123-1-9.Google Scholar
Zahm, F, Viaux, P, Vilain, L, Girardin, P and Mouchet, C 2008. Assessing farm sustainability with the IDEA method – from the concept of agriculture sustainability to case studies on farms. Sustainable Development 16, 271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bonneau Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Bonneau Supplementary Material(File)
File 52 KB