Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-20T19:58:54.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic evaluation of high welfare indoor farrowing systems for pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

JH Guy ,
PJ Cain ,
YM Seddon ,
EM Baxter  and
SA Edwards
JH Guy*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
PJ Cain
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
YM Seddon
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
EM Baxter
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Sustainable Livestock Systems, Scottish Agricultural College (SAC), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
SA Edwards
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and request 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.

New livestock housing systems designed to improve animal welfare will only see large-scale commercial adoption if they improve profitability, or are at least cost neutral to the farm business. Economic evaluation of new system developments is therefore essential to determine their effect on cost of production and hence the extent of any market premium necessary to stimulate adoption. This paper describes such an evaluation in relation to high welfare farrowing systems for sows where any potential system needs to reconcile the behavioural needs of the sow with piglet survivability, acceptable capital and running costs, farm practicality and ease of management. In the Defra-sponsored PigSAFE project, a new farrowing system has been developed which comprises a loose, straw-bedded pen with embedded design features which promote piglet survival. Data on this and four other farrowing systems (new systems: 360° Farrower and a Danish pen; existing systems: crate and outdoor paddock) were used to populate a model of production cost taking account of both capital and running costs (feed, labour, bedding etc). Assuming equitable pig performance across all indoor farrowing systems, the model estimated a higher production cost for non-crate systems by 1.6, 1.7 and 3.5%, respectively, for 360° Farrower, Danish and PigSAFE systems on a per-sow basis. The outdoor production system had the lowest production cost. An online survey of pig producers confirmed that, whilst some producers would consider installing a non-crate system, the majority of producers remain cautious about considering alternatives to the farrowing crate. If pig performance in alternative indoor systems could be improved from the crate baseline (eg through reduced piglet mortality, improved weaning weight or sow re-breeding), then the differential cost of production could be reduced. Indeed, with further innovation by pig producers, management of alternative farrowing systems may evolve to a point where there can be improvements in both welfare and pig production. However, larger data sets of alternative systems on commercial farms will be needed to explore fully the welfare/production interface before such a relationship can be confirmed for those pig producers who will be replacing their units in the next ten years.

Keywords

animal welfareeconomicsfarrowinghousing systemshusbandrypig
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue S1: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Making animal improvements: Economic and other incentives and constraints’ Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, UK, 2011 , May 2012 , pp. 19 - 24
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Baxter, EM, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2011 Alternative farrowing systems: design criteria for farrowing systems based on the biological needs of the sows and piglets. Animal 5: 580–600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731110002272CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baxter, EM, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2012 Alternative farrowing accommodation: welfare and economic aspects of existing farrowing and lactation systems for pigs. Animal 6: 96–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111001224CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BPEX 2010 British Pig Executive (BPEX) Pig Yearbook 2010. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board: Stoneleigh, UKGoogle Scholar
Cain, PJ, Seddon, YM, Guy, JH and Edwards, SA 2012 Estimating the economic impact of the adoption of non-crate sow farrowing systems in the UK. International Journal of Agricultural Management, in pressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T, Lawrence, A, Lund, M, Stott, A and SandØe, P 2012 How can economists help to improve animal welfare? Animal Welfare 21(S1): 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/0962728 12X13345905673449Google Scholar
Edwards, SA, Brett, M, Guy, JH and Baxter, EM 2011 Practical evaluation of an indoor free farrowing system: the PigSAFE pen. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science p 17. 29 August-2 September 2011, Stavanger, NorwayGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA, Brett, M, Ison, S, Jack, M, Seddon, YM and Baxter, EM 2012 Design principles and practical evaluation of the PigSAFE free farrowing pen. Proceedings of the 4th European Symposium of Porcine Health Management. 25-27 April 2012, Ghent, Belgium, in pressGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M 2010 Farm Business Survey 2009/2010: Pig production in England. Rural Business Research: York, UKGoogle Scholar
Lund, M, Otto, L and Jacobsen, B 2010 ⊘konomiske analyser for Justitsministeriets arbejdsgruppe for hold af svin pp 232. Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. https://www.borger.dk/Lovgivning/Hoeringsportalen/Sider/Fakta.aspx? hpid=2146002290. [Title translation: Economic analyses made for the Ministry of Justice's working group concerning pig production]Google Scholar
NADIS 2011 BPEX Commentary, February 2011. National Animal Disease Information Service (NADIS): Haverfordwest, UK. www.nadis.org.ukGoogle Scholar
Nix, J 2010 Farm Management Pocketbook, 41st edition 2011. The Pocketbook: Melton Mowbray, UKGoogle Scholar
SCAHW 1997 Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare. Report on the Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs. Adopted 30 September 1997. European Commission: Brussels, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out17_en.htmlGoogle Scholar
Seddon, YM, Cain, PJ, Guy, JH and Edwards, SA 2012 Development of a decision support tool for pig producers considering high welfare farrowing systems. Livestock Science, SubmittedCrossRefGoogle Scholar