Hubbry Logo
Pig farmingPig farmingMain
Open search
Pig farming
Community hub
Pig farming
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Pig farming
Pig farming
Pig farming
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Large White piglets on a farm
A Large White sow suckling her piglets
Interior of pig farm at Bjärka-Säby Castle, Sweden, 1911

Pig farming, pork farming, pig production or hog farming is the raising and breeding of domestic pigs as livestock, and is a branch of animal husbandry. Pigs are farmed principally for food (e.g. pork: bacon, ham, gammon) and skins.

Pigs are amenable to many different styles of farming: intensive commercial units, commercial free range enterprises, or extensive farming (being allowed to wander around a village, town or city, or tethered in a simple shelter or kept in a pen outside the owner's house). Historically, farm pigs were kept in small numbers and were closely associated with the residence of the owner, or in the same village or town.[1] They were valued as a source of meat and fat, and for their ability to convert inedible food into meat and manure, and were often fed household food waste when kept on a homestead.[2] Pigs have been farmed to dispose of municipal garbage on a large scale.[3]

All these forms of pig farm are in use today, though intensive farms are by far the most popular, due to their potential to raise a large amount of pigs in a very cost-efficient manner.[4] In developed nations, commercial farms house thousands of pigs in climate-controlled buildings.[5] Pigs are a popular form of livestock, with more than one billion pigs butchered each year worldwide, 100 million in the United States. The majority of pigs are used for human food, but also supply skin, fat and other materials for use in clothing, ingredients for processed foods,[6] cosmetics,[7] and medical use.[8]

Production and trade

[edit]
Global pig stock
in 2019
Number in millions
1.  People's Republic of China (Mainland)310.4 (36.5%)
2.  European Union143.1 (16.83%)
3.  United States78.7 (9.26%)
4.  Brazil40.6 (4.77%)
5.  Russia23.7 (2.79%)
6.  Myanmar21.6 (2.54%)
7.  Vietnam19.6 (2.31%)
8.  Mexico18.4 (2.16%)
9.  Canada14.1 (1.66%)
10.  Philippines12.7 (1.49%)
World total850.3
Source: UN Food and Agriculture Organization

Pigs are farmed in many countries, though the countries mainly consuming them are in Asia, meaning there is a significant international and even intercontinental trade in live and slaughtered pigs. Despite having the world's largest herd, China is a net importer of pigs as China consumes about 50% of global pork production.[9] The total amount of pork consumed in China is 57 million tons (as of 2021) and pork accounted for 60 percent of total meat consumption within the country.[10] China has been increasing its imports during its economic development; many within China's population of 1.2 billion people prioritize eating pork as their main consumption of meat, unlike other countries where most people would prioritize having poultry.[10] In addition, since 2007, China possesses a strategic pork reserve with a government mandate to "stabilize live hog prices, prevent excessive hog price drops, which damage the interests of farmers and to ease the negative effects of the cyclical nature of hog production and market prices." In China, the government actively intervened in the pork market during periods of instability by releasing pork reserves into the market whenever hogs get too expensive in China, in order to hold down prices for consumers. Conversely when prices of pork are deemed too low and unsustainable for farmers, the reserve buys up pigs to ensure farmers remain profitable.[11]

The largest exporters of pigs are the United States, the European Union, and Canada. As an example, more than half of Canadian production (22.8 million pigs) in 2008 was exported, going to 143 countries.[12]

Among animals raised for their meat, pigs have a lower feed conversion ratio than cattle, which can provide an advantage in lower unit price of meat because the cost of animal feed per kilogram or pound of resultant meat is lower. However, there are also many other economic variables in meat production and distribution, so the price differential of pork and beef at the point of retail sale does not always correspond closely to the differential in feed conversion ratios. Nonetheless, the favorable ratio often tends to make pork more affordable compared to beef.[13][14]

Relationship between handlers and pigs

[edit]

The way in which a stockperson interacts with pigs affects animal welfare which in some circumstances can correlate with production measures. Many routine interactions can cause fear, which can result in stress and decreased production.

There are various methods of handling pigs which can be separated into those which lead to positive or negative reactions by the animals. These reactions are based on how the pigs interpret a handler's behavior.

Negative interactions

[edit]

Many negative interactions with pigs arise from stock-people dealing with large numbers of pigs. Because of this, many handlers can become complacent about animal welfare and fail to ensure positive interactions with pigs. Negative interactions include overly heavy tactile interactions (slaps, punches, kicks, and bites), the use of electric goads and fast movements. It can also include killing them. These interactions can result in fear in the animals, which can develop into stress. Overly heavy tactile interactions from the human handlers can cause increased basal cortisol levels (a "stress" hormone).[15] Negative interactions that cause fear mean the escape reactions of the pigs can be extremely vigorous, thereby risking injury to both stock and handlers. Stress can result in immunosuppression,[16] leading to an increased susceptibility to disease. Studies have shown that these negative handling techniques result in an overall reduction in growth rates of pigs.

"In Canada the Federal government does not regulate the treatment on farms and most provinces have animal cruelty legislation but they typically contain expectations for general agricultural practices." This lack of legislation perpetuates the cruel treatment of swine.[17] "The NFACC codes of practice are developed by the industry and are not enforced with third party oversight."[17]

Positive interactions

[edit]

Various interactions can be considered either positive or neutral. Neutral interactions are considered positive because, in conjunction with positive interactions, they contribute to an overall non-negative relationship between the pig handler and the animal livestock. Pigs are often fearful of fast movements. When entering a pen, it is good practice for the pig handler to enter with slow and deliberate movements. These minimize fear and therefore reduce stress. Pigs are very curious animals. Allowing the pigs to approach and smell whilst patting or resting a hand on the pig's back are examples of positive behavior. Pigs also respond positively to verbal interaction. Minimizing fear of humans allow handlers to perform husbandry practices in a safer and more efficient manner. By reducing stress, stock are made more comfortable to feed when near the pig handlers, resulting in increased productivity.[18]

Impacts on sow breeding

[edit]

Hogs raised in confinement systems tend to produce 23.5 piglets per year. Between 2013 and 2016, sow death rates nearly doubled in the United States, from 5.8 to 10.2 percent. 25 to 50 percent of deaths were caused by prolapse.[19]

Other probable causes of death include vitamin deficiency, mycotoxins in feed, high density diets or abdominal issues.[20] Iowa's Pork Industry Center collects mortality data in collaboration with the National Pork Board to collect data from over 400,000 sows from 16 U.S. states. The farms range in size and facility types. Increasing death rates are a profit concern to the industry, so money is invested into research to find solutions.[21]

Genetic manipulation

[edit]

Pigs were originally bred to rapidly gain weight and backfat in the late 1980s. In a more fat-conscious modern day America, pigs are now being bred to have less back fat and produce more offspring, which pushes the sow's body too far and is deemed one of the causes of the current prolapse epidemic. Researchers and veterinarians are seeking ways to positively impact the health of the hogs and benefit the hog business without taking much from the economy.[22]

Terminology

[edit]
"Shoat" redirects here; not to be confused with Sheep–goat hybrid.

Pigs are extensively farmed, and therefore the terminology is well developed:

  • Pig, hog, or swine, the species as a whole, or any member of it. The singular of "swine" is the same as the plural.
  • Shoat (or shote), piglet, or (where the species is called "hog") pig, unweaned young pig, or any immature pig[23]
  • Sucker, a pig between birth and weaning
  • Weaner, a young pig recently separated from the sow
  • Runt, an unusually small and weak piglet, often one in a litter
  • Boar or hog, male pig of breeding age
  • Barrow, male pig castrated before puberty
  • Stag, male pig castrated later in life (castrated after maturity)
  • Gilt, young female not yet mated, or not yet farrowed, or after only one litter (depending on local usage).[24]
  • Sow, breeding female, or female after first or second litter

Pigs for slaughter

[edit]
Finishing pigs on a farm
  • Suckling pig, a piglet slaughtered for its tender meat
  • Feeder pig, a weaned gilt or barrow weighing between 18 kg (40 lb) and 37 kg (82 lb) at 6 to 8 weeks of age that is sold to be finished for slaughter
  • Porker, market pig between 30 kg (66 lb) and about 54 kg (119 lb) dressed weight
  • Baconer, a market pig between 65 kg (143 lb) and 80 kg (180 lb) dressed weight. The maximum weight can vary between processors.
  • Grower, a pig between weaning and sale or transfer to the breeding herd, sold for slaughter or killed for rations.[clarification needed]
  • Finisher, a grower pig over 70 kg (150 lb) liveweight
  • Butcher hog, a pig of approximately 100 kg (220 lb), ready for the market. In some markets (Italy) the final weight of butcher pig is in the 180 kg (400 lb) range. They tend to have hind legs suitable to produce cured ham
  • Backfatter, cull breeding pig sold for meat; usually refers specifically to a cull sow, but is sometimes used in reference to boars

Groups

[edit]
  • Herd, a group of pigs, or all the pigs on a farm or in a region
  • Sounder, a small group of pigs (or wild boar) foraging in woodland

Pig parts

[edit]
  • Trotters, the hooves of pigs (they have four hoofed toes on each foot, walking mainly on the larger central two)

Biology

[edit]
  • In pig, pregnant
  • Farrowing, giving birth
  • Hogging, a sow when on heat (during estrus)

Housing

[edit]
Pig farm in Vampula, Finland
  • Sty, a small pig-house, usually with an outdoor run or a pig confinement
  • Pig-shed, a larger pig-house
  • Ark, a low semi circular field-shelter for pigs
  • Curtain-barn, a long, open building with curtains on the long sides of the barn. This increases ventilation on hot, humid summer days

Environmental and health impacts

[edit]
Main article: Environmental impacts of pig farming

Feces and waste often spread to surrounding neighborhoods, polluting air and water with toxic waste particles.[25] Waste from swine on these farms carry a host of pathogens and bacteria as well as heavy metals. These toxins can leach down through the soil into groundwater, polluting local drinking water supplies. Pathogens can also become airborne, polluting the air and harming individuals when ingested.[26] Contents from waste have been shown to cause detrimental health implications, as well as harmful algal blooms in surrounding bodies of water.[27] Due to Concentrated Animal Feed Operations (CAFOs), those who live in the surrounding areas of pig farms tend to experience health complications. Symptoms included headaches, nausea, and weakness due to the fumes that are emitted from these farms.[citation needed] Those who work directly inside these farms often experience these symptoms more intensely. Typically, workers of these farms experience respiratory issues such as wheezing, coughing, and tightness of the chest as well as eye and nasal irritation.[28] This is in part due to the air quality being poor because of the air particles being contaminated with hog feces.[citation needed]

Little to no regulation has been written by the EPA and federal legislators surrounding CAFOs to protect the welfare of both the environment and humans from their impacts.[29] The only permit required by federal law on wastewater runoff by CAFOs is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. NPDES are authorized under the Clean Water Act and aim to reduce dumping of pollutants in water systems.[30] However, one of the most detrimental waste management practices used at swine farms, manure lagoons, have little to no regulations surrounding waste management, as they are not connected to a moving water source and therefore is not seen as an imminent threat to human or environmental health.[31]

Occupational hazards

[edit]

Common occupational hazards faced by pig farmers include but are not limited to exposure to toxic gases and particulate matter.[32][33][34] The Occupational Safety and Health Administration or OSHA sets health and safety standards for hazardous substances in the workplace called permissible exposure limits or PELs.[35] Specific PELs exist for toxic gases and particulate matter and these standards are legally enforced by OSHA to ensure that the safety and health of workers are protected.[35]

Toxic gas and particulate matter exposure

[edit]
Toxic gases can accumulate to dangerous levels in pig barns

Toxic gases including hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, methane and carbon dioxide are produced as a result of the decomposition of pig feces and these gases become highly concentrated in enclosed spaces of pig barns which can be hazardous to health when inhaled.[36] Carbon monoxide is another commonly associated toxic gas that can accumulate in pig barns as a result of the trapping of combustion byproducts such as malfunctioning furnaces or gas heat sources in the absence of adequate ventilation.[37]

Hydrogen sulfide gas has a foul, "rotten eggs" smell at low concentrations but paralyzes the olfactory nerve at higher concentrations so that no smell is sensed.[38] Exposure to high levels, well beyond the OSHA PEL, of hydrogen sulfide can cause fatal respiratory paralysis.[36] The common source of hydrogen sulfide are covered manure pits below the pig barns that act as feces reservoirs.[38] These manure pits require regular emptying and during this process, high levels of hydrogen sulfide is released and seeps into pig barns.[36] Pig barns must be void of any human or animal inhabitants during this emptying process and require a several hour "waiting period" until occupants can safely reenter the barn.[36]

Ammonia gas has a strong odor that can be smelled at low levels, below the OSA PEL, but does not have any negative health effects.[39] At higher levels, ammonia is irritating to the body's mucous membranes such as the eyes, nose, mouth, throat and lungs.[39] Particulate matter in pig barns often absorbs ammonia as it floats through the air.[40] These particles are then inhaled and increase the irritating effect of ammonia.[40]

Methane and carbon dioxide are combustible gases meaning that they can burn, catch fire or explode easily.[41] They are also known as chemical asphyxiants and at high levels can cause suffocation by displacing oxygen from the air.[41]

Particulate matter is produced when small fragments of pig hair or skin, dried feces, or feed can detach and become suspended in the air in pig barns.[40] The increased concentration of particulate matter in the air, especially in confined spaces, can lead to respiratory tract irritation and other health effects when inhaled.[40] Bacteria and viruses, such as influenza, can travel through the air on particulate matter and increase the risk of transmission of disease.[40]

OSHA requires that toxic gas and particulate matter be measured at least twice yearly preferably in the autumn months and again in the winter when natural ventilation is the most reduced.[42] Workers are also advised to wear N-95 respirators and eye protection when inside of pig barns to prevent the inhalation of toxic gases and particulate matter as well as irritation to the eyes.[38][42]

Geopolitical issues

[edit]

As with other commodities, pork presents challenges in the politics of international trade as national interests compete and seek economic modus vivendi. Changes to policy can upset the existing balances, prompting economic anxiety. For example, in 2020, the hog farming sector in Taiwan was upset by a decision to allow imports from the United States without labeling of ractopamine use.[43] Farmers' views varied on how negative the effects might be.[43] Issues of pride and degree of autarky also figure into such debates; people understandably wonder whether trade competition changes will deeply damage domestic production capability, while accurate quantitative answers are often difficult to find amid the mass of debate.[43]

Drugs

[edit]

Growth promoters

[edit]

Ractopamine

[edit]

Most pigs in the US receive ractopamine which promotes muscle instead of fat, quicker weight gain, and reduced costs and pollutants in the environment. Such pigs consume less feed to reach finishing weight and produce less manure. Ractopamine has not been approved for use by the European Union, China, Russia, and several other countries.[44]

Colistin

[edit]

China once used colistin (an antibiotic) as growth promoter (subtherapeutic antibiotic use) but discovered a colistin-resistant form of E. coli bacteria in a pig from a Shanghai farm in 2013. Investigations then led to the identification of "a gene called MCR-1 that allowed bacteria to survive colistin treatment in animals and humans."[45] In 2016, these findings led China to ban colistin as growth promoter.[45][46]

Antibiotics

[edit]

A systematic review found that penicillins and tetracyclines were the most commonly used antibiotics in pigs.[47]

Parasites

[edit]

Toxoplasmosis is a constant pressure on pig farming. Worldwide, the percentage of pigs harboring viable Toxoplasma gondii parasites has been measured to be 3 % to 71.43 %.[48] Surveys of seroprevalence (T. gondii antibodies in blood) are more common, and such measurements are indicative of the high relative seroprevalence in pigs across the world.[49]: 145–151  Neonatal piglets have been found to suffer the entire range of severity, including progression to stillbirth.[49]: 153 [50]: 95  This was especially demonstrated in the foundational Thiptara et al. 2006, reporting a litter birth of three stillborns and six live in Thailand. This observation has been relevant not only to that country but to toxoplasmosis control in porciculture around the world.[51][50]: 95 [48]

Hygiene

[edit]

Excessively hygienic raising conditions were found to prevent proper gut microbiota development by Schmidt et al. 2011.[52] Moore et al. 1995 describes the pathology of Cryptosporidium infection, a common difficulty in piglet production.[53]

In an attempt to curb diseases such as African swine fever,[54] a number of Chinese companies have built condominium-style mega complexes multiple stories high to house thousands of pigs. The buildings have been dubbed "hog hotels" and come with strict protocols and advanced cleaning, veterinary, and disposal systems.[54][55] However, doubt has been raised by policy specialists and animal scientists over the facilities' efficacy in preventing outbreaks. The welfare of the animals has also been a source of concern, and it has been suggested that the poor welfare of the pigs may cause a decline in their immunity.[56]

Industry overview

[edit]

As of 2024, Smithfield Foods is the largest pig producer in the world,[57] with a particularly large presence in the United States.[58]

Large corporations often contract out the farming to focus on processing, packaging, and marketing; in 2024, Smithfield Foods sold some pig farming operations to Murphy Farm Management, making Murphy one of the largest pig producers in the United States with the capacity to produce 3.2 million hogs per year.[59][60]

See also

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Pig farming

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Pig farming, also termed hog or production, constitutes the agricultural practice of breeding and raising domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus) primarily for the production of meat and byproducts such as , , , and . This branch of has evolved into a highly efficient system capable of supporting global protein demands, with modern operations emphasizing genetic selection, controlled nutrition, and biosecure environments to maximize growth rates and litter sizes. Domesticated independently around 9,000 years ago in regions of and from wild boars, pig farming transitioned from subsistence scavenging in forested areas to structured confinement systems during the , driven by and mechanized feed production. In contemporary pig farming, sows typically produce over two litters annually, each averaging more than 11 piglets, which are weaned after about three weeks and raised to market weight in 5-6 months under intensive conditions that optimize feed conversion—pigs require roughly 3-4 kg of feed per kg of liveweight gain. Global pork output reached approximately 116 million metric tons in 2023/2024, with projections for modest growth amid rising demand in developing economies, underscoring pork's role as one of the most consumed meats worldwide after . Leading producers include , the , the (12.7 million tons in 2024), and , where integrated operations from farrow-to-finish dominate to minimize costs and disease risks. Economically, pig farming generates substantial revenue through sales and ancillary industries like feed milling and processing, while fostering rural ; however, profitability fluctuates with feed prices, disease outbreaks such as African swine fever, and market volatility, with farm profit coefficients of variation often exceeding 75%. Defining characteristics include the use of specialized to control climate and reduce predation, alongside veterinary interventions for health maintenance, though empirical assessments reveal that only a small fraction of operations achieve optimal welfare metrics correlating with higher production efficiency. Controversies persist regarding confinement practices like stalls, which critics link to behavioral restrictions, yet studies indicate that such systems enable scalable output essential for affordable protein, with welfare improvements often traded against economic viability in resource-constrained settings. Environmentally, large-scale operations manage nutrient-rich for but face challenges in mitigating runoff and emissions, necessitating technological adaptations for .

History

Origins and early practices

Pigs were domesticated independently in two primary regions from wild boar (Sus scrofa), with archaeological and genetic evidence indicating initial events around 9,000–10,000 years ago in Anatolia (Near East) and contemporaneous or slightly later origins in China. In the Near East, domestication is dated to approximately 8,500–8,000 cal BC based on zooarchaeological remains showing size reduction and management markers, while genomic analyses confirm derivation from local wild populations before dispersal into Europe. Similarly, in East Asia, ancient DNA from South China sites supports domestication from local wild boar around 8,000 years ago, distinct from Near Eastern lineages due to separate genetic clustering. Early pig management integrated into Neolithic agrarian systems emphasized scavenging and opportunistic feeding, leveraging the species' omnivorous diet to consume household waste, residues, and forage, thereby providing and without competing directly for cultivated grains. In and Southwest , pigs were often herded in free-range systems through woodlands and pastures, with practices including seasonal to avoid damage, as evidenced by ethnographic parallels to prehistoric patterns where animals foraged under loose supervision. Asian traditions similarly featured village-based herding in forested or marshy areas, allowing interbreeding with and sustaining populations through natural reproduction rather than intensive breeding. Pre-industrial litter sizes typically ranged from 4 to 6 piglets, reflecting the physiological constraints of early domestic breeds closer to norms, with high mortality rates—often exceeding 20–40%—attributable to predation, exposure in open systems, and limited intervention in farrowing. These yields supported subsistence rather than surplus production, as pigs' role as efficient converters of low-value inputs into protein aligned with the ecological niches of traditional societies, though frequent losses necessitated reliance on frequent breeding cycles.

Industrialization and modern intensification

The industrialization of pig farming accelerated in the late with innovations in that improved growth rates and meat quality, enabling more efficient production and lower costs for consumers. Following , the adoption of confinement housing systems allowed for controlled environments that optimized feed conversion ratios by minimizing energy expenditure on movement and reducing disease transmission through isolation, directly contributing to higher productivity per animal. These systems, combined with improved , shortened the time to market weight from over six months in the early to approximately 5-6 months today, as pigs reach 110-130 kg through enhanced daily gains of 0.8-1 kg. In the mid-20th century, the widespread use of antibiotics in feed, starting in the 1940s and expanding through the , reduced piglet mortality rates by up to 50% (from around 4.3% to 2%) by controlling bacterial infections in dense housing, enabling larger-scale operations without proportional losses. Concurrently, programs leveraging hybrid vigor from crossbreeding distinct lines enhanced growth speed and feed efficiency, with pigs achieving leaner carcasses—75% leaner than in the 1950s—through targeted genetic selection for traits like rapid muscle development and reduced fat deposition. By the , advanced genetic selection further increased average litter sizes to 10-14 piglets, amplifying reproductive output and overall farm throughput via improved sow fertility and viability. These technological and genetic advances drove global production from about 24 million metric tons in 1961 to over 110 million metric tons by 2020, a more than fourfold increase, primarily through intensive systems that reduced requirements per of by concentrating and optimizing resource use. The causal mechanism lies in superior feed conversion (now around 2.5-3 kg feed per kg gain versus historical highs of 4-5 kg) and higher animal densities, which scaled output without equivalent expansions in farmland, though this intensification has raised concerns over and environmental externalities not offset by early efficiency gains.

Biological Foundations

Anatomy and physiology relevant to farming

Pigs possess a digestive system adapted for omnivory, featuring a simple and reliance on enzymatic breakdown rather than microbial in the , which enables efficient nutrient absorption from diverse feeds including grains, proteins, and forages. This supports a low (FCR) in production settings, typically 2.4-2.8 kg of feed per kg of liveweight gain in grow-finish phases for optimized genotypes under controlled , contrasting with higher ratios exceeding 4:1 in wild suids due to less for metabolic efficiency. Such efficiency underpins economic viability in farming, as it minimizes input costs relative to output . Reproductive physiology emphasizes high , with sows exhibiting estrous cycles of 18-24 days and averaging 114 days (range 111-116 days), allowing for 2.1-2.3 parities annually in intensive systems with proper . Litters average 10-14 piglets, reflecting ovarian dynamics that prioritize quantity over individual fetal investment, which favors scaling production but necessitates interventions for neonatal survival. relies on behavioral adaptations like huddling in neonates and in adults, as pigs lack functional sweat glands and depend on panting or conduction for heat dissipation; optimal zones are 18-25°C for adults and 30-35°C for sucklings, deviations from which impair growth and , thus dictating ventilation and in designs. Postnatal growth follows distinct phases: pre-weaning (0-21 days) focuses on milk-derived for immunity and rapid to 5-7 kg; nursery (21-50 days) emphasizes gut maturation for solid feeds, achieving 0.4-0.6 kg/day; and finishing (>60 kg to 110-130 kg market weight) prioritizes lean via protein synthesis, with daily gains of 0.8-1.0 kg under high-energy diets. Boars exhibit superior FCR (up to 10-15% better than gilts) due to testosterone-driven partitioning toward muscle over fat, influencing entire-male production strategies despite risks of . These trajectories reflect allometric principles where early nutrition cascades to lifetime efficiency, guiding phase-specific feeding to maximize carcass value.

Breed selection and genetic improvements

Commercial pig farming relies on selective breeding of specialized breeds to optimize traits such as maternal performance, carcass quality, and growth efficiency. The Yorkshire breed, often termed the "Mother Breed," excels in maternal traits, farrowing large litters and exhibiting strong mothering instincts due to its prolificacy and milking ability. The breed contributes leanness and length, with sows known for heavy milk production and farrowing large-bodied piglets, making it valuable in crossbreeding for hybrid vigor or . Duroc pigs are prized for meat quality attributes, including robustness, efficient feed conversion, high growth rates, and superior marbling and content. These breeds are frequently hybridized in three-way crosses—typically maternal lines from Yorkshire- for sows and terminal Duroc sires—to capture effects, enhancing overall litter size, survival, and market weight attainment without compromising individual breed strengths. Genetic improvements in pig breeding have focused on quantitative traits like growth rate, feed efficiency, and disease resistance, driven by estimates that support targeted selection. Feed efficiency traits, such as residual feed intake and average daily gain, exhibit moderate ranging from 0.16 to 0.47, enabling predictable genetic responses to selection pressures. This has yielded annual productivity gains of approximately 1-2% in commercial populations, manifested in faster time to market weight and reduced input costs per of gain. size at birth has similarly advanced through (MAS) and , with genetic markers like the (ESR) gene influencing ovulation rate and embryo survival, progressing average litters from historical baselines around 6-8 piglets to over 12 in modern lines. Since the 2010s, genomic selection has accelerated progress by using dense SNP markers to predict breeding values for , increasing accuracy over traditional pedigree methods and shortening generation intervals. This approach has integrated multi-population data to refine predictions for growth and reproduction, sustaining genetic gains while managing inbreeding. For disease resistance, CRISPR-Cas9 editing targeting the gene's SRCR5 domain has produced pigs resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus, with edited lines demonstrating inhibited viral replication in and whole-animal challenge trials since 2016, and scalable founder populations verified in 2024 studies showing no off-target effects or productivity deficits. These advancements underscore selective breeding's causal role in decoupling productivity from environmental dependencies, prioritizing empirical over unsubstantiated critiques of intensification.

Production Systems

Intensive confinement systems

Intensive confinement systems house pigs in fully enclosed, climate-controlled barns that maintain optimal , , and ventilation to support rapid growth and uniform production cycles. These facilities often incorporate slatted floors over pits, enabling efficient separation of waste from living areas, which supports regular removal and reduces buildup through . A core operational feature is the all-in-all-out (AIAO) protocol, wherein batches of pigs enter facilities simultaneously at a uniform age or weight, are raised together until slaughter, and are then fully depopulated before thorough cleaning and disinfection, thereby breaking cycles and minimizing cross-contamination risks compared to continuous-flow systems. These systems deliver measurable efficiency gains, including feed conversion ratios typically ranging from 2.5 to 3.3 kg of feed per kg of body weight gain in finisher pigs, attributable to precise diet formulation, reduced energy expenditure on locomotion, and minimized feed wastage under controlled conditions. Mortality rates are held below 5% in vaccinated herds through integrated and targeted immunizations against prevalent pathogens like porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), where nursery mortality drops to around 3% post-vaccination versus higher baselines without. Land utilization is markedly superior, with intensive operations requiring substantially less direct farmland per ton of produced than extensive systems, as output concentrates on minimal housing footprints while leveraging off-site feed crop yields. In major producing regions, intensive confinement accounts for over 90% of output in the United States and , where modern facilities dominate due to scale economies and regulatory frameworks favoring high-density production. This prevalence enables year-round, weather-independent production, stabilizing supply chains and supporting consistent market volumes, as evidenced by U.S. systems yielding 38% more per than less intensive global benchmarks.

Extensive and alternative systems

Extensive systems, such as pasture-based production, involve where forage on , often supplemented with feed, leading to slower average daily gains compared to confinement systems. In pasture-raised , growth rates to market weight typically require 7 to 9 months, versus 5 to 6 months in intensive setups, due to lower nutrient density from and environmental factors. These systems elevate risks of internal parasites like and , which reduce feed efficiency and growth, necessitating vigilant management such as multi-species or pasture resting periods. Pasture-based methods constitute a minor share of global production, catering to premium niche markets valuing perceived natural rearing, though they demand more land and labor per animal. Organic pig farming prohibits synthetic antibiotics, chemical dewormers, and genetically modified feeds, resulting in reduced reproductive performance and outputs relative to conventional practices. Studies indicate organic systems produce approximately 15% fewer weaned piglets per bred sow annually, attributed to fewer breeding cycles and heightened susceptibility without prophylactic interventions. Empirical analyses of meat quality reveal organic may exhibit higher and altered profiles, but these differences do not consistently translate to superior sensory attributes or nutritional benefits over conventional . Trade-offs include elevated feed conversion requirements, yielding lower output per sow, often 20-30% less in practice due to extended growth phases and health constraints. Hybrid approaches, like hoop barns or group housing, seek compromises between extensive and intensive models by providing bedded, open-front structures or pen systems allowing social interaction without full outdoor exposure. Hoop barns facilitate deep for rooting and movement, potentially lowering per-pig production costs by 3% through reduced expenses, though material demands increase operational inputs. Group housing for gestating sows enhances activity levels but correlates with higher upon mixing, leading to increased lesions and injuries without proportional gains in overall or metrics versus stalls. Data from commercial trials show these systems yield comparable growth rates to confinement when managed rigorously, but parasite and lameness risks persist without the isolation benefits of intensive setups.

Housing and infrastructure

Pig housing infrastructure prioritizes designs that enhance biosecurity, control environmental factors, and support operational efficiency while mitigating risks like pathogen spread and structural failures. Farrowing crates restrict sow movement to prevent savaging and crushing of piglets, with systematic reviews confirming reduced pre-weaning mortality in crated systems relative to loose housing alternatives. Ventilation infrastructure, often mechanical and computer-controlled, maintains optimal air quality by diluting from ; systems that achieve concentrations below 7 ppm support respiratory and comply with facility standards. Mega-farms housing over 10,000 sows, exemplified by China's Muyuan Foods facility with 84,000 sows operational since 2020, incorporate compartmentalized layouts, automated waste removal, and rigorous protocols to enable scale while containing threats. In the 2020s, rail-bound bedding technologies, adapted from systems, facilitate automated distribution for setups, promoting better absorption and floor hygiene without relying solely on slats. AI-integrated monitoring within uses camera and arrays to detect recumbency patterns and anomalies in real time, aiding proactive adjustments for group-level issue resolution.

Breeding and Reproduction

Sow and boar management

Artificial insemination (AI) is the predominant breeding method in commercial pig farming, achieving farrowing rates of 85-95% when optimized with proper semen handling and timing. This technique allows for genetic dissemination from superior boars while minimizing disease transmission risks compared to natural mating. Post-weaning, sows are exposed to mature boars or boar pheromones daily to stimulate estrus and shorten the weaning-to-service interval to 5-7 days, which is critical for maintaining 2.3-2.5 litters per sow per year. Nutrition post-weaning, including high-energy feeds, supports rapid ovarian recovery and minimizes non-productive days. Sow culling targets low performers after 5-7 parities to optimize lifetime , as and size often decline thereafter, with average cull parities reported at 3-4 but economic models favoring retention up to 8-9 for high-output herds. These practices contribute to industry benchmarks of 28-30 weaned piglets per sow per year, representing over a 20% gain since 1999 levels of around 24.5. Boars are primarily managed in dedicated studs for semen production to support AI, with high-merit individuals housed individually to prevent injury and maintain . occurs 2-3 times weekly via dummy mounts after training periods of 4 weeks, ensuring doses viable for 24-48 hours post-thawing. Health protocols include regular and testing, with ratios of one boar per 20-30 sows serviced via AI to maximize utilization. In natural mating systems, one boar services 2-3 sows to ensure coverage without exhaustion.

Reproductive technologies and litter efficiency

Hormonal synchronization technologies, such as PG600—a combination of 400 IU equine chorionic gonadotropin (eCG) and 200 IU human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG)—induce puberty in prepubertal gilts and synchronize estrus in weaned sows, enabling batch breeding cycles that align farrowings for efficient labor and facility use. Administered subcutaneously or intramuscularly post-weaning or in gilts, PG600 typically triggers estrus within 3–7 days and ovulation shortly thereafter, with studies showing it reduces the time to first estrus and improves conception rates when combined with artificial insemination protocols. Embryo transfer (ET) facilitates the multiplication of elite genetics by flushing embryos from superior donor sows 5–6 days post-ovulation and transferring them nonsurgically to synchronized recipients, yielding farrowing rates comparable to natural mating while limiting disease transmission risks associated with live animal transport. Commercial nonsurgical ET protocols, refined since the , achieve pregnancy rates of 60–80% and litter sizes similar to donors, accelerating genetic dissemination in multiplier herds without expanding donor sow numbers. Sexed semen, produced via to enrich X-chromosome-bearing spermatozoa, biases litters toward females (often 70–90% success in pigs), supporting replacement gilt production and reducing excess males for slaughter, though initial fertility may be 70–85% of unsorted semen levels due to sorting stresses. Integration into programs enhances genetic progress rates by prioritizing female offspring for breeding, with ongoing refinements addressing viability. Selective breeding has driven litter size gains, with average born-alive piglets rising from approximately 11–12 per litter in the to 14–16 in high-performing commercial lines by the 2020s, attributed to of prolificacy traits (0.1–0.15) and genomic selection targeting ovulation rate and uterine capacity. These improvements counter claims of inherent inefficiency in scaled systems, as genetic correlations between litter size and viability have been managed through balanced indices incorporating metrics. Artificial intelligence applications, including 2023 deployments of and sensor-based systems for real-time estrus and farrowing detection, optimize insemination timing and enable early intervention during parturition, reducing missed heats by up to 20% and improving piglet survival through predictive alerts. rates, which correlate with prolonged farrowings in larger litters (averaging 4–7% in intensive setups), are mitigated via routine supervision—such as 24-hour attendance during peak farrowing periods—allowing manual assistance for dystocia, rather than representing a of modern scales where genetic and managerial controls yield net productivity gains.

Nutrition and Growth

Feed composition and requirements

Swine diets are predominantly composed of cereal grains such as , providing the of carbohydrates that supply 60-70% of metabolizable energy, supplemented with as the main protein source to balance profiles. This corn- base supports efficient digestion and energy utilization in pigs, with corn contributing digestible and delivering complementary proteins. Typical formulations include 60-70% grains for energy and 15-25% for protein, adjusted for local availability to minimize costs while meeting nutritional needs. Amino acids, particularly as the first limiting in corn-soy diets, are essential for protein synthesis and lean muscle deposition, with deficiencies directly impairing growth rates. requirements vary by growth stage but are critical for maximizing feed efficiency and carcass quality, as pigs cannot synthesize it endogenously and rely on dietary supply for metabolic functions. Other essential like and must be balanced relative to to prevent suboptimal protein utilization, guided by standardized ileal digestible values from empirical trials. Feeding programs are phased to match physiological needs: creep feeds for pre-weaning piglets (5-21 days) emphasize high digestibility with elevated protein (20-22%) and (1.3-1.4% standardized ileal digestible) to transition from milk; starter diets post-weaning (up to 20-25 kg body weight) require 18-20% protein and 1.4-1.7% for rapid gut development and immune support; grower phases (25-60 kg) reduce to 16-18% protein and 1.0-1.1% ; and finisher diets (60 kg to market) are sub-phased to balance lean growth and intramuscular fat deposition, with an early phase (60-90 kg) featuring high protein (16%-18% CP) and standard energy, transitioning to a late phase (90 kg to slaughter, last 4-6 weeks) with low protein (13%-15% CP), high energy including added fats, plus functional additives for fat deposition, targeting 0.8-0.9% for efficient fat and muscle accrual. These specifications derive from factorial models accounting for maintenance, growth, and deposition rates, as outlined in National Research Council guidelines. Nutrient deficiencies, such as inadequate or energy, result in 10-20% reductions in average daily gain and feed intake due to impaired metabolic and suppression. Precision formulation using and empirical balance trials corrects these by optimizing ratios, preventing lags in lean tissue growth observed in underfed cohorts. Optimal diets achieve feed conversion ratios of 2.8-3.2 kg feed per kg body across production phases, reflecting efficient partitioning in genetically selected breeds under controlled conditions. This metric improves with phase-specific adjustments, as higher in early phases enhances protein accretion and reduces overall feed input per unit output.

Additives, promoters, and efficiency metrics

Ractopamine hydrochloride, a beta-adrenergic agonist, is incorporated into finishing diets for swine at doses of 5-20 mg/kg to promote lean muscle growth and reduce carcass fat, yielding 10-15% improvements in average daily gain and feed efficiency in controlled trials. When administered per label guidelines with appropriate withdrawal periods, residue levels in pork remain below established maximum limits, with US monitoring data confirming negligible human health risks from consumption. Although banned in the European Union on precautionary grounds despite EFSA assessments finding no genotoxicity or carcinogenicity at relevant exposures, empirical residue studies in approving nations like the US demonstrate safety margins exceeding Codex standards by factors of 100 or more. Certain antibiotic promoters, such as , faced restrictions starting in the mid-2010s amid resistance data linking overuse to plasmid-mediated mcr-1 genes in ; subsequent phase-outs in regions like the and reduced consumption in pigs by over 90% in some cases, correlating with lowered resistance prevalence without broad productivity losses when alternatives were adopted. Ionophores like lasalocid or salinomycin serve as non-antibiotic alternatives for modulating in , enhancing nutrient absorption and reducing subclinical to improve feed conversion by 5-10% in challenge studies, with risks minimized through dose limits below 100 ppm yielding net benefits in growth metrics that outweigh rare ionophore-specific resistance transfers observed . These additives collectively drive efficiency gains, evidenced by pork production data showing feed conversion ratios improving from 3.5-4.0 kg feed/kg gain in the to under 2.5 kg/kg by 2015, halving cropland demands per unit output compared to 1950s baselines through compounded genetic, nutritional, and promoter synergies. Such metrics underscore causal reductions in resource intensity, with promoters shortening finishing phases by 10-15 days on average, enabling higher throughput without proportional input escalations.

Health Management

Disease prevention and common pathogens

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) remains one of the most economically damaging pathogens in swine production, causing reproductive failure, respiratory distress, and increased secondary infections in pigs of all ages. Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV), a targeting the , leads to severe and high mortality in neonatal piglets, with transmission primarily via fecal-oral routes through contaminated manure or feed. (ASFV), a highly lethal without available vaccines in most regions, induces hemorrhagic fever with near-100% case fatality in domestic pigs, as evidenced by ongoing outbreaks in , including Vietnam's 972 reported incidents through August 2025 and Bangladesh's first detection in December 2023. Biosecurity protocols form the causal foundation for preventing introduction and amplification, with external measures like restricted access and vehicle disinfection blocking initial entry, while internal practices such as all-in-all-out production systems—used on over 93% of surveyed U.S. wean-to-finish farms—minimize within-herd transmission by enabling thorough cleaning and disinfection between batches. These systems disrupt persistence, as evidenced by reduced prevalence of endemic viruses like PRRSV in compliant operations. Vaccination against PRRSV, particularly modified live vaccines administered to sows and piglets, induces herd-level immunity by elevating neutralizing titers and lowering upon challenge, thereby curbing clinical outbreaks and associated production losses estimated at $4.32 per pig. For ASFV, where no commercial exists, and remain primary, supplemented by enhancements post-2019 that have improved early detection and containment, limiting spread in affected regions like despite persistent incursions. Respiratory pathogens, often exacerbated by poor air quality, are mitigated through precise ventilation systems that maintain adequate airflow rates scaled to size and density, reducing and dust accumulation that predispose to infections like or hyopneumoniae. Optimal stocking densities, combined with all-in-all-out depopulation, further prevent overcrowding-induced stress and transmission, as higher densities correlate with elevated incidence in multi-site operations.

Veterinary interventions including antibiotics

Veterinary interventions in pig farming primarily target bacterial infections through targeted treatments, alongside supportive care such as fluid therapy and improved . Antibiotics are administered therapeutically for diagnosed infections like post-weaning diarrhea caused by or respiratory diseases from , and prophylactically in high-risk groups such as weaner pigs to prevent outbreaks during stressful transitions. Tetracyclines, including oxytetracycline, are commonly used prophylactically in weaners at doses around 10-20 mg/kg body weight via feed or water, owing to their broad-spectrum activity against enteric and respiratory pathogens. Following the European Union's 2006 ban on antibiotics for non-therapeutic growth promotion, overall antimicrobial sales for pigs declined significantly, with European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption (ESVAC) data indicating a roughly 40% reduction in usage intensity for swine production between 2011 and 2020, attributed to stewardship programs emphasizing diagnostics and alternatives. This shift has curbed selective pressure without widespread production collapse, as farms adapted via better and . Empirical evidence demonstrates antibiotics' value in mortality reduction; for instance, their inclusion in feeds for young pigs has historically lowered death rates from 4.3% to 2.0% in controlled trials, equating to substantial lifesaving effects during vulnerable periods. Antibiotic resistance remains a monitored concern but manifests as farm-specific patterns rather than inevitable , with U.S. National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) data revealing variable resistance in swine isolates tied to local usage histories rather than uniform collapse. , including mandatory veterinary oversight for prescriptions, has stabilized trends in monitored populations. Emerging alternatives include against key pathogens like Lawsonia intracellularis and E. coli, which reduce clinical incidence by 50-70% in field trials, though they require precise timing and may not fully replace antibiotics in polymicrobial outbreaks. Bacteriophages show promise in experimental models for controlling colibacillosis, achieving up to 90% reduction in pathogen loads in challenged piglets, but large-scale efficacy remains less proven compared to established antimicrobials, with challenges in phage stability and specificity.

Parasite control

Internal parasites, particularly (large roundworm), pose significant risks to pig growth and feed efficiency, with infections leading to larval migration in lungs and intestines that impair nutrient absorption. Other internal threats include nodular worms (Oesophagostomum spp.) and kidney worms (Stephanurus dentatus), which can cause organ damage and reduced carcass value. External parasites such as swine lice (Haematopinus suis) and mange mites (Sarcoptes scabiei var. suis) result in skin irritation, , and secondary infections, exacerbating weight loss in affected herds. Control strategies emphasize integrated management combining sanitation, , and targeted anthelmintics to disrupt parasite life cycles. In confined intensive systems, daily removal and all-in-all-out production cycles minimize environmental with eggs and larvae, substantially reducing risks compared to extensive or pasture-based operations where transmission elevates prevalence. Parasite burdens in industrial confinement facilities average below 60%, versus over 90% in family or free-range farms due to prolonged ground contact and shared pastures. Strategic , including clean farrowing pens, prevents neonatal exposure to high egg loads, enabling immune development without routine treatments in low-risk environments. Deworming programs rely on broad-spectrum agents like , administered via injection, pour-on, or in-feed formulations at 0.3 mg/kg body weight, achieving near-100% efficacy against adult Ascaris, nodular worms, and lice in controlled trials. also eliminates 88-99% of larval stages and external mites, with residual effects lasting 14-21 days post-treatment, supporting herd-wide applications every 4-6 months based on fecal egg counts. In extensive systems, where prevalence exceeds 20% for multiple species, quarterly monitoring and rotation of anthelmintics (e.g., combining with ) mitigate resistance, while intensive operations often suffice with annual interventions given lower baseline risks under <5% infection rates in well-managed confinement. Veterinary oversight ensures treatments align with withdrawal periods, typically 5-18 days for , to maintain safety.

Animal Welfare

Empirical indicators of pig well-being

Physiological stress markers, such as salivary or plasma concentrations, serve as empirical indicators of acute stress in s, with elevated levels correlating to reduced feed intake and growth performance during events like transport or mixing. analysis provides a measure of , revealing higher concentrations in sows from certain housing conditions but generally low baseline levels in monitored commercial herds where health interventions are routine. scores on tails, ears, or quantify injury from social , with studies showing correlations between higher prevalence and increased , though managed groups maintain lower scores through early separation and monitoring. Lameness prevalence, assessed via scoring, indicates musculoskeletal , with intensive systems often reporting lower rates (e.g., under 5% in controlled environments) compared to extensive outdoor setups where and parasites elevate risks, leading to poorer body condition. Mortality rates function as a proxy for overall , with commercial intensive production achieving pre-weaning survival above 90% through and , versus higher variability in less controlled systems. Growth metrics, including average daily gain and feed efficiency, inversely relate to welfare deficits; pigs in optimized environments exhibit gains of 800-900g/day without enrichment-linked boosts, as play behaviors enhance activity but lack causal ties to accrual or stress reduction beyond baseline. Pigs demonstrate cognitive capacities, such as navigating T-mazes for rewards within 180 seconds or learning operant tasks faster in enriched settings, yet no causally links these abilities to in efficient lacking such stimuli, as and proxies remain robust. Cognitive task performance is proposed as a welfare metric but shows inconsistent stress correlations, prioritizing observable outcomes like low incidence over inferred emotional states. In intensive production, biological —high output per input—aligns with these indicators, reflecting effective causal over anthropocentric behavioral assumptions.

Housing debates: gestation crates and enrichment

Gestation crates, narrow individual stalls confining pregnant sows during much of their gestation period, are utilized to curb and associated that arise in group . Empirical studies demonstrate that grouping sows leads to heightened , particularly during mixing, with injury rates to sows' and limbs reaching 10-20% in early group formation phases, depending on group size and space allowance. By restricting movement and enabling individualized feeding, crates mitigate these conflicts, allowing for efficient management in intensive systems without elevating sow stress indicators beyond baseline levels when properly implemented. Proponents argue that crates indirectly support piglet survival by maintaining sow condition free from fight-related wounds or displacements that could impair farrowing performance, though direct crushing prevention is more pronounced in farrowing crates. Meta-analyses of farrowing systems reveal that crated sows experience piglet mortality rates 50% lower than in loose-housing alternatives, primarily due to reduced overlay incidents, underscoring the causal role of confinement in averting accidental crushes. Group housing alternatives, while permitting greater locomotion, often necessitate additional interventions like electronic sow feeders to manage competition, yet persistent aggression can elevate lameness and reproductive disruptions. Environmental enrichment materials, such as straw racks, chains, or wooden blocks, address behavioral restrictions in confined systems by providing outlets for rooting and manipulation, as required under EU Directive 2001/93/EC (amended for implementation by 2013). Evaluations indicate these enrichments exert minimal influence on average daily gain or feed efficiency in growing pigs, with EU-wide adoption since the early correlating to stable productivity metrics but elevated operational costs from material provision and maintenance, estimated at 1-2% of production expenses. In sow housing, enrichment mitigates stereotypic bar-biting but does not fully offset confinement's limitations, and studies show no significant uplift in overall welfare outcomes justifying the added labor. Policy interventions like California's Proposition 12, approved by voters in November 2018 and effective from 2022 for sales, mandate group housing over crates, resulting in price hikes of 8.6-20% for compliant products as supply chains adjusted to compliant sourcing. Economic analyses attribute these increases to costs and reduced farm efficiencies, with limited empirical evidence demonstrating superior sow or piglet outcomes in compliant group systems compared to crate-based benchmarks, highlighting trade-offs in versus unverified welfare gains.

Environmental Effects

Manure handling, emissions, and resource use

In swine production, manure is primarily managed as a liquid slurry, often collected via flushing systems and stored in anaerobic lagoons designed for treatment, dilution, and long-term storage before land application. These lagoons promote , converting organic matter while separating solids, though this process generates (CH₄) and (N₂O) emissions. Manure management accounts for 19% to 57% of total in pork production chains, varying by system design and regional practices. Despite these emissions, pork's overall remains low at 0.6 to 6.75 kg CO₂e per kg of live weight—or roughly 3 to 7 kg CO₂e per kg carcass—due to pigs' efficient feed conversion ratios of 2.5-3.5 kg feed per kg gain, which minimize enteric and total lifecycle emissions compared to ruminants. In contrast, production emits 20 to 60 kg CO₂e per kg, driven by higher from and longer growth periods, making pork 3-10 times less emissive per kg protein. Operational water use for drinking and cleaning in pork production is approximately 5-10 liters per kg, reflecting pigs' intake of 2-3 liters daily scaled to growth , though total water footprints including feed exceed 2,000 liters per kg. Intensive systems further reduce resource intensity by requiring 70-80% less land per kg output than extensive grazing models, as confined housing and precise feeding concentrate production without expansive pastures. Nutrient runoff risks from manure are lowered through subsurface injection during application, which enhances incorporation and minimizes volatilization. Applied as , swine manure recycles 50-60% of excreted and 30-40% of as plant-available , offsetting synthetic demands and closing nutrient loops in crop-livestock integrations. These efficiencies underscore how modern intensive handling offsets absolute outputs, yielding lower per-unit environmental burdens than less productive alternatives.

Comparative efficiency and mitigation data

Pork production accounts for approximately 9% of global livestock (GHG) emissions, a figure that reflects its share within the broader sector's contribution of 14.5% to total anthropogenic GHGs, while supplying about 34% of the world's consumed , which constitutes a major portion of animal-derived protein . Life cycle assessments (LCAs) indicate pork's emissions intensity—typically 6-12 kg CO₂eq per kg of carcass weight—benefits from monogastric digestion lacking significant , unlike ruminants, positioning it as more than (often 20-60 kg CO₂eq/kg) but generally higher than (4-8 kg CO₂eq/kg) on a per-kilogram protein basis. This extends to , where pork systems require less conversion than due to higher feed conversion ratios, contributing to net positives in avoiding deforestation-driven emissions in regions like the Amazon. From 1990 to 2020, U.S. production expanded by 77% in output while reducing emissions per unit of by 21%, attributable to genetic improvements, enhanced feed efficiency, and management shifts away from high-methane liquid systems. Globally, similar trends via optimized nutrition have lowered 's , with no evidence of an inexorable "doom" trajectory; instead, empirical data show decoupling of production growth from emissions rises through causal interventions like phase feeding. Mitigation strategies further underscore pork's adaptability: precision feeding tailored to growth stages cuts excretion by up to 30% via reduced excess protein , minimizing from . Low-protein diets supplemented with synthetic reduce GHG emissions by 10-15% in sows and 25-30% in growing pigs without yield losses, as verified in controlled trials. capture via acidification or covers in systems lowers emissions by 20-50% at the farm level, with Danish studies demonstrating 1.3 kg CH₄ per pig avoided through simple management changes. Compared to alternatives, these interventions yield pork efficiencies rivaling in integrated metrics like protein output per , particularly in intensive systems minimizing land footprints.

Economic Dimensions

Global production reached approximately 116.4 million metric tons in 2023/2024 and is projected to remain stable at 116.45 million metric tons in 2024/2025, reflecting a (CAGR) of around 2-3% over recent decades driven by technological efficiencies in breeding and feed utilization. dominates with nearly 49% of global output, producing 57.06 million metric tons in 2024/2025, though this marked a 1.5% decline from 2023 due to disease pressures and herd adjustments. The contributes about 11%, with production forecast at 27.6 billion pounds in 2025, supported by integrated systems that enhance output per animal. The follows with 18% share at 21.25 million metric tons, with pig farming exhibiting high densities in countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany, supporting efficient production through intensive systems. This scale underscores 's critical role in global , providing affordable protein to billions amid rising demand in developing regions.
Top Pork Producers (2024/2025, Million Metric Tons)Share of Global Production
China (57.06)49%
European Union (21.25)18%
United States (12.61)11%
In the United States, the industry generated $27 billion in cash receipts from hog sales in 2023 while supporting 573,000 jobs across the value chain, contributing $62.6 billion to GDP through direct and indirect economic activity. Pork exports reached $8.6 billion in 2024, highlighting its integration into broader agricultural economies. Post-2018 African Swine Fever (ASF) outbreaks, which caused to lose an estimated 28 million tons of production, global output has recovered through measures and herd rebuilding, stabilizing supply chains by 2023. Efficiency gains from genomic selection and in breeding have boosted productivity, with annual increases exceeding 1% in pigs per sow via targeted traits like feed conversion and resistance. These advancements sustain growth amid pressures, positioning as a resilient staple in .

Trade dynamics and market influences

The global pork trade is dominated by a handful of major exporters, including the , the (notably and ), , and , which collectively supply key importers such as , , , and . In 2024, U.S. pork exports reached a record 3.03 million metric tons, up 4% from the prior year, positioning the U.S. as the world's largest exporter ahead of the EU, with shipments primarily directed to (1.15 million metric tons), , and . These flows reflect efficient supply chains leveraging high-yield production systems, where approximately 26% of U.S. output is exported, bolstering competitiveness through scale and optimized for variety meats favored in Asian markets. Trade barriers, such as tariffs imposed during the 2018-2020 U.S.- trade war, temporarily disrupted exports; applied up to 25% duties on U.S. , reducing shipments from $1.2 billion in 2017 to under $300 million in 2019, prompting diversification to markets like and . However, U.S. producers demonstrated resilience via superior —yielding leaner carcasses and higher feed —allowing rebound to $1.11 billion in exports to by despite lingering risks. Vertical coordination, including contracts and integration from feed to processing, further enhances this edge by streamlining operations and capturing efficiencies that lower per-unit costs compared to less coordinated systems elsewhere. Market influences include volatility in feed inputs, where corn and soybean prices—comprising 60-70% of production costs—fluctuate due to weather, global demand, and biofuel policies, compressing margins during spikes like those in 2022-2023. Religious prohibitions in Muslim-majority countries, where pork is deemed haram under Islamic dietary laws, effectively bar imports and limit access to over 1.8 billion potential consumers, redirecting trade toward secular or non-restricted protein markets in Asia and the Americas. Yet, pork's affordability and nutritional density sustain demand in growing economies, where it fills protein gaps amid rising incomes, underscoring efficiency-driven supply chains as a buffer against such structural barriers.

Human Impacts

Occupational risks and safety

Workers in pig farming face primary occupational hazards from airborne contaminants such as dust, , and (H2S), particularly during handling and agitation in confined spaces. H2S, generated from anaerobic in pits, poses acute risks at concentrations above 100 ppm, potentially causing or death, though OSHA's is 20 ppm for an 8-hour workday, with immediate action required above 50 ppm. Ventilation systems, including fans activated during disturbance, effectively reduce H2S levels by dispersing gases, while personal monitors alert workers to exceedances, preventing most incidents during routine operations. Ergonomic strains from repetitive lifting of feed, piglets, or carcasses, as well as slips on wet surfaces and animal interactions, contribute to musculoskeletal disorders, with back injuries common due to awkward postures in low-ceiling barns. like hydraulic lifting aids and automated feeders minimize manual handling, while targeted programs on proper techniques have demonstrated reductions in rates by up to 50% in agricultural settings through improved body mechanics and hazard recognition. Nonfatal injury rates in swine production, reported at approximately 5-7 cases per 100 full-time workers annually in recent assessments, remain below those in (around 2.5 per 100 but with higher severity in falls and machinery), reflecting effective mitigations despite agriculture's overall elevated risks. Fatalities are rare, with H2S-related deaths occurring sporadically during agitation but mitigated by protocols; U.S. production saw fewer than 5 such incidents per decade in the , further declining with advancements in and (PPE) like . Ongoing adoption of robotic systems for feeding and waste management continues to lower exposure, affirming the sector's improving safety profile when standards are followed.

Zoonotic disease considerations

Pigs serve as reservoirs for certain zoonotic pathogens, primarily A viruses and (HEV), though documented transmissions to humans from commercial farms remain rare and typically limited to occupational exposures among workers with direct contact. cases in humans, known as variant influenza, have totaled fewer than 500 reported instances in the United States since 2009, predominantly among individuals exposed at agricultural fairs rather than routine farm operations, with no sustained human-to-human transmission outside the 2009 H1N1 pandemic event, which involved a reassortant strain. Similarly, HEV 3, prevalent in swine, causes sporadic human infections mainly through consumption of undercooked liver or direct contact, but clinical cases are infrequent in regions with proper cooking practices, as above 71°C inactivates the ; seroprevalence among swine workers is elevated (up to 20-30% in some studies), yet acute disease incidence remains low at under 1% annually in high-exposure groups. Empirical data indicate negligible risk of large-scale outbreaks from modern biosecure commercial pig farms, where and isolation protocols have prevented amplification events comparable to those in less controlled settings; for instance, no major zoonotic epidemics have originated from intensive swine operations in the past decade, contrasting with higher diversity and spillover risks from swine populations, which harbor at least 30 bacterial, viral, and parasitic agents transmissible to humans due to their wide-ranging and interfaces. pigs exhibit elevated prevalence of , , and —pathogens with documented human cases—exacerbated by their encroachment into human habitats, whereas domestic farm pigs under controlled conditions show lower interspecies transmission potential, with intensive production systems empirically reducing contact and thus spillover likelihood. Effective management in commercial pig farming mitigates zoonotic risks through stringent , including all-in-all-out production cycles, of new stock, routine disinfection, restricted visitor access, and for personnel, measures that surpass general public health standards by integrating pathogen-specific surveillance like serological testing for and HEV. Vaccination against is employed on many farms to curb viral circulation, while wastewater monitoring and genetic sequencing enable early detection, preventing farm-level amplification that could pose human threats; these protocols, validated by low reported spillover rates despite global production exceeding 1.5 billion pigs annually, underscore causal controls prioritizing empirical containment over alarmist projections.

Controversies and Policy

Welfare activism vs. productivity evidence

Welfare often highlights isolated instances of mistreatment captured in undercover videos, portraying as inherently cruel. However, such footage typically originates from advocacy groups and selectively emphasizes atypical or egregious behaviors on non-representative operations, rather than reflecting industry-wide conditions. Empirical data from commercial farms indicate low levels of mortality as a proxy for distress, with postweaning mortality averaging 4-8% across nursery and grow-finish stages, and pre-fattening rates around 2.7%, suggesting over 90% of weaned pigs reach market weight without fatal welfare-compromising events. Preweaning survival rates for pigs born alive exceed 85%, further underscoring that metrics align with minimal population-level indicators in well-managed systems. Critics of intensive practices decry the use of processed animal proteins derived from pigs (feedback) in feed as a form of implying welfare degradation. Yet, regulatory frameworks in regions like the permit such nutritional recycling from Category 3 by-products of healthy animals, processed to eliminate pathogens, enhancing feed efficiency without evidence of adverse health or behavioral impacts on recipient pigs. prohibitions on intra-species feeding stem from precautionary BSE controls rather than demonstrated welfare harms, and lifting such bans in non-ruminant feeds has been deemed safe by risk assessments, prioritizing over unsubstantiated ethical objections. No peer-reviewed studies link feedback to increased aggression, stress, or suffering in live pigs; instead, it supports growth rates and carcass quality, contributing to overall farm productivity. Industry responses include voluntary certifications like Pork Quality Assurance Plus (PQA+), which train producers on handling, , and to mitigate risks, with participating farms demonstrating sustained low mortality and high throughput. While activist exposés on certified sites reveal lapses, these represent enforcement gaps rather than systemic failure, as aggregate productivity data—such as improved piglet survival correlating with welfare protocols—affirm that certified operations outperform uncertified ones in outcomes like feed conversion and market yield. Imposing broader bans or space mandates, as in some jurisdictions, elevates production costs by 10-20% without commensurate welfare gains or viable protein alternatives, leading to output reductions and higher consumer prices, as observed in post-EU integration where stringent rules contributed to declining pig numbers. Thus, evidence favors productivity-driven management over activism-prescribed restrictions, where low distress metrics substantiate effective welfare under commercial scales.

Regulatory variations and geopolitical factors

The has implemented stringent regulations on production since 2014, achieving a 39% reduction in sales for food-producing animals by 2018 without corresponding declines in pig productivity, as alternative and strategies maintained growth rates and feed efficiency. In contrast, international bans on —a beta-agonist feed additive approved by the U.S. as safe for swine based on residue data showing no adverse human health effects at approved levels—have restricted U.S. pork exports to markets like the EU and , despite maximum residue limits endorsing its use; these prohibitions, enacted on precautionary grounds lacking empirical toxicity evidence in humans at dietary exposures, impose unnecessary trade barriers that elevate production costs elsewhere without verifiable safety gains. California's Proposition 12, approved by voters in November 2018, mandates minimum space requirements for gestating sows, resulting in retail price increases of approximately 20% statewide by 2024, with some cuts like rising up to 41%, as compliance costs shifted production burdens to out-of-state suppliers and reduced supply volumes; this state-level intervention disadvantaged consumers and smaller processors while advantaging non-compliant foreign exporters, illustrating how localized overregulation fragments markets and inflates costs without proportional efficiency benefits. Empirical analyses of such mandates indicate they correlate with diminished volumes and higher operational expenses, as retrofitting facilities diverts capital from productivity-enhancing investments, favoring minimal regulatory frameworks that preserve competitive scaling. Geopolitically, China's African Swine Fever outbreak from late 2018 eroded its output by an estimated 27.9 million metric tons through early 2021, yet rapid restocking and state-supported intensification restored dominance, with 2021 production nearing 53 million tons and comprising roughly half of global supply, enabling export surges that stabilized world prices but heightened dependency on Chinese demand fluctuations. Religious prohibitions on in Muslim-majority nations, encompassing over 1.8 billion adherents, preclude domestic markets and limit regional farming viability due to cultural and ecological mismatches in arid zones, yet global intensive operations compensate through export orientation to permissive regions like and , where scale economies offset excluded demand segments estimated at 20-25% of potential worldwide consumption. Such factors underscore how targeted sustains efficiency amid market exclusions, as excessive interventions exacerbate supply vulnerabilities rather than bolstering resilience.

Innovations and Outlook

Technological advancements

Artificial intelligence systems have been integrated into pig farming for real-time health monitoring and optimized feeding, with significant investments noted in 2023 for AI-driven platforms that analyze behavior via cameras and sensors to detect early signs and adjust feed rations accordingly. These technologies enable , reducing mortality rates by identifying anomalies such as limping or reduced activity before clinical symptoms appear. Automated feeding systems, a form of precision livestock farming, deliver tailored nutrition to individual pigs or groups, minimizing overfeeding and spillage; studies indicate these can reduce feed waste by approximately 10% through sensor-based portion control and behavioral monitoring. further enhance efficiency by automating tasks like weighing, sorting, and cleaning, with implementations yielding labor reductions of 20-30% on adopting farms by decreasing manual handling requirements. Gene editing advancements have produced pigs with enhanced disease resistance, including 2025 developments using to modify the DNAJC14 gene, rendering animals fully resistant to virus under laboratory conditions without affecting growth or reproduction. Similarly, the U.S. FDA approved gene-edited pigs resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) in May 2025, targeting a that annually costs the industry over $600 million in losses. Blockchain technology supports in production by recording from to processor on immutable ledgers, as demonstrated in pilots like Walmart's Chinese initiative, which verifies authenticity and origin to mitigate and risks. This integration with IoT sensors allows for verifiable provenance, though adoption remains limited by interoperability challenges across global chains.

Sustainability and future challenges

Global pig production faces pressures from diseases like African Swine Fever (ASF) and climate variability, yet demonstrates resilience through ongoing genetic selection and vaccine development. ASF outbreaks, which devastated herds in and since 2018, have prompted breeding programs for resistant pig strains and trials of attenuated vaccines that confer protection against virulent strains in challenge experiments. exacerbates heat stress, potentially reducing fertility and growth rates by impairing feed intake and immune function, but selective breeding for heat-tolerant genotypes and improved housing ventilation mitigate these effects, maintaining productivity in affected regions. Manure management innovations address greenhouse gas emissions, a key sustainability concern, with technologies like frequent slurry removal achieving up to 89% methane reductions in pig houses and additives such as gypsum enabling 20-30% cuts in lagoon emissions through enhanced oxidation. Integrated approaches, including low-protein diets and anaerobic digesters, further lower overall carbon footprints by 20-22% via optimized feed efficiency and byproduct utilization. Pork's favorable feed conversion ratio of approximately 3:1—superior to beef's 6-25:1—underpins its efficiency as a protein source, requiring less land and resources per kilogram than alternatives amid rising global demand. Cultivated meat remains constrained by scalability barriers, including bioreactor limitations and high media costs, rendering it uncompetitive for mass production in the near term despite pilot approvals. Projections indicate steady 1-2% annual growth in global output to 2030, driven by , reaching around 130 million tonnes by 2034, as technological efficiencies counterbalance environmental narratives with empirical gains in output per input. This trajectory underscores 's enduring viability in meeting protein needs without reliance on unproven substitutes.

References

  1. https://m.farms.com/swine/swine-farming.aspx
  2. https://porkgateway.org/resource/introduction-to-raising-pigs/
  3. https://www.nature.com/articles/525008c
  4. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/hogs-pork/sector-at-a-glance
  5. https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/production/commodity/0113000
  6. https://www.rotecna.com/en/blog/the-united-states-a-global-power-in-the-pork-industry/
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731117002531
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5744959/
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12044880/
  10. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/5184
  11. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-domestication-of-pigs-170665
  12. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep44550
  13. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2507123122
  14. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/42/9/msaf214/8262945
  15. https://anthropology.dartmouth.edu/news/2025/06/pigs-were-domesticated-wild-boars-south-china
  16. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0912264107
  17. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2022.944104/full
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278416512000207
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2867865/
  20. https://ethnobiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13002-021-00482-9
  21. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/animal-science/articles/10.3389/fanim.2023.1218175/full
  22. https://edepot.wur.nl/527673
  23. https://www.morningagclips.com/sow-what-the-history-of-pig-farming-in-america/
  24. https://www.newrootsinstitute.org/articles/when-did-factory-farming-start-and-why-does-it-still-exist
  25. https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/what-lifecycle-pig-market-production
  26. https://www.iowaagliteracy.org/Article/Pork-Production-Then-and-Now
  27. https://www.choicesmagazine.org/UserFiles/file/cmsarticle_404.pdf
  28. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/pigmeat-production-tonnes
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11016693/
  30. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-05789-5
  31. https://utahporkproducers.org/pages/pig-breeds
  32. https://porkcheckoff.org/pork-branding/facts-statistics/major-swine-breeds/
  33. https://nationalswine.com/events/downloads/docs/nsr_breeds_flyer.pdf
  34. https://www.bivatec.com/blog/the-most-profitable-pig-breeds-for-farming
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174023002206
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8147943/
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731118002616
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353894612_Genetic_Parameters_for_Different_Measures_of_Feed_Efficiency_and_Their_Relationship_to_Production_Traits_in_Three_Purebred_Pigs
  39. https://www.hendrix-genetics.com/en/articles/impact-2-progress-swine-genetics/
  40. https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/hog-reproduction/maximizing-genetic-potential-of-sow-productivity
  41. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/696335/reporting
  42. https://danbred.com/10-years-genomic-selection/
  43. https://academic.oup.com/af/article/6/1/15/4638770
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12382205/
  45. https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3434
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6367541/
  47. https://www.prrsresistantpig.com/2024/10/04/study-demonstrates-prrs-resistance-on-a-commercial-scale/
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7433918/
  49. https://www.aasv.org/shap/issues/v3n5/v3n5p202.pdf
  50. https://porcinehealthmanagement.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40813-020-00181-z
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167587798000944
  52. https://prrscontrol.com/vaccination-piglets-prrsv-mlv-mortality/
  53. https://www.leap.ox.ac.uk/environmental-impacts-intensive-and-extensive-systems
  54. http://animbiosci.org/upload/pdf/ab-24-0055.pdf
  55. https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2024-01/agricultural-outlook-2023-report_en_0.pdf
  56. https://acrcd.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Pigs-on-Pasture.pdf
  57. https://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/comprehensive-guide-to-parasite-management-in-pasture-raised-swine-herds
  58. https://extension.oregonstate.edu/animals-livestock/swine/benefits-challenges-pasture-based-pork-production
  59. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/renewable-agriculture-and-food-systems/article/niche-pork-comparing-pig-performance-and-understanding-producer-benefits-barriers-and-labeling-interest/286D7669628983DE5CD08BF15F1DDB5F
  60. https://zootechnical.com/seo/article/613724/en
  61. https://www.thepigsite.com/articles/cost-of-organic-pork-production
  62. https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=hsus_reps_impacts_on_animals
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8697881/
  64. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09712119.2018.1561372
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6912515/
  66. https://www.protekta.com/resource-center/controlling-ammonia-emissions-in-finishing-barns
  67. https://www.fancom.com/blog/ventilation-pig-house
  68. https://www.euromeatnews.com/Article-China-builds-worlds-largest-pig-farm/4325
  69. https://www.dlg.org/en/magazine/trends-in-pig-farming-and-feeding-technology
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10339865/
  71. https://www.thepigsite.com/news/2014/03/success-rates-using-artificial-insemination-in-swine-production-1
  72. https://academicjournals.org/journal/IJLP/article-full-text/CFF1EF360359
  73. https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/hog-health/why-is-wean-to-service-interval-critical-to-your-farm-
  74. https://www.pig333.com/guide333/companies/tonisity_2/posts/10525
  75. https://danbred-manual.com/en/feeding-manual/feeding-from-weaning-until-service/
  76. https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6589&context=kaesrr
  77. https://www.aasv.org/shap/issues/v11n2/v11n2p69.html
  78. https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/livestock-management/u-s-sow-farm-production-update
  79. https://www.thepigsite.com/articles/achieving-30-pigs-sow-year
  80. https://www.merckvetmanual.com/management-and-nutrition/management-of-reproduction-pigs/boar-management
  81. https://danbred.com/tips-and-insights/boar-training-1-efficient-management-and-handling/
  82. https://porkgateway.org/resource/management-of-the-boar/
  83. https://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/APSC/apsc-231/apsc-231.html
  84. https://www.sites.ext.vt.edu/newsletter-archive/livestock/aps-01_03/aps-0344.html
  85. https://porkgateway.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/synchronization-of-estrus-in-swine3.pdf
  86. https://www.thepigsite.com/articles/managing-the-sow-and-gilt-estrous-cycle
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871141325001544
  88. https://www.merckvetmanual.com/management-and-nutrition/embryo-transfer-in-farm-animals/embryo-transfer-in-pigs
  89. https://www.publish.csiro.au/rd/Fulltext/rd24137
  90. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:448042/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  91. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0093691X15006512
  92. https://www.thepigsite.com/articles/using-genetics-to-increase-litter-size-and-survival-of-piglets
  93. https://porcinehealthmanagement.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40813-023-00303-3
  94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11987883/
  95. https://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/APSC/apsc-195/apsc-195.html
  96. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731123002112
  97. https://www.ipic.iastate.edu/publications/320.feedstuffs.pdf
  98. https://extension.psu.edu/considerations-for-protein-alternatives-in-swine/
  99. https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/formulating-swine-rations.html
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4377136/
  101. https://www.merckvetmanual.com/management-and-nutrition/nutrition-pigs/nutritional-requirements-of-pigs
  102. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13298/nutrient-requirements-of-swine-eleventh-revised-edition
  103. https://www.asi.k-state.edu/extension/swine/swinenutritionguide/nursery_nutrition/aminoacidlevelnursery.html
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6095379/
  105. https://www.merckvetmanual.com/management-and-nutrition/nutrition-pigs/nutritional-diseases-of-pigs
  106. https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/98/10/skaa325/5917806
  107. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9820889/
  108. https://australianpork.com.au/sites/default/files/2021-06/2020-10_Dietary_lysine_requirements_for_finisher_pigs.pdf
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9599871/
  110. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258994490_Environmental_benefits_of_ractopamine_use_United_States_finisher_swine
  111. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/food-safety-of-ractopamine-fed-beef-and-swine
  112. https://www.farmprogress.com/marketing/ractopamine-mrls-approved-by-codex
  113. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/efsa-evaluates-safety-ractopamine-feed
  114. https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/a4083a30-3866-47ce-abca-2290197379ff_en?filename=codex_ccrdvf_18_agenda_item2-efsa_en.pdf
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11974320/
  116. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396627335_Decrease_in_colistin_resistance_among_young_bovine_and_pig_productions_in_France_relationship_with_colistin_usage_and_stewardship_measures
  117. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780323897730000278
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC153145/
  119. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20250630/Ionophore-use-in-farming-drives-global-spread-of-antibiotic-resistance-genes-study-finds.aspx
  120. https://porkcheckoff.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/16-214-THOMA-final-rpt.pdf
  121. https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/44292/10992_eib43.pdf
  122. https://ew-nutrition.com/us/sustainability-livestock-farming/
  123. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11209547/
  124. https://www.ecolab.com/articles/2024/05/pig-diseases
  125. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/vietnam-facing-worsening-african-swine-fever-outbreaks-2025-08-05/
  126. https://www.fao.org/animal-health/situation-updates/asf-in-asia-pacific/en
  127. https://www.swinehealth.org/shic-wean-to-harvest-biosecurity-industry-wide-assessment-of-bioexclusion-practices-across-us-swine-farms-final-report/
  128. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167587725001540
  129. https://www.prrs.com/disease-control/control/vaccination-prrs-control
  130. https://www.woah.org/en/disease/african-swine-fever/
  131. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12030036/
  132. https://www.thepigsite.com/articles/ventilation
  133. https://www.vettimes.com/news/vets/livestock/methodology-for-investigating-respiratory-conditions-in-pigs
  134. https://www.merckvetmanual.com/respiratory-system/respiratory-diseases-of-pigs/overview-of-respiratory-diseases-of-pigs
  135. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5452818/
  136. https://open.lib.umn.edu/swinedrugs/chapter/tetracyclines/
  137. https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-05-1687_en.htm
  138. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9686698/
  139. https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/national-antimicrobial-resistance-monitoring-system/narms-minor-species-report
  140. https://veterinaryresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13567-018-0560-8
  141. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9880851/
  142. https://extension.missouri.edu/publications/g2430
  143. https://porkgateway.org/resource/external-parasite-control/
  144. https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/433084/External-parasites-of-pigs.pdf
  145. https://www.sites.ext.vt.edu/newsletter-archive/livestock/aps-04_12/aps-391.html
  146. https://www.scielo.br/j/pvb/a/xwCZhrpLFjWLXy8tmFH9h6Q/
  147. https://mysrf.org/pdf/pdf_swine/s12.pdf
  148. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304401796009399
  149. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8773524/
  150. https://americanminipigassociation.com/owners/helpful-owner-articles/worming-treatment-internal-external-parasites/
  151. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7046898/
  152. https://vetmed.tennessee.edu/ivermectin-use-in-veterinary-medicine-what-you-need-to-know/
  153. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11680096/
  154. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.605078/full
  155. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5833096/
  156. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/7/261
  157. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731123000903
  158. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016815910100199X
  159. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7644636/
  160. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3040303/
  161. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2023.1251070/full
  162. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1410729/
  163. https://porcinehealthmanagement.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40813-016-0032-3
  164. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/avma-lit-review-gestation-sow-housing-0924.pdf
  165. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159115000374
  166. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6562439/
  167. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/6/383
  168. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6563062/
  169. https://faunalytics.org/how-proposition-12-impacted-pork-prices-in-california/
  170. https://civileats.com/2025/05/06/opponents-of-prop-12-ask-congress-to-overturn-it-again/
  171. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/07/usda-pork-data-california-prop-12-farm-bill-00469070
  172. https://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/agbyproducts/agbychap4.pdf
  173. https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/how-does-nitrogen-move-through-a-swine-farm-with-a-lagoon-sprayfield-system
  174. https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/id/id-205.html
  175. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10706032/
  176. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375851117_Carbon_Footprint_of_the_Pork_Product_Chain_and_Recent_Advancements_in_Mitigation_Strategies
  177. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10119444/
  178. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
  179. https://earth911.com/how-and-buy/bad-better-best-climate-impact-of-meat/
  180. https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/hog-health/water-the-forgotten-nutrient
  181. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950263224000218
  182. https://extension.missouri.edu/publications/eq350
  183. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871141307004684
  184. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731114002134
  185. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408347.2020.1855410
  186. https://www.animbiosci.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.5713/ab.23.0367
  187. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479711003483
  188. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871141309003692
  189. https://www.fb.org/market-intel/2020-epa-emissions-inventory-demonstrates-agricultures-advancements-in-sustainability
  190. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/us-ghg-inventory-2022-chapter-5-agriculture.pdf
  191. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/15/18/1935
  192. https://www.thepigsite.com/articles/feeding-strategies-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-pigs
  193. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9996816/
  194. https://www.statista.com/statistics/237570/pork-production-worldwide/
  195. https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/global-pork-meat-market
  196. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/hogs-pork/market-outlook
  197. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_livestock_patterns
  198. https://ahdb.org.uk/news/long-term-pork-consumption-trends-to-2033-demand-shifts-east-as-global-appetite-grows
  199. https://nppc.org/the-pork-industry/
  200. https://www.hoosieragtoday.com/2024/07/30/nppc-economic-contribution-report-2/
  201. https://porkcheckoff.org/pork-branding/facts-statistics/
  202. https://www.feedstrategy.com/animal-health-veterinary/african-swine-fever/article/15659216/usda-china-lost-28m-tons-of-pork-production-due-to-asf
  203. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/north-america-swine-artificial-insemination-market-insights-zi4ke/
  204. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378432024001295
  205. https://www.worldstopexports.com/pork-exports-by-country/
  206. https://www.worldstopexports.com/international-markets-for-imported-pork-by-country/
  207. https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/agriculture/021425-us-data-pork-exports-rise-to-an-all-time-high-in-2024
  208. https://www.iowafarmbureau.com/Article/World-Pork-Trade
  209. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/everything-but-the-oink-insights-on-u-s-pork-variety-meats-in-an-era-of-trade-uncertainty
  210. https://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/us-china-trade-dispute-and-potential-impacts-to-agriculture/theme-overview-uschina-trade-dispute-and-potential-impacts-on-agriculture
  211. https://www.startribune.com/china-tariffs-american-exports-pig-farming/601462270
  212. https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/commodities/pork-pork-products
  213. https://www.ahdb.org.uk/news/what-are-the-likely-impacts-of-the-usa-china-trade-war-on-the-pork-industry
  214. https://www.choicesmagazine.org/2002-4/2002-4-03.pdf
  215. https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/farming-business-management/pork-producers-face-rising-volatility
  216. https://www.compeer.com/articles/how-pork-producers-can-navigate-rising-market-volatility
  217. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355819823_Pork_production_and_consumption_issues_from_the_perspective_of_the_religion_and_the_World%27s_growing_population
  218. https://www.tridge.com/news/the-global-pork-import-and-export-market-in--ojnswo
  219. https://www.osha.gov/agricultural-operations/hazards
  220. https://porkgateway.org/resource/safety-in-swine-production-systems/
  221. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652621019648
  222. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/do_h2s_monitors_belong_on_the_swine_farm_part_one
  223. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2001-111/pdfs/2001-111.pdf
  224. https://gpcah.public-health.uiowa.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Kirkhorn-etal-2010-Ergo_MSD2.pdf
  225. https://porkcheckoff.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/14-289-ALEXANDER-Final-Report.pdf
  226. https://www.bls.gov/web/osh/table-1-industry-rates-national.htm
  227. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1973337/
  228. https://www.cdc.gov/swine-flu/variant-flu-in-humans/index.html
  229. https://www.bfr.bund.de/en/service/frequently-asked-questions/topic/hepatitis-e-virus-avoiding-transmission-via-domestic-pigs-and-wild-boars-and-food-derived-from-them/
  230. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2941993/
  231. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add6681
  232. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10982950/
  233. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/operational-wildlife-activities/feral-swine/damage-people-pets
  234. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aro2.19
  235. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7780598/
  236. https://www.thepigsite.com/articles/control-of-zoonotic-diseases-in-pigs
  237. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/30/12/24-0695_article
  238. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-68335-5
  239. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7277695/
  240. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366948775_Study_of_the_mortality_rate_in_pre-fattening_pigs
  241. https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jas/skad408/7471403
  242. https://www.thepigsite.com/news/2011/07/return-to-feeding-animal-protein-on-its-way-1
  243. https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/f7ffa708-666a-47c7-9d24-e01128dfae34_en?filename=qa-animal-feed-auth-proteins_en_2.pdf
  244. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0946672X22000396
  245. https://porkcheckoff.org/certification-tools/training-certification/pqa-plus/
  246. https://actavetscand.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13028-025-00825-6
  247. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871141312002284
  248. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8074599/
  249. https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/livestock-management/petition-urges-fda-to-reconsider-a-ban-on-ractopamine
  250. https://www.porkbusiness.com/news/ag-policy/no-surprise-prop-12-raises-prices-pork-california
  251. https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/pub/2024/03/19/v27n3_2_e40mBEN.pdf
  252. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030691922500171X
  253. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=107941
  254. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/11/6784
  255. https://www.miragenews.com/deep-dive-into-complex-tapestry-of-religious-1232567/
  256. https://www.thepigsite.com/articles/environmental-regulation-and-location-of-hog-production
  257. https://www.datainsightsmarket.com/reports/intelligent-pig-farm-1405844
  258. https://www.pig333.com/articles/artificial-intelligence-in-the-swine-industry-an-unstoppable-present_19892/
  259. https://sinomuge.com/automated-pig-feeding-roi-scale/
  260. https://poultryequipmentsystem.com/news/smart-pig-farming-management-through-integrated-control-systems.html
  261. https://www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/fulltext/S0167-7799%2825%2900365-8
  262. https://www.avma.org/news/fda-approves-gene-editing-tech-creating-prrs-resistant-pigs
  263. https://www.lfdecentralizedtrust.org/case-studies/walmart-case-study
  264. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363742697_Blockchain-Enabled_Traceability_in_Sustainable_Food_Supply_Chains_A_Case_Study_of_the_Pork_Industry_in_Vietnam
  265. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1139494/full
  266. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.03199-23
  267. https://www.thepigsite.com/articles/climate-change-and-pig-production
  268. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7318173/
  269. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.3389/fclim.2025.1592677/full
  270. https://www.dlg.org/en/magazine/pig-farming-20-less-co2-is-possible
  271. https://awellfedworld.org/feed-ratios/
  272. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175173111100005X
  273. https://www.digicomply.com/blog/lab-grown-meat-challenges-and-innovations-for-2025
  274. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12241508/
  275. https://ahdb.org.uk/news/long-term-global-pig-meat-supply-asia-to-drive-growth-through-to-2034
  276. https://www.euromeatnews.com/Article-AHDB%253A--Global-pig-meat-supply-is-forecast-to-increase-to-130-million-tonnes-by-2034/8797
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.