ArticleNature food2024
Trade-offs in the externalities of pig production are not inevitable.
Article in Nature food, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regular outdoor access decreases stress with positive effects on the health of growing pigs raised on a conventional farm.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Pigs and pasture: Drivers and characteristics of outdoor systems on the island of Ireland.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Why a nuanced, pragmatic focus on yields is essential.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Animal welfare: part of the solution, not part of the problem in the move toward achieving sustainable development in animal agriculture.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2025Article
- A framework for a comprehensive animal welfare label: scientific, logistic, and ethical challenges.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2025Article
- Piggybacking on nature: exploring the multifaceted world of porcine β-defensins.Veterinary research · 2025Review
- Sustainable high-yield farming is essential for bending the curve of biodiversity loss.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- Using salience and availability to promote sustainable and healthy food choices in hospital cafeterias.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Farming externalities are believed to co-vary negatively, yet trade-offs have rarely been quantified systematically. Here we present data from UK and Brazilian pig production systems representative of most commercial systems across the world ranging from 'intensive' indoor systems through to extensive free range, Organic and woodland systems to explore co-variation among four major externality costs. We found that no specific farming type was consistently associated with good performance across all domains. Generally, systems with low land use have low greenhouse gas emissions but high antimicrobial use and poor animal welfare, and vice versa. Some individual systems performed well in all domains but were not exclusive to any particular type of farming system. Our findings suggest that trade-offs may be avoidable if mitigation focuses on lowering impacts within system types rather than simply changing types of farming.
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.