Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T03:51:12.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment system in Finnish pig production, part II: Associations between animal-based and environmental measures of welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

C Munsterhjelm ,
M Heinonen  and
A Valros
C Munsterhjelm*
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animal Medicine, PB 57, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
M Heinonen
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animal Medicine, PB 57, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
A Valros
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animal Medicine, PB 57, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
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.

This study aimed to establish associations between the environment and animal-based measures of welfare collected on 158 Finnish farms according to the Welfare Quality® systems for pigs. The data consisted of 95 welfare assessments in fattening pigs and 103 in sows, including suckling piglets. Principal Component Analysis had previously been applied to animal-based welfare measures (ABWM) and to the 20 descriptors of QBA to identify distinct types of welfare problems (WPT) and mood (MT), respectively. Generalised linear modeling was used to investigate environmental (space allowance, group size, feeding arrangement, floor type and use of enrichment or bedding) effects on WPT and MT scores. Those ABWMs not contributing to the major WPTs, but occurring on more than 40% of the farms, were considered important and used as outcome variables as well. The most important environmental determinants of pig welfare were space allowance for fattening pigs, group size in gestation and in the use of bedding for both fattening pigs and gestating sows. Bedding decreased tail biting and signs of fighting when used as a fairly thick layer for fattening pigs. In sows, the benefits of bedding, including less frustration and bursitis, required a smaller amount of material than in fattening pigs. An increasing space allowance was advantageous for fattening pigs, although signs of fighting increased in very spacious bedded pens. The positive effects of space, including a decrease of tail lesions and a more positive mood continued at least up to 1.5 m2 per fattening pig. Signs of resource shortage in sows increased with a growing group size according to a steepening curve.

Keywords

animal-based welfare measuresanimal welfareenvironmental welfare measurespigPrincipal Component AnalysisWelfare Quality®
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , May 2015 , pp. 161 - 172
Copyright
© 2015 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

AHAW (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare) 2005 The welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor types. The EFSA Journal 268: 1–19Google Scholar
AHAW (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare) 2012 Statement on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of animals. The EFSA Journal 10(6): 2767Google Scholar
Averos, X, Brossard, L, Dourmad, JY, de Greef, KH, Edge, HL, Edwards, SA and Meunier-Salaun, MC 2010 A meta-analysis of the combined effect of housing and environmental enrichment characteristics on the behaviour and performance of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 127: 73–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.09.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartussek, H 1999 A review of the Animal Needs Index (ANI) for the assessment of animals’ well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61: 179–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00067-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, VE and O’Connell, NE 2002 Relationship between rooting behaviour and foraging in growing pigs. Animal Welfare 11: 295–303Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM 2007 Animal-based parameters are no panacea for on-farm monitoring of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 229–231Google Scholar
Day, JEL, Burfoot, A, Docking, CM, Whittaker, X, Spoolder, HAM and Edwards, SA 2002 The effects of prior experience of straw and the level of straw provision on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76:189–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00017-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forkman, B and Keeling, L 2009 Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Sows, Piglets and Fattening Pigs. Welfare Quality® Reports no 10. Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Phillips, PA, Thompson, BK and Tennesen, T 1991 Effect of straw on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 307–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(91)90135-KCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geverink, NA, Meuleman, M, Van Nuffel, A, Van Steenbergen, L, Hautekiet, V, Vermeulen, K, Lammens, V, Geers, R, van Reenen, CG and Tuyttens, FAM 2009 Repeatability of a lameness score measured on farm. Assessment of animal welfare measures for sows, piglets and fattening pigs. In: Forkman, B and Keeling, L (eds) Welfare Quality® Reports No 10: Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Sows, Piglets and Fattening Pigs. Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Gonyou, HW 2001 The social behaviour of pigs. In: Keeling, LJ and Gonyou, HW (eds) Social Behaviour in Farm Animals pp 147–176. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, Oxon, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9780851993973.0147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hotzel, MJ, Lopes, EJC, de Oliveira, PAV and Guidoni, AL 2009 Behaviour and performance of pigs finished on deep bed-ding with wood shavings or rice husks in summer. Animal Welfare 18: 65–71Google Scholar
Jensen, MB and Pedersen, LJ 2010 Effects of feeding level and access to rooting material on behaviour of growing pigs in situations with reduced feeding space and delayed feeding. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123: 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.app-lanim.2009.12.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnsen, PF, Johannesson, T and Sandøe, P 2001 Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: many goals, many methods. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 51(30): 26–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2009 On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future per-spectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality®approach. Animal Welfare 18(4): 451–458Google Scholar
Mendl, M, Zanella, AJ and Broom, DM 1992 Physiological and reproductive correlates of behavioural strategies in female domestic pigs. Animal Behaviour 44: 1107–1121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80323-9CrossRefGoogle 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: 333–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00276-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouttotou, N, Hatchell, FM and Green, LE 1999 Prevalence and risk factors associated with adventitious bursitis in live growing and finishing pigs in south-west England. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 39(1): 39–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(98)00141-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munsterhjelm, C, Heinonen, M and Valros, A 2015 Application of the of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assess-ment system in Finnish pig production, part I: Identification of sub-scales using psychometric theory. Animal Welfare 24: 151–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/0 9627286.24.2.151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connell, NE and Beattie, VE 1999 Influence of environmen-tal enrichment on aggressive behaviour and dominance relation-ships in growing pigs. Animal Welfare 8: 269–279Google Scholar
Olsen, AW, Vestergaard, EM and Dybkjaer, L 2000 Roughage as additional rooting substrates for pigs. Animal Science 70: 451–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, KM, Donald, RD, Lawrence, AB and Wemelsfelder, F 2012 Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of emotionality in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 139(3-4): 218–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.04.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, NR, Main, DCJ, Mendl, M and Edwards, SA 2010 Tail biting: a new perspective. The Veterinary Journal 186: 137–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.08.028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Temple, D, Courboulay, V, Velarde, A, Dalmau, A and Manteca, X 2012 The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems in France and Spain: assessment of health. Animal Welfare 21: 257–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.2.257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA and Day, JEL 2009 A review of environ-mental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116: 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, Avery, PJ and Edwards, SA 2003 A systematic approach towards developing environmental enrichment for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 101–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00150-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL and Edwards, SA 2005 The development of harmful social behaviour in pigs with intact tails and different enrichment backgrounds in two housing systems. Animal Science 80: 289–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/ASC40450289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Assessment Protocol for Pigs. Welfare Quality®Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, EA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2000 The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 193–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00093-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wemelsfelder, F and Millard, F 2009 Qualitative indicators for the on-farm monitoring of pig welfare. In: Forkman, B and Keeling, L (eds) Welfare Quality® Reports No 10. Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Sows, Piglets and Fattening Pigs. Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Nevison, I and Lawrence, AB 2009 The effect of perceived environmental background on qualitative assessments of pig behaviour. Animal Behaviour 78: 477–484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.005CrossRefGoogle 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
Whittaker, X, Edwards, SA, Spoolder, HAM, Lawrence, AB and Corning, S 1999 Effects of straw bedding and high fibre diets on the behaviour of floor fed group-housed sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63: 25–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00243-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar