Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-11T09:16:43.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A pilot investigation of possible positive system descriptors in finishing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

S Mullan ,
SA Edwards ,
A Butterworth ,
HR Whay  and
DCJ Main
S Mullan*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
SA Edwards
Affiliation:
Newcastle University, School of Agriculture Food & Rural Development, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
A Butterworth
Affiliation:
University of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
HR Whay
Affiliation:
University of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
DCJ Main
Affiliation:
University of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Siobhan.mullan@bris.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this study, pig producers were identified whose practices exceeded the basic legal requirements and government recommendations for pig welfare. This novel approach was part of a larger project investigating the feasibility and benefits of the inclusion of some animal-based welfare outcome measures into the main UK pig-farm assurance schemes. A set of pig-keeping-system descriptor scores were devised through consultation with stakeholders, whereby a finishing pig farm would be classified on a scale of 1 (legislation compliance) to 5 (highest level of welfare provision) for six different elements of pig husbandry which can influence pig welfare (environmental enrichment, foraging behaviour, thermal comfort, physical comfort, tail docking and floor space provision). Animal-based observations were used to assess the welfare of a sample of between 67 and 220 pigs on 15 UK finishing pig farms, which were also classified according to the system descriptors. Scores achieved when assessing the environmental enrichment and physical comfort elements were significantly positively correlated with a qualitative assessment of good mood of the pigs and a measure of their oral manipulation and significantly negatively correlated with the prevalence of tail lesions and swollen bursae. However, there were wide variations in the prevalence of animal-based welfare outcome measures between farms with the same system descriptor score. These system descriptors are therefore not sufficient to be used alone to provide assurances on welfare. It is suggested that a combined approach of system descriptors and animal-based welfare outcome measures may be useful for providing assurances on higher levels of welfare.

Keywords

animal welfarefarm assurancefarming systemhusbandrypigwelfare outcomes
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , August 2011 , pp. 439 - 449
Copyright
© 2011 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

ABP 2007 Assured British Pigs Certification Standards for Pigs. Assured British Pigs: Cobham, UKGoogle 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: 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ 2007 Welfare Quality: context, progress and aims. In: Vessier, I, Forkman, B and Jones, B (eds) Second Welfare Quality® Stakeholder Conference. Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Bock, BB and van Huik, MM 2007 Animal welfare, attitudes and behaviour of pig farmers across Europe. British Food Journal 109(11): 931–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danish Pig Production 2007 Facts on Animal Welfare. Danish Pig Production: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Defra 2003 Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Pigs. Defra Publications: London, UKGoogle Scholar
English, PR, Fowler, VR, Baxter, S and Smith, B 1988 The Growing and Finishing Pig. Farming Press Books: Ipswich, UKGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2005 Report on the Welfare Implications of Farm Assurance Schemes. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2006 Report on Welfare Labelling. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2009 Farm Animal Welfare in Great Britain: Past, Present and Future. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
GQA 2007 Genesis Quality Assurance Certification Standards for Pigs. GQA: Burton-on-Trent, UKGoogle Scholar
Horchner, PM, Brett, D, Gormley, B, Jenson, I and Pointon, AM 2006 HACCP-based approach to the derivation of an on-farm food safety programme for the Australian red meat industry. Food Control 17: 497–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriakis, SC, Alexopoulos, C and Kritas, SK 2000 On-farm veterinary management for the production of certified pig meat. In: Windhorst, HW and Dijkhuizen, AA (eds) Workshop 3 on Sustainable Animal Production, Bundesforschungsanstalt Landwirtschaft (Fal). Hannover, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Lymbery, P 2002 Farm Assurance Schemes and Animal Welfare: Can we trust them? Compassion in World Farming Trust: Godalming, UKGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Clegg, J, Spatz, A and Green, LE 2000 Repeatability of a lameness scoring system for finishing pigs. Veterinary Record 147: 574–576CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullan, S, Browne, WJ, Edwards, S, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2009 The effect of sampling strategy on the estimated prevalence of welfare outcome measures on finishing pig farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119: 39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullan, S, Whay, HR, Butterworth, A, Edwards, SA and Main, DCJ 2010 A consultation of pig farmers on the inclusion of some welfare outcome assessments within UK Farm Assurance. Veterinary Record 166: 678–680CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noordhuizen, J and Metz, JHM 2005 Quality control on dairy farms with emphasis on public health, food safety, animal health and welfare. Livestock Production Science 94: 51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K, Chennells, DJ, Campbell, FM, Hunt, B, Armstrong, D, Taylor, L, Gill, BP and Edwards, SA 2006 The welfare of finishing pigs in two contrasting housing systems: fully-slatted versus straw-bedded accommodation. Livestock Science 103: 104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007 Regulations. Office of Public Sector Information: London, UKGoogle Scholar
The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 Regulations. Office of Public Sector Information: London, UKGoogle Scholar
von Borell, E, Herrmann, HJ, Knierim, U, Muller, C, Richter, T, Sanftleben, P, Schaffer, D, Schulze, V and Sundrum, A 2007 Critical control points (CCP) for cattle housing and management: a concept for the on-farm assessment of animal welfare, health and management. Zuchtungskunde 79: 329–338Google Scholar
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
Wemelsfelder, F, Nevison, I and Lawrence, AB 2009 The effect of perceived environmental background on qualitative assessments of pig behaviour. Animal Behaviour 78: 477–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® consortium 2009a Assessment protocol for pigs. Welfare Quality®. NEN: The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® consortium 2009b Assessment protocol for poultry. Welfare Quality®. NEN: The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® consortium 2009c Assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality®. NEN: The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar