Research on World Agricultural Economy

Understanding the Economic Pressures in Hog Production: Implications for Food Security and Agricultural Policy

Joannie A. Galano

College of Management and Business Technology, Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology, Cabanatuan City 3100, Philippines

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v6i4.2245

Received: 31 May 2025 | Revised: 26 June 2025 | Accepted: 9 July 2025 | Published Online: 9 October 2025

---

Abstract

This study investigates closely at the problems faced by small and medium-sized hog farmers in the Philippines, especially in terms of money, technology, government support, and environmental concerns. Using a descriptive quantitative method, the researchers gathered data from 49 actual hog farmers about their daily experiences. The results show that the biggest problem is financial—such as the high price of animal feed and the changing price of live pigs, which makes it hard for farmers to earn steady income. Many of these farmers depend on hog raising to support their families, but they often don’t have access to affordable veterinary services, modern tools, or strong support groups like cooperatives. The study also found that most farmers are not part of coops and are not very involved with government programs, which makes it harder for them to respond to diseases or changing farming rules. These issues weaken the hog farming sector overall. The regression analysis confirmed that money matters, technology use, policy awareness, and environmental practices all strongly affect whether farms can survive for the long term. This research ends with a clear message: to keep hog farming alive and strong, there must be a complete action plan. This includes giving financial help like subsidies, training for modern farming practices, building stronger cooperatives, and encouraging the youth to return to farming. With these combined efforts, hog farming in the Philippines can grow again and continue to support food security and rural community life.

Keywords: Hog Farming Sustainability; Economic Challenges; Technological Adoption; Institutional Support; En‑ vironmental Compliance; Cooperative Engagement; Rural Livelihood

---

References

[1] Go, M., Golbin, R., Cababat, F., et al., 2021. Effects of commercial inorganic and hog waste organic fertilizer on the growth performance and yield of pechay (Brassica rapa). Universal Journal of Agricultural Research. 9(6), 248–257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13189/ujar.2021.090603

[2] Mora, J., Meclat, V., Calayag, A., et al., 2024. Genomic analysis of Salmonella enterica from metropolitan Manila abattoirs and markets reveals insights into circulating virulence and antimicrobial resistance genotypes. Frontiers in Microbiology. 14, 1304283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1304283

[3] Calayag, A., Widmer, K., Rivera, W., 2021. Antimicrobial susceptibility and frequency of bla and qnr genes in Salmonella enterica isolated from slaughtered pigs. Antibiotics. 10(12), 1442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10121442

[4] Li, C., Wang, G., Shen, Y., et al., 2024. The effect of hog futures in stabilizing hog production. Agriculture. 14(3), 335. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14030335

[5] Gamit, A.M., Santos, A.R., Armas, K.L., et al., 2024. Implementation of ISO 9001:2015 in state universities and colleges: A quality management, organizational performance, and legal framework. Corporate Law & Governance Review. 6(4), 94–102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22495/clgrv6i4p9

[6] Penrith, M., Heerden, J., Pfeiffer, D., et al., 2023. Innovative research offers new hope for managing African Swine Fever better in resource-limited smallholder farming settings: A timely update. Pathogens. 12(2), 355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12020355

[7] Xiong, T., Zhang, W., Chen, C., 2021. A fortune from misfortune: Evidence from hog firms' stock price responses to China's African Swine Fever outbreaks. Food Policy. 105, 102150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102150

[8] Galnaitytė, A., Kriščiukaitienė, I., Namiotko, V., et al., 2023. Assessment of the Lithuanian pig farming sector via prospective farm size. Agriculture. 14(1), 32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010032

[9] Wang, G., Zhao, C., Shen, Y., et al., 2021. Estimation of cost efficiency of fattening pigs, sows, and piglets using SFA approach analysis: Evidence from China. PLoS ONE. 16(12), e0261240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261240

[10] Wu, Q., Xu, L., Geng, X., 2022. Ecological efficiency of hog scale production under environmental regulation in China: Based on an optimal super efficiency SBM-Malmquist–Tobit model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 29(35), 53088–53106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16712-2

[11] Gudadur, K., Dolli, S., 2022. A scale to measure perception of farmers on pesticides use behaviour. Gujarat Journal of Extension Education. 34(2), 167–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56572/gjoee.2022.34.2.0035

[12] Eitzinger, A., Binder, C., Meyer, M., 2018. Risk perception and decision-making: Do farmers consider risks from climate change? Climatic Change. 151(3–4), 507–524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2320-1

[13] Li, X., Luo, Y., Wang, H., 2023. Effects of targeted poverty alleviation on the sustainable livelihood of poor farmers. Sustainability. 15(7), 6217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076217

[14] Yu, L., Santos, A.R., 2025. Integrating human resource management in urban workforce development: A focus on salary increments. International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management. 10(1), 57–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22034/IJHCUM.2025.01.04

[15] Peng, Y., Liu, B., Zhou, M., 2022. Sustainable livelihoods in rural areas under the shock of climate change: Evidence from China labor-force dynamic survey. Sustainability. 14(12), 7262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127262

[16] Hu, C., Dong, J., 2023. Measuring livelihood resilience of farmers and diagnosing obstacle factors under the impact of COVID-19 in Jiangsu Province, China. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 7. 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1250564

[17] Santos, A.R., Galano, J.A., Claudio, E.G., et al., 2025. Project Liwanag Kita: Assessing its impact on community empowerment and economic development. International Journal of Public Policy and Administration Research. 12(1), 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18488/74.v12i1.4152

[18] Asfaw, A., Simane, B., Hassen, A., et al., 2017. Determinants of non-farm livelihood diversification: Evidence from rainfed-dependent smallholder farmers in Northcentral Ethiopia (Woleka Sub-Basin). Development Studies Research. 4(1), 22–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21665095.2017.1413411

[19] Lecegui, A., Tolosana, A., López‐i‐Gelats, F., et al, 2022. Implementing the livelihood resilience framework: An indicator-based model for assessing mountain pastoral farming systems. Agricultural Systems. 199, 103405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103405

[20] Bayraktaroğlu, S., 2020. Bridging roles of social innovations in rural development: Craft initiatives from Kutch, India. Journal of Design Resilience in Architecture and Planning. 1(1), 103–118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47818/drarch.2020.v1i1007

[21] Cai, J., Hong, Y., Zhou, M., et al., 2022. Farmer field school participation and exit decisions in hog production: A case study from Beijing. Agribusiness. 39(2), 549–563. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21783

[22] Tewari, M., Kelmenson, S., Guinn, A., et al., 2018. Mission‐driven intermediaries as anchors of the middle ground in the American food system: Evidence from Warrenton, NC. Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment. 40(2), 114–123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cuag.12175

[23] Magalhães‐Sant'Ana, M., More, S., Morton, D., Hanlon, A., 2017. Challenges facing the veterinary profession in Ireland: 1. Clinical veterinary services. Irish Veterinary Journal. 70(1). 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13620-017-0096-7