Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T18:57:03.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment system in Finnish pig production, part I: Identification of principal components

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: camilla.munsterhjelm@helsinki.fi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Welfare Quality® (WQ) on-farm welfare assessment protocols for fattening pigs (n = 95 farms) and sows, as well as suckling piglets (n = 103 farms), were applied on Finnish farms. In order to identify distinct types of welfare problems (WPTs) Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied to the pooled animal-based items within both categories of animals. Measures describing suckling piglets did not contribute to the WPTs. The main WPTs (seemingly) reflected fighting in fattening pigs and lack of bedding in both fattening pigs and sows. The results imply that WQ includes biologically plausible shortlists of animal-based measures with decent to good internal consistency describing distinct types of welfare problems in growing pigs and in sows. The 20 descriptors of Qualitative Behavioural Assessment were analysed similarly to identify distinct mood types, which were named active positive, passive positive and passive positive behaviours. The different mood types had close to identical build-up in both fattening pigs and in sows and suckling piglets.

Keywords

animal welfaregrowing piginternal consistencyPrincipal Component AnalysissowWelfare Quality®
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , May 2015 , pp. 151 - 160
Copyright
© 2015 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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

AHAW (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare) 2012 Statement on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of animals. EFSA Journal 10(6): 2767Google Scholar
Baumgartner, J 2007 How to deal with complex data of skin lesions in weaner pigs. Animal Welfare 16(2): 165–168Google Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Geers, R, Miele, M and Veissier, I 2003 Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 12(4): 445–455Google Scholar
Brooks, PH 2003 Group housing of sows: the European experi-ence. London Swine Conference: Maintaining Your Competitive Edge.9-10 April 2003, London, ON, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Cattell, RB 1966 The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1: 629–637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cortina, JM 1993 What is coefficient alpha? An examination of Theory and Applications. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(1): 98–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, LJ 1951 Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16: 297–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVellis, RF 2003 Scale Development, Theory and Applications, Second Edition. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
Erhard, HW, Mendl, M and Ashley, DD 1997 Individual aggres-siveness of pigs can be measured and used to reduce aggression after mixing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 137–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00068-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fayers, P and Machin, D 2007 Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation of Patient-reported Outcomes, Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470024522CrossRefGoogle 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
Guadagnoli, E and Velicer, WF 1988 Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological bulletin 103: 265–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265CrossRefGoogle 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.applanim.2009.12.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, HF 1960 The application of electronic computers to fac-tor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20: 141–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, P 1979 Psychometrics and Psychology. Academic Press: London, UKGoogle 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
Kongsted, AG, Hermansen, JE and Kristensen, T 2007 Relation between parity and feed intake, fear of humans and social behaviour in non-lactating sows group-housed under various on-farm conditions. Animal Welfare 16(2): 263–266Google Scholar
Kroneman, A, Vellenga, L, van der Wilt, FJ and Vermeer, H 1993 Review of health problems in group-housed sows, with spe-cial emphasis on lameness. Veterinary Quarterly 15: 26–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01652176.1993.9694364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier-Salaün, MC, Edwards, SA and Robert, S 2001 Effect of dietary fibre on the behaviour and health of the restricted fed sow. Animal Feed Science and Technology 90(1-2): 53–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(01)00196-1CrossRefGoogle 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
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DJC 2011 A pilot investigation of possible positive system descriptors in finishing pigs. Animal Welfare 20: 439–449Google Scholar
Munsterhjelm, C, Heinonen, M and Valros, A 2015 Application of the of the Welfare Quality®animal welfare assessment system in Finnish pig production, part II: Associations between animal-based and environmental measures of welfare. Animal Welfare 24:161–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/096 27286.24.2.161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, JW and Costello, AB 2004 Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 9(11). http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=11Google Scholar
Siegel, A, Bhatt, S, Bhatt, R and Zalcman, SS 2009 Cytokines and aggressive behavior. In: Siegel, A and Zalcman, SS (eds) The Neuroimmunological Basis of Behavior and Mental Disorders pp 235–239. Springer US: Philadelphia, PA, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-84851-8_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoolder, H, Bracke, M, Mueller-Graf, C and Edwards, S 2011 Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of pigs. Report 2: Technical report of preparatory work for the future development of ani-mal based measures for assessing the welfare of weaned, growing and fattening pigs including aspects related to space allowance, floor types, tail biting and need for tail docking. EFSA: Parma, Italy. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/181e.htmCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoolder, HAM, Edwards, SA and Corning, S 2000 Aggression among finishing pigs following mixing in kennelled and unkennelled accommodation. Livestock Production Science 63: 121–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00121-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Temple, D, Manteca, X, Dalmau, A and Velarde, A 2013 Assessment of test–retest reliability of animal-based measures on growing pig farms. Livestock Science 151(1): 35–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.10.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temple, D, Manteca, X, Velarde, A and Dalmau, A 2011 Assessment of animal welfare through behavioural parameters in Iberian pigs in intensive and extensive conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 131: 29–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appla-nim.2011.01.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, SP, Farnworth, MJ, White, IMS, Brotherstone, S, Mendl, M, Knap, P, Penny, P and Lawrence, AB 2006 The accumulation of skin lesions and their use as a predictor of indi-vidual aggressiveness in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96:245–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.06.009CrossRefGoogle 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
Veissier, I, Capdeville, J and Delval, E 2004 Cubicle housing systems for cattle: Comfort of dairy cows depends on cubicle adjustment. Journal of Animal Science 82: 3321–3337CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vieuille-Thomas, C, Le Pape, G and Signoret, JP 1995 Stereotypies in pregnant sows: indications of influence of the housing system on the patterns expressed by the animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44(1): 19–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)00574-CCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, HD, Thieu, DD and Combs, GE 1974 Alfalfa meal as a special bulky ingredient in the sow diet at farrowing and during lac-tation. Research report, Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USAGoogle 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: Welfare Quality®Reports No 10: Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Sows, Piglets and Fattening Pigs. School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Munsterhjelm et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 104.6 KB