Behavior and Welfare

Johnson, Anna K.; Colpoys, Jessica D.; Edwards‐Callaway, Lily N.; Calvo-Lorenzo, Michelle S.; McGlone, John J.; Millman, Suzanne T.; Phillips, Christina E.; Ritter, Matthew J.; Sutherland, Mhairi A.; Tucker, Anita L.; Webb, Sherrie R.

doi:10.1002/9781119350927.ch2

Cited by 8 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 240 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Returning piglets to younger age groups is another risky practice, as it can bring pathogens to a susceptible population. Nursery pigs are a vulnerable age group, due to their temporary lower immunity status, a higher presence of diverse pathogens (Johnson et al., ) and fighting and biting when pigs are mixed (Cameron, ). Another route of pathogen transmission in the farrowing unit is the use of materials (e.g., castration blade, elastrator for tail docking, ear‐tagger, iron injection needles) from one piglet to another without intermediate cleaning and disinfection of them.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of transmission routes of 24 infectious diseases preventable by biosecurity measures and comparison of the implementation of these measures in pig herds in six European countries

Filippitzi

Kruse

Postma

et al. 2017

Transbound Emerg Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to review the transmission routes of important infectious pig diseases and to translate these into biosecurity measures preventing or reducing the transmission between and within pig herds. Furthermore, it aimed to identify the level of implementation of these measures in different European countries and discuss the observed variations to identify potentials for improvement. First, a literature review was performed to show which direct and indirect transmission routes of 24 infectious pig diseases can be prevented through different biosecurity measures. Second, a quantitative analysis was performed using the Biocheck.UGent™, a risk-based scoring system to evaluate biosecurity in pig herds, to obtain an insight into the implementation of these biosecurity measures. The database contained farm-specific biosecurity data from 574 pig farms in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, entered between January 2014 and January 2016. Third, a qualitative analysis based on a review of literature and other relevant information resources was performed for every subcategory of internal and external biosecurity in the Biocheck.UGent™ questionnaire. The quantitative analysis indicated that at the level of internal, external and overall biosecurity, Denmark had a significantly distinct profile with higher external biosecurity scores and less variation than the rest of the countries. This is likely due to a widely used specific pathogen-free (SPF) system with extensive focus on biosecurity since 1971 in Denmark. However, the observed pattern may also be attributed to differences in data collection methods. The qualitative analysis identified differences in applied policies, legislation, disease status, pig farm density, farming culture and habits between countries that can be used for shaping country-specific biosecurity advice to attain improved prevention and control of important pig diseases in European pig farms.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of transmission routes of 24 infectious diseases preventable by biosecurity measures and comparison of the implementation of these measures in pig herds in six European countries

Filippitzi

Kruse

Postma

et al. 2017

Transbound Emerg Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, persistent aggression is often the result of competition for resources such as food and water. Body wounds are more common in farms where enrichment material is not available to the pigs (Johnson et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The concept of welfare is multidimensional and can only be measured by external parameters (Blokhuis et al, 2010). The 'five freedoms', first listed in the Brambell Report (1965), serve as the basis for livestock welfare assessment and include the critical aspects of health and nutrition, expression of normal behaviours, fear, and distress (Johnson et al, 2019). There is a large body of research on the use of animalbased measures to assess animal welfare (European Food Safety Authority, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal welfare assessment in Slovenian conventional and alternative pig production systems

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aims of the study were to assess the welfare of pigs in Slovenian farms based on the international Welfare Quality? Assessment protocol for pigs and to gain a first insight into the welfare of pigs in Slovenian conventional and alternative farms. Pig welfare in Slovenia was assessed using the Welfare Quality? protocol on 10 alternative and 10 conventional farms. The size of the farm ranged from 11 to 1900 breeding sows in conventional farms and from three to 50 breeding sows in alternative farms. Using the protocol, the welfare of breeding sows, suckling piglets, growers, and fattening pigs was evaluated. The protocol consisted of four main principles of animal welfare (good feeding, good housing, good health, and appropriate behaviour), which were subdivided into 12 independent criteria. To evaluate each of these criteria, a set of measures was used. Overall animal welfare quality was calculated with a mathematical model incorporated into the protocol. Depending on the scores of the four principles, farms were classified as excellent, enhanced, acceptable or not classified. According to the Welfare Quality? protocol and statistical calculation, growers and fatteners in Slovenian conventional farms were rated as acceptable, while Slovenian alternative farms were rated as enhanced. We can conclude that the welfare of the growers and fatteners in our alternative farms is at a higher level than in conventional farms. The most critical evaluation points in sows were bursitis, wounds on the body, stereotypies, and fear of humans.

show abstract

“…Animal welfare is a broad term and can be defined in several ways, many of which are covered by the well-known five freedoms based on Brambell Commission's report to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems and created by the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1979 ( 3 , 4 ). World Organization of Animal Health declared in its Introduction to the recommendations for animal welfare, that “animals experience good welfare if they are healthy, comfortable, well-nourished, safe, are not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear and distress, and can express behaviors that are important for their physical and mental state” ( 5 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discrepancies between farmers' perceptions and actual animal welfare conditions on commercial pig farms

Nadlučnik

Oven²,

Tomažič³

et al. 2022

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal welfare is a multiparameteral concept that encompasses the physical and mental health of animals and includes various aspects such as physical wellbeing, absence of hunger and thirst, and ability to express motivated behavior, to which farmers usually attach different importance. The objectives of this study were to evaluate animal welfare on Slovenian commercial pig farms, to determine whether farmers' perceived importance of animal welfare differ from actual animal welfare on farms and to determine, if farmer's age, gender, their level of education and participation in vocational training have an influence. For that purpose, we created an Animal Welfare Protocol/Questionnaire for Pig Farms (AWQ/P-P) that assessed several parameters of animal welfare: (1) general status, (2) animal behavior, (3) health status, (4) living conditions, and (5) environmental conditions. Each parameter included at least five observation points and was scored on a 5-point scale. The same observation points were used to measure farmers' perceived importance of animal welfare and for observational assessment. Consequently, we were able to compare both statistically. Farmers from 14 (N = 14) large Slovenian pig farms participated in the study. Results show that farmers rate all parameters of animal welfare very highly. For them, animal health status is the most important, and environmental conditions are the least important factors for animal welfare. Observational inspections yielded significantly lower scores for animal welfare conditions than those obtained from farmer ratings. The highest correlations between farmers' perceptions and observational inspections were found for the parameters of animal behavior and environmental conditions. The results of this study also suggest that vocational training is a significant variable in increasing levels of pig welfare. Age, gender, and education level are not significant variables, however, farms led by older male farmers with lower level of education but involved in vocational training from different sources had slightly better welfare on the farm. This should be further investigated before making conclusions, due to our small sample size. The significance of the study is to identify deficiencies in pig welfare as perceived by farmers and consequently improve pig welfare.

show abstract

Behavior and Welfare

Cited by 8 publications

References 240 publications

Review of transmission routes of 24 infectious diseases preventable by biosecurity measures and comparison of the implementation of these measures in pig herds in six European countries

Review of transmission routes of 24 infectious diseases preventable by biosecurity measures and comparison of the implementation of these measures in pig herds in six European countries

Animal welfare assessment in Slovenian conventional and alternative pig production systems

Discrepancies between farmers' perceptions and actual animal welfare conditions on commercial pig farms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About