Analysis of Housing Risk Factors for the Welfare of Lean and Heavy Pigs in a Sample of European Fattening Farms
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
- Housing system with bedded solid floored resting area (BED);
- Housing system with no bedded solid floored resting area for lean pigs (NBL);
- Housing system with no bedded solid floored resting area for heavy pigs (NBH).
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Commission. Council Directive 91/630/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Off. J. Eur. Communities 1991, 340, 33–38. [Google Scholar]
- Pedersen, L.J. Overview of Commercial Pig Production Systems and Their Main Welfare Challenges. In Advances in Pig Welfare; Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition; Aarhus University: Tjele, Denmark, 2018; pp. 3–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Averós, X.; Aparicio, M.A.; Ferrari, P.; Guy, J.H.; Hubbard, C.; Schmid, O.; Ilieski, V.; Spoolder, H.A.M. The effect of steps to promote higher levels of farm animal welfare across the EU. Societal versus animal scientists’ perceptions of animal welfare. Animals 2013, 3, 786–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Welfare Quality®. Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Pigs (Sows and Piglets, Growing and Finishing Pigs); Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- EFSA. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare in pigs. EFSA J. 2012, 10, 2512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Temple, D.; Courboulay, V.; Manteca, X.; Velarde, A.; Dalmau, A. The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems: Assessment of feeding and housing. Animal 2012, 6, 656–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Temple, D.; Courboulay, V.; Velarde, A.; Dalmau, A.; Manteca, X. The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems in France and Spain: Assessment of health. Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 257–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Consortium of Parma Ham. Economic Figures. Available online: https://www.prosciuttodiparma.com/en/parma-ham-consortium/ (accessed on 5 August 2021).
- Spoolder, H.A.M.; Edwards, S.A.; Corning, S. Legislative methods for specifying stocking density and consequences for the welfare of finishing pigs. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2000, 64, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EFSA. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: Effects of different space allowances and floor types. EFSA J. 2005, 268, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermeer, H.M.; De Greef, K.H.; Houwers, H.W.J. Space allowance and pen size affect welfare indicators and performance of growing pigs under Comfort Class conditions. Livest. Sci. 2014, 159, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spoolder, H.A.M.; Edwards, S.A.; Corning, S. Effects of group size and feeder space allowance on welfare in finishing pigs. Anim. Sci. 1999, 69, 481–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, S.P.; Allcroft, D.J.; Edwards, S.A. Housing pigs in large social groups: A review of implications for performance and other economic traits. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2003, 82, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Eath, R.B.; Arnott, G.; Turner, S.P.; Jensen, T.; Lahrmann, H.P.; Busch, M.E.; Niemi, J.K.; Lawrence, A.B.; Sandøe, P. Injurious tail biting in pigs: How can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking? Animal 2014, 8, 1479–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meyer-Hamme, S.E.K.; Lambertz, C.; Gauly, M. Does group size have an impact on welfare indicators in fattening pigs? Animal 2016, 10, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- EFSA. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission on Animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry. EFSA J. 2007, 564, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battini, M.; Tremolada, C.; Ferrari, L.; Borciani, M.; Gastaldo, A.; Barbieri, S. Straw bedding housing for growing pigs: Effect of two different management systems on hygiene and welfare. Large Anim. Rev. 2016, 22, 225–229. [Google Scholar]
- Jensen, T.; Kold Nielsen, C.; Vinther, J.; D’Eath, R.B. The effect of space allowance for finishing pigs on productivity and pen hygiene. Livest. Sci. 2012, 149, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vitali, M.; Nannoni, E.; Sardi, L.; Martelli, G. Knowledge and Perspectives on the Welfare of Italian Heavy Pigs on Farms. Animals 2021, 11, 1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Commission. Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (Codified version). Off. J. Eur. Union 2009, 47, 5–13. [Google Scholar]
- Rossi, P.; Gastaldo, A. Acqua di bevanda. In Ricoveri Attrezzature e Impianti per l’Allevamento dei Suini; Edizioni L’Informatore Agrario: Verona, Italy, 2004; Volume 6, pp. 139–154. [Google Scholar]
- EFSA AHAW Panel. Scientific Opinion concerning a multifactorial approach on the use of animal and non-animal-based measures to assess the welfare of pigs. EFSA J. 2014, 12, 3702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Union. Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 on the application of Council Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs as regards measures to reduce the need for tail-docking. Off. J. Eur. Union 2016, 62, 20–22. [Google Scholar]
- Wallgren, T.; Gunnarsson, S. Effect of straw provision in racks on tail lesions, straw availability, and pen hygiene in finishing pigs. Animals 2021, 11, 379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scollo, A.; Gottardo, F.; Contiero, B.; Edwards, S.A. A cross-sectional study for predicting tail biting risk in pig farms using classification and regression tree analysis. Prev. Vet. Med. 2017, 146, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- EFSA. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from Commission on the risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail-docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems. EFSA J. 2007, 611, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kongsted, H.; Sørensen, J.T. Lesions found at routine meat inspection on finishing pigs are associated with production system. Vet. J. 2017, 223, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alban, L.; Petersen, J.V.; Busch, M.E. A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions. Porc. Health Manag. 2015, 1, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sørensen, J.T. A comment on the paper ‘A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional indoor conditions’ by Alban et al. 2015. Porc. Health Manag. 2016, 2, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- De Briyne, N.; Berg, C.; Blaha, T.; Palzer, A.; Temple, D. Phasing out pig tail docking in the EU—Present state, challenges and possibilities. Porc. Health Manag. 2018, 4, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dippel, S.; Leeb, C.; Bochicchio, D.; Bonde, M.; Dietze, K.; Gunnarsson, S.; Lindgren, K.; Sundrum, A.; Wiberg, S.; Winckler, C.; et al. Health and welfare of organic pigs in Europe assessed with animal-based parameters. Org. Agric. 2014, 4, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saxmose Nielsen, S.; Alvarez, J.; Bicout, D.J.; Calistri, P.; Depner, K.; Drewe, J.A.; Garin-Bastuji, B.; Gonzales Rojas, J.L.; Gortázar Schmidt, C.; Michel, V.; et al. Welfare of pigs during killing for purposes other than slaughter. EFSA J. 2020, 18, e06195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, F.A.D.; Gibson, T.J.; Oliveira, S.E.O.; Gregory, N.G.; Coldebella, A.; Faucitano, L.; Costa, O.A.D. On-farm pig dispatch methods and stockpeople attitudes on their use. Livest. Sci. 2019, 221, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- The SusPigSys Team. Condensed Protocol from Era-Net SusAn Project “Sustainable Pig Production Systems” (SusPigSys). A Starting Point for Connecting Data Bases for Integrated Sustainability Assessment. Deliverable 5.1 2020v. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348466379_Condensed_protocol_from_Era-Net_SusAn_project_Sustainable_pig_production_systems_SusPigSys (accessed on 9 October 2021).
- Pandolfi, F.; Stoddart, K.; Wainwright, N.; Kyriazakis, I.; Edwards, S. The ‘Real Welfare’ scheme: Benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs. Animal 2017, 11, 1816–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eurostat Statistics Explained. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Annual_work_unit_(AWU) (accessed on 1 November 2021).
- Wise, B.M.; Gallagher, N.B. The process chemometrics approach to process monitoring and fault detection. J. Process Control 1996, 6, 329–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Næs, T.; Brockhoff, P.B.; Tomic, O. Principal Component Analysis. In Statistics for Sensory and Consumer Science; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; Volume 14, pp. 209–225. [Google Scholar]
- Munsterhjelm, C.; Heinonen, M.; Valros, A. Effects of clinical lameness and tail biting lesions on voluntary feed intake in growing pigs. Livest. Sci. 2015, 181, 210–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, S.P.; Farnworth, M.J.; White, I.M.S.; Brotherstone, S.; Mendl, M.; Knap, P.; Penny, P.; Lawrence, A.B. The accumulation of skin lesions and their use as a predictor of individual aggressiveness in pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 96, 245–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
N. | Variable Description | Acronym | Type 1 1 | Type 2 2 |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Total area indoor of observed pens | TAI | nABM | C |
2 | Number of pigs per observed pen | NP | nABM | C |
3 | Average pig live weight in observed pens | AW | ABM | C |
4 | Mean space allowance (m2) per pig in observed pens | SP | nABM | C |
5 | Mean space allowance per 100 kg of pig liveweight in observed pens | SK | ABM | C |
6 | Mean number of pigs per drinker in observed pens | PD | nABM | C |
7 | % of active pigs manipulating enrichment in observed pens | EMB | ABM | C |
8 | % of active pigs in reach of enrichment material in observed pens | PAE | ABM | C |
9 | Laying area dirtiness: 1 = clean; 2 = medium; 3 = dirty | DL | nABM | O |
10 | Slatted Floor: 0 = no; 1 = partial; 2 = totally slatted | SF | nABM | O |
11 | Liquid feeding system: 1 = dry; 2 = wet or mixed dry/liquid; 3 = liquid | LFS | nABM | O |
12 | Bedding in lying area: 0 = no bedding, 1 = not all pigs can lie on bedded area, 2 = enough in laying area; 3 = all pen floor bedded | BP | nABM | O |
13 | Presence of roughage: 0 = no roughage; 1 = pellet; 2 = straw; 3 = hay/silage | RP | nABM | O |
14 | Presence of enrichment: 0 = no enrichment; 1 = other enrichment of marginal interest; 2 = suboptimal or optimal/proper enrichment combined with other enrichment; 3 = proper/optimal enrichment | EP | nABM | O |
15 | Presence of tail docked pigs: 0 = no tail docked; 1 = some tail docked; 2 = all tail docked | TD | nABM | O |
16 | Short tail: 0 = no pigs with tail shortened by less than 50% of the original length; 1 = ≤10% pigs with tails shortened by less than 50%; 2 = >10% pigs with tails shortened by less than 50% | SHT | ABM | O |
17 | Tail stump: 0 = no pigs with tail shortened by more than 50% of the original length; 1 = ≤10% pigs with tails shortened by more than 50%; 2 = >10% pigs with tails shortened by more than 50% | STT | ABM | O |
18 | Tail lesions: 0 = no; 1 = ≤10% pigs have mild damage, but no pig has severe damage; 2 = >10% pigs have mild damage, and/or 1 has severe damage | T | ABM | O |
19 | Ear lesions: 0 = no; 1 = ≤10% pigs have mild damage, but no pig has severe damage; 2 = >10% pigs have mild damage, and/or 1 has severe damage | E | ABM | O |
20 | Body lesions: 0 = no skin lesions; 1 = ≤20% pigs have mild skin lesions, but no pig has severe damage; 2 = >20% pigs have mild skin lesions, and/or 1 has severe damage | B | ABM | O |
21 | Feed restriction 0 = no, 1 = yes | FR | nABM | D |
22 | Outdoor access 0 = no, 1 = yes | OA | nABM | D |
23 | Organic farm 0 = no, 1 = yes | OR | nABM | D |
N. | Variable Description | Acronym | Type 1 1 | Type 2 2 |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Farm mean total area indoor of observed pens | TAI | nABM | C |
2 | Farm mean number of pigs in observed pens | NP | nABM | C |
3 | Average pig live weight in observed pens | AW | ABM | C |
4 | Farm mean space allowance (m2) per pig in observed pens | SP | nABM | C |
5 | Farm mean space allowance per 100 kg of pig live weight in observed pens | SK | ABM | C |
6 | Farm mean number of pigs per drinker in observed pens | PD | nABM | C |
7 | Farm % of pens with at least 1 nipple per 12 pigs or 1 water bowl per 15 pigs | PDC | nABM | C |
8 | Farm mean % of active pigs manipulating enrichment in observed pens | EMB | ABM | C |
9 | Farm mean % of active pigs in reach of enrichment material in observed pens | PAE | ABM | C |
10 | Farm % of observed pens with optimal or suboptimal enrichment | EC | nABM | C |
11 | Farm average number of pigs per farm in 2018 | AVP | nABM | C |
12 | Farm average number of pigs per Annual Work Unit in 2018 | AWU | nABM | C |
13 | Farm maximum pig live weight before slaughter in 2018 | LWS | nABM | C |
14 | Farm Average Daily Growth in 2018 | ADG | ABM | C |
15 | Farm average Feed Conversion Rate in 2018 | FCR | ABM | C |
16 | Farm veterinary and medication per pig sold in 2018 (EUR/pig) | MCP | nABM | C |
17 | Average mortality in 2018 (not including culled pigs) | M | ABM | C |
18 | Farm % of observed pens with at least one tail lesion in one pig | T | ABM | C |
19 | Farm % of observed pens with at least one ear lesion in one pig | E | ABM | C |
20 | Farm % of observed pens with at least one skin lesion in the body of one pig | B | ABM | C |
21 | Farm presence of tail docked pigs: 0 = no tail docked; 1 = some tail docked; 2 = all tail docked | TD | nABM | O |
22 | Farm presence of pigs with short tail: 0 = no pigs with short tail; 1 = ≤10% pigs with short tail; 2 = >10% pigs with short tail | SHT | ABM | O |
23 | Farm presence of pigs with tail stump: 0 = no pigs with tail stump; 1 = ≤10% pig with tail stump; 2 = >10% pigs with tail stump | STT | ABM | O |
24 | Farm presence of slatted floor: 0 = no slatted floor; 1 = partially slatted floor; 2 = total slatted floor | SF | nABM | O |
25 | Farm presence of bedding in lying area: 0 = no bedding, 1 = enough bedding in laying area; 2 = all pen floor bedded | BP | nABM | O |
26 | Farm presence of roughage: 0 = no roughage; 1 = pellet; 2 = straw; 3 = hay/silage | RP | nABM | O |
27 | Farm laying area dirtiness score: 1 = clean; 2 = medium; 3 = dirty | DL | nABM | O |
28 | Farm presence of liquid feeding system: 1 = dry; 2 = wet or mixed dry/liquid; 3 = liquid | LFS | nABM | O |
29 | Organic farm: 0 = no, 1 = yes | OR | nABM | D |
30 | Outdoor access: 0 = no, 1 = yes | OA | nABM | D |
31 | Feed restriction: 0 = no, 1 = yes | FR | nABM | D |
Variables | NBH (10 Farms) | NBL (31 Farms) | BED (10 Farms) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N. | Acronym | Q25 | Mdn | Q75 | Q25 | Mdn | Q75 | Q25 | Mdn | Q75 | p-Value |
1 | TAI | 14.2 | 20.6 | 28.9 | 11.5 | 18.2 | 35.0 | 15.6 | 21.1 | 50.1 | >0.05 |
2 | NP | 12.2 | 17.3 | 25.5 | 14.2 | 21.1 | 37.0 | 14.3 | 19.3 | 40.0 | >0.05 |
3 | AW | 93.2 | 110.2 a | 117.4 | 62.0 | 70.0 b | 78.2 | 57.4 | 75.0 b | 90.8 | <0.01 |
4 | SP | 1.11 | 1.15 a | 1.25 | 0.79 | 0.88 b | 1.01 | 1.03 | 1.20 a | 1.30 | <0.01 |
5 | SK | 1.09 | 1.24 | 1.57 | 1.15 | 1.40 | 1.63 | 1.26 | 1.77 | 2.25 | >0.05 |
6 | PD | 10.7 | 14.5 a | 25.5 | 7.2 | 8.5 b | 11.9 | 7.3 | 9.4 a,b | 17.6 | <0.01 |
7 | PDC | 0.0 | 20 a | 80.6 | 33.3 | 93 b | 100.0 | 25.7 | 97 a,b | 100.0 | <0.05 |
8 | EMB | 5.5 | 6.8 a | 13.6 | 4.8 | 12.1 a | 21.4 | 41.3 | 72.3 b | 87.4 | <0.01 |
9 | PAE | 5.9 | 9.2 a | 11.8 | 10.5 | 16.1 b | 24.5 | 98.7 | 100 c | 100.0 | <0.01 |
10 | EC | 0.0 | 33 a | 88.3 | 0.0 | 53 a | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100 b | 100.0 | <0.01 |
11 | AVP | 1571 | 2169 a | 3226 | 976 | 1450 a | 2419 | 191 | 263 b | 100.0 | <0.01 |
12 | AWU | 967 | 1187 a | 1355 | 444 | 1065 a | 2182 | 152 | 460 b | 915 | <0.05 |
13 | LWS | 165 | 172 a | 175 | 118 | 120 b | 122 | 115 | 122 b | 140 | <0.01 |
14 | ADG | 680 | 708 a | 753 | 800 | 820 b | 885 | 741 | 780 b | 1000 | <0.01 |
15 | FCR | 3.6 | 3.7 a | 3.8 | 2.5 | 2.6 b | 2.8 | 2.8 | 3.0 c | 3.5 | <0.01 |
16 | MCP | 1.4 | 2.6a | 3.4 | 0.5 | 1.0 b | 2.8 | 1.1 | 2.0 b | 4.9 | <0.05 |
17 | M | 3.3 | 3.8 a | 4.6 | 1.5 | 2.0 b | 2.9 | 2.0 | 2.7 b | 4.0 | <0.01 |
18 | T | 0.0 | 3.3 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 6.7 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 6.7 | 21.7 | >0.05 |
19 | E | 0.0 | 0.0 a | 1.7 | 0.0 | 6.7 b | 40.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 a | 0.7 | <0.05 |
20 | B | 0.0 | 0.0 a | 3.3 | 6.7 | 38.5 b | 73.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 a | 8.3 | <0.01 |
Variables | NBH (10 Farms) | NBL (31 Farms) | BED (10 Farms) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N. | Acronym | Q25 | Mdn | Q75 | Q25 | Mdn | Q75 | Q25 | Mdn | Q75 | p-Value |
1 | TD | 1.8 | 2.0 a | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 a | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 b | 0.0 | <0.01 |
2 | SHT | 0.0 | 0.0 a | 1.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 b | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 a | 0.0 | <0.01 |
3 | STT | 2.0 | 2.0 a | 2.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 a | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 b | 0.0 | <0.01 |
4 | SF | 1.0 | 1.5 a | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 a | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 b | 1.0 | <0.01 |
5 | BP | 0.0 | 0.0 a | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 a | 0.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 b | 3.0 | <0.01 |
6 | RP | 0.0 | 0.0 a | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 a | 0.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 b | 2.3 | <0.01 |
7 | DL | 0.0 | 0.0 a,b | 0.3 | 0.0 | 1.0 a | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 b | 0.0 | <0.01 |
8 | LFS | 2.0 | 2.0 a | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 a | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 b | 1.3 | <0.01 |
N. | Variable Description | Acronym | NBH % | NBL % | BED % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Organic farm | OR | 0 | 0 | 60 |
2 | Outdoor access | OA | 0 | 3 | 70 |
3 | Feed restriction | FR | 90 | 29 | 30 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ferrari, P.; Ulrici, A.; Barbari, M. Analysis of Housing Risk Factors for the Welfare of Lean and Heavy Pigs in a Sample of European Fattening Farms. Animals 2021, 11, 3221. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113221
Ferrari P, Ulrici A, Barbari M. Analysis of Housing Risk Factors for the Welfare of Lean and Heavy Pigs in a Sample of European Fattening Farms. Animals. 2021; 11(11):3221. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113221
Chicago/Turabian StyleFerrari, Paolo, Alessandro Ulrici, and Matteo Barbari. 2021. "Analysis of Housing Risk Factors for the Welfare of Lean and Heavy Pigs in a Sample of European Fattening Farms" Animals 11, no. 11: 3221. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113221