ArticleScientific reports2023
Identifying ways of producing pigs more sustainably: tradeoffs and co-benefits in land and antimicrobial use.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimising Nutrition for Sustainable Pig Production: Strategies to Quantify and Mitigate Environmental Impact.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Trade-offs in the externalities of pig production are not inevitable.Nature food · 2024Article
- Article
- An expansive framework to monitor food systems.Nature food · 2023Article
- Animal Health and Productivity of Organic Greek Pig Farms: The Current Situation and Prospects for Sustainability.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pork accounts for the largest proportion of meat consumed globally and demand is growing rapidly. Two important externalities of pig farming are land use and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) driven by antimicrobial use (AMU). Land use and AMU are commonly perceived to be negatively related across different production systems, so those with smaller land footprints pose greater risk to human health. However, the relationship between land use and AMU has never been systematically evaluated. We addressed this by measuring both outcomes for 74 highly diverse pig production systems. We found weak evidence of an AMU/land use tradeoff. We also found several systems characterized by low externality costs in both domains. These potentially promising systems were spread across different label and husbandry types and indeed no type was a reliable indicator of low-cost systems in both externalities. Our findings highlight the importance of using empirical evidence in decision-making, rather than relying on assumptions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.