Assessment of animal welfare through behavioural parameters in Iberian pigs in intensive and extensive conditions

Production systems for fattening pigs have been characterized over the last 2 decades by rising farm sizes coupled with increasing group sizes. These developments resulted in a serious public discussion regarding animal welfare and health in these intensive production systems. Even though large farm and group sizes came under severe criticism, it is still unknown whether these factors indeed negatively affect animal welfare. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the effect of group size (<15 v. 15 to 30 v. >30 pigs/pen) on various animal-based measures of the Welfare Quality ® protocol for growing pigs under conventional fattening conditions. A total of 60 conventional pig fattening farms with different group sizes in Germany were included. Moderate bursitis (35%) was found as the most prevalent indicator of welfare-related problems, while its prevalence increased with age during the fattening period. However, differences between group sizes were not detected ( P > 0.05). The prevalence of moderately soiled bodies increased from 9.7% at the start to 14.2% at the end of the fattening period, whereas large pens showed a higher prevalence (15.8%) than small pens (10.4%; P < 0.05). With increasing group size, the incidence of moderate wounds with 8.5% and 11.3% in small-and medium-sized pens, respectively, was lower ( P < 0.05) than in large-sized ones (16.3%). Contrary to bursitis and dirtiness, its prevalence decreased during the fattening period. Moderate manure was less often found in pigs fed by a dry feeder than in those fed by a liquid feeding system ( P < 0.05). The human-animal relationship was improved in large in comparison to small groups. On the contrary, negative social behaviour was found more often in large groups. Exploration of enrichment material decreased with increasing live weight. Given that all animals were tail-docked, tail biting was observed at a very low rate of 1.9%. In conclusion, the results indicate that BW and feeding system are determining factors for the welfare status, while group size was not proved to affect the welfare level under the studied conditions of pig fattening.

Section: Woundscontrasting

confidence: 42%

Section: Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does group size have an impact on welfare indicators in fattening pigs?

Meyer-Hamme

Lambertz

Gauly

2016

“…Such descriptive terms have an expressive, emotional connotation, and provide information that appears relevant to animal welfare (Dawkins, 2015) and could be a useful addition to quantitative indicators. QBA has been used as part of behaviour assessments for a range of species including adult pigs (Wemelsfelder et al, 2000(Wemelsfelder et al, , 2001(Wemelsfelder et al, and 2009Temple et al, 2011;Rutherford et al, 2012) and piglets (Morgan et al, 2014). QBA scores are correlated with quantitative measures of behaviour (e.g.…”

Section: Lau Pluske and Flemingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the environmental background (intensive v. outdoor systems) influence the behaviour of piglets at weaning?

Lau

Pluske

Fleming

2015

Under intensive pig husbandry, outdoor systems offer a more complex physical and social environment compared with indoor systems (farrowing sheds). As the rearing environment affects behavioural development, it can, therefore, influence behavioural responses of pigs to stressful environments in later stages of production. We tested how the rearing environment influenced behavioural responses to a novel arena test in piglets on the day that they were weaned and mixed into large groups. We recorded video footage and compared the behavioural responses of 30 outdoor-raised and 30 farrowing shed-raised piglets tested in an experimental arena and sequentially exposed to four challenges (each for 5 min) on the day of weaning. Quantitative and qualitative behavioural measures were recorded using time budgets and scoring demeanour or 'qualitative behavioural expression' (using Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA)). When held in isolation (challenge 1), both groups were scored as more 'scared/ worried', while outdoor-raised piglets spent more time eating and jumping against the arena walls. Both groups interacted with a plastic ball (challenge 2: exposure to a novel object) during which they were scored as more 'playful/curious' than other challenges. When a food bowl was introduced (challenge 3), farrowing shed-raised piglets were more interested in playing with the food bowl itself, whereas outdoor-raised piglets spent more time eating the feed. Finally, there were no significant differences in social behaviour (challenge 4: introduction of another piglet) between the two groups in terms of the latency to contact each other, amount of time recorded engaged in aggressive/non-aggressive social interactions or QBA scores. Although piglets spent 30% of their time interacting with the other piglet, and half of this time (47%) was engaged in negative interactions (pushing, biting), the levels of aggression were not different between the two groups. Overall, outdoor-raised piglets ate more and were scored as more 'calm/passive', whereas farrowing shed-raised piglets spent more time investigating their environment and were scored as more 'playful/inquisitive'. In conclusion, we did not find differences in behaviour between outdoor-raised and farrowing shed-raised piglets that would highlight welfare issues. The differences found in this study may reflect conflicting affective states, with responses to confinement, neophobia and motivation for exploration evident.Keywords: assessment, behaviour, free-range, piggery, piglet ImplicationsThe day of weaning is particularly challenging both physiologically and psychologically for piglets, and the behaviour of piglets towards their environment and each other affects their overall welfare. One of the concerns for the pork industry is that confinement housing can detrimentally influence social behaviour; however, we found no differences in aggressive or non-aggressive social interactions. Piglets raised under the confinement system demonstrated more exploratory behaviour, whereas ou...

“…Moreover, classification of some of these farms was compared with the general impression of observers who carried out audits of the farms (Botreau et al, 2009). As publication of the protocols, different studies on the validation of the measures used in the protocol have been carried out (Temple et al, 2011a(Temple et al, , 2011b(Temple et al, , 2012a(Temple et al, , 2012b(Temple et al, and 2013, assessing whether the measures included in the protocol are sensitive enough to distinguish between different types of housing systems, and between farms. However, there are few studies that have assessed whether the model is sensitive at criteria, principle or overall assessment level, and whether it can distinguish between different farms (de Vries et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of a multi-criteria evaluation model for animal welfare

Martin¹,

Czycholl²,

Buxadé

et al. 2017

The aim of this paper was to validate an alternative multi-criteria evaluation system to assess animal welfare on farms based on the Welfare Quality ® (WQ) project, using an example of welfare assessment of growing pigs. This alternative methodology aimed to be more transparent for stakeholders and more flexible than the methodology proposed by WQ. The WQ assessment protocol for growing pigs was implemented to collect data in different farms in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. In total, 44 observations were carried out. The aggregation system proposed in the WQ protocol follows a three-step aggregation process. Measures are aggregated into criteria, criteria into principles and principles into an overall assessment. This study focussed on the first two steps of the aggregation. Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) was used to produce a value of welfare for each criterion and principle. The utility functions and the aggregation function were constructed in two separated steps. The MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical-Based Evaluation Technique) method was used for utility function determination and the Choquet integral (CI) was used as an aggregation operator. The WQ decision-makers' preferences were fitted in order to construct the utility functions and to determine the CI parameters. The validation of the MAUT model was divided into two steps, first, the results of the model were compared with the results of the WQ project at criteria and principle level, and second, a sensitivity analysis of our model was carried out to demonstrate the relative importance of welfare measures in the different steps of the multi-criteria aggregation process. Using the MAUT, similar results were obtained to those obtained when applying the WQ protocol aggregation methods, both at criteria and principle level. Thus, this model could be implemented to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare in the context of the WQ protocol for growing pigs. Furthermore, this methodology could also be used as a framework in order to produce an overall assessment of welfare for other livestock species. Two main findings are obtained from the sensitivity analysis, first, a limited number of measures had a strong influence on improving or worsening the level of welfare at criteria level and second, the MAUT model was not very sensitive to an improvement in or a worsening of single welfare measures at principle level. The use of weighted sums and the conversion of disease measures into ordinal scores should be reconsidered.