This article challenges the notion that trade-offs are inevitable in the externalities of pig production. It presents data from UK and Brazilian pig production systems, representing a wide range of farming types, to explore the co-variation of four major externality costs: land use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, antimicrobial use (AMU), and animal welfare. The study found that no single farming type consistently performs well across all domains. Systems with low land use typically have low GHG emissions but high AMU and poor animal welfare, and vice versa. However, some systems performed well in all domains. The findings suggest that trade-offs may be avoidable if mitigation focuses on reducing impacts within system types rather than simply changing farming types. Livestock farming has significant environmental impacts, including high greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and antimicrobial use. While it provides a large portion of human dietary protein and calories, it occupies a large portion of agricultural land and uses more antimicrobials than human medicine. Previous studies have found trade-offs between different externalities, but these associations have not been systematically quantified. The study found that some externalities can have positive associations, such as land use and GHG emissions, while others have negative associations, such as AMU and animal welfare with GHG and land use costs. The study analyzed data from 74 UK and 17 Brazilian pig production systems, finding strong positive associations between land use and GHG costs, and moderate positive associations between AMU and animal welfare costs. However, AMU and animal welfare had moderate negative associations with GHG and land use costs. The study also found that some systems performed well in all domains, suggesting that trade-offs are not inevitable. The results indicate that mitigation strategies should focus on reducing impacts within system types rather than changing farming types. The study highlights the importance of considering individual farms and identifying those that perform best in terms of reducing externality costs. The findings suggest that current labelling systems do not effectively identify the best-performing systems for land use, climate, AMU, and animal welfare. The study also notes that data quality and sample size can affect the results, and that future research should consider additional environmental externalities and broader social outcomes. Overall, the study suggests that a more nuanced approach is needed to reduce the negative impacts of pig production.This article challenges the notion that trade-offs are inevitable in the externalities of pig production. It presents data from UK and Brazilian pig production systems, representing a wide range of farming types, to explore the co-variation of four major externality costs: land use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, antimicrobial use (AMU), and animal welfare. The study found that no single farming type consistently performs well across all domains. Systems with low land use typically have low GHG emissions but high AMU and poor animal welfare, and vice versa. However, some systems performed well in all domains. The findings suggest that trade-offs may be avoidable if mitigation focuses on reducing impacts within system types rather than simply changing farming types. Livestock farming has significant environmental impacts, including high greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and antimicrobial use. While it provides a large portion of human dietary protein and calories, it occupies a large portion of agricultural land and uses more antimicrobials than human medicine. Previous studies have found trade-offs between different externalities, but these associations have not been systematically quantified. The study found that some externalities can have positive associations, such as land use and GHG emissions, while others have negative associations, such as AMU and animal welfare with GHG and land use costs. The study analyzed data from 74 UK and 17 Brazilian pig production systems, finding strong positive associations between land use and GHG costs, and moderate positive associations between AMU and animal welfare costs. However, AMU and animal welfare had moderate negative associations with GHG and land use costs. The study also found that some systems performed well in all domains, suggesting that trade-offs are not inevitable. The results indicate that mitigation strategies should focus on reducing impacts within system types rather than changing farming types. The study highlights the importance of considering individual farms and identifying those that perform best in terms of reducing externality costs. The findings suggest that current labelling systems do not effectively identify the best-performing systems for land use, climate, AMU, and animal welfare. The study also notes that data quality and sample size can affect the results, and that future research should consider additional environmental externalities and broader social outcomes. Overall, the study suggests that a more nuanced approach is needed to reduce the negative impacts of pig production.