Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Gerber, P. & Reid, R. S. Livestock, livelihoods and the environment: Understanding the trade-offs. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 1, 111–120 (2009).
Google Scholar
Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).
Google Scholar
Gerber, P. J. et al. Tackling climate change through livestock—A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food Agric. Organ. U. N. (FAO) Rome https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.074 (2013).
Google Scholar
Xu, X. et al. Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nat. Food 2, 724–732 (2021).
Google Scholar
Landers, T. F., Cohen, B., Wittum, T. E. & Larson, E. L. A review of antibiotic use in food animals: Perspective, policy, and potential. Public Health Rep. 127, 4–22 (2012).
Google Scholar
Van Boeckel, T. P. et al. Reducing antimicrobial use in food animals. Science (80-) 357, 1350–1352 (2017).
Google Scholar
Henchion, M., Moloney, A. P., Hyland, J., Zimmermann, J. & McCarthy, S. Review: Trends for meat, milk and egg consumption for the next decades and the role played by livestock systems in the global production of proteins. Animal 15, 100287 (2021).
Google Scholar
Lassaletta, L. et al. Future global pig production systems according to the shared socioeconomic pathways. Sci. Total Environ. 665, 739–751 (2019).
Google Scholar
Mehrabi, Z., Gill, M., van Wijk, M., Herrero, M. & Ramankutty, N. Livestock policy for sustainable development. Nat. Food 1(3), 160–165 (2020).
Google Scholar
Godfray, C. J. H. et al. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 361, eaam5324 (2018).
Google Scholar
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science (80-) 360, 987–992 (2018).
Google Scholar
Balmford, A. et al. The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming. Nat. Sustain. 1, 477–485 (2018).
Google Scholar
Resare Sahlin, K., Röös, E. & Gordon, L. J. ‘Less but better’ meat is a sustainability message in need of clarity. Nat. Food 1(9), 520–522 (2020).
Google Scholar
van Zanten, H. H. E., Mollenhorst, H., Klootwijk, C. W., van Middelaar, C. E. & de Boer, I. J. M. Global food supply: Land use efficiency of livestock systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 747–758 (2016).
Google Scholar
Roos, E. et al. Greedy or needy? Land use and climate impacts of food in 2050 under different livestock futures. Glob. Environ. Chang. Policy Dimens. 47, 1–12 (2017).
Google Scholar
Lipsitch, M., Singer, R. S. & Levin, B. R. Antibiotics in agriculture: When is it time to close the barn door?. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 5752–5754 (2002).
Google Scholar
Balmford, A. Concentrating versus spreading our footprint: how to meet humanity’s needs at least cost to nature. J. Zool. 315, 79–109 (2021).
Google Scholar
Searchinger, T. D., Wirsenius, S., Beringer, T. & Dumas, P. Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature 564, 249–253 (2018).
Google Scholar
Ye, X. et al. Livestock-associated methicillin and multidrug resistant S. aureus in humans is associated with occupational pig contact, not pet contact. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–9 (2016).
Laxminarayan, R. et al. Antibiotic resistance-the need for global solutions. Lancet Infect. Dis. 13, 1057–1098 (2013).
Google Scholar
Murray, C. J. et al. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: A systematic analysis. Lancet 399, 629–655 (2022).
Google Scholar
Smith, D. L., Harris, A. D., Johnson, J. A., Silbergeld, E. K. & Morris, J. G. Animal antibiotic use has an early but important impact on the emergence of antibiotic resistance in human commensal bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 6434–6439 (2002).
Google Scholar
Albernaz-Gonçalves, R., Antillón, G. O. & Hötzel, M. J. Linking animal welfare and antibiotic use in pig farming—A review. Animals 12, 1–21 (2022).
Google Scholar
Elliott, K. A., Kenny, C. & Madan, J. A global treaty to reduce antimicrobial use in livestock. Cent. Glob. Dev. 102, 27 (2017).
Van Boeckel, T. P. et al. Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 5649–5654 (2015).
Google Scholar
Kalmar, L. et al. HAM-ART: An optimised culture-free Hi–C metagenomics pipeline for tracking antimicrobial resistance genes in complex microbial communities. PLoS Genet. 18, e1009776 (2021).
Google Scholar
Zhu, Y. G. et al. Diverse and abundant antibiotic resistance genes in Chinese swine farms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 3435–3440 (2013).
Google Scholar
Tiseo, K., Huber, L., Gilbert, M., Robinson, T. P. & Van Boeckel, T. P. Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals from 2017 to 2030. Antibiotics 9, 1–14 (2020).
Google Scholar
Rushton, J. et al. Antimicrobial resistance the use of antimicrobials in the livestock sector. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxvl3dwk3f0-en (2014)
Gonzalez-Mejia, A., Styles, D., Wilson, P. & Gibbons, J. Metrics and methods for characterizing dairy farm intensification using farm survey data. Plus One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195286 (2018).
Google Scholar
Struik, P. C. & Kuyper, T. W. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: The richer shade of green. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37, 1–15 (2017).
Google Scholar
Vissers, L. S. M., Saatkamp, H. W. & Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M. Analysis of synergies and trade-offs between animal welfare, ammonia emission, particulate matter emission and antibiotic use in Dutch broiler production systems. Agric. Syst. 189, 103070 (2021).
Google Scholar
Garnett, T. et al. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Premises and policies. Science (81-) 341, 33–34 (2013).
Google Scholar
Bright-Ponte, S. J. Antimicrobial use data collection in animal agriculture. Zoonoses Public Health 67, 1–5 (2020).
Google Scholar
Price, L. B., Koch, B. J. & Hungate, B. A. Ominous projections for global antibiotic use in food-animal production. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 5554–5555 (2015).
Google Scholar
Marshall, B. M. & Levy, S. B. Food animals and antimicrobials: Impacts on human health. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 24, 718–733 (2011).
Google Scholar
EMA. Categorisation of antibiotics in the European Union. Eur. Med. Agency 31, 73 (2019).
Vellinga, T. V et al. in Title Methodology used in FeedPrint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization. http://www.livestockresearch.wur.nl (2013).
Benjamins, D. in Oxford Sandy & Black pigs as a method of weed control. When do they stop being an asset and start becoming a problem? (2002).
Henney, J. in An evaluation of the use of pigs as a method of bracken control Dissertation. (2012).
Espinosa, R., Tago, D. & Treich, N. Infectious diseases and meat production. Environ. Resour. Econ. 76, 1019–1044 (2020).
Google Scholar
Gilbert, W., Thomas, L. F., Coyne, L. & Rushton, J. Review: Mitigating the risks posed by intensification in livestock production: The examples of antimicrobial resistance and zoonoses. Animal 15, 100123 (2021).
Google Scholar
DEFRA. Monthly UK statistics on cattle, sheep and pig slaughter and meat production—Statistics notice (data to March 2022)—GOV.UK. 2022 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/cattle-sheep-and-pig-slaughter/monthly-uk-statistics-on-cattle-sheep-and-pig-slaughter-and-meat-production-statistics-notice-data-to-february-2022.
Driver, A. Highlighting the differences—How UK welfare standards compare with our competitors. PIGWORLD (2017).
DEFRA. in Code of practice for the welfare of PIGS © National Pig Association. www.gov.uk/defra (2020).
Red Tractor. Pigs Standards. 17–19 (2017).
QMS. 2020 Pig Standards. www.gov.uk/animal-welfare-in-severe-weather%0A. https://assurance.redtractor.org.uk/contentfiles/Farmers-6801.pdf?_=636504999253492650 (2019).
RSPCA. RSPCA Welfare Standards for Pigs. (2016).
Soil Association. Soil Association organic standards farming and growing. Farming and Growing Organic Standards www.soilassociation.org/organicstandards (2016).
Organic Food Federation. Organic food federation production standards. (2016).
Moakes, S., Lampkin, N. & Gerrard, C. L. Organic farm incomes in England and Wales 2010/11 (OF 0373). (2012).
Hossard, L. et al. A meta-analysis of maize and wheat yields in low-input vs. conventional and organic systems. Agron. J. 108, 1155–1167 (2016).
Google Scholar
De Ponti, T., Rijk, B. & Van Ittersum, M. K. The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agric. Syst. 108, 1–9 (2012).
Google Scholar
FAOSTAT. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (2022).
EMA. Principles on assignment of defined daily dose for animals (DDDvet) and defined course dose for animals (DCDvet). 44, 68 (2015).
Ogle, D., Doll, J., Wheeler, P. & Dinno, A. Package ‘FSA’. (2022).
Kassambara, A. Ggpubr: ‘Ggplot2’ Based Publication Ready Plots. (2021).
Mangiafico, S. Package ‘ rcompanion ’. (2022).
Arnold, J. B. Package ‘ ggthemes ’. (2021).
Pedersen, T. L. Patchwork: The Composer of Plots. Cran (2020).
Wickham, H. et al. Package ‘ggplot2’. (2021).
Source: Ecology - nature.com
