Risk management in pig farming: a reality or conjecture? A systematic review
Fabiano Gregolin
A * and Késia Oliveira da Silva Miranda A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Universidade de São Paulo, Escola Superior de Agricultura ‘Luiz de Queiroz’, Programa: Engenharia de Sistemas Agrícolas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Animal Production Science 63(13) 1261-1271 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN22468
Submitted: 23 July 2022 Accepted: 14 June 2023 Published: 6 July 2023
© 2023 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing
Abstract
Context: The complexity in swine production demands equally complex management actions. In this sense, risk management is an area that has been little explored and that may offer significant contributions to pork producers in their decision-making processes.
Aims: This study aimed to collect the available information on risks in pig farming and identify how the topic has been approached in recent studies.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted on the basis of searches in the Web of Science, Scopus and Science Direct databases, in the period ranging from 2015 to 2021. The searches resulted in 2178 documents on the theme risks in pig farming, which were then classified into 13 categories to represent the general objective of each study and into 177 subcategories representing the specific objective of each work. The data, separated into categories and subcategories, was not classified by any exclusionary criteria. On the contrary, they represent all the information found in the studied documents.
Key results: The results show that, although the number of studies on risks in pig farming is growing, the studies are contained in specific fields only. It was also possible to observe that although the studies focused on problems that may affect pig raising, they were not approached in a holistic manner using risk management methodologies that would allow identifying, measuring and managing risks in a consistent and systematic way. Thus, the studies cannot be characterised as having a risk management approach.
Conclusion: The studies on risks in pig farming focus on specific areas instead of using an integrated approach. It was found that risks in pig farming are a growing concern, but a holistic approach to the subject is still unexplored and could be quite fruitful, as it would make it possible to identify, measure and manage risks in a more consistent and systematic way.
Implications: Producers, veterinarians, managers and researchers can use the results of this study (1) to develop identification systems, and (2) in quantitative and qualitative analyses, planning, implementation of responses and monitoring of risks in pig farming.
Keywords: pig farming, pig production, risk management, risks, risks in pig farming, risks in pig production, risks in swine farming, systematic review.
References
Alarcón LV, Alberto A, Mateu E (2021) Biosecurity in pig farms: a review. Porcine Health Management 7, 5| Biosecurity in pig farms: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Augsburg JK (1990) The benefits of animal identification for food safety. Journal of Animal Science 68, 880–883.
| The benefits of animal identification for food safety.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Baylor E, Mezoughem C, Vuillemin J (2021) Livestock and poultry: world markets and trade Brazil meat exports continue to grow. USDA.
Bench C, Schaefer A, Faucitano L (2008) The welfare of pigs during transport. In ‘Welfare of pigs from birth to slaughter’. (Eds L Faucitano, A Schaefer) pp. 161–195. (Wageningen Academic) 10.3920/978-90-8686-637-3
Blome S, Franzke K, Beer M (2020) African swine fever – a review of current knowledge. Virus Research 287, 198 099
| African swine fever – a review of current knowledge.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Broom DM, Johnson KG (1993) ‘Stress and animal welfare.’ (Springer) 10.1007/978-94-024-0980-2
COSO, WBCSD (2018) ‘Enterprise risk management: applying enterprise risk management to environmental, social and governance-related risks by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).’ (World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), oO).
Davies PR (2011) Intensive swine production and pork safety. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 8, 189–201.
| Intensive swine production and pork safety.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Delsart M, Pol F, Dufour B, Rose N, Fablet C (2020) Pig farming in alternative systems: strengths and challenges in terms of animal welfare, biosecurity, animal health and pork safety. Agriculture 10, 261
| Pig farming in alternative systems: strengths and challenges in terms of animal welfare, biosecurity, animal health and pork safety.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Doelman JC, Stehfest E, Tabeau A, van Meijl H, Lassaletta L, Gernaat DEHJ, Hermans K, Harmsen M, Daioglou V, Biemans H, van der Sluis S, van Vuuren DP (2018) Exploring SSP land-use dynamics using the IMAGE model: regional and gridded scenarios of land-use change and land-based climate change mitigation. Global Environmental Change 48, 119–135.
| Exploring SSP land-use dynamics using the IMAGE model: regional and gridded scenarios of land-use change and land-based climate change mitigation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dolman MA, Vrolijk HCJ, de Boer IJM (2012) Exploring variation in economic, environmental and societal performance among Dutch fattening pig farms. Livestock Science 149, 143–154.
| Exploring variation in economic, environmental and societal performance among Dutch fattening pig farms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Donham KJ (2000) The concentration of swine production: effects on swine health, productivity, human health, and the environment. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 16, 559–597.
| The concentration of swine production: effects on swine health, productivity, human health, and the environment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
FAO/OIE/WB (2010) Good practices for biosecurity in the pig sector – issues and options in developing and transition countries. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 169. FAO.
FERMA Gerenciamento (2002) ‘Norma de gestão de riscos.’ p. 15. (Reino Unido: FERMA).
Fernandes JN, Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ, Tilbrook AJ (2021) Costs and benefits of improving farm animal welfare. Agriculture 11, 104
| Costs and benefits of improving farm animal welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Franken JRV, Pennings JME, Garcia P (2017) Risk attitudes and the structure of decision-making: evidence from the Illinois hog industry. Agricultural Economics 48, 41–50.
| Risk attitudes and the structure of decision-making: evidence from the Illinois hog industry.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Franz E (2008) Handling and transportation for swine producers. Michigan State University Pork Quarterly. Available at https://www.thepigsite.com/articles/handling-and-transportation-for-swine-producers [Accessed 20 April 2121]
Geers R, Saatkamp HW, Goossens K, Van Camp B, Gorssen J, Rombouts G, Vanthemsche P (1998) TETRAD: an on-line telematic surveillance system for animal transports. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 21, 107–116.
| TETRAD: an on-line telematic surveillance system for animal transports.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gerber PJ, Vellinga TV, Steinfeld H (2010) Issues and options in addressing the environmental consequences of livestock sector’s growth. Meat Science 84, 244–247.
| Issues and options in addressing the environmental consequences of livestock sector’s growth.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Godfray HCJ, Aveyard P, Garnett T, Hall JW, Key TJ, Lorimer J, Pierrehumbert RT, Scarborough P, Springmann M, Jebb SA (2018) Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 361, eaam5324
| Meat consumption, health, and the environment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hubbard C, Bourlakis M, Garrod G (2007) Pig in the middle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. British Food Journal 109, 919–930.
| Pig in the middle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hutchins G (2018) ‘ISO 31000: 2018 enterprise risk management.’ (Google Books)
Ilea RC (2009) Intensive livestock farming: global trends, increased environmental concerns, and ethical solutions. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22, 153–167.
| Intensive livestock farming: global trends, increased environmental concerns, and ethical solutions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Islam S, Cullen JM (2021) Food traceability: a generic theoretical framework. Food Control 123, 107848
| Food traceability: a generic theoretical framework.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kil DY, Kim BG, Stein HH (2013) Invited review – feed energy evaluation for growing pigs. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 26, 1205–1217.
| Invited review – feed energy evaluation for growing pigs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kittawornrat A, Zimmerman JJ (2011) Toward a better understanding of pig behavior and pig welfare. Animal Health Research Reviews 12, 25–32.
| Toward a better understanding of pig behavior and pig welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Klempner MS, Shapiro DS (2004) Crossing the species barrier – one small step to man, one Giant Leap to Mankind. New England Journal of Medicine 350, 1171–1172.
| Crossing the species barrier – one small step to man, one Giant Leap to Mankind.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Krystallis A, de Barcellos MD, Kügler JO, Verbeke W, Grunert KG (2009) Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems. Livestock Science 126, 46–56.
| Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lambooij E (2000) Transport of pigs. In ‘Livestock handling and transport’. 4th edn. (Ed. T Grandin) pp. 280–297. (CAB International) 10.1079/9781845932190.0228
Langley RL, Morrow WEM (2010) Livestock handling: minimizing worker injuries. Journal of Agromedicine 15, 226–235.
| Livestock handling: minimizing worker injuries.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
La Rocque E (2007) ‘Guia de orientação para gerenciamento de Riscos Corporativos.’ (Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa)
Lassaletta L, Billen G, Romero E, Garnier J, Aguilera E (2014) How changes in diet and trade patterns have shaped the N cycle at the national scale: Spain (1961-2009). Regional Environmental Change 14, 785–797.
| How changes in diet and trade patterns have shaped the N cycle at the national scale: Spain (1961-2009).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lewis AJ, Lee Southern L (2000) ‘Swine nutrition.’ 2nd edn. (CRC Press) 10.1201/9781420041842
Madec F, Geers R, Vesseur PC, Kjeldsen N, Blaha T (2001) Traceability in the pig production chain. Revue Scientifique et Technique 20, 523–537.
| Traceability in the pig production chain.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Maes DGD, Dewulf J, Piñeiro C, Edwards S, Kyriazakis I (2020) A critical reflection on intensive pork production with an emphasis on animal health and welfare. Journal of Animal Science 98, S15–S26.
| A critical reflection on intensive pork production with an emphasis on animal health and welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Marchant-Forde JN (1981) ‘The welfare of pigs.’ (Springer) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9574-4
Mataragas M, Skandamis PN, Drosinos EH (2008) Risk profiles of pork and poultry meat and risk ratings of various pathogen/product combinations. International Journal of Food Microbiology 126, 1–12.
| Risk profiles of pork and poultry meat and risk ratings of various pathogen/product combinations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McDermott JJ, Randolph TF, Staal SJ (1999) The economics of optimal health and productivity in smallholder livestock systems in developing countries. Revue Scientifique et Technique 18, 399–424.
| The economics of optimal health and productivity in smallholder livestock systems in developing countries.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meuwissen MPM, Van Der Lans IA, Huirne RBM (2007) Consumer preferences for pork supply chain attributes. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54, 293–312.
| Consumer preferences for pork supply chain attributes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Millstone E, Lang T, Naska A, Eames M, Barling D, van Zwanenberg P, Trichopoulou A (2000) ‘European policy on food safety’: comments and suggestions on the white paper on food safety. Trends in Food Science & Technology 11, 458–466.
| ‘European policy on food safety’: comments and suggestions on the white paper on food safety.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Morse SS, Mazet JAK, Woolhouse M, Parrish CR, Carroll D, Karesh WB, Zambrana-Torrelio C, Lipkin WI, Daszak P (2012) Prediction and prevention of the next pandemic zoonosis. The Lancet 380, 1956–1965.
| Prediction and prevention of the next pandemic zoonosis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mutua JY, Marshall K, Paul BK, Notenbaert AMO (2020) A methodology for mapping current and future heat stress risk in pigs. Animal 14, 1952–1960.
| A methodology for mapping current and future heat stress risk in pigs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Niemi JK, Sahlström L, Kyyrö J, Lyytikäinen T, Sinisalo A (2016) Farm characteristics and perceptions regarding costs contribute to the adoption of biosecurity in Finnish pig and cattle farms. Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies 97, 215–223.
| Farm characteristics and perceptions regarding costs contribute to the adoption of biosecurity in Finnish pig and cattle farms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nocco BW, Stulz RM (2006) Enterprise risk management: theory and practice. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 18, 8–20.
| Enterprise risk management: theory and practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Öhlund E, Hammer M, Björklund J (2017) Managing conflicting goals in pig farming: farmers’ strategies and perspectives on sustainable pig farming in Sweden. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 15, 693–707.
| Managing conflicting goals in pig farming: farmers’ strategies and perspectives on sustainable pig farming in Sweden.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Okello E, Amonya C, Okwee-Acai J, Erume J, De Greve H (2015) Analysis of performance, management practices and challenges to intensive pig farming in peri-urban Kampala, Uganda. International Journal of Livestock Production 6, 1–7.
| Analysis of performance, management practices and challenges to intensive pig farming in peri-urban Kampala, Uganda.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Papanagiotou P, Tzimitra-Kalogianni I, Melfou K (2013) Consumers’ expected quality and intention to purchase high quality pork meat. Meat Science 93, 449–454.
| Consumers’ expected quality and intention to purchase high quality pork meat.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Passafaro TL, Fernandes AFA, Valente BD, Williams NH, Rosa GJM (2020) Network analysis of swine movements in a multi-site pig production system in Iowa, USA. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 174, 104856
| Network analysis of swine movements in a multi-site pig production system in Iowa, USA.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pereira AR, de Melo CO (2019) Profitability and risk in the production of swine for slaughter in the system by full cycle: an application of Monte Carlo Simulation for states of the south region of Brazil. Custos e Agronegocio 15, 347–375.
Plà LM, Sandars DL, Higgins AJ (2014) A perspective on operational research prospects for agriculture. Journal of the Operational Research Society 65, 1078–1089.
| A perspective on operational research prospects for agriculture.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Postma M, Backhans A, Collineau L, Loesken S, Sjölund M, Belloc C, Emanuelson U, Grosse Beilage E, Stärk KDC, Dewulf J (2016) The biosecurity status and its associations with production and management characteristics in farrow-to-finish pig herds. Animal 10, 478–489.
| The biosecurity status and its associations with production and management characteristics in farrow-to-finish pig herds.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rioja-Lang FC, Brown JA, Brockhoff EJ, Faucitano L (2019) A review of swine transportation research on priority welfare issues: a Canadian perspective. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6, 36
| A review of swine transportation research on priority welfare issues: a Canadian perspective.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ritter MJ, Yoder CL, Jones CL, Carr SN, Calvo-Lorenzo MS (2020) Transport losses in market weight pigs: II. U.S. incidence and economic impact. Translational Animal Science 4, 1103–1112.
| Transport losses in market weight pigs: II. U.S. incidence and economic impact.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Robinson TP, Thornton PK, Franceschini G, Kruska RL, Chiozza F, Notenbaert A, Cecchi G, Herrero M, Epprecht M, Fritz S, You L, Conchedda G, See L (2011) ‘Global livestock production systems.’ (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI))
Rodríguez SV, Plà LM, Faulin J (2014) New opportunities in operations research to improve pork supply chain efficiency. Annals of Operations Research 219, 5–23.
| New opportunities in operations research to improve pork supply chain efficiency.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Saatkamp HW, Dijkhuizen AA, Geers R, Huirne RBM, Noordhuizen JPTM, Goedseels V (1996) Simulation studies on the epidemiological impact of national identification and recording systems on the control of classical swine fever in Belgium. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 26, 119–132.
| Simulation studies on the epidemiological impact of national identification and recording systems on the control of classical swine fever in Belgium.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sage C (2011) ‘Environment and food.’ (Routledge) https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203013465
Schodl K, Klein F, Winckler C (2017) Mapping sustainability in pig farming research using keyword network analysis. Livestock Science 196, 28–35.
| Mapping sustainability in pig farming research using keyword network analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Scruton WC, Claas S, Brown D, Cronje R, Swanson J, Backus G, Dijkhuizen A (2002) Sponsors Editors Logo Design Kernkamp lecture: the future of the European pork chain. Available at https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/143743/1/Backus.pdf
Smith TC, Harper AL, Nair R, Wardyn SE, Hanson BM, Ferguson DD, Dressler AE (2011) Emerging swine zoonoses. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 11, 1225–1234.
| Emerging swine zoonoses.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Szűcs I, Vida V (2017) Global tendencies in pork meat – production, trade and consumption. Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce 11, 105–111.
| Global tendencies in pork meat – production, trade and consumption.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Szymańska EJ (2017) The development of the pork market in the world in terms of globalization. Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development 46, 843–850.
| The development of the pork market in the world in terms of globalization.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Taylor DH (2006) Strategic considerations in the development of lean agri-food supply chains: a case study of the UK pork sector. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 11, 271–280.
| Strategic considerations in the development of lean agri-food supply chains: a case study of the UK pork sector.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Teenstra E, Vellinga T, Aektasaeng N, Amatayakul W, Ndambi A, Pelster D, Germer L, Jenet A, Opio C, Andeweg K (2014) Global assessment of manure management policies and practices. Wageningen Livestock Research Report 844. (Wageningen UR (University & Research centre) Livestock Research: Wageningen) Available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8251232
Te Velde H, Aarts N, Van Woerkum C (2002) Dealing with ambivalence: farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15, 203–219.
| Dealing with ambivalence: farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thanapongtharm W, Linard C, Chinson P, Kasemsuwan S, Visser M, Gaughan AE, Epprech M, Robinson TP, Gilbert M (2016) Spatial analysis and characteristics of pig farming in Thailand. BMC Veterinary Research 12, 218
| Spatial analysis and characteristics of pig farming in Thailand.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tian X, von Cramon-Taubadel S (2020) Economic consequences of African swine fever. Nature Food 1, 196–197.
| Economic consequences of African swine fever.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tigini V, Franchino M, Bona F, Varese GC (2016) Is digestate safe? A study on its ecotoxicity and environmental risk on a pig manure. Science of The Total Environment 551–552, 127–132.
| Is digestate safe? A study on its ecotoxicity and environmental risk on a pig manure.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tiseo K, Huber L, Gilbert M, Robinson TP, Van Boeckel TP (2020) Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals from 2017 to 2030. Antibiotics 9, 918
| Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals from 2017 to 2030.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
VanderWaal K, Deen J (2018) Global trends in infectious diseases of swine. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 11495–11500.
| Global trends in infectious diseases of swine.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Verbeke W, Pérez-Cueto FJA, Barcellos MDd, Krystallis A, Grunert KG (2010) European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Science 84, 284–292.
| European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Vermeir I, Verbeke W (2006) Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer ‘attitude – behavioral intention’ gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19, 169–194.
| Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer ‘attitude – behavioral intention’ gap.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Whitnall T, Pitts N (2019) Global trends in meat consumption. Agricultural Commodities 9, 96–99.
Willems J, Van Grinsven HJM, Jacobsen BH, Jensen T, Dalgaard T, Westhoek H, Kristensen IS (2016) Why Danish pig farms have far more land and pigs than Dutch farms? Implications for feed supply, manure recycling and production costs. Agricultural Systems 144, 122–132.
| Why Danish pig farms have far more land and pigs than Dutch farms? Implications for feed supply, manure recycling and production costs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Winkel C, Schukat S, Heise H (2020) Importance and feasibility of animal welfare measures from a consumer perspective in Germany. Food Ethics 5, 21
| Importance and feasibility of animal welfare measures from a consumer perspective in Germany.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Winkler T, Schopf K, Aschemann R, Winiwarter W (2016) From farm to fork – a life cycle assessment of fresh Austrian pork. Journal of Cleaner Production 116, 80–89.
| From farm to fork – a life cycle assessment of fresh Austrian pork.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wu L, Qiu G, Lu J, Zhang M, Wen X (2017) Allocation of responsibility among pork supply chain players. British Food Journal 119, 2822–2836.
| Allocation of responsibility among pork supply chain players.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Zinsstag J, Schelling E, Roth F, Bonfoh B, de Savigny D, Tanner M (2007) Human benefits of animal interventions for zoonosis control. Emerging Infectious Diseases 13, 527–531.
| Human benefits of animal interventions for zoonosis control.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Zurbrigg K, van Dreumel T, Rothschild M, Alves D, Friendship R, O’Sullivan T (2017) Pig-level risk factors for in-transit losses in swine: a review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 97, 339–346.
| Pig-level risk factors for in-transit losses in swine: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
