Support amongst UK pig farmers and agricultural stakeholders for the use of food losses in animal feed

17Citations
Citations of this article
122Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

While food losses (foods which were intended for human consumption, but which ultimately are not directly eaten by people) have been included in animal feed for millennia, the practice is all but banned in the European Union. Amid recent calls to promote a circular economy, we conducted a survey of pig farmers (n = 82) and other agricultural stakeholders (n = 81) at a UK agricultural trade fair on their attitudes toward the use of food losses in pig feed, and the potential relegalisation of swill (the use of cooked food losses as feed). While most respondents found the use of feeds containing animal by-products or with the potential for intra-species recycling (i.e. pigs eating pork products) to be less acceptable than feeds without, we found strong support (>75%) for the relegalisation of swill among both pig farmers and other stakeholders. We fit multi-hierarchical Bayesian models to understand people’s position on the relegalisation of swill, finding that respondents who were concerned about disease control and the perception of the pork industry supported relegalisation less, while people who were concerned with farm financial performance and efficiency or who thought that swill would benefit the environment and reduce trade-deficits, were more supportive. Our results provide a baseline estimate of support amongst the large-scale pig industry for the relegalisation of swill, and suggest that proponents for its relegalisation must address concerns about disease control and the consumer acceptance of swill-fed pork.

Figures

  • Table 1. Characteristics of different sources of food losses.
  • Table 2. Models explaining the acceptability of different feeds, listed in order of their Akaike weights.
  • Table 3. Models predicting support for the relegalisation of swill, amongst all respondents (n = 163).
  • Fig 1. Estimates from the six models with the greatest weighting (summing to 100% of model weight) of how the acceptability of different feedstuffs varies according to their characteristics (e.g. whether or not they contain animal by-products, or their legality). The variation between different feeds, respondents, and feed:job combinations is shown below the dashed line. Model weights are proportional to the size of the points. Error bars are 89% credible intervals.
  • Fig 2. Comparison of swill and conventional feed. Responses to the question: “Compared with feeding conventional grain- and soybean-based feed, heat-treated swill is:”.
  • Fig 3. Support for the relegalisation of swill amongst pig farmers and other agricultural stakeholders. Response to the question: “If the procedures were put in place to ensure the safety of swill (e.g. heat treatment was performed by regulated swill manufacturers), would you support the relegalisation of swill?”.
  • Fig 4. Predictors of the support for the relegalisation of swill, among all respondents (n = 163). The estimates plotted are from the five models with the greatest weighting (85% of model weight), where different colours are used for each model (listed in Table 3) and model weights are proportional to the size of the points. Error bars are 89% credible intervals. For clarity, the coefficients for age groups, which was included in two models, are not plotted here; these are shown in Figure J in S2 Appendix.
  • Fig 5. Predictors of farmer support for the relegalisation of swill (n = 82). The top three models shown had 55% of the model weight, and the structure of all models are listed in Table A in S2 Appendix. Error bars are 89% confidence intervals.

References Powered by Scopus

Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations

1793Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste

1140Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Statistical rethinking: A bayesian course with examples in R and stan

1119Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The Future of Aquatic Protein: Implications for Protein Sources in Aquaculture Diets

574Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A systematic review of research on food loss and waste prevention and management for the circular economy

74Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Circular economy and economic development in the European Union: A review and bibliometric analysis

35Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

zu Ermgassen, E. K. H. J., Kelly, M., Bladon, E., Salemdeeb, R., & Balmford, A. (2018). Support amongst UK pig farmers and agricultural stakeholders for the use of food losses in animal feed. PLoS ONE, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196288

Readers over time

‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2507142128

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 50

69%

Researcher 14

19%

Professor / Associate Prof. 5

7%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

4%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Engineering 23

43%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12

23%

Business, Management and Accounting 11

21%

Environmental Science 7

13%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 4
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 2

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0