Organic pig husbandry systems in Europe are diverse – ranging from indoor systems with concrete outside run (IN) to outdoor systems all year round (OUT) and combinations of both on one farm (POUT). As this diversity has rarely been taken into account in research projects on organic pig production, the aim of this study was to assess and compare pig health, welfare and productivity in these three systems. Animal health and welfare were assessed using direct observation and records of 22 animal-based measures, comprising 17 health-, 3 productivity- and 2 behavioural measures. These were collected in pregnant sows, weaners and fattening pigs during direct observations and from records within a cross-sectional study on 74 farms (IN: n=34, POUT: n=28, OUT: n=12) in eight countries. Overall, prevalence of several animal health and welfare issues was low (e.g. median 0% for pigs needing hospitalisation, shoulder lesions, ectoparasites; <5% for runts, tail lesions, conjunctivitis). Exceptions in particular systems were respiratory problems in weaners and fatteners (IN: 60.0%, 66.7%; POUT: 66.7%, 60.0%), weaning diarrhoea (IN: 25.0%), and short tails in fatteners (IN: 6.5%, POUT: 2.3%). Total suckling piglet losses (recorded over a period of 12 months per farm) were high in all three systems (IN: 21.3%; POUT: 21.6; OUT: 19.2%). OUT had lower prevalences of respiratory problems, diarrhoea and lameness of sows. POUT farms in most cases kept sows outdoors and weaners and fatteners similar to IN farms, which was reflected in the results regarding several health and welfare parameters. It can be concluded, that European organic pigs kept in all three types of husbandry system showed a low prevalence of health and welfare problems as assessed by our methodology, but respiratory health and diarrhoea should be improved in weaners and fatteners kept indoors and total piglet mortality in all systems. The results provide benchmarks for organic pig producers and organisations which can be used in strategies to promote health and welfare improvement. Furthermore, in future research, the identified health and welfare issues (e.g. suckling piglet mortality, weaning diarrhoea) should be addressed, specifically considering effects of husbandry systems.

This study examined the environmental impact of the three common organic pig husbandry systems, indoor (n = 24), partly outdoor (n = 30), and outdoor (n = 10), in eight European countries. Global warming (GWP), acidification (AP), and eutrophication potential (EP) was assessed per 1000 kg pig live weight on 64 farrow-to-finish pig production chains (cradle to farm gate). GWP, AP, and EP varied greatly, and the most important source was feed production, followed by housing. GWP did not differ between systems (p = 0.934), but AP in indoor systems and EP in outdoor systems were higher than in partly outdoor systems (p = 0.006 and p = 0.010, respectively). The higher AP in indoor systems can mainly be explained by NH₃ arising from manure spreading, while PO₄-eq arising from feed consumption and emissions on pasture accounted for the higher EP in outdoor systems. Associations of farm characteristics with (reduced) environmental impacts were mainly found for AP and EP, and included: (Increasing) farm size, numbers of piglets born and weaned per litter, (bought-in) mineral feed, and high-protein by-products, the latter probably connected to beneficial effects of appropriate dietary digestible lysine levels and feed conversion ratio. Increasing carcass weights and dietary cereal proportions were associated with higher environmental impacts. Overall, variation was mostly higher within than between systems, and measures to mitigate environmental impact were identified.

The economic sustainability of agricultural production is a crucial concern for most farmers, especially for pig producers who face dynamic changes in the market. Approaches for economic sustainability assessment found in the literature are mainly focused on the short-term economic viability of the farm and rarely take a long-term perspective. In this paper, we propose and test a new, innovative assessment and aggregation method, which brings about a broader view on more long-term aspects of economic sustainability. This wider view on economic sustainability, in addition to classical concepts such as technical efficiency, labor productivity, and farm profitability, incorporates the assessment of the levels of entrepreneurship, risk management, and the resilience of the invested resources. All indicators were scaled and aggregated using scaling and weighting procedures proposed by experts into subthemes and themes. The methodology was tested on a sample of 131 pig farms located in 6 EU countries: Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Finland, and Austria. We hypothesized that closed-cycle farms might be economically more sustainable than those farms that are specialized in pig breeding or finishing. The results showed that closed-cycle farms do indeed have advantages in terms of raising healthy animals and having slightly better overall resilience of resources, however specialized breeding and finishing farms appeared to be more sustainable in the areas of profitability, risk management, and reproductive efficiency. Our approach supports evidence-based economic sustainability assessments of pig farms and provides a tool that can be used for economic sustainability improvement strategies for farms.

The aim of this study was to combine Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) with a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) assessment focusing on biodiversity in order to examine the environmental impacts of different pig farm types (13 breeding, 23 finishing and 27 breeding-to-finishing farms) in seven European countries. In addition, the relationship between environmental impacts and selected farm management characteristics was explored. Fossil energy depletion (FED), global warming (GWP), acidification (AP) as well as marine (MEP) and fresh water (FEP) eutrophication potential were assessed by an attributional LCA and expressed per kilogram body mass net sold (BMNS). In addition, the potential biodiversity performance of all crop-livestock farms within the sample (n = 56) was evaluated with a KPI assessment of biodiversity-related field management characteristics. We found no relationship between LCA results and biodiversity scores (KPI). LCA and biodiversity performance varied more within than across farm types (breeding, finishing, breeding-to-finishing). For example, the GWP expressed per kg BMNS of the breeding unit of breeding-to-finishing farms was on average (median) 2.77 (range: 1.40–4.78) and of breeding farms 2.57 (range: 1.91–3.23) kg CO₂-eq. The average (median) biodiversity theme score for breeding farms was 51% (range: 36–70%), for breeding-to-finishing farms 38% (range: 30–68%) and for finishing farms 43% (range: 28–67%). Several farm management characteristics (e.g., FCR, productivity, proportion of solid manure) correlated with all/some LCA results. Biodiversity performance depended especially on KPIs related to ecological focus areas, fertiliser management and GMO crops. The large range regarding environmental performance in both LCA and KPI assessment across farm types indicates that farm-specific improvement measures should be implemented to enhance overall environmental sustainability on farm. In conclusion, combining LCA with KPI assessment provides a more comprehensive environmental impact assessment of pig farms.

Societal interest in all aspects of sustainability has increased. Therefore, pig farmers need to be aware of their strengths and weaknesses in all dimensions of sustainability: economy, environment, social wellbeing, and animal health and welfare. Our aim was to describe and critically discuss the development of a sustainability assessment tool for pig farms and to evaluate its suitability by applying it to 63 European pig farms (13 breeding, 27 breeding-to-finishing, and 23 finishing farms). The multi-criteria assessment tool was developed in several steps (the selection and scaling of indicators and their aggregation and weighting) in order to summarise the indicators into subtheme and theme scores. The indicators contributing the most to the subtheme/theme scores were identified and discussed in order to evaluate the procedure of the development. For example, some indicators, such as Ecological compensation area, Fairness of prices, and Tail docking, for which farms were scored low, were also identified as “real world problems” in other studies. For other sustainability aspects with low performance, the threshold might have been set too ambitiously, e.g., for Number of sows per annual working unit. Furthermore, to analyse the suitability of the tool, we assessed the best and worst median theme scores (good and poor performances) for each dimension, as well as the variability of the performances of the farms within the themes. Some themes were found to be moderate, such as Pig comfort, Biodiversity, or Resilience, whereas others were found to be good, e.g., Water and the Human–animal relationship, as well as several themes of the social wellbeing dimension. Overall, the sustainability tool provides a comprehensive assessment of the sustainability of pig production. Furthermore, this publication contributes to both the theory (development of a robust sustainability tool) and the practice (provision of a tool to assess and benchmark the sustainability on farms). As a next step, a sensitivity analysis should be performed, and the tool should be applied for further development.

Over the last decades, permanent crating of farrowing and lactating sows has led to serious public concerns with regard to sow welfare. As one alternative, it has been suggested to restrict crating to the period when suckling piglets are at the highest risk to die. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate live-born piglet mortality with regard to different confinement periods (CFP) as well as farrowing pen types. On three research farms (A, B and C), four confinement periods were compared: In CFP 0 (control), sows were not confined at all, sows in CFP 3 were crated after the end of farrowing for three days. In CFP 4, sows were confined one day before the due date of farrowing until three days after parturition and sows in CFP 6 were crated one day before expected farrowing until five days after parturition. Furthermore, five different pen types designed for temporary crating (PT; 5.5-7.3 m²) were compared. In total, production data from 638 litters were analysed. For each piglet found dead (n = 1 580), the cause of death was determined by the farm personnel and verified by necropsy (all three farms) and additional video analysis (farms A and B only). Data were analysed using logistic mixed models with CFP 0 and pen type Fluegel as reference categories (CFP 0 was control and this pen type was present on all three farms and the largest number of litters was born in this pen type). Live-born piglet mortality was lower in temporarily crated sows than in sows without confinement (CFP 0; P < 0.015). Pairwise posthoc tests did not reveal differences between CFP 3, CFP 4 and CFP 6 (odds ratios 0.75, 0.59 and 0.69), nor between pen types. Additional factors associated with increasing live-born piglet mortality were larger litter size, higher sow parity as well as the administration of hormones around farrowing. Factors influencing mortality due to crushing were similar to those for total live-born mortality with the exception of CFP 3 not differing significantly from CFP 0. It can be concluded, that confinement of the sow for three days after farrowing is an effective measure to reduce live-born piglet mortality in the pen types tested. An extension of the confinement period to five days after parturition does not result in a further reduction of live-born mortality rate.