Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T03:17:27.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems: assessment of feeding and housing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2011

D. Temple ,
V. Courboulay ,
X. Manteca ,
A. Velarde  and
A. Dalmau
D. Temple*
Affiliation:
Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA), Finca Camps i Armet s/n, 17121 Monells, Girona, Spain School of Veterinary Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain
V. Courboulay
Affiliation:
Institut du Porc (IFIP) – BP 35104, 35651 Le Rheu Cedex, France
X. Manteca
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain
A. Velarde
Affiliation:
Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA), Finca Camps i Armet s/n, 17121 Monells, Girona, Spain
A. Dalmau
Affiliation:
Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA), Finca Camps i Armet s/n, 17121 Monells, Girona, Spain
*
†E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Ninety-one farms were visited over a 2-year period to assess the welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems found either in France or in Spain using the Welfare Quality® protocol. This study focused on animal-based measures as indicators of ‘good feeding’ and ‘good housing’. Multiple Generalized Linear Mixed Models were performed for each measure to evaluate the differences between production systems and to detect possible causal factors. Pigs in the conventional system presented the lowest prevalence of poor body condition, whereas extensive Mallorcan Black pigs and extensive Iberian pigs were associated with a decreased prevalence of bursitis and pig dirtiness. The straw-bedded system presented a lower prevalence of bursitis, but poorer hygiene and more susceptibility of poor body condition than the conventional system. The age of the animals had a significant effect on the appearance of bursitis in the three intensive systems studied. The type of floor was a significant causal factor of bursitis and pig dirtiness in the conventional system and among intensive Iberian pigs. The feeding system was another causal factor of pig dirtiness on more than 50% of the body in the conventional system, whereas pig dirtiness on less than 50% of the body was influenced by the age of the animals. The prevalence of huddling animals in the conventional system was associated with the highest stocking densities and the lowest environmental temperatures. The results indicate that there were important differences between production systems based on animal-based indicators of the good feeding and housing principles. The recording of the age of the animals, type of floor, feeding system, stocking density and environmental temperature can be useful to predict the appearance of a given welfare measure of ‘good housing’ on a farm.

Keywords

animal welfarehousing systemsgrowing pigcausal factors
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , April 2012 , pp. 656 - 667
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altman, DG, Lausen, B, Sauerbrei, W, Schumacher, M 1994. Dangers of using “optimal” cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 86, 829–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aparicio Tovar, MA, Vargas Giraldo, JD 2006. Considerations on ethics and animal welfare in extensive pig production: breeding and fattening Iberian pigs. Livestock Science 103, 237–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ 2008. International cooperation in animal welfare: the Welfare Quality® project. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM, Keeling, LJ 2007. Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16, 225–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capdeville, J, Veissier, I 2001. A method of assessing welfare in loose housed dairy cows at farm level, focusing on animal observations. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 51, 62–68.Google Scholar
Courboulay, V, Eugène, A, Delarue, E 2009. Welfare assessment in 82 pig farms: effect of animal age and floor type on behaviour and injuries in fattening pigs. Animal Welfare 18, 515–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courboulay, V, Bregeon, A, Massabie, P, Meunier-Salaün, MC 2003. Incidence du type de sol (caillebotis partiel/caillebotis intégral) et de la taille de la case sur le bien-être des porcs charcutiers. Journées de la Recherche Porcine 35, 163–170.Google Scholar
Dohoo, I, Martin, W, Stryhn, H 2009. Model-building strategies. In Veterinary epidemiological research (ed. I Dohoo, W Martin and H Stryhn), pp. 368–374. AVC Inc., Charlottetown, Price Edward Island, Canada.Google Scholar
Ekkel, ED, Spoolder, HAM, Hulsegge, I, Hopster, H 2003. Lying characteristics as determinants for space requirements in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geers, R, Goedseels, V, Parduyns, G, Vercruysse, G 1986. The group postural behaviour of growing pigs in relation to air velocity, air and floor temperature. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16, 353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geers, R, Dellaert, B, Goedseels, V, Hoogerbrugge, A, Vranken, E, Maes, F, Berckmans, D 1989. An assessment of optimal air temperatures in pig houses by the quantification of behavioural and health-related problems. Animal Production 48, 571–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillman, CE, KilBride, AL, Ossent, P, Green, LE 2008. A cross-sectional study of the prevalence and associated risk factors for bursitis in weaner, grower and finisher pigs from 93 commercial farms in England. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 83, 308–322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonyou, HW, Lemay, SP, Zhang, Y 2006. Effects of the environment on productivity and disease. In Diseases of swine (ed. B Straw, JJ Zimmerman, S D'Allaire and D Taylor), pp. 1027–1038. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar
Guy, JH, Rowlinson, P, Chadwick, JP, Ellis, M 2002. Health conditions of two genotypes of growing–finishing pig in three different housing systems: implications for welfare. Livestock Production Science 75, 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, RR, Ogilvie, JR, Morrison, WD, Kains, F 1994. Factors affecting excretory behaviour of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 72, 1455–1460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huynh, TTT, Aarnink, AJA, Gerrits, WJJ, Heetkamp, MJH, Canh, TT, Spoolder, HAM 2005. Thermal behaviour of growing pigs in response to high temperature and humidity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 91, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaume, J, Alfonso, L 2000. The Mallorcan Black pig. Agri 2000 27, 53–58.Google Scholar
Johnsen, PF, Johannesson, T, Sandoe, P 2001. Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: many goals, many methods. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 51, 26–33.Google Scholar
Lee, Y, Nelder, JA, Pawitan, Y 2006. Generalized linear models. In Generalized linear models with random effects (ed. Y Lee, JA Nelder and Y Pawitan), pp. 54–64. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, CAP, Bruce, JM, Fowler, VR, English, PR 1995. A comparison of productivity and welfare of growing pigs in four intensive systems. Livestock Production Science 43, 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier-Salaün, MC 1989. Relations comportementales du porc avec son environnement: critères d’évaluation des systèmes d’élevage. Journées de la Recherche Porcine 21, 281–296.Google Scholar
Mouttotou, N, Hatchell, FM, Green, LE 1998. Adventitious bursitis of the hock in finishing pigs: prevalence, distribution and association with floor type and foot lesions. Veterinary Records 142, 109–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mouttotou, N, Hatchell, FM, 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, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodríguez-Estévez, V, García, A, Peña, F, Gómez, AG 2009. Foraging of Iberian fattening pigs grazing natural pasture in the dehesa. Livestock Science 120, 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K, Chennells, DJ, Armstrong, D, Taylor, L, Gill, BP, Edwards, SA 2007. The welfare of finishing pigs under different housing and feeding systems: liquid versus dry feeding in fully-slatted and straw-based housing. Animal Welfare 16, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K, Chennells, DJ, Campbell, FM, Hunt, B, Armstrong, D, Taylor, L, Gill, BP, Edwards, SA 2006. The welfare of finishing pigs in two contrasting housing systems: fully-slatted versus straw-bedded accommodation. Livestock Science 103, 104–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalés, J, Allan, GM, Domingo, M 2006. Porcine circovirus diseases. In Diseases of swine (ed. B Straw, JJ Zimmerman, S D'Allaire and D Taylor), pp. 299–307. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar
Smith, WJ 1993. A study of adventitious bursitis of the hock. Thesis, University of Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Smulders, FJM 2009. A practicable approach to assessing risks for animal welfare – methodological considerations. In Food safety assurance and veterinary public health. Welfare of production animals: assessment and management of risks (ed. FJM Smulders and B Algers), vol. 5, pp. 239–274. Wageningen Academic Publishers, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Temple, D, Dalmau, A, Ruiz de la Torre, JL, Manteca, X, Velarde, A 2011. Application of the Welfare Quality® protocol to assess growing pigs kept under intensive conditions in Spain. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 6, 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality ® 2009. Welfare Quality® applied to growing and finishing pigs. In Welfare Quality® Assessment protocol for pigs (ed. A Dalmau, A Velarde, K Scott, S Edwards, I Veissier, L Keeling and A Butterworth), pp. 49–78. Welfare Quality® Consortium, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Greent, LE, 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, 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfinger, R, O'Connell, M 1993. Generalized linear mixed models: a pseudo-likelihood approach. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 4, 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar