IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v10y2020i7p261-d379484.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pig Farming in Alternative Systems: Strengths and Challenges in Terms of Animal Welfare, Biosecurity, Animal Health and Pork Safety

Author

Listed:
  • Maxime Delsart

    (Epidémiologie des Maladies Animales Infectieuses (EPIMAI), Ecole nationale vétérinaire d’Alfort, Unité sous contrat Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail (ANSES), 94700 Maisons-Alfort, France)

  • Françoise Pol

    (Epidemiology Health and Welfare Research Unit, Ploufragan-Plouzané-Niort Laboratory, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES), 22440 Ploufragan, France)

  • Barbara Dufour

    (Epidémiologie des Maladies Animales Infectieuses (EPIMAI), Ecole nationale vétérinaire d’Alfort, Unité sous contrat Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail (ANSES), 94700 Maisons-Alfort, France)

  • Nicolas Rose

    (Epidemiology Health and Welfare Research Unit, Ploufragan-Plouzané-Niort Laboratory, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES), 22440 Ploufragan, France)

  • Christelle Fablet

    (Epidemiology Health and Welfare Research Unit, Ploufragan-Plouzané-Niort Laboratory, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES), 22440 Ploufragan, France)

Abstract

In pig production, the widespread conventional indoor system with a slatted floor currently dominates. However, this production system is becoming less socially acceptable. In addition to general environmental protection issues, animal welfare, the absence of suffering and distress, and the management of pain also constitute societal concerns. In this context, alternative production systems are gaining ground. Although they are popular with consumers and other citizens, these alternative systems have their critical points. Here, we reviewed the international scientific literature to establish the state of the art of current knowledge regarding welfare, biosecurity, animal health and pork safety in this type of farming system. In general, alternative farms give pigs the opportunity to express a broader range of behaviours than conventional farms. However, the management of feeding, watering, temperature and predators is often more complicated in these outdoor systems. In addition, biosecurity measures seem to be applied less strictly in alternative farms than in conventional farms, especially in free-range systems, where they are more difficult to implement. On the other hand, pigs kept in these farming systems seem to be less affected by respiratory diseases, but parasitism and piglet crushing (in farrowing units) both remain a real challenge. Furthermore, the higher prevalence of many zoonotic pathogens in these farms may represent a risk for human health.

Suggested Citation

  • Maxime Delsart & Françoise Pol & Barbara Dufour & Nicolas Rose & Christelle Fablet, 2020. "Pig Farming in Alternative Systems: Strengths and Challenges in Terms of Animal Welfare, Biosecurity, Animal Health and Pork Safety," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-34, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:10:y:2020:i:7:p:261-:d:379484
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/7/261/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/7/261/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "A calibrated auction-conjoint valuation method: Valuing pork and eggs produced under differing animal welfare conditions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 80-94, July.
    2. Honeyman, Mark & McGlone, John J. & Kliebenstein, James & Larson, Benjamin, 2001. "Outdoor Pig Production," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10278, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Camelia Teodorescu & Marin Burcea & Ana-Irina Lequeux-Dincă & Florentina-Cristina Merciu & Adrian-Nicolae Jipa & Laurenţiu-Ştefan Szemkovics, 2023. "Swine Breeding in the Villages of Vâlcea County, Oltenia (Romania)—Tradition or Necessity?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-31, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    2. Laura Mørch Andersen, 2011. "Animal Welfare and Eggs – Cheap Talk or Money on the Counter?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 565-584, September.
    3. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    4. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    6. Disdier, Anne-Célia & Marette, Stéphan & Millet, Guy, 2013. "Are consumers concerned about palm oil? Evidence from a lab experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 180-189.
    7. Gulati, Kajal & Ward, Patrick & Lybbert, Travis & Spielman, David, 2016. "Intrahousehold valuation, preference heterogeneity, and demand of an agricultural technology in Bihar, India," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236280, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    9. Shivaraj Thapa & Subina Shrestha & Ram Kumar Adhikari & Suman Bhattarai & Deepa Paudel & Deepak Gautam & Anil Koirala, 2022. "Residents’ willingness-to-pay for watershed conservation program facilitating ecosystem services in Begnas watershed, Nepal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 7811-7832, June.
    10. McIntosh, Christopher R., 2014. "Preference reversals: experimental review and a new idea for using arbitrage within the double bound dichotomous choice elicitation method," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11.
    11. Laurent Muller & Bernard Ruffieux, 2011. "Do price-tags influence consumers’ willingness to pay? On the external validity of using auctions for measuring value," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(2), pages 181-202, May.
    12. Silvana Pietrosemoli & Clara Tang, 2020. "Animal Welfare and Production Challenges Associated with Pasture Pig Systems: A Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-34, June.
    13. Kristen L. Kovalsky & Jayson L. Lusk, 2013. "Do Consumers Really Know How Much They Are Willing to Pay?," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 98-127, April.
    14. Heng, Yan & Peterson, Hikaru Hanawa & Li, Xianghong, 2012. "Consumers’ Preferences for Shell Eggs Regarding Laying Hen Welfare," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124592, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Francisco Alex J. & Bruce Amanda S. & Crespi John M. & Lusk Jayson L. & McFadden Brandon & Bruce Jared M. & Aupperle Robin L. & Lim Seung-Lark, 2015. "Are Consumers as Constrained as Hens are Confined? Brain Activations and Behavioral Choices after Informational Influence," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 113-119, January.
    16. Marescotti, Maria Elena & Caputo, Vincenzina & Demartini, Eugenio & Gaviglio, Anna, 2020. "Consumer preferences for wild game cured meat label: do attitudes towards animal welfare matter?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(4), June.
    17. Tully, Stephanie M. & Winer, Russell S., 2014. "The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 255-274.
    18. Francisco J. Areal & Daniele Asioli, 2024. "Heterogeneous preferences and consumer willingness to pay for vitamin D fortification of eggs," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(3), pages 661-679, July.
    19. Lusk, Jayson L. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Schroeder, Ted C. & Hayes, Dermot J., 2018. "Effect of government quality grade labels on consumer demand for pork chops in the short and long run," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 91-102.
    20. Baba, Yasmina & Kallas, Zein & Realini, Carolina, 2015. "A multi-criteria stated method to analyze consumers’ preference and sensory evaluation towards omega-3 enriched eggs: The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211190, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:10:y:2020:i:7:p:261-:d:379484. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.