# Prospects for sustainability of pig production in relation to climate change and novel feed resources

Wendy M Rauw, Lotta Rydhmer, Ilias Kyriazakis, Hélène Gilbert, Jack C M Dekkers, Susanne Hermesch, Alban Bouquet, Emilio Gómez Izquierdo, Isabelle Louveau, Luis Gomez-Raya

► To cite this version:

Wendy M Rauw, Lotta Rydhmer, Ilias Kyriazakis, Hélène Gilbert, Jack C M Dekkers, et al.. Prospects for sustainability of pig production in relation to climate change and novel feed resources. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2020, 100 (9), pp.3575-3586. 10.1002/jsfa.10338. hal-02503321

HAL Id: hal-02503321

https://hal.science/hal-02503321

Submitted on 26 May 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Prospects for sustainability of pig production in relation to climate change and novel feed resources

Wendy M. Rauw,\* Lotta Rydhmer,\textsuperscript{b} Ilias Kyriazakis,\textsuperscript{c} Margareth Øverland,\textsuperscript{d} Hélène

Gilbert, \textsuperscript{e} Jack C.M. Dekkers,\textsuperscript{f} Susanne Hermesch,\textsuperscript{g} Alban Bouquet,\textsuperscript{h} Emilio Gómez

Izquierdo,\textsuperscript{i} Isabelle Louveau\textsuperscript{j} and Luis Gomez-Raya\textsuperscript{a}

a Departamento de Mejora Genética Animal, INIA, Madrid, Spain

b Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

c School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom

d Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway

e GenPhySE, INRAE, Castanet-Tolosan, France

f Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Kildee Hall, Ames, USA

g Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit (a joint venture of NSW Department of Primary Industries and University of New England), Armidale, Australia

h IFIP-Institut du Porc, Le Rheu, Cedex, France

i Centro de Pruebas de Porcino, ITACyL, Hontalbilla, Spain

j PEGASE, INRAE, Agrocampus Ouest, Saint-Gilles, France

\* Corresponding to: W.M. Rauw, Departamento de Mejora Genética Animal, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria, Madrid, Spain. E-mail: rauw.wendy@inia.es

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1111/jsfa.10338
ABSTRACT

Pig production systems provide multiple benefits to humans. However, the global increase in meat consumption has profound consequences for our earth. This perspective describes two alternative scenarios for improving the sustainability of future pig production systems. The first scenario is a high input-high output system based on sustainable intensification, maximizing animal protein production efficiency on a limited land surface while minimizing environmental impacts. The second scenario is a reduced input-reduced output system based on selecting animals that are more robust to climate change and are better adapted to transform low quality feed (local feeds, feedstuff co-products, feed waste) into meat. However, in contrast to the first scenario, the latter scenario results in reduced predicted yields, reduced production efficiency, and possibly increased costs to the consumer. National evaluation of availability of local feed and feedstuff-coproduct alternatives, determination of limits to feed sourced from international markets, available land for crop and livestock production, desired production levels, and willingness to politically enforce policies through subsidies and/or penalties are some of the considerations to combine these two scenarios. Given future novel sustainable alternatives to livestock animal protein, it may become reasonable to move towards an added general premium price on ‘protein from livestock animals’ to the benefit of promoting higher incomes to farmers while covering the extra costs of, politically enforced, welfare of livestock animals in sustainable production systems.

**Keywords:** sustainable agriculture; animal robustness, climate change, local feed resources, pig production
## INTRODUCTION

The United Nations Population Division¹ projects that the human population may rise to nearly 11 billion people by 2100. Nearly 90% of the population will live in less developed regions. In particular, nine countries will be responsible for more than half of the projected population growth: India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Congo, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Indonesia, Egypt, and the United States². Parallel to overall population growth, we evidence an increase in meat production and consumption. From 1961 to 2013, average annual meat consumption rose worldwide from 23.1 to 43.2 kg per person: between 14 kg in the least developed countries to over 81 kg in the European Union and 115 kg in the United States and Australia, achieving average consumption levels that exceed needs in the most developed countries³⁻⁴. Even though the number of undernourished people is estimated to have reached 821 million in 2017⁵, purchasing power of the developing world increased significantly in the 2000s, and to such a rate that the aggregate economic weight of developing and emerging economies have surpassed that of the countries that currently make up the advanced world⁶. Figure 1 shows an increase in protein consumption (g/capita/d) in 37 countries by income tercile⁵: as income grows, so does expenditure on livestock products⁷. Protein consumption increased between 50 to 200% when income increased from the first to the third tercile (Figure 1); this variation in consumption increase can be explained by differences in initial intake levels and the relative place of meat in protein intake in each country³. The increase in population size and consumption per capita propelled, what Delgado⁸ called, “the livestock revolution”. The increase in the world production of meat from different livestock species in response to the increase in the world’s human population size is particularly pronounced for broiler and pig meat⁹. So much that Thomas et al.¹⁰ exclaim: “We are living on the planet of the

Accepted Article
Version postprint
chickens. The broiler (meat) chicken now outweighs all wild birds together by three to one”.

Although breed choice and selection practices have improved production yield per animal, this increased demand for animal products has resulted in an unprecedented increase in the world's livestock populations (Figure 2, 1961 to 2016): according to data available to FAO<sup>11</sup>, in 2017, each 100 persons shared this world with approximately 13 pigs, 20 cattle, 303 chickens, 6 turkeys 14 goats and 16 sheep.

**Figure 1 about here**

**Figure 2 about here**

Livestock farming systems provide a range of benefits, including provision of protein-rich food from edible resources that contribute to food security, employment and rural economies, carbon storage and flood control by grasslands, landscape aesthetic value, recreation and tourism potential, capital stock and draught power in many developing countries, cultural identity, and social services all around the world<sup>12-13</sup>. Meat consumption contributes to the supply of energy, protein, and important micronutrients (e.g., long-chain n-3 fatty acids, copper, iron, iodine, manganese, selecnium, zinc, B-vitamins) in the human food chain<sup>14</sup>. However, despite these multiple benefits of meat production, the increase in the number of livestock animals directly challenges sustainability of animal production, since it results in profound consequences for our earth: in 2004, the WorldWatch Institute<sup>15</sup> concluded: ‘The human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the
human future – deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities and the spread of disease. ‘Sustainability’ was first debated at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden, where it was defined as “an economy in equilibrium with its basic ecological support system”, i.e., referring to the balance between population growth and activities that draw on the earth’s finite natural resources¹⁶. Following the meeting, the concept of sustainability has been shaped by science, popular movements, and formal global networks into very different conceptualizations that may focus on different dimensions of sustainability¹⁷. The most quoted definition of sustainable development is taken from the 1987 report of the world commission on environment and development: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This definition is not a blueprint of sustainability as it covers economic, environmental, as well as social systems that differ widely among countries¹⁸.

Following these three pillars of sustainability, the EU defined the aims of sustainable agriculture to ensure economic viability, conserve natural resources, deliver ecosystem services, manage the countryside, improve the quality of life in farming areas, to insure animal welfare, and to produce safe and healthy food¹⁹. The EU goal for animal production in particular is to enhance competitiveness and economic viability of animal production systems, improve adaptation of livestock to vulnerable diseases and increasingly extreme weather patterns associated with climate change, and to solve issues related to diet and health, ammonia and air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, degradation of natural resources such as nitrates
emissions and water, soil and biodiversity, global food security, global trade and animal
wellbeing²⁰. It follows that negative implications of livestock production can be mitigated
through improvement of sustainability of farming procedures. Sustainability of livestock
production can be improved with an increase in production efficiency per animal by means of
genetic selection, and precision livestock farming²¹. However, technification of livestock systems
is not available to the entire livestock sector. Instead, modern livestock animals are often
challenged to perform in a wide variety of suboptimal environmental conditions, regarding
climate, housing facilities, social environment, disease pressure, and differences in feed quality
and composition²²⁻²³. For example, a shift towards warmer climates requires animals that are more
robust to heat stress²⁴. In addition, and opposite to the concept of precision livestock farming,
sustainability is also increased with a shift from reliance on optimally formulated feeds based on
feed grains and imported feedstuffs to local feeds and feedstuff co-products of sub-optimal
quality²⁵. According to, e.g., Dagevos and Voordouw²⁶, sustainability measures should also
include strategies to reduce meat consumption and to encourage more sustainable eating
practices.

It is the aim of the present perspective to present an overview of two scenarios: agricultural intensification (high input-high output systems) vs. improved robustness to suboptimal conditions (reduced input-reduced output systems). In the first section of this manuscript we discuss the importance of sustainability measures to mitigate negative implications of an increase in the number of livestock animals to our earth. We then describe the concept of precision livestock farming as a scenario to improve sustainability of livestock farming. We follow with a description
of increased adaptation to climate change and local feed resources as an alternative scenario to improve sustainability. In the last section we discuss the economic viability of these two scenarios. In Europe, the population is expected to increase very little, and the demand for animal products is unlikely to increase, however, European diets are on average high in animal products<sup>27</sup>. This perspective emphasizes European livestock production systems.

# SUSTAINABILITY OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION

## Land, water, and energy inputs

Although the increase in demand for animal products over the last decades has been largely met by intensive livestock production<sup>28</sup>, increased demand must likely result in an increase of land dedicated to grow and feed livestock. Since the total arable global surface is limited, this seriously challenges sustainability of production: currently, livestock production, including grazing land and land dedicated to feedcrop production, already accounts for approximately 70 percent of all agricultural land, and 30 percent of the total land surface of the planet<sup>29</sup>. Release of the amount of carbon held in trees to the atmosphere with the clearing of natural vegetation for agricultural production, which is 20 to 50 times higher in forests than in cleared lands, contributes to the greenhouse effect and global warming<sup>30</sup>. According to Houghton<sup>31</sup>, tropical deforestation, in particular in Brazil, India and Indonesia, is estimated to have released 1-2 PgC (petagrams of carbon) per year during the 1990s and is predicted to release another 85 to 130 PgC over the next 100 years. The livestock sector accounts for eight percent of global human water use, mostly for the irrigation of feedcrops<sup>29</sup>. Pimentel et al.<sup>32</sup> estimate that the liters of water needed per kg product ranges from 3500 in broiler chickens, 6000 in pigs, 43000 in feedlot beef, and
120000-200000 for beef produced on open rangeland, as opposed to 650 for corn, 900 for wheat, 1000 for cereal grain, 1600 for rice, and 2000 for soybean. According to estimates by Hoekstra and Chapagain³³, the water needed to produce chicken meat, pork, and beef is 3900, 4900, and 15500 m³/ton, respectively, compared with 900 m³/ton for maize, 1300 m³/ton for wheat, and 3000 m³/ton for husked rice. A recent study by Mekkonen et al.³⁴ showed that several factors, including larger livestock output per head, lower feed requirements per head, and larger yields of feed crops have resulted in improved water productivity (i.e., the ratio of the product output per animal to its water footprint) of meat and milk products between 1960 and 2016. However, they warn that the livestock sector still consumes large amounts of water, contributing to the competition over scarce freshwater resources. Furthermore, livestock production requires energy. In the light of the 1970s oil crisis, Pimentel et al.³⁵ warned that the use of high energy production technology to sustain green revolution agriculture might have a significant impact on agriculture as an industry and a way of life when conventional energy resources become scarce and expensive. According to Pimentel³⁶, kcal fossil energy inputs per kcal of animal protein produced increases from 4:1 in broilers, to 10:1 in turkeys, 14:1 in dairy cows, 14:1 in pigs, 20:1 in grass-fed beef cattle, 39:1 in laying hens, 40:1 in grain- and forage-fed beef cattle, to 57:1 in lamb. The major fossil energy inputs come from fertilizers, farm machinery, fuel, irrigation, and pesticides for grain and forage production³⁷.

Emissions and wastes

Comment cite ce document :

Rauw, W. M., Rydhmer, L., This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
A larger livestock population results in larger amounts of emissions and wastes. The livestock supply chain is estimated to be responsible for the emission of 44% of anthropogenic methane (mostly from enteric fermentation by ruminants), 53% of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (mostly from manure), and 5% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, contributing to global warming, and acidification and eutrophication of ecosystems³⁸. As quantified by Schiehorn et al.³⁹, with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents dropped by 7.61 Gt, mainly resulting from a decrease in beef production, increase in beef imports, and carbon sequestration in soils on abandoned cropland. According to Campbell et al.⁴⁰, of nine recognized planetary boundaries that define a safe operating space for humanity, agriculture is the major driver of full transgression of ‘biosphere integrity’ and ‘biogeochemical flows’, a significant contributor to ‘climate change’, puts ‘land-system change’ and ‘freshwater use’ at increasing risk of transgression, and threatens the planetary boundaries of ‘ocean acidification’, ‘stratospheric ozone depletion’, ‘atmospheric aerosol loading’, and ‘introduction of novel entities’ that are still in the safe zone.

## Reduced meat consumption

Because of the impact of agriculture in particular, the need for a synergistic combination of changing Western diets to (more) plant-based, less intensive food types (i.e., a reduction of meat intake), improvements in technologies and management, and reductions in food loss and waste are emphasized⁴¹⁻⁴³. For example, Raphaely and Marinova⁴⁴ write: ‘Flexitarianism calls for an awareness of our personal impact on the world and an understanding that the morality of our diet
is linked to the ecological and social conditions of human and nonhuman beings'. However, Bailey et al.⁴⁵ and Laestadius et al.⁴⁶ concluded from a multicountry survey, and interviews with non-governmental organizations in the USA, Canada, and Sweden, that despite the clear need for tackling the demand for meat and dairy products to avoid devastating climate change, there is a remarkable lack of policies, initiatives or campaigns to do so out of the belief that it is too complex a challenge, and risking alienating supporters with messages that are perceived to be negative or asking for too much. In 2018, in The Netherlands, the “Council for the Environment and Infrastructure”⁴⁷ advised the Dutch Government to play an active role in reducing the national consumption of animal protein from 70% to 40% of total protein intake. The advice included setting active policy goals (e.g., setting production limits based on quotas for phosphate and CO₂ emission, and number of animals), cooperating with the retail and the catering industry to stimulate innovation in the sector, and influence consumer behavior, educate consumers, and increase the price of animal protein. However, the advice was debated by the government in March 2019⁴⁸ and rejected; only one of six motions filed (innovation of seaweed production) was accepted⁴⁹. Meanwhile, based on a consumer survey in Norway, Austgulen et al.⁵⁰ concluded that consumers may still not be ready to make food choices based on what is best for the climate or environment. Therefore, increased sustainability will predominantly need to come from more sustainable livestock production systems.

## HIGH INPUT – HIGH OUTPUT PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

*Improved level of outputs*
A first measure towards improved output of agricultural production is optimization of the existing production process. As given by Godfray et al.⁵¹, “the difference between realized productivity and the best that can be achieved using current genetic material and available technologies and management is termed the 'yield gap'”, i.e., the difference between the observed yields and potential yields of crops [and livestock] at a given location⁵². A yield gap may exist because of a mismatch between available technology, water, nutrients, land, biodiversity, and labor, and their optimum use by farmers based on accessibility, market influence, and knowledge⁵². Whereas actual crop yields are already approximating their maximum possible yields in some regions, better deployment of existing crop varieties with improved management could significantly increase yields in particular across many parts of Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe⁵²⁻⁵³.

The same holds true for livestock production. For example, the book of Ruth Harrison in 1964 on ‘animal machines’ was a first detailed description of livestock systems with “rapid turnover, high-density stocking, a high degree of mechanization, a low labor requirement, and efficient conversion of food into saleable products” in the Western world. In response to the rapidly growing demand for livestock products, over the past decades, large intensive livestock production units using the best genetics, in particular for pig and poultry production, have also emerged in many developing regions, closing the yield gap with respect to what is attainable in the developed world⁵⁴.

Genetic improvement is key to this development. In the 19th century, a combination of European and Asian pig genetics laid the foundation for the creation of modern European pig breeds, which became further genetically improved when national, regional, and commercial pig
breeding companies began to develop in Europe and North America after 1945⁵⁵. From the late
1970s, it became common to use hybrid fattening pigs on commercial operations which improved
production due to hybrid vigor and breed complementarity⁵⁶. Breeds used as sires could now be
selected for production traits (lean growth, carcass quality and feed efficiency), whereas dam line
selection also focused on reproduction traits (fertility, age at puberty, number born alive, litter
weight). Worldwide, pig production is dominated by the use of the Large White, Duroc,
Landrace, Hampshire, and Pietrain breeds, and breeding pigs are supplied by only few
commercial companies, including Genus-PIC, Topigs-Norsvin, Hypor, Danbred, JSR Genetics,
and Choice Genetics. Selection for feed efficiency is particularly relevant in order to support
increased production levels with fewer resources, reducing the energy needed for producing feed
while reducing animal excretions. However, whereas upwards selected production traits
hypothetically have no upper limit, downwards selected traits that are related to the animal's
energy balance (feed intake, body fatness) do: at a value of zero. This reduction may have
consequences for animal robustness⁵⁷.

Improving quality of inputs

Genetically improved levels of productive output on a defined limited space are likely to require
increased quality, if not quantity, of inputs. Improved crop production requires irrigation,
fertilizer, machinery, crop-protection products for pest and weed control, and soil-conservation
measures⁵¹. The negative externalities of production systems with high external inputs have been
extensively described by, for example, Gregory et al.⁵⁸ regarding losses of nutrients from
fertilizers and manures to water courses and contributions of gases to climate change. This raises questions about the sustainability and potential environmental consequences of future production systems, and the need to focus on ‘sustainable intensification’, i.e., “production methods [that] have to sustain the environment, preserve natural resources and support livelihoods of farmers and rural populations around the world”⁵⁸⁻⁵⁹. Sustainability can be improved by fine-tuning the use of inputs through precision agriculture, i.e., a series of technologies that allows the application of water, nutrients, and pesticides only to the places and at the times they are required⁵¹.

Similarly, improved levels of livestock and poultry production at high stocking densities and modern biotechnology must be supported by improved technology and increased quantity and/or quality of resources that allow for the expression of production traits. With the delinking of livestock from on-farm, mixed-farming agricultural by-products, resulting from the industrialization of livestock production, feed with higher nutritional and commercial value is now sourced from international markets, including grain, oil-meal, fish-meal, and soybean meal⁶⁰. Worldwide, about one-third of global cereal production, 74% of maize production, and 83% of soybean production are fed to animals²⁵,⁶¹. Soybean meal is a major ingredient in livestock feeds because of its relatively low water content, high protein content (approximately 40%, up to 50%) with a suitable amino acid profile, minimal variation in nutrient content, anti-nutritional factors that are easily reduced or eliminated, and because it is a crop that is readily available year-round⁶². It is a major source of the amino acid lysine, which is the first limiting amino acid for pigs and the second for poultry⁶³. Van Gelder et al.⁶⁴ estimated that the soy meal content needed to produce one unit of livestock product in the EU is approximately 21 g/l for milk, 32
g/egg for eggs, 232 g/kg for beef and veal, 648 g/kg for pork and 967 g/kg for poultry meat. The share of soy production in 2014 was 31% in the USA, 31% in Brazil, and 19% in Argentina⁶⁵. In the EU, however, grain legume crops (species of Fabaceae (Leguminosae) family, including soybean, first pea, field beans, broad beans, chick pea, lentils and lupine) are grown on only 1.8% of arable land, making Europe heavily reliant on expensive imports, of approximately 70% for agricultural protein products and over 95% for soybean grains and meal⁶⁶. The reason for Europe's low production origins from trade agreements with the US. At the international trade negotiations of the General Tariff and Trade Agreement (GATT) Dillon Round of 1962, duty free entry of oilseeds to the European market (including soybeans) was negotiated, which, because of its significant progress in the efficiency of production and the use of new technologies, and therefore its favorable protein/cost-ratio, left alternative European substitutes for soy unable to develop. Subsequently, with the Blair House Agreement of 1992, the US successfully negotiated a limit to the area of subsidized oilseeds production in Europe, further increasing Europe's dependency on soy imports; this agreement was rendered obsolete with the reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy of 2005, which reduced oilseed payments to the same level as grains⁶⁷⁻⁶⁸. However, by then, the relatively few investments made in the past decades had resulted in yield gaps in developing these protein crops relative to that of wheat or maize⁶⁹. Imports come in particular from Argentina and Brazil⁶², where soybean production has expanded into natural ecosystems in the Amazon (tropical forest) and Cerrado (savanna) in Brazil⁷⁰, and tropical dry ecosystems in Argentina⁷¹. Monogastric animals such as pigs are particularly dependent on simple carbohydrates, therefore, more than 50% of their total dry-matter intake
consists of grains, and 9-25% of oil seed cakes; soybean meal accounts for 85% of the protein supplement fed to pigs<sup>72</sup>. According to Mottet et al.<sup>25</sup>, pigs in industrial production systems consume 24.1 kg dry matter to produce 1 kg of pork protein; this 24.1 kg DM consists of 4.4 kg protein that origins from human-edible sources. These pigs have a considerably better feed conversion ratio than pigs in backyard systems, however, the latter make a positive net contribution to human protein availability by producing more protein in product than the amount of human-edible protein that they consume (0.7 kg/kg product).

Precision livestock farming

Similar to crop production, sustainability of this high-input high-output system is further improved through the use of modern monitoring and control systems that allow for precision livestock farming (PLF), a term coined in 2004 describing “a management system based on continuous automatic real-time monitoring and control of production/reproduction, animal health and welfare, and the environmental impact of livestock production”<sup>73-74</sup>. Since feed accounts for 60 to 70% of the overall production costs of livestock production, precision livestock feeding is an important component of PLF, which consists in providing, in real-time, the individual amount of nutrients required that maximizes nutrient utilization without loss of performance, and takes into consideration changes in nutrient requirements that occur over time and variation in nutrient requirements that exits among individual<sup>75</sup>. Thus, according to PLF, dietary requirements form a dynamic process in function of the animal’s own intrinsic (e.g., genetics, health, nutritional status), and extrinsic (environmental and social stressors) factors which can be monitored in
real-time<sup>76</sup>. Precision feeding is accomplished through automatic measurement devices for the
collection of data (e.g., feed intake, body weight, analytes), data processing and computational
methods that estimate the nutrient requirements based on these inputs, and feeding systems that
are capable of providing (individually) the adequate amount and precise diet formulation that
maximize the desired production trajectory<sup>75</sup>. For example, by modeling the individual nutrient
requirements of sows and growing pigs, feeding strategies can be formulated on a per animal
basis, thus optimizing efficiency and performance<sup>74,77</sup>. Since population feed requirements in
commercial pig farming are often tailored to the most demanding pigs in order to maximize the
desired population response, precision feeding will prevent pigs from receiving more nutrients
than they need. This improves the efficiency of dietary nutrient utilization, reduces feeding costs,
and reduces environmental consequences of the excretion of excess nutrients such as nitrogen and
phosphorus<sup>78</sup>. As reviewed by Neethirajan<sup>79</sup>, model input biomarkers that can be monitored on an
animal include blood parameters, sweat, and saliva sensing (e.g., for analytes including sodium,
potassium, lactate, glucose, cortisol content or amounts of active drugs), body temperature,
behavior and movement, stress, sound, pH, and the presence of viruses and pathogens. When this
information is integrated into a monitoring system it allows for producing an accurate real-time
health status and disease diagnosis, keeping livestock production one step ahead of invisible
diseases<sup>79</sup>. Use of behavior detection, such as changes in feeding and drinking behavior,
elimination behaviors, social behaviors and locomotion and posture, in monitoring of health and
welfare is extensively reviewed by Matthews et al.<sup>80</sup>. According to Tedeschi and Menendez
(2019)<sup>81</sup>, mathematical modelling of decision support systems is more important than ever
because it gives the user the ability to quickly evaluate multiple scenarios of production which minimizes risks and maximizes profits, improving acceptability, sustainability, and resistance of animal production systems.

REDUCED INPUT – REDUCED OUTPUT PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

As discussed by Van Grinsven et al.⁸², when sustainable intensification still translates to intensification of land use, increasing external inputs, and the use of high yielding crop and animal varieties, this may be regarded as unsustainable in view of risks for the environment, especially in regions with a small yield gap, such as in Europe. In addition, several studies suggest that animals in high-density stocking with genetically high levels of production and depending on advanced animal nutrition and animal management practices to support their productive potential are more sensitive to changes in the production environment. For example, a simulation study by Kolmodin et al.⁸³ suggested that environmental sensitivity will increase with selection for high phenotypic production values. These observations were supported by Knap and Su⁸⁴, who indicated that “irrespective of genetic effects, the performance of sows with a high reproductive capacity is practically always highly sensitive to environmental disturbance. (...) the performance of high-potential genotypes (and of high-capacity sows) will likely come down strongly when environmental conditions become unfavourable.” This is relevant because livestock animals are required to perform in a wide variety of environmental, often suboptimal, conditions²²⁻²³.

Climate change

Comment cite this document :

Rauw, W. M., Rydhmer, L., This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
For example, a shift towards warmer climates may move livestock animals out of their thermal comfort zones, resulting in reduced feed intakes. Furthermore, drought and extreme rainfall variability, and other smaller climatic changes can trigger periods of feed scarcity and changes in the nutritional quality of feeds⁸⁵. Genotype by environment interactions have been particularly well described in dairy cattle, where high genetic potential cows that are transferred to tropical environments may lose their superiority in production (e.g.,⁸⁶). High potential Holstein dairy cattle ate more and had higher growth rates under low environmental stress conditions (no parasites or diseases, no heat stress, and a high quality diet) than low potential Brahmans, while Brahmans had the highest realized growth of the two breeds at high levels of environmental stress⁸⁷. Poullet et al.⁸⁸ showed that Creole pigs, which are adapted to tropical conditions, were able to maintain body weight gain under restricted feeding (a common physiological response of growing pigs facing stressful environmental conditions such as heat stress), whereas growth performance in Large White pigs, which are selected for high production performance, was significantly reduced. Similarly, Rauw et al.⁸⁹ observed that, independent of genetic line, pigs with higher growth rates in a thermoneutral environment had lower growth rates in a subsequent heat stress challenge, indicating that high producing animals in thermoneutral conditions were less robust to heat stress, whereas those robust to heat stress showed a trade-off with production under thermoneutral conditions (Figure 3). This is also supported by observations by Settar et al.⁹⁰, who observed that broiler genotypes that gain more weight in the spring tended to gain less weight under the hot conditions of summer. Rauw et al.⁸⁹ conclude that their results emphasize the necessity to review breed choice and genetic selection objectives for improved heat tolerance to
climate change. Pigs of interest as selection candidates are those that are able to maintain high growth rates under heat stress, and these animals may not have the genetics with highest growth potential.

Alternative feed resources

Also, the notion of feeds with high nutritional value sourced from international markets as high inputs to support the high production potential of genetically improved livestock as a solution to the sustainability issue is being challenged. According to Van Zanten et al.⁹¹, it is increasingly recognized that we might better not use highly productive croplands to produce human edible crops such as cereals to produce feed for livestock. High-quality feeds may involve large losses of potential human-edible food in their production. Cassidy et al.⁶¹ found that, in 41 crops analyzed in their study, 36% of the 9.46 × 10¹⁵ calories available in plant form go to animal feed. Of this 36%, 89% is lost, such that only 4% of the calories in animal feed crops ultimately contributes to the human diet in the form of animal products⁶¹. According to Rifkin⁹² grain-fed cattle, pigs, and chickens are consumed mostly by affluent populations, especially in Europe, North America and Japan, calling it “a new form of human evil, with consequences possibly far greater and longer lasting than any past wrongdoing inflicted by men against their fellow human beings”. Instead, feeding co-products from human food, food waste and biomass from marginal lands will contribute to sustainable nutrition security and maximize the number of humans that can be fed per hectare⁹¹. Zu Ermgassen et al.⁹³ estimated that 1.8 million hectares of agricultural land could be saved if EU legislation would change to allow the use of food wastes as animal feed, which is
currently illegal for most wastes because of disease control concerns. In a follow-up study, Salemdeeb et al.⁹⁴ found that converting municipal food wastes into pig feed would lead to lower environmental and health impacts than processing waste by composting or anaerobic digestion.

But in addition, the notion of unsustainability of the heavy dependency of the EU to soybean meal imports at the mercy of price volatility of international markets resulted in a motion for a resolution in the European parliament that was adopted on the 1st of January 2011, emphasizing the potential to make the supply of animal feed more reliable by making use of agro-environmental measures. This includes growing on-farm animal feed using mixed crops such as cereals and beans, encouraging extended crop rotation systems that integrate protein crop production into the system, using by-products of oilseed and agrofuels production for animal feed, and providing adequate financial support to farmers involved in sustainable or organic agricultural production⁹⁵. In 2013, a Focus Group on Protein Crops involving 20 experts from 11 EU countries, set up by the European Innovation Partnership in Agriculture, came together to discuss the question “How can the competitiveness of protein crops producers in the EU be improved?”. The group analyzed the potential to increase productivity and protein content of soybeans, rapeseed, sunflower, lupin, pea, faba beans, alfalfa and clover⁶³ and results were published in their final report⁶⁹. The central conclusion to the data is that protein crops have a long way to go before being competitive, but this can be stimulated through different aspects of innovation, including technical innovations on agronomy (variety choice, fertilization, disease control, water use, crop mixtures, environmental effects, and rotational aspects) and breeding
(focusing on drought resistance, climate adaptability, disease resistance, protein content, and reduction in anti-nutritional factors)⁶³,⁶⁹.

However, since the quantity and quality of feed resources limits productive output, feeding diets of suboptimal nutritional quality may result in genotype by diet interaction. Indeed, Brandt et al.⁹⁶ observed a clear genotype environment interaction for growth in different pig breeds kept under conventional (i.e., standardized diets of the performance testing station) and organic production systems (organic diets based on farm-grown feedstuffs). However, genotype by diet interactions may also occur when the same genotypes are offered different diets or different quantities of the same diet. Mauch et al.⁹⁷ observed that responses to selection for improved feed efficiency when fed higher-energy, lower-fiber diets was not fully realized when pigs were fed instead an extremely lower-energy, higher-fiber diet. Rauw et al.⁹⁸ observed that pigs that were more feed efficient on a high quality concentrate diet were less feed efficient on a high-fiber local diet. These observations emphasize that, when sustainability of production is enhanced by improving the efficiency of pigs to transform local, low quality feed into meat⁹⁹, this may require a different type of pig than those currently selected in intensive, high quality input – high output production systems. As reviewed by Phocas et al.¹⁰⁰, agroecological management of pigs, which includes decreased external inputs needed for production and decreased pollution by optimizing the metabolic functioning of farming systems, calls for animals with different performance characteristics and the need to breed for robustness across environments.

**Figure 3 about here**
PROSPECTS FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION

This paper discussed two alternative scenarios for improving the sustainability of future livestock production systems while aiming at feeding 11 billion people by 2100. The first scenario, a high input-high output scenario, is based on sustainable intensification, maximizing animal protein production efficiency on a limited land surface while minimizing environmental impacts. This is accomplished through precision livestock farming, using animals selected for highest production potential (animal Type B in Figure 3) that are precisely fed with genetically improved (imported) crops that are produced with improved production methods, and that are monitored for disease and welfare issues. The second scenario to sustainable animal production, a reduced input-reduced output scenario, is based on selecting livestock animals that are more robust to climate change and are better adapted to transform low quality feeds (local feeds, feedstuff co-products, feed waste) into meat (animal Type A in Figure 3). However, similar to organic farming<sup>101</sup>, the feasibility of this latter scenario may be contested because of reduced predicted yields, reduced production efficiency, but also higher costs due to the reorganization of the feed supply chains, the need to supplement for unbalanced nutrient quality, or the pre-treatment of feedstuffs to, for example, reduce anti-nutritional factors<sup>102</sup>.

National evaluation of availability of local feed and feedstuff-coproduct alternatives is a first step to evaluate the feasibility of the reduced input-reduced output scenario. For example, the Foods of Norway initiative at the Centre for Research-based Innovation in Ås, Norway<sup>103</sup>, has been set up with the specific aim to move Norwegian livestock production away from importing plant ingredients such as soy, and developing with novel technology novel feed ingredients from
local natural bioresources. Alternative feed ingredients investigated include yeast derived from
spruce trees, macroalgea, rapeseed, and co-products from fish, animals, and plants (e.g.,¹⁰⁴⁻¹⁰⁷).

Both industrial partners¹⁰⁸ as well as the Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture and Food¹⁰⁹ are highly supportive of the initiative. Subsequently, modelling is required to evaluate the implications of different scenarios. For example, Röös et al.²⁷ evaluated the implications in Western Europe for land requirement and environmental consequences of livestock intensification, assuming closure of crop yield gaps, increased livestock production efficiencies, and reduced waste at all stages, for different food consumption scenarios. They conclude that land use and greenhouse gas emissions could in principle be halved, however, it would still not be sufficient to reach EU climate change targets²⁷. In dairy production, an integrated farm system model software tool was developed to assess and compare the environmental and economic sustainability of farming systems based on nutrient flows from crop production, feed allocation, production responses, and manure production to predicted losses to the environment¹¹⁰. Several studies also modelled the implications for switching to local feedstuffs. For example, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) by Sasu-Boakye et al.¹¹¹ predicted that, in Sweden, local protein feed production will present an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but at a cost of increasing land occupation for feed production. Depperman et al.¹⁰² assessed the market impacts of a complete switch to regionally produced feed in the European livestock sector. They predict that an implementation would cause a significant increase in the costs of livestock production, which may be counteracted when this is combined with a reduction in consumption of livestock products. The Global Feed Lifecycle Assessment Institute, an independent feed industry initiative
launched in 2016, develops a freely and publicly available global cradle to farm-gate LCA database and tool for the evaluation of feed industry environmental impacts¹¹². In addition, Ottosen et al.¹¹³ developed a method to estimate the environmental impact from (correlated) genetic change in intensive pig production systems. Their study showed that finisher growth rate, body protein-to-lipid ratio, and energy maintenance could be important in reducing environmental impacts, but mortalities and sow robustness had little effect. Furthermore, Zira et al.¹¹⁴ developed a social LCA model with an analytical hierarchical processing method for prioritizing low social sustainability antecedents of poor conditions for farm workers and animals in pig production. Based on a pilot study, the highest priority for worker issues should be given to income; for pig issues similar priority should be given to health, ambient temperature, handling at slaughter and freedom to exhibit natural behavior. In a systematic review of LCAs, McClelland et al.¹¹⁵ warn that simplified LCAs that focus on a single impact category alone may result in risk misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the full extent of livestock production impacts on the environment.

Given a predicted reduction in yields, production efficiency, and increase in costs of the reduced input-reduced output scenario, it may be deducted that the high input-high output scenario of intensification of livestock production is more suitable when the aim is to increase the amount of animal protein products. However, the need for intensification towards increased output of agricultural production is challenged by Holt-Giménez et al.¹¹⁶ in their paper "We already grow enough food for 10 billion people... and still can't end hunger". They state: "Hunger is caused by poverty and inequality, not scarcity. For the past two decades, the rate of
global food production has increased faster than the rate of global population growth" producing already enough to feed the world's 2050 projected population of 10 billion people as long as the bulk is not diverted to the production of biofuels and to feed confined animals. Foley¹¹⁷ estimates that up to three quadrillion additional calories can be added to the food supply, some 50% from our current supply, if humans would switch to all-plant diets. Although the overall demand for animal products is increasing at a rate that may be underestimated¹¹⁸, the overreliance on animal-based foods as a source of protein has steadily decreased in the developed world, resulting in the steady increase in the number of vegans, vegetarians, or flexitarians that focus on the health benefits of a meat-free diet, or are concerned by the treatment of confined livestock and the negative implications of livestock production to our environment¹¹⁹. Between 2014 and 2017, consumers following a low-meat diet increased from 26 to 44% in Germany, while consumers claiming to be vegan increased from 1 to 6% in the US¹²⁰. According to a modelling study by Westbroek et al.¹²¹, replacing just 50% of animal-derived foods (meat, dairy products, and eggs) with plant-based foods in the European Union would result in a 40% reduction in nitrogen emissions, 25-40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 23% per capita less use of cropland for food production, and 75% reduction of the use of soymeal, while dietary changes would lower our health risks. In addition, an estimated one third of all food produced globally is either lost in the supply chain or wasted, the latter including food that deviates from what is considered the correct shape, size, or color, food that is close to or beyond the "best-before" date, and food that is disposed of at households and restaurants¹²². FAO's target, as specified under the "Sustainable Development Goals", Target 12.3, aims "by 2030 to halve per capita global food waste at the
retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses"¹²³. Therefore, a reduced input-reduced output scenario is feasible if this is combined with a reduction in meat consumption and food waste, which was urgently called for in August 2019 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to help fight climate change¹²⁴.

Furthermore, in the reduced input-reduced output scenario, a necessary condition to maintain farm income on potentially reduced production yields and reduced production efficiency is compensation through price premiums on the products and/or savings on external inputs⁸². Napolitano et al.¹²⁵ reviewed several willingness-to-pay studies and concluded that people express interest to pay a premium for food from animals raised humanely. With this public endorsement the European Union has been able to increase the number of regulations on the welfare of farm animals over the past years¹²⁵. Maynard et al.¹²⁶ observed that a considerable proportion of consumers are also willing to pay premiums for meats sold under a “locally produced” label. A recent study by Profeta and Hamm¹²⁷ showed that German consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for animal products produced with local feeds may account for the higher prices of such products when they are sold as a differentiated product in local supply chains. However, extensive consumer communication is necessary to raise awareness on feed origin and feed imports for animal production. In addition, although the willingness to replace meat with meat substitutes, insects or cultured meat is currently low¹²⁸, they offer a potential sustainable alternative to livestock protein production¹²⁹. For example, according to Van Huis and Oonincx¹³⁰, environmental advantages of insect farming compared to livestock production are lower requirements for land and water, lower greenhouse gas emissions, better feed conversion
efficiencies, and the ability to transform low-value organic by-products into high-quality food or feed. Once the infrastructure for production, processing, storage, distribution, and marketing, and the legislation for their use is realized it offers a tremendous potential for cheap mass production of protein¹³¹. The fast-food industry has been and remains one of the major catalysts for cheap meat production¹³². Given these future novel sustainable alternatives to livestock animal protein, it may become reasonable to move towards an added general premium price or taxation on ‘protein from livestock animals’ to the benefit of promoting higher incomes to farmers while covering the extra costs of, politically enforced, welfare of livestock animals in sustainable production systems, to the benefit of animal production in both scenarios. In 2016, the Danish Council on Ethics proposed taxation on meat considering that consumers should make an ethical commitment to take the implications to the climate of our eating habits into account¹³³. Such developments may be right around the corner, as exemplified by the resolution proposed by the Dutch political “Party for Animals” in October 2019 to increase taxation of animal slaughter with the aim to reduce meat consumption¹³⁴.

Eventually, determination of limits to feed sourced from international markets, availability of local feed and feedstuff-coproduct alternatives, available land for crop and livestock production, and desired production levels, together with willingness to politically enforce policies through subsidies and/or penalties are some of the considerations to take into account in the development of new pig production systems.

## SYNTHESIS

Comment citer ce document :

Rauw, W. M., Rydhmer, L., This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
The human population is projected to rise to nearly 11 billion people by 2100. Parallel to population growth, we evidence an increase in meat production and consumption. Livestock farming systems provide a large range of benefits, including food security, employment, and ecosystem services. Meat supplies energy, protein, and important micronutrients. However, despite these multiple benefits of meat production, an increase in the number of livestock animals directly challenges sustainability of animal production, through increased requirements for land, water, and energy, and increased anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses and waste. Sustainability of pig production can be improved through precision farming techniques in high input-high output production systems, providing, through the use of an automatic real-time management system, genetically improved individual animals with exactly the amount of high-quality resources they require for maximum production efficiency, minimizing losses and waste. For example, precision feeding will improve the efficiency of dietary nutrient utilization, and therefore reduce environmental consequences of the excretion of excess nutrients. However, technification of livestock systems is not available to the entire livestock sector. Instead, modern livestock animals are often challenged to perform in a wide variety of suboptimal environmental conditions, e.g., regarding climate and differences in feed quality and composition. In addition, the European Union is interested in stimulating on-farm animal feed production to reduce its heavy dependency on imported feedstuffs such as soybean meal. Therefore, sustainability of pig production can be improved selecting pigs with higher tolerance to climate change and with a shift from reliance on optimally formulated feeds to local feeds and feedstuff co-products of sub-optimal quality. Although the economic feasibility of this reduced input-reduced output
scenario may be contested because of reduced predicted yields, reduced production efficiency, and higher costs, recent technological and societal developments in food production and consumption may open up new opportunities. Firstly, increased concern of consumers by the treatment of confined livestock, health concerns of high meat intake, and the negative implications of livestock production to our environment is resulting in a steady increase in the number of vegans, vegetarians, or flexitarians, resulting in reduced meat consumption per capita in parts of the world. In addition, the FAO aims by 2030 to halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, increasing food availability to feed the increase in human population. Secondly, willingness-to-pay studies suggest consumers' willingness to pay a premium for animal products produced with local feeds, which may account for the higher prices of such products when they are sold as a differentiated product. Lastly, recent developments in the production of meat substitutes offers the potential for cheap mass production of protein, proving the opportunity to add a premium price or taxation on 'protein from livestock animals' to the benefit of promoting higher incomes to farmers while covering increased costs of sustainable production systems. Evaluation of availability of, and limits to production resources together with willingness to politically enforce policies may result in the design of new pig farming systems in which both production scenarios can co-exist.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was made possible by funding from SusAn project "Sustainability of pig production through improved feed efficiency" (SusPig, www.suspig-era.net), an ERA-Net co-funded under
European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (www.era-susan.eu), under
Grant Agreement n°696231.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

Comment citer ce document :

Rauw, W. M., Rydhmer, L., This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
REFERENCES

1. United Nations Population Division (2019), World Population Prospects. Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/DataQuery/ (accessed 30-01-2020).

2. Lederer EM, World population expected to reach 9.7 billion in 2050, AP News, June 17 (2019), Available online: https://www.apnews.com/ebb1e955ce444b7ab23febe5ab18dcd1 (accessed on 30-01-2020).

3. Sans P and Combris P, World meat consumption patterns: an overview of the last fifty years (1961-2011). *Meat Sci* **109**:106-111 (2015).

4. OWD, Our World in Data, Per capita meat consumption by type, Data. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-meat-consumption-by-type-kilograms-per-year (accessed 30-01-2020).

5. FAO, Indicators from household surveys, Data available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/HS (accessed on 30-01-2020).

6. OECD, Perspectives on Global Development: Shifting Wealth (2010), Available online: http://www.oecd.org/dev/pgd/45451514.pdf (accessed on 30-01-2020).

7. Thornton PK and Herrero M, The inter-linkages between rapid growth in livestock production, climate change, and the impacts on water resources, land use, and deforestation, The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5178 (2010).

8. Delgado CL, Rising consumption of meat and milk in developing countries has created a new food revolution. *J Nutri* **133**:3907S-3910S (2003).

9. FAO, Livestock Primary, Data available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QL (accessed on 30-01-2020).

10. Thomas R, Williams M, Zalasiewicz J and Bennett C, We are living on “the planet of the chickens,” says this scientist, World Economic Forum (2019), Available Online https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/12/how-chickens-became-the-ultimate-symbol-of-the-anthropocene/ (accessed 30-01-2020).

11. FAO, Live animals, Data available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA (accessed on 30-01-2020).
12. Dumont B, Groot JCJ, Tichit M, Review: Make ruminants green again – how can sustainable intensification and agroecology converge for a better future? *Animal* **12**:s210-s219 (2018).

13. Ryschawy J, Dumont B, Therond O, Donnars C, Hendrickson J, Benoit M, Duru M, Review: An integrated graphical tool for analysing impacts and services provided by livestock farming. *Animal* **13**:1760-1772 (2019).

14. De Smet S and Vossen E, Meat: The balance between nutrition and health. A review. *Meat Sci* **120**:145-156 (2016).

15. Worldwatch Institute, Is meat sustainable? World Watch Magazine, July-August (2004).

16. Nightingale AJ, Böhler T, Campbell B, Introduction and overview, in *Environment and Sustainability in a Globalizing World*, ed. by Nightingale AJ, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, New York, pp. 3-12 (2019).

17. Nightingale AJ, Böhler T, Campbell B, Karlsson L, Background and history of sustainability, In *Environment and Sustainability in a Globalizing World*, ed. by Nightingale AJ. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, New York, pp. 13-34 (2019).

18. UN World Commission on Environment and Development. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, (1987).
Available online: http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (accessed on 30-01-2020).

19. European Commission. Sustainable agriculture for the future we want, (2012). Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/events/2012/rio-side-event/brochure_en.pdf (accessed on 30-01-2020).

20. ERANET SusAn. European Research Area on Sustainable Animal Production. Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/696231 (accessed on 30-01-2020).

21. Pomar C and Remus A, Precision pig feeding: a breakthrough toward sustainability. Anim Front 9:52-59 (2019).
22. Knap PW and Wang L, Robustness in pigs and what we can learn from other species, in *Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production*, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 06-01 (2006).

23. Mormède P, Foury A, Terenina E and Knap PW, Breeding for robustness: the role of cortisol. *Animal* **5**:651–657 (2011).

24. Renaudeau D, Collin A, Yahav S, de Basilio V, Gourdine JL and Collier RJ, Adaptation to hot climate and strategies to alleviate heat stress in livestock production. *Animal* **6**:707-728 (2012).

25. Mottet A, De Haan C, Falcucci A, Tempio G, Opio C and Gerber P, Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. *Glob Food Secur* **14**:1-8 (2017).

26. Dagevos H and Voordouw J, Sustainability and meat consumption: is reduction realistic? *Sustain Sci Pract Policy* **9**:60-69 (2013).

27. Röös E, Bajželj B, Smith P, Patel M, Little D and Garnett T, Protein futures for Western Europe: potential land use and climate impacts in 2050. *Reg Environ Change* **17**:367-377 (2017).

28. Speedy AW, Global production and consumption of animal source foods. *J Nutr* **133**:4048S-4053S (2003).

29. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M and De Haan C, Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options. FAO, Rome, Italy (2006), Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-a0701e.pdf (accessed on 30-01-2020).

30. Bala G, Caldeira K, Wickett M, Philips TJ, Lobell DB, Delire C and Mirin A, Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. *PNAS* **104**:6550-6555 (2007).

31. Houghton RA, Tropical deforestation as a source of greenhouse gas emissions, in *Tropical Deforestation and Climate Change*, ed. by Moutinho P and Schwartzman S, Amazon Institute of Environmental Research, pp. 13-21 (2005), Available online: https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/4930_TropicalDeforestation_and_ClimateChange.pdf (accessed on 30-01-2020).
32. Pimentel D, Berger B, Filiberto D, Newton M, Wolfe B, Karabinakis E, Clark S, Poon E, Abbett E and Nandagopal S, Water resources: agricultural and environmental issues. *Bioscience* **54**:909-918 (2004).

33. Hoekstra AY and Chapagain AK, Water footprints of nations: water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. *Water Resour Manage* **21**:35-48 (2007).

34. Mekonnen MM, Naele CMU, Ray C, Erickson GE, Hoekstra AY, Water productivity in meat and milk production in the US from 1960 to 2016. *Environ Int* **132**:105084 (2019).

35. Pimentel D, Hurd LE, Bellotti AC, Forster MJ, Oka IN, Sholes OD and Whitman RJ, Food production and the energy crisis. *Science* **182**:443-449 (1973).

36. Pimentel D, Livestock production and energy use, in *Encyclopedia of Energy*, ed. by Matsumura R, Elsevier, San Diego, CA pp. 671-676 (2004).

37. Pimentel D, Impacts of organic farming on the efficiency of energy use in agriculture, The Organic Center, pp. 1-39 (2006). Available online: https://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/ENERGY_SSR.pdf (accessed on 30-01-2020).

38. Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Falcucci A and Tempio G, Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome (2013). Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf (accessed on 30-01-2020).

39. Schiehorn F, Kastner T, Kuemmerle T, Meyfroidt P, Kurganova I, Prishchepov AV, Erb KH, Houghton RA and Müller D, Large greenhouse gas savings due to changes in the post-Soviet food systems. *Environ Res Lett* **14**:Article 065009 (2019).

40. Campbell BM, Beare DJ, Bennett EM, Hall-Spencer JM, Ingram JSI, Jaramillo F, Ortiz R, Ramankutty N, Sayer JA and Shindell D, Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. *Ecology and Society* **22**:Article 8 (2017).

41. Carlsson-Kanyama A and González AD, Potential contributions of food consumption to climate change. *Am J Clin Nutr* **89**:1074S-1709S (2009).
42. Aleksandrowicz L, Green R, Joy EJM, Smith P and Haines A, The impact of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: a systematic review. *Plos One* 11:e0165797 (2016).

43. Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-D'Croz D, Wiebe K, Bodirsky BL, Lassaletta L, De Vries W, Vermeulen SJ, Herrero M, Carlson KM, Jonell M, Troell M, DeClerck F, Gordon LJ, Zurayk R, Scarborough P, Rayner M, Loken B, Fanzo J, Godfray HCJ, Tilman D, Rockström J and Willett W, Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. *Nature* **562**:519-525 (2018).

44. Raphaely T and Marinova D, Flexitarianism: a more moral dietary option. *Int J Sust Soc* **6**:189-211 (2013).

45. Bailey R, Froggatt A and Wellesley L. *Livestock – climate change’s forgotten sector*. *Global public opinion on meat and dairy consumption*. Energy, environment and resources. Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (2014). Available online: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/field/field_document/20141203LivestockClimateChangeForgottenSectorBaileyFroggattWellesleyFinal.pdf (accessed on 30-01-2020).

46. Laestadius LI, Neff RA, Barry CL and Frattaroli S, No meat, less meat, or better meat: understanding NGO messaging choices intended to alter meat consumption in the light of climate change. *Environ Commun* **10**:84-103 (2016).

47. RLI, Raad voor de Leefomgeving en Infrastructuur, Duurzaam en Gezond. Samen naar een houdbaar voedselsysteem (2018), Available online: https://www.rli.nl/sites/default/files/duurzaam_en_gezond_samen_naar_een_houdbaar_voedselsysteem_def_1.pdf (accessed on 30-01-2020).

48. Tweede Kamer, Debat houdbaarheid voedselsysteem (March 2019), Available online: https://debatgemist.tweedekamer.nl/debatten/houdbaar-voedselsysteem (accessed on 30-01-2020).

49. Tweede Kamer, Stemming over: moties ingrediend bij het dertigledendebat over the advies van de Raad voor de Leefomgeving en Infrastructuur over een houdbaar voedselsysteem (April 2019), Available online:
https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/stemmingsuitslagen/detail?id=2019P05227
(accessed on 30-01-2020).

50. Austgulen MH, Skuland SE, Schjøll A and Alfnes F, Consumer readiness to reduce meat consumption for the purpose of environmental sustainability: insights from Norway. *Sustainability* **10**:Article 3058 (2018).

51. Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, Pretty J, Robinson S, Thomas SM and Toulmin C, Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. *Science* **327**:Article 812 (2010).

52. Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Mueller ND, O'Connell C, Ray DK, West PC, Balzer C, Bennett EM, Carpenter SR, Hill J, Monfreda C, Polasky S, Rockstrøm J, Sheehan J, Siebert S, Tilman D and Zaks DPM, Solutions for a cultivated planet. *Nature* **478**:337-342 (2011).

53. Neumann K, Verburg PH, Stehfest E and Müller C, The yield gap of global grain production: A spatial analysis. *Agr Syst* **103**:316-326 (2010).

54. Steinfeld H, Wassenaar T and Jutzi S, Livestock production systems in developing countries: status, drivers, trends. *Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz* **25**:505-516 (2006).

55. Amills M, Clop A, Ramírez O and Pérez-Enciso M, Origin and genetic diversity of pig breeds, in *Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS)*, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, pp. 1-10. (2010).

56. FAO, The State of the World's Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome, Italy (2007), Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-a1260e.pdf (accessed on 30-01-2020).

57. Rauw WM, Feed efficiency and animal robustness, in *Feed Efficiency in the Beef Industry*, ed. by Hill RA, Wiley & Sons Inc, pp. 105-122 (2012).

58. Gregory PJ, Ingramk JSI, Andersson R, Betts RA, Brovkin V, Chase TN, Grace PR, Gray AJ, Hamilton N, Hardy TB, Howden SM, Jenkins A, Meybeck M, Olsson M, Ortiz-Monasterio I, Palmo CA, Payn TW, Rummukainen M, Schulze RE, Thiemr M, Valentin C and Wilkinson MJ, Environmental consequences of alternative practices for intensifying crop production. *Agr Ecosyst Environ* **88**:279-290 (2002).
59. Royal Society of London Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture. The Royal Society, London (2009), Available online: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/4294967719.pdf (accessed on 30-01-2020).

60. Naylor R, Steinfeld H, Falcon W, Galloway J, Smil V, Bradford E, Alder J and Mooney H, Losing the links between livestock and land. *Science* **310**:1621-1622 (2005).

61. Cassidy ES, West PC, Gerber JS and Foley JA, Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare. *Environ Res Lett* **8**:Article 034015 (2013).

62. Dei HK, Soybean as a Feed Ingredient for Livestock and Poultry (2011), Available online: http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/22604.pdf (accessed on 30-01-2020).

63. De Visser CLM, Schreuder R and Stoddard F, The EU's dependency on soya bean import for the animal feed industry and potential for EU produced alternatives. *OCL* **21**:D407 (2014).

64. Van Gelder JW, Kammeraat K and Kroes H, Soy consumption for feed and fuel in the European Union. A research paper prepared for Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands). Profundo Economic Research (2008), Available online: https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/press_releases/profundo20report20final1.pdf (accessed 30-01-2020).

65. Oliveira G de LT and Schneider M, The politics of flexing soybeans: China, Brazil and global agroindustrial restructuring. *J Peasant Stud* **43**:167-194 (2015).

66. Roman GV, Epure LI, Toader M and Lombardi AR, Grain legumes – main source of vegetable proteins for European consumption. *AgroLife Scientific* **5**:178-183 (2016).

67. Van Dillen B and Van Krunkelsven L, EU NGO meeting 19-20 sept Brussels, Memo (2005).

68. USDA, Changing the EU oilseed market impacts global trade (2013), Available online: https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/changing-eu-oilseed-market-impacts-global-trade (accessed 30-01-2020).

69. EIP-AGRI, Final Report, EIP-AGRI Focus Group Protein Crops (2014), Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/agri-eip/files/fg2_protein_crops_final_report_2014_e_n.pdf (accessed on 30-01-2020).
70. Lathuillière MJ, Miranda EJ, Bulle C, Couto EG and Johnson MS, Land occupation and transformation impacts of soybean production in Southern Amazonia, Brazil. *J Clean Prod* **149**:680-689 (2017).

71. Grau HR, Aide TM and Gasparri NI, Globalization and soybean expansion into semiarid ecosystems or Argentina. *Ambio* **34**:265-266 (2005).

72. Florou-Paneri P, Christaki E, Giannenas I, Bonos E, Skoufos I, Tsinas A, Tzora A and Peng J, Alternative protein sources to soybean meal in pig diets. *J Food Agr Environ* **12**:655-660 (2014).

73. Berckmans D, Precision livestock farming technologies for welfare management in intensive livestock systems. *Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz* **33**:189-196 (2014).

74. Halachmi I and Guarino M, Editorial: Precision livestock farming: a ‘per animal’ approach using advanced monitoring technologies. *Animal* **10**:1482-1483 (2016).

75. Pomar C, Van Milgen J, Remus A, Precision livestock feeding, principle and practice in *Poultry and Pig Nutrition. Challenges of the 21st Century*, ed. by Hendriks WH, Verstegen MWA, Babinszky L, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 397-418 (2019).

76. Hauschild L, Lovatto PA, Pomar J and Pomar C, Development of sustainable precision farming systems for swine: Estimating realtime individual amino acid requirements in growing-finishing pigs. *J Anim Sci* **90**:2255-2263 (2015).

77. Brossard L, Dourmad JY, Garcia Launay F and Van Milgen J, Modelling nutrient requirements for pigs to optimize feed efficiency. Achieving sustainable production of pig meat 24. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, pp. 307. Burleigh Dodds Series in Agricultural Science. (2017), Available online: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01644029/document (accessed on 30-01-2020).

78. Pomar C, Hauschild L, Zhang GH, Pomar J and Lovatto PA, Applying precision feeding techniques in growing-finishing pig operations. *R Bras Zootec* **v38**:226-237 (2009).

79. Neethirajan S, Recent advances in wearable sensors for animal health management. *Sens Biosensing Res* **12**:15-29 (2017).
80. Matthews SG, Miller AL, Clapp J, Plotz T and Kyriazakis I, Early detection of health and welfare compromises through automated detection of behavioural changes in pigs. *Vet J* **217**:43-51 (2016).

81. Tedeschi LO and Menendez III HM. Mathematical modeling in animal production in *Animal Agriculture. Sustainability, Challenges and Innovations*, ed. by Bazer FW, Lamb GC, Wu G, Academic Press, Elsevier, London, UK, pp. 431-453 (2010).

82. Van Grinsven HJM, Erisman JW, De Vries W and Westbroek H, Potential of extensification of European agriculture for a more sustainable food system, focusing on nitrogen. *Environm Res Lett* **10**:Article 025002 (2015).

83. Kolmodin R, Strandberg E, Jorjani H and Danell B, Selection in the presence of a genotype by environment interaction: response in environmental sensitivity. *Anim Sci* **76**:375-385 (2003).

84. Knap PW and Su G, Genotype by environment interaction for litter size in pigs as quantified by reaction norms analysis. *Animal* **2**:1742-147 (2008).

85. Thornton PK, Ericksen PJ, Herrero M and Challinor AJ, Climate variability and vulnerability to climate change: a review. *Glob Change Biol* **20**:3313-3328 (2014).

86. Usman T, Qureshi MS, Yu Y and Want Y, Influence of various environmental factors on dairy production and adaptability of Holstein cattle maintained under tropical and subtropical conditions. *Adv Environ Biol* **7**:366-372 (2013).

87. Vercoe JE and Frish JE, Genotype (breed) and environment interaction with particular reference to cattle in the tropics. *AJAS* **5**:401-409 (1992).

88. Poullet N, Bambou JC, Loyau T, Trefeu C, Feuillet D, Beramice D, Bocage B, Renaudeau D and Gourdine JL, Effect of feed restriction and refeeding on performance and metabolism of European and Caribbean growing pigs in a tropical climate. *Sci Rep* **9**:Article 4878 (2019).

89. Rauw WM, Mayorga EJ, Lei SM, Dekkers JCM, Patience JF, Gabler NK, Lonergan SM and Baumgard LH, Effects of diet and genetics on growth performance of pigs in response to repeated exposure to heat stress. *Front Genet* **8**:Article 155 (2017).

90. Settar P, Yalcin S, Turkmut L, Ozkan S and Cahanar A, Season by genotype interaction related to broiler growth rate and heat tolerance. *Poultry Sci* **78**:1353-1358 (1999).
91. Van Zanten HHE, Mollenhorst H, De Vries JW, Van Middelaar CE, Van Kernebeek HRJ and De Boer IJM, Assessing environmental consequences of using co-products in animal feed. *Int J Life Cycle Assess* **19**:79-88 (2014).

92. Rifkin J, There's a bone to pick with meat eaters. LA Times (2002), Available online: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-may-27-oe-rifkin27-story.html (accessed on 30-01-2020).

93. Zu Ermgassen EKHJ, Phalan B, Green RE and Balmford A, Reducing the land use of EU pork production: where there's swill, there's a way. *Food Policy* **58**:35-48 (2016).

94. Salemdeeb R, Zu Ermgassen EKHJ, Kim MH, Balmford A and Al-Tabbaa A, Environmental impacts of suing food waste as animal feed: a comparative analysis of food waste management options. *J Clean Prod* **140**:871-880 (2017).

95. European Parliament, The EU deficit: what solution for a long-standing problem? Report 2010/2011(INI) (2011), Available online: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.doallsREPORT&reference=A7-2011-0026&l1anguage=EN (accessed on 30-01-2020).

96. Brandt H, Werner DN, Baulain U, Brade W and Weissmann F, Genotype-environment interactions for growth and carcass traits in different pig breeds kept under conventional and organic production systems. *Animal* **4**:535-544 (2010).

97. Mauch ED, Young JM, Serão NVL, Hsu WL, Patience JF, Kerr BJ, Weber TE, Gabler NK and Dekkers JCM, Effect of lower-energy, higher-fiber diets on pigs divergently selected for residual feed intake when fed higher-energy, lower-fiber diets. *J Anim Sci* **96**:1221-1236 (2018).

98. Rauw WM, García Cortés LA, Gómez Carballar F, Garcia Casco JM, de la Serna Fito E, Gomez-Raya L, Feed efficiency × diet interaction on acorns vs. a commercial diet in Iberian pigs, 70th Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP), Ghent, Belgium.
99. Van Kernebeek HRJ, Oosting SJ, Van Ittersum MK, Bikkers P and De Boer IJM, Saving land to feed a growing population: consequences for consumption of crop and livestock products. *Int J Life Cycle Assess* **21**:677-687 (2016).

100. Phocas F, Belloc C, Bidanel J, Delaby L, Dourmad JY, Dumont B, Ezanno P, Fortun-Lamonthe L, Foucras G, Frappat B, González-García E, Hazard D, Larzul C, Lubac S, Mignon-Grasteau S, Moreno CR, Tixier-Boichard M and Brochard M, Towards the agroecological management of ruminants, pigs and poultry through the development of sustainable breeding programmes: I-selection goals and criteria. *Animal* **10**:1749-1759 (2016).

101. Muller A, Schader C, El-Hage Scialabba N, Brüggemann J, Isensee A, Erb KH, Smith P, Klocke P, Leiber F, Stolze M and Niggli U, Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. *Nat Commun* **8**:Article 1290 (2017).

102. Depperman A, Havlík P, Valin H, Boere E, Herrero M, Vervoort J and Mathijs E, The market impacts of shortening feed supply chains in Europe. *Food Security* **10**:1401-1410 (2018).

103. Foods of Norway, https://www.foodsofnorway.net/ (accessed on 30-01-2020).

104. Øverland M, Mydland LT and Skrede A, Marine macroalgae as sources of protein and bioactive compounds in feed for monogastric animals. *Sci Food Agr* **99**:13-24 (2018).

105. Cruz A, Håkenåsen I, Skugor A, Mydland LT, Åkesson P, Hellestveit SS, Sørby R, Press CMcL and Øverland M, *Candida utilis* yeast as a protein source for weaned piglets: Effects on growth performance and digestive function. *Livest Sci* **226**:31-39 (2019).

106. NBMU, Norwegian Agricultural University of Life Sciences, This cheese can be made from trees. NBMU, Norwegian Agricultural University of Life Sciences. This cheese can be made from trees (2019), Available online: https://www.nmbu.no/en/news/node/37628 (accessed on 30-01-2020).

107. Pérez de Nanclares M, Marcussen C, Tauson A-H, Hansen JØ, Kjos NP, Mydland LT, Bach Knudsen KE and Øverland M, Increasing levels of rapeseed expeller meal in diets for pigs: effects on protein and energy metabolism. *Animal* **13**:273-282 (2019).

108. NMBU, Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Forest owners excited about woody pig-diet. https://www.foodsofnorway.net/news/node/34652 (accessed on 30-01-2020).
109. Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Norske trær kan erstatte soya I dyrefôr. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1512873058849911 (accessed on 30-01-2020).

110. Rotz CA, Skinner RH, Stoner AMK, Hayhoe K, Evaluating greenhouse gas mitigation and climate change adaptation in diary production using farm simulation. *Trans ASABE* **59**:1771-1781 (2016).

111. Sasu-Boakye Y, Cederberg C and Wirsenius S, Localising livestock protein feed production and the impact on land use and greenhouse gas emissions. *Animal* **8**:1339-1348 (2014).

112. Martin N, Durlinger B, Blonk H, Mitloehner F, Towards the global reference for environmental footprinting in the feed industry: the Global Feed LCA Institute (GFLI) (2017). Available online: http://globalfeedlca.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/GFLI-description-March-2017.pdf (accessed on 30-01-2020).

113. Ottosen M, Mackenzie S, Wallace M, Kyriazakis I, A method to estimate the environmental impacts from genetic change in pig production systems. *Int. J. Life Cycle Ass.* ment https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01686-8

114. Zira S, Röös E, Ivarsson E and Rydhmer L, Applied analytical hierarchical processing in a social sustainability study of pig farming in Sweden, 70th Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP), Ghent, Belgium.

115. McClelland SC, Arndt C, Gordon DR, Thoma G, Type and number of environmental impact categories used in livestock life cycle assessment: a systematic review. *Livest Sci* **209**:39-45 (2018).

116. Holt-Giménez E, Shattuck A, Altieri M, Herren H and Gliessman S, We already grow enough food for 10 billion people... and still can't end hunger. *J Sust Agr* **36**:595-598 (2012).

117. Foley JA, Can we feed the world and sustain the planet? *Scientific American* November:60-65 (2011).

118. Keyzer MA, Merbis MD, Pavel IFPW and Van Wesenbeeck CFA, Diet shifts towards meat and the effects on cereal use: can we feed the animals in 2030? *Ecol Econ* **55**:187-202 (2005).
119. Rauw W.M. Philosophy and ethics of animal use and consumption: from Pythagoras to Bentham. *CAB Reviews* **10**:Article 016 (2015).

120. Top trends in preparing foods 2017: Exploring trends in meat, fish and seafood; pasta, noodles and rice; prepared meals; savory deli food; soup; and meat substitutes. Report ID 4959853. GlobalData (2017).

121. Westbroek H, Lesschen JP, Rood T, Wagner S, De Marco A, Murphy-Bokern D, Leip A, Van Grinsven H, Sutton MA and Oenema O, Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe's meat and dairy intake. *Glob Environ Change* **26**:196-205 (2014).

122. FAO, 2011. Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention, Rome. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2697e.pdf (accessed on 30-01-2020).

123. FAO, Sustainable Development Goals, SDG Indicator 12.3.1 – Global food losses. 2019. Available online: http://www.fao.org/sustainable-development-goals/indicators/1231/en/ (accessed on 30-01-2020).

124. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate change and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems, Summary for Policy Makers (2019), Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/ (accessed on 30-01-2020).

125. Napolitano F, Girolami A and Braghieri A, Consumer liking and willingness to pay for high welfare animal-based products. *Trends Food Sci Tech* **21**:537-543 (2010).

126. Maynard LJ, Burdine KH and Meyer AL, Market potential for locally produced meat products. *J Food Distrib Res* **34**:26-37 (2003).

127. Profeta A and Hamm U, Consumers' expectations and willingness-to-pay for local animal products produced with local feed. *Int J Food Sci Tech* **54**:651-659 (2019).

128. Hartmann C and Siegrist M, Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: a systematic review. *Trends Food Sci Tech* **61**:11-25 (2017).

129. Alexander P, Brown C, Arneth A, Dias C, Finnigan J, Moran D, Rounsevell MDA, Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use? *Global Food Secur* **15**:22-32 (2018).
130. Van Huis A and Oonincx DGAB, The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review. *Agron Sustain Dev* 37:43 (2017).

131. Cortes Ortiz JA, Ruiz AT, Morales-Ramos JA, Thomas M, Rojas MG, Tomberlin JK, Yi L, Han R, Giroud L and Jullien RL, Insect mass production technologies. In *Insects as Sustainable Food Ingredients. Production, Processing and Food Applications*, ed. by Dossey AT, Morales-Ramos JA and Guadalupe Rojas M. Elsevier BV, London, pp. 153-201 (2016).

132. Richards RJ and Richards EL, Cheap meat: how factory farming is harming our health, the environment, and the economy. *Kentucky J Equine Agric Nat Res Law* 4:Article 3 (2011).

133. Det Etiske Rãd, Den etiske forbruger. Etisk forbrug af klimabelastende fødevarer. 2016. Available online: http://www.etiskraad.dk/~/media/Etisk-Raad/Etiske-Temaer/Natur-klima-og-foedevarer/Publikationer/Etisk-forbrug-af-klimabelastende-foedevarer.pdf (accessed on 30-01-2020).

134. Partij voor de Dieren. Initiatiefnota van Van Raan over een belasting op het slachten van dieren. Available online: https://www.partijvoordieren.nl/initiatieven/initiatiefnota-van-van-raan-over-een-belasting-op-het-slachten-van-dieren (accessed on 30-01-2020).
**Figure 1.** Protein consumption (in g/capita/d) in 37 countries by income tercile; based on data downloaded from FAO [5].

**Figure 2.** Increase in the world's animal populations from different livestock and poultry species in response to the increase in the world's human population size (between 1961 and 2013; based on data downloaded from FAO [11]. Pigs, cattle, turkeys, and sheep x 1000.000.000; Chickens x 10.000.000.000.

**Figure 3.** Body weight gain (BWG) of two extreme examples of individual observations on pig A and B that depict the negative correlation between BWG in a thermoneutral environment and that during heat stress. After Rauw et al. [89].
Accepted Article

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
Number of live animals

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3</figcaption></figure>