Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T16:11:01.795Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: breeding programmes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2014

L. Rydhmer ,
J. L. Gourdine ,
K. de Greef  and
M. Bonneau
L. Rydhmer*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
J. L. Gourdine
Affiliation:
INRA, UR143 Tropical Animal Science Unit, F-97170 Petit Bourg, Guadeloupe, France
K. de Greef
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR, Livestock Research, NL-8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
M. Bonneau
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint Gilles, France
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The sustainability of breeding activities in 15 pig farming systems in five European countries was evaluated. One conventional and two differentiated systems per country were studied. The Conventional systems were the standard systems in their countries. The differentiated systems were of three categories: Adapted Conventional with focus on animal welfare, meat quality or environment (five systems); Traditional with local breeds in small-scale production (three systems) and Organic (two systems). Data were collected with a questionnaire from nine breeding organisations providing animals and semen to the studied farming systems and from, on average, five farmers per farming system. The sustainability assessment of breeding activities was performed in four dimensions. The first dimension described whether the market for the product was well defined, and whether the breeding goal reflected the farming system and the farmers’ demands. The second dimension described recording and selection procedures, together with genetic change in traits that were important in the system. The third dimension described genetic variation, both within and between pig breeds. The fourth dimension described the management of the breeding organisation, including communication, transparency, and technical and human resources. The results show substantial differences in the sustainability of breeding activities, both between farming systems within the same category and between different categories of farming systems. The breeding activities are assessed to be more sustainable for conventional systems than for differentiated systems in three of the four dimensions. In most differentiated farming systems, breeding goals are not related to the system, as these systems use the same genetic material as conventional systems. The breeds used in Traditional farming systems are important for genetic biodiversity, but the small scale of these systems renders them vulnerable. It is hoped that, by reflecting on different aspects of sustainability, this study will encourage sustainable developments in pig production.

Keywords

sustainable productiongenetic resourcesassessmentpigs
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 12 , December 2014 , pp. 2016 - 2026
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

Bonneau, M, Antoine-Ilari, E, Phatsara, C, Brinkmann, D, Hviid, M, Christiansen, MG, Fàbrega, M, Rodríguez, P, Rydhmer, L, Enting, I, de Greef, KH, 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.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 2014a. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: the procedure, the evaluated systems and the evaluation tools. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731114002110.Google 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 2014b. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: integrated evaluation. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731114002122.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
European Forum of Farm Animal Breeders (EFFAB) 2013. Code of Good Practice for farm animal breeding and reproduction organisations. EFFAB. Retrieved April 4, 2013, from www.code-efabar.org Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2007. The global strategy for the management of farm animal genetic resources. Interlaken declaration. Retrieved October 26, 2012, from www.fao.org Google Scholar
Flint, APF and Woolliams, JA 2008. Precision animal breeding. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 363, 573–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gamborg, C and Sandøe, P 2005. Sustainability in farm animal breeding: a review. Livestock Production Science 92, 221–231.Google Scholar
Gibbs, D, Holloway, L, Gilna, B and Morris, C 2009. Genetic techniques for livestock breeding: Restructuring institutional relationships in agriculture. Geoforum 40, 1041–1049.Google Scholar
Glavič, P and Lukman, R 2007. Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 1875–1885.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
Gourdine, JL, de Greef, KH and Rydhmer, L 2010. Breeding for high welfare in outdoor pig production: A simulation study. Livestock Science 132, 26–34.Google Scholar
Gourdine, JL, Sørensen, AC and Rydhmer, L 2012. There is room for selection in a small local pig breed when using optimum contribution selection: A simulation study. Journal of Animal Science 90, 76–84.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, I 2011. Livestock biodiversity and sustainability. Livestock Science 139, 69–79.Google Scholar
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) 2013. The IFOAM standard for organic production and processing. Retrieved April 4, 2013, from 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.Google Scholar
Jolliffe, IT 2002. Principal component analysis, 2nd edition. Springer, USA. ISBN: 0-387-95442-2.Google Scholar
Kanis, E, de Greef, KH, Hiemstra, A and van Arendonk, JAM 2005. Breeding for societally important traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 83, 948–957.Google Scholar
Nauta, W, Spengler Neff, A, Conington, J, Ahlman, T, Løvendahl, P and Rydhmer, L 2012. Organic animal breeding 2012 – a Position Paper from the European Consortium for Organic Animal Breeding, Eco AB. 2nd IFOAM/ISOFAR International Conference on Organic Animal Husbandry,‘Tackling the Future Challenges of Organic Animal Husbandry’, Hamburg, Germany, September 12–14, pp. 309–320.Google Scholar
Olesen, I, Groen, AF and Gjerde, B 2000. Definition of animal breeding goals for sustainable production systems. Journal of Animal Science 78, 570–582.Google Scholar
Pryce, JE, Conington, J, Sorensen, P, Kelly, HRC and Rydhmer, L 2004. Breeding strategies for organic livestock. In Animal health and welfare in organic agriculture (ed. M Vaarst, S Roderick, V Lund and W Lockeretz), pp. 357–388. CABI Publishing, Oxon.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2008. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN: 3-408 900051-07-0. Retrieved January 2012, from www.R-project.org Google Scholar
Ruane, J 1999. Selecting breeds for conservation. In Genebanks and management of farm animal genetic resources (ed. JK Oldenbroek), pp. 59–74. IDO-DLO, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M and de Haan, C 2006. Livestock’s long shadow – environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Ten Napel, J, Van der Veen, AA, Oosting, SJ and Groot Koerkamp, PWG 2011. A conceptual approach to design livestock production systems for robustness to enhance sustainability. Livestock Science 139, 150–160.Google Scholar
Wallenbeck, A 2009. Pigs for organic production. Studies of sow behaviour, piglet-production and GxE interactions for performance. Doctoral thesis, Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae 37, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
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
Supplementary material: File

Rydhmer Supplementary Material

Tables S1-S4

Download Rydhmer Supplementary Material(File)
File 99.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Rydhmer Supplementary Material

Tables S1-S4

Download Rydhmer Supplementary Material(File)
File 33 KB