Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Lower pork consumption and technological change in feed production can reduce the pork supply chain environmental footprint in China

Nature Food volume 4, pages 74–83 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Nearly half of global pork production and consumption occurs in China, but the transition towards intensification is associated with worsening environmental impacts. Here we explore scenarios for implementing structural and technological changes across the pork supply chain to improve environmental sustainability and meet future demand. Following the middle-of-the-road socio-economic pathway (SSP2), we estimate that the environmental footprint from the pork supply chain will increase by ~50% from 2017 to 2050. Utilizing technologies that improve feed crop production and manure management could reduce phosphorus and nitrogen losses by three-quarters and one-third, respectively, with modest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and cropland area. Reducing pork consumption had substantial mitigation potential. Increased feed and pork imports would decrease domestic environmental footprints and meet demand, but increase footprints elsewhere. We conclude that farm-specific technologies and structural adjustments can support the development of rural, small-scale pig farms near cropland and promote circular economy principles.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Estimated relative cropland areas used for feed production, and relative GHG emissions, Nr and P losses associated with China’s pork supply in 2017 and 2050 (for BAU).
Fig. 2: Relative changes (%) in cropland area, GHG emissions, and N and P losses following the implementation of series of technological measures and structural adjustments by 2050, relative to the 2050 BAU baseline.
Fig. 3: The needed cropland area, and GHG emissions and reactive Nr and P losses associated with China’s pork supply chain for the 2050 BAU baseline and for various scenarios.
Fig. 4: The relative contributions of technological and structural measures to the diminished need for cropland area, and to the mitigation of GHG emissions, Nr losses and P losses in the SF scenario (Fig. 3), relative to the 2050 BAU baseline.
Fig. 5: The key mass flows in the pork supply China (left) and a summary of key advantages and disadvantages of possible pathways/options for achieving more sustainable pork production and consumption (table on the right; see Discussion).

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its Supplementary Information files, or are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Code availability

The statistical coding is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. FAOSTAT 2020. FAO http://faostat.fao.org/ (2020).

  2. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. China Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Yearbook (China Agriculture Press, 2018).

  3. Bai, Z. et al. Changes in pig production in China and their effects on nitrogen and phosphorus use and losses. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 12742–12749 (2014).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Long, W. et al. Mitigation of multiple environmental footprints for China’s pig production using different land use strategies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 4440–4451 (2021).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Richard, F. et al. US–China trade war imperils Amazon rainforest. Nature 567, 451–454 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang, L. Modern Chinese Pig Production (Jindun Press, 2007).

  7. Stylianou, K. et al. Small targeted dietary changes can yield substantial gains for human health and the environment. Nat. Food 2, 616–627 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Herrero, M. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 452–461 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Havlík, P. et al. Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3709–3714 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Du, Y. et al. A global strategy to mitigate the environmental impact of China’s ruminant consumption boom. Nat. Commun. 9, 4133 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bai, Z. et al. Relocate 10 billion livestock to reduce harmful nitrogen pollution exposure for 90% of China’s population. Nat. Food 3, 152–160 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gu, B. Recoupling livestock and crops. Nat. Food 3, 102–103 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jin, S. et al. Decoupling livestock and crop production at the household level in China. Nat. Sustain. 4, 48–55 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Muscat, A. et al. Principles, drivers and opportunities of a circular bioeconomy. Nat. Food 2, 561–566 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Uwizeye, A. et al. Nitrogen flows in global pork supply chains and potential improvement from feeding swill to pigs. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 146, 168–179 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bai, Z. et al. China’s livestock transition: driving forces, impacts, and consequences. Sci. Adv. 4, r8534 (2018b).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang, H. et al. Can dietary manipulations improve the productivity of pigs with lower environmental and economic cost? A global meta-analysis. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 289, 106748 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. O’Neill, B.C. et al. Meeting report of the workshop on the nature and use of new socioeconomic pathways for climate change research. Clim. Change 122, 387–400 (2014).

  19. Chinese Nutrition Society. Dietary Guidelines for Chinese Residents (People’s Medical Publishing House, 2022).

  20. Zhao, J. et al. China needs long-term solutions for African swine fever. Sci. Bull. 64, 1469–1471 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Xu, Z. et al. Impacts of international trade on global sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. 3, 964–971 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Yao, G. et al. The increasing global environmental consequences of a weakening US–China crop trade relationship. Nat. Food 8, 578–586 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. He, P. et al. Environmental impacts of dietary quality improvement in China. J. Environ. Manag. 240, 518–526 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tukker, A. et al. Environmental and resource footprints in a global context: Europe’s structural deficit in resource endowments. Glob. Environ. Chang. 40, 171–181 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. FAO. Food-based dietary guidelines 2022. FAO https://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-dietary-guidelines/en/ (2022).

  26. Lassaletta, L. et al. Future global pig production systems according to the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Sci. Total Environ. 665, 739–751 (2019).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. FAO. The future of food and agriculture—alternative pathways to 2050. FAO https://www.fao.org/global-perspectives-studies/resources (2018).

  28. Chaudhary, A. & Krishna, V. Country-specific sustainable diets using optimization algorithm. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 7694–7703 (2019).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  29. Komarek, A. M. et al. Income, consumer preferences, and the future of livestock-derived food demand. Glob. Environ. Chang. 70, 102343 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang, S. et al. Pork production systems in China: a review of their development, challenges and prospects in green production. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. 8, 15–24 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  31. National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China. China Statistical Yearbook (China Statistics Press, 2018).

  32. Wei, S. et al. Environmental, economic and social analysis of peri-urban pig production. J. Clean. Prod. 129, 596–607 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tan, M. X. et al. Operational costs and neglect of end-users are the main barriers to improving manure treatment in intensive livestock farms. J. Clean. Prod. 289, 125149 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Chadwick, D. et al. Improving manure nutrient management towards sustainable agricultural intensification in China. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 209, 34–46 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhu, Z. et al. Integrated livestock sector nitrogen pollution abatement measures could generate net benefits for human and ecosystem health in China. Nat. Food 3, 161–168 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhang, X. et al. Societal benefits of halving agricultural ammonia emissions in China far exceed the abatement costs. Nat. Commun. 11, 4357 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  37. Lacoste, M. et al. On-farm experimentation to transform global agriculture. Nat. Food 3, 11–18 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang, N. et al. Reducing ammonia emissions from dairy cattle production via cost-effective manure management techniques in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 11840–11848 (2019).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  39. Fan, L. et al. Decreasing farm number benefits the mitigation of agricultural non-point source pollution in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. 26, 464–472 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Herrero, M. et al. Livestock, livelihoods and the environment: understanding the trade-offs. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 1, 111–120 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mottet, A. et al. Livestock: on our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Glob. Food Secur. 14, 1–8 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jin, X. et al. Nitrogen budgets of contrasting crop-livestock systems in China. Environ.Pollut. 288, 117633 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Zhang, X. et al. Benefits and trade‐offs of replacing synthetic fertilizers by animal manures in crop production in China: a meta‐analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 888–900 (2019).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  44. Xue, L. et al. China’s food loss and waste embodies increasing environmental impacts. Nat. Food 2, 519–528 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Gan, M. et al. High altitude adaptability and meat quality in Tibetan pigs: a reference for local pork processing and genetic improvement. Animals 9, 1080 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Allen, T. et al. Global hotspots and correlates of emerging zoonotic diseases. Nat. Commun. 8, 1124 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  48. IPCC. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. In Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Vol. 4 (2006).

  49. Lei, A. et al. The nitrogen footprint of food products in the European Union. J. Agr. Sci. 152, 20–33 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Günther, J. et al. Carbon and phosphorus footprint of the cotton production in Xinjiang, China, in comparison to an alternative fibre (Apocynum) from Central Asia. J. Clean. Prod. 148, 490–497 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. National Development and Reform Commission of the People’s Republic of China. National Cost–Benefit Compilation of Agricultural Products (China Statistics Press, 2018).

  52. Mason-D’Croz, D. et al. Modelling the global economic consequences of a major African swine fever outbreak in China. Nat. Food 1, 221–228 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Herrero, M. & Thornton, P. K. Livestock and global change: emerging issues for sustainable food systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 20878–20881 (2013).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  54. Chen, X. P. et al. Integrated soil-crop system management for food security. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 6399–6404 (2011).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  55. Chen, X. P. et al. Producing more grain with lower environmental costs. Nature 514, 486–489 (2014).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  56. Xia, L. et al. Can knowledge-based N management produce more staple grain with lower greenhouse gas emission and reactive nitrogen pollution? A meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 1917–1925 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  57. Chen, D. Nutrition and feed strategies for sustainable swine production in China. Fron. Agric. China 3, 471–477 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Reckmann, K., Traulsen, I. & Krieter, J. Life cycle assessment of pork production: a data inventory for the case of Germany. Livest. Sci. 157, 586–596 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hou, Y., Velthof, G. L. & Oenema, O. Mitigation of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from manure management chains: a meta-analysis and integrated assessment. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1293–1312 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  60. Hou, Y. et al. Nutrient recovery and emissions of ammonia, nitrous oxide, and methane from animal manure in Europe: effects of manure treatment technologies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 375–383 (2017).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  61. Wang, Y. et al. Mitigating greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from swine manure management: a system analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 4503–4511 (2017).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  62. Ma, L. et al. Modeling nutrient flows in the food chain of China. J. Environ. Qual. 39, 1279–1289 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, grant no. 31772393 to Y.H.), the National Key R&D Program of China funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China (MOST, grant no. 2016YFE0103100 to Y.H.), the Program of Advanced Discipline Construction in Beijing (Agriculture Green Development to Y.H. and B.T.), the High-level Team Project of China Agricultural University (CAU to Y.H.) and Agriculture Green Development Program sponsored by China Scholarship Council and Hainan University (no. 201913043 to L.Z. and W.L.).

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Bingxin Tong, Ling Zhang.

  2. These authors jointly supervised this work: Bingxin Tong, Ling Zhang.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, National Academy of Agriculture Green Development, Key Laboratory of Plant-Soil Interactions, Ministry of Education, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China

    Bingxin Tong, Ling Zhang, Yong Hou, Oene Oenema, Weitong Long & Fusuo Zhang

  2. Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands

    Oene Oenema & Gerard Velthof

  3. Environmental Economics and Natural Resources Group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands

    Weitong Long

  4. College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Hebei Agricultural University, Hebei, China

    Wenqi Ma

Authors
  1. Bingxin Tong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ling Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yong Hou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Oene Oenema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Weitong Long
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gerard Velthof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Wenqi Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Fusuo Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

B.T., L.Z., Y.H. and O.O. designed the research; B.T., L.Z. and W.L. developed the model; B.T., L.Z., Y.H. and O.O. analysed data; B.T., L.Z., Y.H., O.O., G.V., W.M. and F.Z. wrote the paper. All authors contributed to analysis of the results. All authors read and commented on various drafts of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yong Hou.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Food thanks Hongmin Dong, Aimable Uwizeye and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–6, discussion and Tables 1–23.

Reporting Summary

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

Model estimation.

Source Data Fig. 2

Model estimation.

Source Data Fig. 3

Model estimation.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tong, B., Zhang, L., Hou, Y. et al. Lower pork consumption and technological change in feed production can reduce the pork supply chain environmental footprint in China. Nat Food 4, 74–83 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00640-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00640-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene