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

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.

[1]  K. Hammond The Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources , 1997 .

[2]  L. Rydhmer,et al.  Breeding for welfare in outdoor pig production: a simulation study. , 2010 .

[3]  J. V. van Arendonk,et al.  Breeding for societally important traits in pigs. , 2005, Journal of animal science.

[4]  J. Ruane,et al.  Selecting breeds for conservation. , 1999 .

[5]  HighWire Press Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London , 1781, The London Medical Journal.

[6]  J Y Dourmad,et al.  Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: integrated evaluation. , 2014, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[7]  Rebeka Lukman,et al.  Review of sustainability terms and their definitions , 2007 .

[8]  David Gibbs,et al.  Genetic techniques for livestock breeding: Restructuring institutional relationships in agriculture , 2009 .

[9]  A. Groen,et al.  Definition of animal breeding goals for sustainable production systems. , 2000, Journal of animal science.

[10]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[11]  I. Jolliffe Principal Component Analysis , 2002 .

[12]  J Y Dourmad,et al.  Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: development of a market conformity tool for pork products based on technological quality traits. , 2014, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[13]  J. Ryschawy,et al.  Evaluating environmental impacts of contrasting pig farming systems with life cycle assessment. , 2014, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[14]  A. Flint,et al.  Precision animal breeding , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[15]  M. Hviid,et al.  Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: the procedure, the evaluated systems and the evaluation tools. , 2014, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[16]  J Y Dourmad,et al.  Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: economy. , 2014, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[17]  Ian T. Jolliffe,et al.  Principal Component Analysis , 2002, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[18]  I. Hoffmann Livestock biodiversity and sustainability , 2011 .

[19]  W. Lockeretz,et al.  Breeding strategies for organic livestock , 2003 .

[20]  A. Wallenbeck Pigs for Organic Production Studies of Sow Behaviour, Piglet-production and GxE interactions for Performance , 2009 .

[21]  Christian Gamborg,et al.  Sustainability in farm animal breeding: a review , 2005 .

[22]  H. Steinfeld,et al.  Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options. , 2006 .

[23]  Michel Bonneau,et al.  Diversity of pig production systems at farm level in Europe , 2011 .

[24]  J. Woolliams,et al.  Sustainable management of animal genetic resources , 2005 .

[25]  J. ten Napel,et al.  A conceptual approach to design livestock production systems for robustness to enhance sustainability , 2011 .

[26]  A. Wallenbeck Pigs for organic production , 2009 .

[27]  W. Lockeretz,et al.  Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture , 2003 .

[28]  A. C. Sørensen,et al.  There is room for selection in a small local pig breed when using optimum contribution selection: a simulation study. , 2012, Journal of animal science.