Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37974286›Full record

ReviewPorcine health management2023

Hotspots and bottlenecks for the enhancement of the environmental sustainability of pig systems, with emphasis on European pig systems.

Georgios Pexas, Ilias Kyriazakis

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Porcine health management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Effects ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Have the environmental benefits of insect farming been overstated? A critical review.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Georgios PexasSchool of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK. georgios.pexas@cranfield.ac.uk.
Ilias KyriazakisInstitute for Global Food Security, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Cranfield University · GBQueen's University Belfast · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although pig systems start from a favourable baseline of environmental impact compared to other livestock systems, there is still scope to reduce their emissions and further mitigate associated impacts, especially in relation to nitrogen and phosphorous emissions. Key environmental impact hotspots of pig production systems are activities associated with feed production and manure management, as well as direct emissions (such as methane) from the animals and energy use. A major contributor to the environmental impacts associated with pig feed is the inclusion of soya in pig diets, especially since European pig systems rely heavily on soya imported from areas of the globe where crop production is associated with significant impacts of land use change, deforestation, carbon emissions, and loss of biodiversity. The "finishing" pig production stage contributes most to these environmental impacts, due to the amount of feed consumed, the efficiency with which feed is utilised, and the amount of manure produced during this stage. By definition therefore, any substantial improvements pig system environmental impact would arise from changes in feed production and manure management. In this paper, we consider potential solutions towards system environmental sustainability at these pig system components, as well as the bottlenecks that inhibit their effective implementation at the desired pace and magnitude. Examples include the quest for alternative protein sources to soya, the limits (perceived or real) to the genetic improvement of pigs, and the implementation of alternative manure management strategies, such as production of biogas through anaerobic digestion. The review identifies and discusses areas that future efforts can focus on, to further advance understanding around the potential sustainability benefits of modifications at various pig system components, and key sustainability trade-offs across the environment-economy-society pillars associated with synergistic and antagonistic effects when joint implementation of multiple solutions is considered. In this way, the review opens a discussion to facilitate the development of holistic decision support tools for pig farm management that account for interactions between the "feed * animal * manure" system components and trade-offs between sustainability priorities (e.g., environmental vs economic performance of pig system; welfare improvements vs environmental impacts).

Indexed as

Climate changeEnvironmental impactEnvironmental impact hotspotsImplementation barriersPig productionSustainabilityTrade-offs

Identifiers

PMID37974286
PMCPMC10652603
OpenAlexW4388734057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.