Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:41:55.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the severity of esophagogastric, lung and limb lesions at slaughter in pigs reared under standard and enriched conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

G Ramis ,
S Gómez ,
FJ Pallarés  and
A Muñoz
S Gómez
Affiliation:
Histology and Pathological Anatomy Department, Faculty of Veterinary Studies, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
FJ Pallarés
Affiliation:
Histology and Pathological Anatomy Department, Faculty of Veterinary Studies, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
A Muñoz
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Veterinary Studies, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
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.

Two hundred and ten pigs were reared in three groups (according to genotype) under enriched conditions of large open-front sawdust-bedded barns. Eight hundred and twenty pigs were reared under standard conditions of small 15-animal pens in a conventional barn with partially slatted floors and natural ventilation. Production parameters including percentage mortality, feed conversion rate and average daily weight gain were calculated at the end of the fattening period. Stomachs, limbs and lungs were examined at slaughter in order to compare the number and severity of lesions between the enriched environment groups and the standard environment group. There was a significantly greater number of esophagogastric lesions in the standard environment group than in the enriched environment groups. No esophagogastric ulcers were observed in any pigs from the enriched groups, while 17.5% of stomachs from pigs in the standard environment group displayed this condition. There were no significant differences in the number of lung lesions associated with enzootic pneumonia between pigs from the standard and enriched environment groups. The limbs of animals reared in the standard environment had more lesions, especially in floor-contact areas, than those reared in the enriched environment (23.84% versus 1.08%). The production parameters measured were improved in the pigs from the enriched environment. These results suggest that the welfare of fattening pigs may be improved by the provision of enrichment in their housing environment. Evaluation of esophagogastric ulceration could be a useful indicator of welfare in pigs.

Keywords

animal welfareesophagogastric ulcerfatteninglimb lesionslung lesionspig
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , February 2005 , pp. 27 - 34
Copyright
© 2005 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Amory, JR and Pearce, GP 2000 Environmental and management effects on gastric ulceration in slaughter pigs. In: Proceedings of the 16th IPVS Congress pp 364. 17–20 September 2000, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Barker, IK and Van Dreumel, AA 1995 El sistema digestivo. In: Jubb, KVF, Kennedy, JC, Palmer, N (eds) Patología de los animales domésticos pp 1–242. Hemisferio Sur: Montevideo, Uruguay [Title translation: The digestive system]Google Scholar
Edwards, S 2000 Pig welfare in indoor pig production. In: Proceeding of the XXI Symposium ANAPORC pp 244-249. 7–10 November 2000, Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
Eissemann, UH and Argenzio, RA 1999 Effects of diet and housing on growth and stomach morphology in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 77: 2709–2714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council) 1993 Report on the priorities for research and development in farm animal welfare. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Guise, HJ, Penny, RHC, Abbott, TA and Weeding, CM 1992 Do systems of handling and transport influence the rate of gastric emptying? In: Proceedings of the 12th IPVS Congress p 384. 17–20 August 1992, The Hague, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Henry, SC 1996 Gastric ulcers: feed management is top priority for prevention. Large Animal Veterinary Science. January–February 1996: 8–11Google Scholar
Kobisch, M, Blanchard, B and Le Potier, MF 1993 Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae infection in pigs: duration of the disease and resistance to reinfection. Veterinary Research 24: 67–77Google ScholarPubMed
Lagreca, L, Marotta, E and Muñoz Luna, A 1998a Manejo basado en el comportamiento del cerdo. In: Luzán 5 SA (ed) Capítulo 18. Porcinotecnia práctica y rentable pp 191–198. Madrid, Spain [Title translation: Management based on pig's behaviour]Google Scholar
Lagreca, L, Muñoz Luna, A and Marotta, E 1998b Bienestar de los cerdos. In: Luzán 5 SA (ed) Capítulo 19. Porcinotecnia práctica y rentable pp 199–206. Madrid, Spain [Title translation: Welfare in pigs]Google Scholar
Lagreca, L, Muñoz Luna, A and Marotta, E 1998c Fisiología del comportamiento. In: Luzán 5 SA (ed) Capítulo 9. Porcinotecnia práctica y rentable pp 69–79. Madrid, Spain [Title translation: Physiology of behaviour]Google Scholar
Melnichouk, S, Friendship, RM, Dewey, CE and Bildfell, R 1999 Evaluation of lansoprazole (an H+/K+-ATPase inhibitor) and azithromycin (an antibiotic) for control of gastric ulceration in swine during periods of feed deprivation. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 63: 248–252Google Scholar
O'Brien, JJ 1969 Gastric ulceration (of the pars oesophagea) in the pig. Veterinary Bulletin 39: 75–82Google Scholar
O'Brien, JJ 1992 Gastric ulcer. In: Leman, AD, Straw, BE, Mengeling, WL, D'Allaire, S and Taylor, DJ (eds) Diseases of Swine, 7th Edition pp 680–691. Iowa University Press: Iowa, USAGoogle Scholar
Pallarés, FJ, Gómez, S, Ramis, G, Seva, J and Muñoz, A 2000 Vaccination against swine enzootic pneumonia in field conditions: effect on clinical, pathological, zoo-technical and economic parameters. Veterinary Research 31: 573–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickett, RA, Fugate, WH, Harrington, RB, Perry, TW and Curtin, TM 1969 Influence of feed preparation and number of pigs per pen on performance and occurrence of esophagogastric ulcers in swine. Journal of Animal Science 28: 837–841CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pocock, EF, Bayley, HS, Roe, CK and Slinger, SJ 1969 Dietary factors affecting the development of esophagogastric ulcers in swine. Journal of Animal Science 29: 591–597CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reese, NA, Muggenburg, BA, Kowalczyk, T, Grummer, RH and Hoekstra, WG 1966 Nutritional and enviromental factors influencing gastric ulcers in swine. Journal of Animal Science 25: 14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saggioro, A and Chiozzini, G 1994 Pathogenesis of gastric ulcer. Italian Journal of Gastroenterology 26: 3–9 (Abstract)Google ScholarPubMed
Stark, KDC, Keller, H and Eggenberger, E 1992 Risk factors for the reinfection of specific pathogen-free pig breeding herds with enzootic pneumonia. Veterinary Record 131: 532–535Google ScholarPubMed
Straw, BE, Henry, S, Nelssen, J, Doster, A, Moxley, R, Rogers, D, Webb, D and Hogg, A 1992 Prevalence of lesions in the pars esophagea of normal and sick pigs. Proceeding of the 12th IPVS Congress pp 386. 17–20 August 1992, The Hague, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Taylor, DJ 1999 Stomach ulcers. In: Taylor DJ (ed) Pig Diseases, 7th Edition pp 366-370. Glasgow University Press, Glasgow, UKGoogle Scholar