Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:54:28.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A population-based on-farm evaluation protocol for comparing the welfare of pigs between farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

X Goossens ,
L Sobry ,
F Ödberg ,
F Tuyttens ,
D Maes ,
S De Smet ,
F Nevens ,
G Opsomer ,
F Lommelen  and
R Geers
X Goossens
Affiliation:
ILVO, Social Sciences Unite, Burg, van Gansberghelaan 109 Box 2, B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
L Sobry
Affiliation:
ILVO, Social Sciences Unite, Burg, van Gansberghelaan 109 Box 2, B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
F Ödberg
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Faculty Veterinary Sciences, Saliburylaan 133, B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
F Tuyttens
Affiliation:
ILVO, Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, B-9090 Melle, Belgium
D Maes
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Faculty Veterinary Sciences, Saliburylaan 133, B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
S De Smet
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Faculty Bio-engineering Sciences, Proefhoevestraat 10, B-9090 Melle, Belgium
F Nevens
Affiliation:
ILVO, Social Sciences Unite, Burg, van Gansberghelaan 109 Box 2, B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
G Opsomer
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Faculty Veterinary Sciences, Saliburylaan 133, B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
F Lommelen
Affiliation:
Catholic High School Kempen, Kleinhoefstraat 4, B-2440 Geel, Belgium
R Geers*
Affiliation:
KU Leuven, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Bijzondere Weg 12, B-3360 Lovenjoel, Belgium
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: rony.geers@biw.kuleuven.be
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The variability of animal-based parameters was studied within a population of 41 farrow-to-finish farms. Data were collected during three visits, each corresponding to a different season within a two-year period. The largest between-farm variability was observed for stereotypic behaviour by pregnant sows, and for skin, ear and tail lesions, dirtiness and respiratory problems in growing pigs. Relationships with housing and management parameters were established to formulate advice on how to improve pigs' welfare. Group-housed sows performed less oral stereotypic behaviour than individual housed sows (18.7 versus 44.1%), but a higher proportion of skin lesions was observed in group-housed sows (15.4 versus 2.0%). Prevalence of tail-biting behaviour varied between 0 and 21%. The risk for tail biting was higher in cases of reduced levels of floor space per pig, and ear-biting behaviour occurred more often when tails were docked short. Coughing was not correlated directly with the occurrence of lung lesions, but the risk was higher in instances of reduced space availability per pig. Farms could be ranked according to these welfare parameters, ie either according to the score of each individual parameter or based on the summation of all scores. Hence, welfare status was defined in relation to farm-specific information, allowing formulation of advice on housing and management to ultimately improve pig welfare through the matching of a predefined benchmark.

Keywords

animal-based parametersanimal welfareenvironmenthousingmanagementpig husbandry
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 35 - 41
Copyright
© 2008 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Aarnink, AJA, Schrama, JW, Verheijen, RJE and Stefanowska, J 2001 Pen fouling in pigs affected by temperature. In: Stowell, RR, Bucklin, R and Bottcher, RW (eds) Proceedings of the VIth International Conference on Livestock Environment pp 180–186. 21-23 May 2001, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. ASABE: St-Joseph, Michigan, USAGoogle Scholar
Arey, DS and Edwards, SA 1998 Factors influencing aggression between sows after mixing and the consequences for welfare and production. Livestock Production Science 56: 61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartussek, H 1999 A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animal's well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61: 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Hulsegge, B, Keeling, L and Blokhuis, HJ 2004 Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs 1. Modelling. Applied. Animal Behaviour Science 87: 31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM and Corke, MJ 2002 Effects of disease on farm animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria BRNO 71: 133–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2001 A method assessing welfare in loose housed dairy cows at farm level, focusing on animal observations. Acta Agricultura Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science, Suppmementum 30: 62–68Google Scholar
Cleveland-Nielsen, A, Nielsen, EO and Ersboll, AK 2002 Chronic pleuritis in Danish slaughter pig herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 55: 121–135CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geers, R, Dellaert, B, Goedseels, V, Hoogerbrugge, A, Vranken, E, Maes, F and Berckmans, D 1989 An assessment of optimal air temperatures in pig houses by the quantification of behavioural and health-related problems. Animal Production 48: 571–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geers, R, Goedseels, V, Parduyns, G and Vercruysse, G 1986 The group postural behaviour of growing pigs in relation to air velocity, air and floor temperature. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, RR, Ogilvie, JR, Morrison, WD and Kains, F 1994 Factors affecting excretory behavior of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 72: 1455–1460CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Coleman, GJ 1993 The human-animal relationship in agriculture and its consequences for the animal. Animal Welfare 2: 33–51Google Scholar
Hunter, EJ, Jones, TA, Guise, HJ, Penny, RHC and Hoste, S 2001 The relationship between tail biting in pigs, docking procedure and other management practices. The Veterinary Journal 161: 72–79CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, P and Wood-Gush, DGM 1984 Social interactions in a group of free-ranging sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12: 327–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnsen, PF, Johannesson, T and Sandøe, P 2001 Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: many goals, many methods. Acta Agricultura Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Sciences Supplementum 30: 26–33Google Scholar
Leeb, B, Leeb, Ch, Troxler, J and Schuh, M 2001 Skin lesions and callosities in group-housed pregnant sows: animal-related welfare indicators. Acta Agricultura Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Sciences Supplementum 30: 82–87Google Scholar
Mason, G and Mendl, M 1997 Do the stereotypies of pigs, chicken and mink reflect adaptive species differences in the control of foraging? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 45–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier-Salaün, MC, Edwards, SA and Robert, S 2001 Effect of dietary fibre on the behaviour and health of the restricted fed sow. Animal Feed Science and Technology 90: 53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moinard, C, Mendl, M, Nicol, CJ and Green, LE 2003 A case control study of on-farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 333–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ödberg, FO, Gijselbrecht, L and Bouquet, Y 1991 Stereotypy frequency in halothane+ and halothane- Landrace sows. In: Proceedings of the International Congress of the Society for Veterinary Ethology p 93, Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Robert, S, Rushen, J and Farmer, C 1997 Both energy content and bulk of food affect stereotypic behaviour, heart rate and feeding motivation of female pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J 1985 Stereotypies, aggression and the feeding schedules of tethered sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P, Munksgaard, L, Badsgard, NP and Jensen, KH 1997 How to manage the management factor – assessing animal welfare at the farm level. In: Sorensen, JT (ed) Livestock Farming Systems – More than Food Production, Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Livestock Farming Systems pp 221–230. EAAP Publication 89: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, JT, Sandøe, P and Halberg, N 2001 Animal welfare as one among several values to be considered at farm level: the idea of an ethical account for livestock farming. Acta Agricultura Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Sciences Supplementum 30: 11–16Google Scholar
Schrøder-Petersen, DL and Simonsen, HB 2001 Tail biting in pigs. The Veterinary Journal 162: 196–210CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spoolder, H, De Rosa, G, Hörning, B, Waiblinger, S and Wemelsfelder, F 2003 Integrating parameters to assess on-farm welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 529–534Google Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, Lawrence, AB and Illius, AW 1991 Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behaviour 42: 981–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, Wiersma, A, Lawrence, AB and MacLeod, HA 1993 Ingestion of food facilitates the performance of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behaviour 46: 939–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Putten, G 1967 Tail-biting in pigs. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde 92: 297–307Google Scholar
Vieuille-Thomas, C, Le Pape, G and Signoret, JP 1995 Stereotypies in pregnant sows: indications of influence of the housing system on the patterns expressed by the animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF 2003 Assessment of animal welfare at farm and group level: introduction and overview. Animal Welfare 12: 429–431Google Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert opinion. Animal Welfare 12: 205–217Google Scholar
Widowski, T 2002 Causes and prevention of tail biting in growing pigs: a review of recent research. In: London Swine Conference – Conquering the Challenges pp 47-56. 11-12 April 2002, London, USAGoogle Scholar
Wood-Gush, DGM and Vestergaard, K 1989 Exploratory behaviour and the welfare of intensively kept animals. Journal of Agricultural Ethics 2: 161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, RJ, Carruthers, J and Lawrence, AB 1994 The effect of a foraging device (the Edinburgh foodball) on the behavior of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar