Next Article in Journal
Effects of Human Presence and Voice on the Behaviour of Shelter Dogs and Cats: A Preliminary Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Value-Creating Strategies in Dairy Farm Entrepreneurship: A Case Study in Northern Spain
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Selection Criteria for Improving Fertility in Spanish Goat Breeds: Estimation of Genetic Parameters and Designing Selection Indices for Optimal Genetic Responses
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 11
Issue 2
10.3390/ani11020411
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of the Sustainability of Fattening Systems for Iberian Traditional Pig Production through a Technical and Environmental Approach

by
Javier García-Gudiño
1,*,
Isabel Blanco-Penedo
1,2,
Maria Font-i-Furnols
3,
Elena Angón
4 and
José Manuel Perea
4
1
Animal Welfare Program, IRTA, 17121 Monells, Spain
2
Department of Clinical Sciences, SLU, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
3
Food Quality and Technology Program, IRTA, 17121 Monells, Spain
4
Animal Production, UCO, 14071 Córdoba, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2021, 11(2), 411; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020411
Submission received: 21 December 2020 / Revised: 20 January 2021 / Accepted: 3 February 2021 / Published: 5 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Competitiveness of Spanish Local Breeds)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Iberian traditional pig production has been linked to the use of the natural resources of the dehesa ecosystem. In the last decades, the Spanish livestock sector has experienced a significant transformation towards the intensification of livestock systems. The intensification of the system combined with the increased demand for high-quality Iberian products resulted in a greater demand for feedstuffs as inputs into the Iberian pig production system. For these reasons, the Iberian pig exploitation in the dehesa ecosystem should be studied considering economic and environmental criteria to identify strategies for more sustainable livestock production. From the analyses carried out, the relationship between livestock management and environmental values obtained has been determined. Iberian traditional pig production has room for improvement in terms of economic and environmental values. In order to achieve this, appropriate fattening strategies should be implemented to optimize the use of available resources and improve economic-environmental performance for sustainable development. The importance of exploring sustainable management on this animal system derives because a sustainable Iberian traditional pig production has an important role in maintaining the population in rural areas through livestock activity as an economic engine.

Abstract

At present, two types of fattening are carried out in Iberian traditional pig production. The montanera is the fattening system where fatteners are fed on acorns and pasture in the dehesa, and cebo de campo is the fattening where the pigs are fed on compound feed and natural resources, mainly pasture. The aim of this paper is to analyze Iberian fattening production from an economic and environmental approach in order to identify fattening strategies to increase the sustainability of this traditional livestock activity. Based on technical-economic and environmental variables, the differences between Iberian farms according to the types of fattening were determined using discriminant analysis techniques. The model based on environmental variables showed a greater predictive ability than that found in the model based on technical-economic variables. Consequently, environmental variables can be used as reference points to classify the Iberian farms according to the type of fattening. Furthermore, canonical correlation analysis allowed to study the relationships between both sets of variables, showing that environmental values had a strong correlation with technical-economic variables. The results of this study show that it is possible to improve the sustainability of Iberian traditional pig production through fattening strategies in both types of fattening.

1. Introduction

Iberian traditional pig production has a significant role in the Spanish pig industry, where intensive systems are predominant [1]. The sustainability of traditional livestock systems being less competitive than conventional systems [2] has been possible by added values offered [3,4,5]. This greater product differentiation and value-adding over time has shifted the interest to outdoor pig production systems by consumers [6] with a more critical view towards intensive livestock production [7]. Therefore, according to this reasoning, different production managements can be found in the actual Iberian pig sector [8], increasing the number of fatteners produced annually [9].
At present, two different fattening types are developed in the dehesa and count with a specific legislation [8]: montanera and cebo de campo. The montanera is the traditional fattening type based on local natural resources under extensive management [10]. The limitation of dehesa hectares [11] form the basis of the human intervention that increases the use of external inputs in Iberian pig production. For this reason, the cebo de campo emerged as the fattening characterized by the use of natural resources combined with compound feed. Decreased use of natural resources in cebo de campo has resulted in an exponential increase in the number of fatteners produced per year to over one million in the Iberian traditional pig production area [9]. However, the number of animals produced between the two fattening types is approximately the same.
The perfect adaptation of Iberian breed to the dehesa ecosystem has promoted the persistence of this local breed and its productive system [12]. However, the traditional image of the Iberian pig in the dehesa has been denatured because of the large increase of animals produced [13]. This higher demand has led to environmental stress at the dehesa, which endangers the traditional livestock system. The overexploitation of the agroecosystem can lead to a series of negative consequences such as soil erosion [14] or decrease in oak regeneration [15].
Because Iberian pig and the dehesa ecosystem constitute a real symbiosis [6], pig production and the agroforestry system must be assessed in a combined approach. In this way, pig production could be economically viable and environmentally friendly [16], both crucial for the preservation of the dehesa and the future of livestock as economic engine [17] to sustain the population in rural areas [6]. Previous works on environmental assessment showed a completely different conclusion of that resulted from an economic analysis in livestock systems [18]. Studies on livestock production in the dehesa have addressed the technical-economic [2,19,20] and environmental assessment [5,21,22] on singles pieces in general. Therefore, it is of great importance to evaluate the actual situation of Iberian pig production in the dehesa through different economic and environmental analytical approaches aiming to balance the economic and environmental pillars of the sustainability of the traditional Iberian pig production.
The purposes of this paper can be described as (i) exploring the differences in Iberian farms according to the fattening types based on technical-economic and environmental approach, (ii) identifying the characteristics that can be reference points to differentiate the fattening types, and (iii) proposing strategies to improve sustainability of Iberian traditional pig production.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Pig Fattening at the Iberian Traditional Pig Production

The growing period in this traditional system is based on extensive or semi-extensive management from 23 kg to 95–105 kg of live weight [23]. The growers are fed with compound feed and they consume different natural resources depending on season [24].
Differences of management are mainly found in the finishing or fattening period (Table 1). According to the Spanish legislation [8], the finishing period can be appointed as montanera or cebo de campo in the dehesa. The types of fattening are defined by stocking density, feeding, and age at slaughter. According to stocking density, the montanera should rear between 0.25 and 1.25 fatteners per hectare depending on the available wooded area. On the other hand, the stocking density is fixed in 15 fatteners per hectare in the cebo de campo during the finishing period. Regarding the feeding, fatteners should consume only natural resources (acorn and grass) in the montanera while fatteners are fed with compound feed and natural resources available (mainly pastures) in the cebo de campo. In terms of the minimum age at slaughter, it is fixed on 14 months in the montanera, and 12 months in the cebo de campo. In both cases, the fattening period out of the life cycle of the animal must last a minimum of 60 days. With the feeding availability in mind, the cebo de campo can be developed throughout the year, while the montanera can only occur between October and March due to the availability of acorns in the dehesa.

2.2. Data Acquisition

Data were collected through questionnaires from 36 farms in the Iberian traditional pig area (SW Spain). Data achieved for this study were farm area, number of animals (pigs and other species), productive (e.g., daily ration, live weight, age at slaughter) and reproductive (e.g., fertility, prolificacy) data, economic and management aspects, inventory (machinery and facilities), and information about other activities (agriculture and livestock).
Environmental variables employed were derived from García-Gudiño et al. [5]. Global warming (GW, kg CO2 eq) and land occupation (LO, m2·year) were used for the environmental assessment in the present study. Analyses of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) were performed with Simapro software (version 8.5.2.0, PRé Consultants, Amersfoort, The Netherlands). The functional unit was one kilogram of live weight at farm gate.
Technical and environmental variables are described in Table 2. Some of them are economic variables that are related either to technical or environmental aspects.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Preliminary testing of data was carried out to determine outliers to be discarded before analysis, using the Grubb’s test, and to determine Pearson correlations to avoid variables that presented a correlation coefficient with an absolute value >0.95 [25]. Because data had different measurement units, variables were standardized to zero mean and a unit standard deviation.
Farms were classified into two groups according to the type of fattening: Montanera farms (MF) if more than 90% of the fattened pigs were certified as Iberian acorn-fed [8], and diversified farms (DF) otherwise. In DF, Iberian acorn-fed pigs are less than 90% of the pigs fattened on the farm. The rest of the fattened pigs are fattened through the cebo de campo. Therefore, the types of fatteners produced (montanera or cebo de campo) in DF are more diverse than in MF.
Multivariate analysis techniques were used to analyze differences and similarities in technical and environmental variables among fattening types, and to evaluate the specific relationships between technical and environmental variables. To discriminate between the two groups (MF/DF), three complementary and sequenced techniques were applied in the following order: canonical discriminant analysis, stepwise discriminant analysis, and discriminant analysis. These techniques have been applied in previous studies on livestock systems [26,27,28,29,30].
Canonical discriminant analysis is a dimension-reduction technique related to principal component analysis and canonical correlation, which gives information about the similarities of the fattening types implemented in Iberian pig farms. It was applied to all the variables described in Table 2. Given a classification character several variables, canonical discriminant analysis derives a set of new variables, called canonical functions, which are linear combinations of the original variables that summarize between-group variation in the data, highlighting their differences [28].
The minimum number of variables able to discriminate between the two groups was obtained after performing a stepwise discriminant analysis on two sets of variables: those related to technical variables, those related to the environmental variables of the fattening types, and those related to both sets of variables. This procedure selects the variables to include in the model based on how much they contribute to decrease Wilks’ λ. In the first step, the most discriminating variable enters into the model, and in subsequent steps, the entry or removal of variables is evaluated according to an entry and remove threshold that was set at 0.05 and 0.10, respectively. To avoid information redundancy, a tolerance level of 0.01 was set. The steps are repeated until no more variables can be entered or removed, or until the maximum number of steps is reached, which was set as twice the number of original variables in each model. The efficiency of the discriminant power of a given model was determined using the Wilks’ λ test of significance. The effective separation of groups was assessed using Mahalanobis distance and the corresponding Hotelling’s T2 test [31].
The canonical discriminant analyses were repeated with the selected variables derived from stepwise discriminant analyses to obtain the most plausible canonical functions, and from these, discriminate between the fattening types. The predictive ability of each model was tested using the absolute assignment of individuals to the preassigned group [32].
The second step was to study the existing relationships between technical and environmental variables of the fattening types. Canonical correlation analysis was deemed appropriate because it provides not only the magnitude of the relationships that may exist between groups of variables but also a quantification of the relative contribution of each variable to those relationships [33]. Canonical correlation analysis complements discriminant analysis, because the latter explores only associations between data without explaining why they exist [28].
Canonical correlation analysis is a multivariate analysis method based on the linear relationship between two multidimensional variables, X (technical) and Y (environmental). The aim of this analysis is to find linear combinations (U = aTX and V = aTY) so that the correlation between U and V is maximized. Such linear combinations reflect the relationship between both sets of variables [26,34]. The basic principle of canonical correlation analysis is the construction of subsequent pairs of canonical variables (Ui, Vi), that are linear combinations of the originals, so that each pair is orthogonal to the previous and represents the best explanation of the Y set (formed by q dependent variables) with respect to the X set (formed by p independent variables) that has not been obtained by the previous pairs [27,35]. All statistical analyses were performed using the XLSTAT© software (procedures: Grubbs test for outliers, Similarity/Dissimilarity matrices, Discriminant analysis, Canonical correlation analysis).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Differentiation of Iberian Fattening Production

Results of the canonical discriminant analysis based on technical and environmental variables are presented in Table 3. The most discriminating variables between the fattening types implemented in Iberian pig farms are noted in Table 3.
From technical variables studied, the most discriminant variables were “LU value”, “Dehesa land use”, and “Sows”. Regarding the second component of the analysis, related to environmental variables, the most discriminant variables were “GW value” and “GW”. Considering both sets of variables together, those variables with a greater discriminant ability were “LU value”, “GW”, and “GW value”.
Differences between fattening management types were observed in technical variables (Table 3). The most important and significant difference between Iberian farms is found in “Dehesa land use”, influencing in the fattening management. “Dehesa land use” increase the natural resources availability when this technical variable moves to higher values. For this reason, MF showed higher “Dehesa land use” compared to DF and it is explained by the higher percentage of fatteners’ acorn and grass-fed during the finishing period. In other technical variables, no significant differences were found due to the great variability shown on DF data. Nevertheless, the different types of Iberian farms can be characterized through the results obtained. While MF produces higher montanera meat production per dehesa hectare, DF obtains a greater pig meat production per hectare. A higher meat production in DF is achieved to a higher pig stocking rate that characterizes the intensification of this type of farm system. On DF, the production of pigs through the two coexistent types of fattening (montanera and cebo de campo) and a higher number of sows both finally increase the pig stocking rate. In contrast, the legal requirement of several hectares of dehesa for animal feeding purposes reduces the pig stocking rate in MF. The combined condition of a greater number of animals as an output together with a lower “Dehesa land use” lead DF towards dependence on compound feed because of lower natural resource availability per animal produced. Because of this feed dependency, feedstuffs inputs per hectare are 3.5 times superior on DF than on MF in this study.
Environmental differences were observed between Iberian farms (Table 3) majorly caused by the management described previously. Intensification of livestock production increases the inclusion of concentrated feed in the diet and decreases the grazing period, causing negative environmental impacts [36]. From LCA, “GW” is lower on MF than DF which indicates that a greater use of natural resources in MF is the best measure for reducing the environmental impacts on livestock activities [5,37,38], since a high number of animals per unit limit the availability of natural resources increasing the consumption of compound feed on DF. In contrast, LCA shows a trend towards greater “LO” in MF than DF. The trend might correspond to the attachment of natural resources on montanera that requires a higher area requirement for feeding animals versus a lower land requirement in cebo de campo (feedstuffs inputs).
Economic differences were observed between the participant Iberian farms (Table 3). The relationship between the economic value generated and technical variables indicates that MF obtains higher income per livestock unit (LU value). The higher income per livestock unit in MF is due to a higher price of fatteners montanera in the market compared to other fatteners pigs in other livestock systems around the globe [39,40]. In addition, the economic value obtained for 1 kg CO2 emitted (GW value) in MF is higher than in DF because MF is based on natural local resources use with the ultimate result of a reduction in GHG emissions [5].

3.2. Reference Points in Iberian Fattening Production

The canonical discriminant models obtained from the stepwise discriminant analysis based on technical and environmental variables are presented in Table 4. In both sets of variables, the extracted canonical functions significantly discriminated between the two types of fattening farms (MF vs. DF; p < 0.001, Hotelling’s T2 test). The F-statistics revealed a higher discriminating ability for variables related to environmental performance. Figure 1 also allows seeing the higher variability in DF than MF which seems reasonable due to the different types of animals produced. This outcome is supported by the Mahalanobis distances among farm groups (Figure 2). The Mahalanobis distances among MF and DF were 2.10 for technical variables, 2.16 for environmental variables, and 2.46 for both sets. Therefore, the two fattening types studied are distanced because all pairwise distances were significant [30].
Discriminant analysis classified the fattening farms on a preassigned group according to the selected technical or environmental variables (Table 5). The model based on technical and structural variables classified 83.3% of the farms correctly, and the model based on environmental variables correctly classified 97.2% of the participant farms. In addition, 85.7% of classification errors occurred on technical variables, while there was only one misclassification regarding environmental performance. These results indicated that the set of environmental variables discriminate much better than the set of technical variables the differences in management among the two different fattening types. The model based on technical and environmental variables showed a predictive ability equal to that of the model based only on environmental variables. Therefore, the set of environmental variables can be used as reference points to classify the types of fattening carried out on Iberian farms.
Results obtained from canonical correlation analysis are presented in Table 6. The model extracted 58.52% of the variance from the set of structural and technical variables, and 100% of the variance for the set of environmental variables. Canonical correlations for the first and second pair of canonical variables were 0.973 and 0.844, respectively. These values were significant and represented 69.24% of the variability observed in the model.
The correlation structure (Figure 3) showed that environmental performance was strongly correlated with land use, degree of intensification, and feeding practices. The first pair (F1) of canonical variables linked environmental values with land use and degree of intensification (Figure 3), showing that a more intensified fattening system generates a higher economic yield per hectare. The main cause of higher profitability is the increase in the number of animals produced. The production of fatteners cebo de campo is carried out in a lower area (15 fatteners pigs per hectare) as stated in the legislation [8], increasing the number of animals by area on more intensive management [37]. To improve profitability, Iberian farms can produce various production cycles of fatteners on cebo de campo per year. In contrast, Iberian farms with the exclusive production of fatteners in montanera only could fit one productive cycle per year as the ability of the Iberian pig breed to feed on acorns is possible from October to March [41]. Consequently, a greater number of productive cycles in cebo de campo increases the economic value per hectare.
The second pair (F2) of the canonical variables linked environmental variables with feeding practices (Figure 3). The best practice to reduce emissions is to increase the proportion of natural resources in animal feeding [5] and to reduce the use of imported feedstuff. For reaching this goal, the fattening systems must optimize the use of the resources of the dehesa. As a result, the ratio of fatteners montanera in relation to the number of animals produced would increase the feeding through natural resources base. The predominance of fattening montanera together with a better price of fatteners montanera in the market increases “LU value” in Iberian farms where fatteners montanera are produced. Consequently, Iberian farms with a lower production of emissions generate more economic value per environmental unit emitted. According to our results and interpretations, the first combination of standardized canonical variables could be considered a predictable measure of LO, and the second combination could be considered a predictable measure of GW.
The fattening management per se determines the economic and environmental characteristics of the farm unit. MF is more environmentally friendly due to extensive fattening management focused on better use of the dehesa’s natural resources [6]. DF is more profitable due to a more intensive management in the fattening period, increasing the stocking rate and feedstuffs inputs. This interpretation is in line with other studies on Iberian pig production [6] which contributes to show sample representativeness of the participant farms in this study.

3.3. Improvements for More Sustainable Iberian Fattening Production

Through the results obtained in the present study, it is possible to elaborate strategies focused on the improvement of the sustainability of the Iberian pig sector in the dehesa. Based on the optimal economic and environmental results obtained by the MF, the Iberian pig traditional livestock should be oriented towards the production of finishing pigs in montanera as a first option. The reason is mainly based on the environmental values obtained for the close attachment to natural resources during fattening montanera [5].
The reduction of inputs required by making more efficient use of internal resources can improve the environmental sustainability of livestock activity [42]. For this reason, the MF can be more environmentally sustainable through the optimization of the resource-use of the dehesa ecosystem. The MF should maximize “kg montanera” through increased fatteners montanera stocking rate in the dehesa during the finishing period, still under the framed legislation. To achieve this goal, the reforestations are necessary to increase the number of fatteners montanera that are produced. According to Spanish legislation [8], the farm unit could increase from 0.25 to a maximum of 1.25 fatteners montanera per hectare depending on the woodland density. As a result of this improvement, the “kg montanera” would increase while “LO” per kg of live weight at farm gate would decrease [43]. This way, increased efficiency generates both an improvement in livestock and environmental performances [36].
Although the finishing period in montanera should be the first option for fattening pigs, the cebo de campo fattening is necessary for several reasons in Iberian traditional pig production at present. For instance, the cebo de campo fattening is a valid alternative for the overproduction of piglets that exceeds the capacity of the dehesa to fatten pigs with natural resources only [11]. In this way, the surplus of piglets is not converted into an undesirable output. If the cebo de campo was more linked to the land, the feed inputs required would have been reduced [42]. This is a more favorable scenario since feed production is the main hotspot for several environmental impacts [36,38,44]. For this reason, adapting feeding strategies and animal management can reduce, to some extent, the environmental impacts [45] of the Iberian traditional pig production. The good management practices can be carried out during the phases of growing and fattening because the Iberian pigs are fed with compound feed and natural resources in both phases.
The results showed that DF consumes 3.5 times more feedstuffs inputs than MF. A decrease in compound feed consumption reduces the environmental impacts resulted from feed production [16]. For that purpose, optimal use of pasture is an appropriate feeding strategy for extensive systems since outdoor pigs obtain a considerable portion of nutritional requirements from grazing, reducing the daily ration [38]. Furthermore, the integration of pig production into cereal crops is possible [46]. Iberian pigs can graze the cereal crop before the earing phase [47], and the harvested grain can be used as additional feed for Iberian pigs, reducing the number of feed inputs. Another feeding strategy to improve the sustainability of pig production is the use of local feed products [48]. For instance, some authors [38,49,50] investigated the use of local subproducts in swine feed, quantifying a reduction of environmental impacts. In addition, the use of local protein sources in feed production such as sainfoin [51], grain legumes [44], or rapeseed [52], among other alternative sources [53] showed a reduction of the environmental impact of different pig systems and geographical contexts.

4. Conclusions

In the conditions of the present work, it is possible to conclude that the Iberian pig production located in the dehesa ecosystem shows a great differentiation in technical and environmental aspects according to the type of fattening. The results show that the relationship between technical and environmental variables is strong. Due to this relationship, the classification of Iberian farms according to the type of fattening is possible through environmental variables in a more precise manner.
In the Iberian pig production located in the dehesa at present, the two concurrent types of fattening are necessary and complementary. While the fattening montanera optimises the use of the natural resources offered by the dehesa, being a more eco-friendly livestock production, the fattening cebo de campo permits the fattening phase to be carried out when acorns are not seasonally available, resulting in a more profitable pig production. The combined use of fattening montanera and cebo de campo is the optimal fattening strategy to improve the sustainability in Iberian traditional pig production.
In order to improve the sustainability in Iberian traditional pig production, environmental impacts of these systems may need to be mitigated by good management practices. Further investigations are needed to explore strategies that focus on reducing environmental impacts and increasing profitability at the Iberian farms.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.B.-P. and J.M.P.; methodology, J.G.-G., J.M.P. and I.B.-P.; formal analysis, J.G.-G. and J.M.P.; investigation, J.G.-G.; resources, J.M.P. and E.A.; data curation, J.G.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, J.G.-G.; writing—review and editing, I.B.-P., M.F.-i.-F., J.M.P. and E.A.; supervision, I.B.-P. and J.M.P.; project administration, I.B.-P.; funding acquisition, I.B.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology, grant number RTA2013-00063-C03-02.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to our study was developed through farmer surveys.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to project IP rules.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank POD Dehesa de Extremadura, AECERIBER, ACPA and farmers for their support and help and to the following scientific collaborators: F. Garcia-Launay (INRAE).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. De Miguel, A.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; García-Calvo, E. Sustainability of the water footprint of the Spanish pork industry. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 57, 465–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gaspar, P.; Mesías, F.J.; Escribano, M.; Pulido, F. Assessing the technical efficiency of extensive livestock farming systems in Extremadura, Spain. Livest. Sci. 2009, 121, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Temple, D.; Manteca, X.; Velarde, A.; Dalmau, A. Assessment of animal welfare through behavioural parameters in Iberian pigs in intensive and extensive conditions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 131, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lorido, L.; Estévez, M.; Ventanas, J.; Ventanas, S. Comparative study between Serrano and Iberian dry-cured hams in relation to the application of high hydrostatic pressure and temporal sensory perceptions. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 64, 1234–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. García-Gudiño, J.; Monteiro, A.N.T.R.; Espagnol, S.; Blanco-Penedo, I.; Garcia-Launay, F. Life cycle assessment of Iberian traditional pig production system in Spain. Sustainability 2020, 12, 627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Rodriguez-Estevez, V.; Sanchez-Rodriguez, M.; Arce, C.; García, A.R.; Perea, J.M.; Gustavo, A. Consumption of Acorns by Finishing Iberian Pigs and Their Function in the Conservation of the Dehesa Agroecosystem. In Book Agroforestry for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services—Science and Practice; Kaonga, M., Ed.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012; pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Clark, B.; Panzone, L.A.; Stewart, G.B.; Kyriazakis, I.; Niemi, J.K.; Latvala, T.; Jones, P.; Frewer, L.J. Consumer attitudes towards production diseases in intensive production systems. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0210432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Real Decreto 4/2014, de 10 de Enero, por el Que se Aprueba la Norma de Calidad Para la Carne, el Jamón, la Paleta y la Caña de Lomo Ibérico. Available online: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2014/01/11/pdfs/BOE-A-2014-318.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2020).
  9. Registro Informativo de Organismos Independientes de Control del Ibérico (RIBER). Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/alimentacion/temas/control-calidad/mesa-iberico/riber-publico/ (accessed on 2 October 2020).
  10. Ríos-Núñez, S.M.; Coq-Huelva, D. The Transformation of the Spanish Livestock System in the Second and Third Food Regimes. J. Agrar. Chang. 2015, 15, 519–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mesías, F.J.; Gaspar, P.; Pulido, A.F.; Escribano, M.; Pulido, F. Consumers’ preferences for Iberian dry-cured ham and the influence of mast feeding: An application of conjoint analysis in Spain. Meat Sci. 2009, 83, 684–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lopez-Bote, C.J. Sustained utilization of the Iberian pig breed. Meat Sci. 1998, 49, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Casas, J.J.; Bonachela, S.; Moyano, F.J.; Fenoy, E.; Hernández, J. Agricultural Practices in the Mediterranean: A Case Study in Southern Spain. In Book the Mediterranean; Preedy, V.R., Watson, R.R., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ibáñez, J.; Contador, J.F.L.; Schnabel, S.; Fernández, M.P.; Valderrama, J.M. A model-based integrated assessment of land degradation by water erosion in a valuable Spanish rangeland. Environ. Model. Softw. 2014, 55, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. López-Sánchez, A.; Schroeder, J.; Roig, S.; Sobral, M.; Dirzo, R. Effects of cattle management on oak regeneration in northern Californian Mediterranean oak woodlands. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e105472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dolman, M.A.; Vrolijk, H.C.J.; De Boer, I.J.M. Exploring variation in economic, environmental and societal performance among Dutch fattening pig farms. Livest. Sci. 2012, 149, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Horrillo, A.; Gaspar, P.; Mesiás, F.J.; Elghannam, A.; Escribano, M. Understanding the barriers and exploring the possibilities of the organic livestock sector in dehesa agroforestry systems: A multi-actor approach for effective diagnosis. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2019, 35, 663–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Asmild, M.; Hougaard, J.L. Economic versus environmental improvement potentials of Danish pig farms. Agric. Econ. 2006, 35, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gaspar, P.; Mesías, F.J.; Escribano, M.; Rodriguez-Ledesma, A.; Pulido, F. Economic and management characterization of dehesa farms: Implications for their sustainability. Agrofor. Syst. 2007, 71, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gaspar, P.; Mesías, F.J.; Escribano, M.; Pulido, F. Sustainability in Spanish extensive farms (Dehesas): An economic and management indicator-based evaluation. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 62, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Horrillo, A.; Gaspar, A.; Escribano, M. Organic farming as a strategy to reduce carbon footprint in dehesa agroecosystems: A case study comparing different livestock products. Animals 2020, 10, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Horrillo, A.; Gaspar, P.; Díaz-Caro, C.; Escribano, M. A scenario-based analysis of the effect of carbon pricing on organic livestock farm performance: A case study of Spanish dehesas and rangelands. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 751, 141675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nieto, R.; García-Casco, J.; Lara, L.; Palma-Granados, P.; Izquierdo, M.; Hernandez, F.; Dieguez, E.; Duarte, J.L.; Batorek-Lukac, N. Ibérico (Iberian) Pig. In Book European Local Pig Breeds—Diversity and Performance A Study of Project TREASURE; Candek-Potokar, M., Nieto, R., Eds.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2019; pp. 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Olea, L.; Paredes, J.; Verdasco, M.P. Características y producción de los pastos de las dehesas del SO de la Península Ibérica. Pastos 1990, 21, 131–156. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jäntschi, L. A test detecting the outliers for continuous distributions based on the cumulative distribution function of the data being tested. Symmetry 2019, 11, 835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Caballero-Villalobos, J.; Figueroa, A.; Xibrraku, K.; Angón, E.; Perea, J.M.; Garzón, A. Multivariate analysis of the milk coagulation process in ovine breeds from Spain. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 10733–10742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Rivas, J.; Perea, J.M.; De Pablos-Heredero, C.; Angon, E.; Barba, C.; García, A. Canonical correlation of technological innovation and performance in sheep’s dairy farms: Selection of a set of indicators. Agric. Syst. 2019, 176, 102665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Figueroa, A.; Caballero-Villalobos, J.; Angón, E.; Arias, R.; Garzón, A.; Perea, J.M. Using multivariate analysis to explore the relationships between color, composition, hygienic quality, and coagulation of milk from Manchega sheep. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 4951–4957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zurita-Herrera, P.; Delgado, J.V.; Argüello, A.; Camacho, M.E. Multivariate analysis of meat production traits in Murciano-Granadina goat kids. Meat Sci. 2011, 88, 447–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Miles, A.; Perea Muñoz, J.M.; Bayle-Sempere, J.T. Low satisfaction and failed relational coordination among relevant stakeholders in Spanish Mediterranean marine protected areas. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 272, 111003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. De Maesschalck, R.; Jouan-Rimbaud, D.; Massart, D.L. The Mahalanobis distance. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2000, 50, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mardia, K.V.; Bookstein, F.L.; Moreton, I.J. Statistical assessment of bilateral symmetry of shapes. Biometrika 2000, 87, 285–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics, 7th ed.; Pearson: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  34. Yin, X. Canonical correlation analysis based on information theory. J. Multivar. Anal. 2004, 91, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Liu, J.; Drane, W.; Liu, X.; Wu, T. Examination of the relationships between environmental exposures to volatile organic compounds and biochemical liver tests: Application of canonical correlation analysis. Environ. Res. 2009, 109, 193–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Zucali, M.; Lovarelli, D.; Celozzi, S.; Bacenetti, J.; Sandrucci, A.; Bava, L. Management options to reduce the environmental impact of dairy goat milk production. Livest. Sci. 2020, 231, 103888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Espagnol, S.; Demartini, J. Environmental impacts of extensive outdoor pig production systems in Corsica. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014), San Francisco, CA, USA, 8–10 October 2014; pp. 364–371. [Google Scholar]
  38. Monteiro, A.N.T.R.; Wilfart, A.; Utzeri, V.J.; Lukac, N.B.; Tomazin, U.; Costa, L.N.; Candek-Potokar, M.; Fontanesi, L.; Garcia-Launay, F. Environmental impacts of pig production systems using European local breeds: The contribution of carbon sequestration and emissions from grazing. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 237, 117843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Szyndler-Nędza, M.; Małopolska, M.; Nowicki, J. The production system of high quality pork products—An example. Ann. Warsaw Univ. Life Sci. SGGW Anim. Sci. 2019, 58, 181–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Faure, J.; Brossard, L.; Garcia-Launay, F.; Gil, M.; Kallas, Z.; Gil, J.M. A qualitative and participative approach to analyse different strategies of valorization of Noir de Bigorre pork chain. In Proceedings of the X International Symposium of Mediterranean Pig, Florence, Italy, 16–18 October 2019. [Google Scholar]
  41. Benito, J.; Albarrán, A.; García-Casco, J.M. Extensive Iberian pig production grazing systems. In Proceedings of the 21st General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Badajoz, Spain, 3–6 April 2006; pp. 635–645. [Google Scholar]
  42. Martin, G.; Barth, K.; Benoit, M.; Brock, C.; Destruel, M.; Dumont, B.; Grillot, M.; Hübner, S.; Magne, M.A.; Moerman, M.; et al. Potential of multi-species livestock farming to improve the sustainability of livestock farms: A review. Agric. Syst. 2020, 181, 102821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dourmad, J.Y.; Ryschawy, J.; Trousson, T.; Bonneau, M.; González, J.; Houwers, H.W.J.; Hviid, M.; Zimmer, C.; Nguyen, T.L.T.; Morgensen, L. Evaluating environmental impacts of contrasting pig farming systems with life cycle assessment. Animal 2014, 8, 2027–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. González-García, S.; Belo, S.; Dias, A.C.; Rodrigues, J.V.; Da Costa, R.R.; Ferreira, A.; De Andrade, L.P.; Arroja, L. Life cycle assessment of pigmeat production: Portuguese case study and proposal of improvement options. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 100, 126–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cadéro, A.; Aubry, A.; Dourmad, J.Y.; Salaün, Y.; Garcia-Launay, F. Effects of interactions between feeding practices, animal health and farm infrastructure on technical, economic and environmental performances of a pig-fattening unit. Animal 2020, 14, S348–S359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Quintern, M. Integration of organic pig production within crop rotation: Implications on nutrient losses. In Book Organic Pig Production in Free Range Systems; Sundrum, A., Weibmann, F., Eds.; Institute of Organic Farming: Braunschweig, Germany, 2005; pp. 31–41. [Google Scholar]
  47. Gil, A.; Llera, F.; García-Calvo, A.; Rufo, S. Nuevas oportunidades de alimentación en la dehesa: El Triticale. In Book la Agricultura y la Ganadería Extremeñas; Publisher: Badajoz, Spain, 2008; pp. 173–189. [Google Scholar]
  48. Van Der Werf, H.M.G.; Petit, J.; Sanders, J. The environmental impacts of the production of concentrated feed: The case of pig feed in Bretagne. Agric. Syst. 2005, 83, 153–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mackenzie, S.G.; Leinonen, I.; Ferguson, N.; Kyriazakis, I. Can the environmental impact of pig systems be reduced by utilising co-products as feed? J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 115, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ali, B.M.; van Zanten, H.H.E.; Berentsen, P.; Bastiaansen, J.W.M.; Bikker, P.; Lansink, A.O. Environmental and economic impacts of using co-products in the diets of finishing pigs in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Baldinger, L.; Hagmüller, W.; Minihuber, U.; Matzner, M.; Zollitsch, W. Sainfoin seeds in organic diets for weaned piglets—Utilizing the protein-rich grains of a long-known forage legume. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2014, 31, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Van Zanten, H.H.E.; Bikker, P.; Meerburg, B.G.; De Boer, I.J.M. Attributional versus consequential life cycle assessment and feed optimization: Alternative protein sources in pig diets. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 23, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Florou-Paneri, P.; Christaki, E.; Giannenas, I.; Bonos, E.; Skoufos, I.; Tsinas, A.; Tzora, A.; Peng, J. Alternative protein sources to soybean meal in pig diets. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2014, 12, 655–660. [Google Scholar]
Animals 11 00411 g001 550
Figure 1. Graphic representation of the results from canonical discriminant analysis for technical and environmental variables, defined by the axes of the first canonical variables (red triangle-Diversified farms; green spot-Montanera farms).
Figure 1. Graphic representation of the results from canonical discriminant analysis for technical and environmental variables, defined by the axes of the first canonical variables (red triangle-Diversified farms; green spot-Montanera farms).
Animals 11 00411 g001
Animals 11 00411 g002 550
Figure 2. Dendrogram showing technical and environmental variables relationship between Iberian farms.
Figure 2. Dendrogram showing technical and environmental variables relationship between Iberian farms.
Animals 11 00411 g002
Animals 11 00411 g003 550
Figure 3. Canonical correlation analysis similarity map determined by the first and second canonical variables for technical (green spot) and environmental variables (red triangle).
Figure 3. Canonical correlation analysis similarity map determined by the first and second canonical variables for technical (green spot) and environmental variables (red triangle).
Animals 11 00411 g003
Table
Table 1. Requirements of management in Iberian fattening period according to the legislation (RD 4/2014).
Table 1. Requirements of management in Iberian fattening period according to the legislation (RD 4/2014).
Requirements Fattening PeriodMontaneraCebo de Campo
FeedingNatural resources (acorn and grass)Compound feed and natural resources (grass)
Stocking density0.25–1.25 animals/ha15 animals/ha
Minimum duration60 days60 days
Minimum age at slaughter14 months12 months
Table
Table 2. Technical and environmental variables used to evaluate fattening types in Iberian farms (n = 36).
Table 2. Technical and environmental variables used to evaluate fattening types in Iberian farms (n = 36).
VariableDescriptionMeanSE 1
Technical variables
Farm surfaceTotal surface area, ha631.60104.02
Dehesa land useUtilized dehesa area/Total dehesa area, %79.255.34
Pig stocking ratePig livestock unit per ha, LU/ha0.120.02
SowsSows per 100 kg of pig0.160.09
Piglets outputPiglets produced per fattened pig1.480.19
kg montanerakg of live weight from fatteners montanera per dehesa area, kg/ha95.7017.21
kg total pig productionkg of live weight from pig production per total surface area, kg/ha106.4917.67
ha value *Production value per ha, €/ha298.1543.93
LU value *Production value per pig livestock unit, €/LU2554.4100.69
Feedstuffs inputsAnimal feedstuffs per ha, kg/ha212.6992.77
Environmental variables
GWGlobal warming, kg CO2 eq3.750.75
LOLand occupation CML non baseline, m2·year38.723.60
GW value *Production value per GW, €/CO2 eq0.7950.027
LO value *Production value per LO, €/m2·year0.0920.007
* Economic variables relating to technical and environmental aspects. 1 SE: standard error. LU: livestock unit. GW: global warming. LO: land occupation.
Table
Table 3. Results of canonical discriminant analysis with technical and environmental variables.
Table 3. Results of canonical discriminant analysis with technical and environmental variables.
VariableMontanera Farms (MF)SE 1Diversified Farms (DF)SE 1Wilks’ λF-Valuep-ValueCAN 2
Technical variables
Farm surface658.6132.4577.7171.90.9960.130.7200.088
Dehesa land use *87.174.8963.4211.750.8754.870.0340.606
Pig stocking rate0.090.020.160.050.9501.790.190−0.419
Sows *0.060.010.370.290.9362.330.014−0.349
Piglets output1.300.211.860.370.9451.980.168−0.305
kg montanera113.524.3660.0213.130.9392.220.1450.339
kg total pig production97.0616.07125.443.020.9840.560.458−0.371
ha value291.248.71312.192.050.9990.490.826−0.346
LU value *2825.572.492012.0186.30.58624.06<0.0010.962
Feedstuffs inputs115.943.52406.3262.90.9382.250.142−0.152
Environmental variables
GW *3.410.054.440.270.57025.66<0.001−0.953
LO43.004.7030.154.590.9193.000.090.492
GW value *0.880.010.630.060.48636.00<0.0010.989
LO value0.090.010.110.010.9511.760.193−0.376
1 SE: standard error. 2 CAN: correlation of each variable with the canonical function. * Most discriminating variables between fattening types. LU: livestock unit. GW: global warming. LO: land occupation.
Table
Table 4. Discriminant canonical models for technical and environmental variables.
Table 4. Discriminant canonical models for technical and environmental variables.
ModelVariables in the ModelNumber of GroupsWilks’ λF-Valuep-Value
TechnicalSows, Value LU20.47418.30<0.001
EnvironmentalLO, Value GW20.42545.36<0.001
Both setsValue LU, Value GW20.41135.99<0.001
Table
Table 5. Assignation percentages in the predefined groups and classification errors.
Table 5. Assignation percentages in the predefined groups and classification errors.
GroupMontanera Farms (MF)Diversified Farms (DF)
Technical model
Montanera farms95.834.16
Diversified farms41.6658.33
Level of error0.180.13
Prior probability0.500.50
Environmental model
Montanera farm100.000.00
Diversified farm8.3391.66
Level of error0.040.00
Prior probability0.500.50
Both sets of variables
Montanera farm100.000.00
Diversified farm8.3391.66
Level of error0.040.00
Prior probability0.500.50
Table
Table 6. Canonical correlation analysis on technical and environmental variables.
Table 6. Canonical correlation analysis on technical and environmental variables.
FactorEigen ValueCanonical CorrelationVariability, %Wilks’ λp-Value
F10.9460.97339.490.006<0.001
F20.7120.84429.750.104<0.001
F30.5590.74823.360.3620.032
F40.1780.4217.400.8220.615
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

García-Gudiño, J.; Blanco-Penedo, I.; Font-i-Furnols, M.; Angón, E.; Perea, J.M. Analysis of the Sustainability of Fattening Systems for Iberian Traditional Pig Production through a Technical and Environmental Approach. Animals 2021, 11, 411. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020411

AMA Style

García-Gudiño J, Blanco-Penedo I, Font-i-Furnols M, Angón E, Perea JM. Analysis of the Sustainability of Fattening Systems for Iberian Traditional Pig Production through a Technical and Environmental Approach. Animals. 2021; 11(2):411. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020411

Chicago/Turabian Style

García-Gudiño, Javier, Isabel Blanco-Penedo, Maria Font-i-Furnols, Elena Angón, and José Manuel Perea. 2021. "Analysis of the Sustainability of Fattening Systems for Iberian Traditional Pig Production through a Technical and Environmental Approach" Animals 11, no. 2: 411. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020411

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop