Environmental impacts of 15 European pig farming systems were evaluated in the European Union Q-PorkChains project using life cycle assessment. One conventional and two non-conventional systems were evaluated from each of the five countries: Denmark, The Netherlands, Spain, France and Germany. The data needed for calculations were obtained from surveys of 5 to 10 farms from each system. The systems studied were categorised into conventional (C), adapted conventional (AC), traditional (T) and organic (O). Compared with C systems, AC systems differed little, with only minor changes to improve meat quality, animal welfare or environmental impacts, depending on the system. The difference was much larger for T systems, using very fat, slow-growing traditional breeds and generally outdoor raising of fattening pigs. Environmental impacts were calculated at the farm gate and expressed per kg of pig live weight and per ha of land used. For C systems, impacts per kg LW for climate change, acidification, eutrophication, energy use and land occupation were 2.3 kg CO2-eq, 44.0 g SO2-eq, 18.5 g PO4-eq, 16.2 MJ and 4.1 m2, respectively. Compared with C, differences in corresponding mean values were +13%, +5%, 0%, +2% and +16% higher for AC; +54%, +79%, +23%, +50% and +156% for T, and +4%, -16%, +29%, +11% and +121% for O. Conversely, when expressed per ha of land use, mean impacts were 10% to 60% lower for T and O systems, depending on the impact category. This was mainly because of higher land occupation per kg of pig produced, owing to feed production and the outdoor raising of sows and/or fattening pigs. The use of straw bedding tended to increase climate change impact per kg LW. The use of traditional local breeds, with reduced productivity and feed efficiency, resulted in higher impacts per kg LW for all impact categories. T systems with extensive outdoor raising of pigs resulted in markedly lower impact per ha of land used. Eutrophication potential per ha was substantially lower for O systems. Conventional systems had lower global impacts (global warming, energy use, land use), expressed per kg LW, whereas differentiated systems had lower local impacts (eutrophication, acidification), expressed per ha of land use.

Meta-analytical approach was used to quantitatively synthesize the effect of immunocastration on growth, carcass, meat quality, reproductive organs and boar taint compounds. Altogether, 41 papers were collected for effect size (θ) calculation and the comparisons were made with entire males (EM) and surgical castrates (SC). The data for reproductive organs and growth performance are numerous enough to draw firm conclusions. In contrast, data for carcass and meat quality are more limited. Results of meta-analysis show efficient immunocastration with the magnitude of the response being by far the largest for reproductive organs (θ = -2.8 to -5.0) and boar taint substances (θ = -2.8 and -0.8 for androstenone and skatole, respectively). However, compared with SC, the immunocastrates exhibit larger bulbourethral glands (θ = 1.3) and slightly higher concentrations of androstenone and skatole (θ = 0.1 and θ = 0.2, respectively). The impact of immunocastration is also remarkable on performance, where the main advantage of the immunocastrates is their boar-like performance until revaccination. In the period following the second vaccination, they eat much more than EM (θ = 2.1), resulting in large effect size for growth rate compared with both EM and SC (θ = 1.1 and θ = 1.4, respectively). Considering the whole fattening period, their feed conversion ratio is higher compared with EM (θ = 0.6) and much lower than that of SC (θ = -1.3), although exhibiting moderately faster growth compared with both (θ = 0.6 and θ = 0.2, respectively). With regard to carcass quality, the immunocastrates take intermediate position between EM and SC. Besides, our analysis suggests no difference in meat quality with SC and some meat quality advantages of immunocastrates over EM because of higher intramuscular fat content (θ = 0.4) and lower shear force (θ = -0.6).