Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel-Str. 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria; Centre for Proper Housing of Ruminants and Pigs, Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office, Agroscope, Tänikon, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland.
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel-Str. 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria.
Animal. 2024 May;18(5):101155. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2024.101155. Epub 2024 Apr 10.
Providing bedding or access to an outdoor run are husbandry aspects intended to improve pig welfare, which is currently financially supported through animal welfare schemes in several European countries. However, they may significantly affect the environment through changes in feed efficiency and manure management. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to compare farms differing in animal welfare relevant husbandry aspects regarding (1) the welfare of growing-finishing pigs and (2) environmental impact categories such as global warming (GW), acidification (AC), and freshwater (FE) and marine eutrophication (ME), by employing an attributional Life Cycle Assessment. We collected data on 50 farms with growing-finishing pigs in seven European countries. Ten animal-based welfare indicators were aggregated into three pig welfare indices using principal component analysis. Cluster analysis of farms based on husbandry aspects resulted in three clusters: NOBED (31 farms without bedding or outdoor run), BED (11 farms with bedding only) and BEDOUT (eight farms with bedding and outdoor run). Pigs on farms with bedding (BED and BEDOUT) manipulated enrichment more often (P < 0.001), pen fixtures less frequently (P = 0.003) and showed fewer oral stereotypies (P < 0.001) than pigs on NOBED farms. There were fewer pigs with a short(er) tail on farms with than without bedding (P < 0.001). Acidification of BEDOUT and BED farms was significantly higher (compared to NOBED farms P = 0.002) due to higher ammonia emissions related to farmyard manure. Also, BEDOUT farms had higher ME than NOBED farms (P = 0.035). There were no significant differences regarding GW and FE between husbandry clusters, due to the large variability within clusters regarding feed composition and conversion. Therefore, both husbandry aspects associated with improved animal welfare have a significant influence on some environmental impacts, such as acidification and marine eutrophication. Nevertheless, the large variation within clusters suggests that trade-offs may be minimised through e.g. AC and ME.
提供床上用品或户外通道是旨在改善猪福利的养殖方面,目前在几个欧洲国家的动物福利计划中得到了资金支持。然而,它们可能会通过改变饲料效率和粪便管理,对环境产生重大影响。因此,本文的目的是通过归因生命周期评估,比较在动物福利相关养殖方面存在差异的农场(1)育肥猪的福利和(2)环境影响类别,如全球变暖(GW)、酸化(AC)、淡水(FE)和海洋富营养化(ME)。我们收集了来自七个欧洲国家的 50 个育肥猪农场的数据。通过主成分分析,将 10 个基于动物的福利指标汇总成三个猪福利指数。基于养殖方面的农场聚类分析导致了三个集群:NOBED(31 个没有床上用品或户外通道的农场)、BED(11 个只有床上用品的农场)和 BEDOUT(8 个有床上用品和户外通道的农场)。有床上用品的农场(BED 和 BEDOUT)的猪更频繁地操纵丰容(P<0.001),更少地操作猪圈固定装置(P=0.003),并且更少地出现口腔刻板行为(P<0.001),比 NOBED 农场的猪更少。有床上用品的农场比没有床上用品的农场的猪尾巴更短(P<0.001)。由于与厩肥有关的氨气排放更高,BEDOUT 和 BED 农场的酸化程度明显高于 NOBED 农场(与 NOBED 农场相比,P=0.002)。此外,BEDOUT 农场的海洋富营养化程度高于 NOBED 农场(P=0.035)。由于农场饲料组成和转化率的差异较大,三个养殖集群在 GW 和 FE 方面没有显著差异。因此,与改善动物福利相关的两个养殖方面对一些环境影响有重大影响,如酸化和海洋富营养化。然而,集群内的巨大差异表明,可以通过减少酸化和海洋富营养化等措施来最小化权衡。