Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Access
  • Cited by 10
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Fu, Lingling Li, Huizhi Liang, Tingting Zhou, Bo Chu, Qingpo Schinckel, Allan P. Yang, Xiaojing Zhao, Ruqian Li, Pinghua and Huang, Ruihua 2016. Stocking density affects welfare indicators of growing pigs of different group sizes after regrouping. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Vol. 174, p. 42.

    Martín, P. Czycholl, I. Buxadé, C. and Krieter, J. 2016. Validation of a multi-criteria evaluation model for animal welfare. animal, p. 1.

    Meyer-Hamme, S. E. K. Lambertz, C. and Gauly, M. 2016. Does group size have an impact on welfare indicators in fattening pigs?. animal, Vol. 10, Issue. 01, p. 142.

    Renggaman, Anriansyah Choi, Hong L Sudiarto, Sartika IA Alasaarela, Laura and Nam, Ok S 2015. Development of pig welfare assessment protocol integrating animal-, environment-, and management-based measures. Journal of Animal Science and Technology, Vol. 57, Issue. 1,

    Thomsen, R. Edwards, S. A. Jensen, B. B. Rousing, T. and Sørensen, J. T. 2015. Effect of faecal soiling on skatole and androstenone occurrence in organic entire male pigs. animal, Vol. 9, Issue. 09, p. 1587.

    Velarde, Antonio Fàbrega, Emma Blanco-Penedo, Isabel and Dalmau, Antoni 2015. Animal welfare towards sustainability in pork meat production. Meat Science, Vol. 109, p. 13.

    O'Connor, A. Anthony, R. Bergamasco, L. Coetzee, J. Gould, S. Johnson, A. K. Karriker, L. A. Marchant-Forde, J. N. Martineau, G. S. McKean, J. Millman, S. T. Niekamp, S. Pajor, E. A. Rutherford, K. Sprague, M. Sutherland, M. von Borell, E. and Dzikamunhenga, R. S. 2014. Pain management in the neonatal piglet during routine management procedures. Part 2:Grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Animal Health Research Reviews, Vol. 15, Issue. 01, p. 39.

    Collins, Lisa and Part, Chérie 2013. Modelling Farm Animal Welfare. Animals, Vol. 3, Issue. 2, p. 416.

    Negrato, E. Di Martino, G. Vascellari, M. Radaelli, G. Capello, K. Pascoli, F. Bertotto, D. and Bonfanti, L. 2013. Expression of heat shock protein 70 in the liver of extensively and intensively kept heavy pigs. animal, Vol. 7, Issue. 08, p. 1362.

    Temple, Déborah Manteca, Xavier Dalmau, Antoni and Velarde, Antonio 2013. Assessment of test–retest reliability of animal-based measures on growing pig farms. Livestock Science, Vol. 151, Issue. 1, p. 35.


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

  • D. Temple (a1) (a2), V. Courboulay (a3), X. Manteca (a2), A. Velarde (a1) and A. Dalmau (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 10 October 2011

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.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems: assessment of feeding and housing
      Available formats
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems: assessment of feeding and housing
      Available formats
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems: assessment of feeding and housing
      Available formats
Corresponding author
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

DG Altman , B Lausen , W Sauerbrei , M Schumacher 1994. Dangers of using “optimal” cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 86, 829835.

MA Aparicio Tovar , JD Vargas Giraldo 2006. Considerations on ethics and animal welfare in extensive pig production: breeding and fattening Iberian pigs. Livestock Science 103, 237242.

HJ Blokhuis 2008. International cooperation in animal welfare: the Welfare Quality® project. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50, 15.

ED Ekkel , HAM Spoolder , I Hulsegge , H Hopster 2003. Lying characteristics as determinants for space requirements in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80, 1930.

R Geers , V Goedseels , G Parduyns , G Vercruysse 1986. The group postural behaviour of growing pigs in relation to air velocity, air and floor temperature. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16, 353362.

CE Gillman , AL KilBride , P Ossent , LE Green 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, 308322.

JH Guy , P Rowlinson , JP Chadwick , M Ellis 2002. Health conditions of two genotypes of growing–finishing pig in three different housing systems: implications for welfare. Livestock Production Science 75, 233243.

TTT Huynh , AJA Aarnink , WJJ Gerrits , MJH Heetkamp , TT Canh , HAM Spoolder 2005. Thermal behaviour of growing pigs in response to high temperature and humidity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 91, 116.

CAP Lyons , JM Bruce , VR Fowler , PR English 1995. A comparison of productivity and welfare of growing pigs in four intensive systems. Livestock Production Science 43, 265274.

N Mouttotou , FM Hatchell , LE Green 1998. Adventitious bursitis of the hock in finishing pigs: prevalence, distribution and association with floor type and foot lesions. Veterinary Records 142, 109114.

N Mouttotou , FM Hatchell , LE Green 1999. Prevalence and risk factors associated with adventitious bursitis in live growing and finishing pigs in south-west England. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 39, 3952.

V Rodríguez-Estévez , A García , F Peña , AG Gómez 2009. Foraging of Iberian fattening pigs grazing natural pasture in the dehesa. Livestock Science 120, 135143.

K Scott , DJ Chennells , FM Campbell , B Hunt , D Armstrong , L Taylor , BP Gill , SA Edwards 2006. The welfare of finishing pigs in two contrasting housing systems: fully-slatted versus straw-bedded accommodation. Livestock Science 103, 104115.

D Temple , A Dalmau , JL Ruiz de la Torre , X Manteca , A Velarde 2011. Application of the Welfare Quality® protocol to assess growing pigs kept under intensive conditions in Spain. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 6, 138149.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

  • ISSN: 1751-7311
  • EISSN: 1751-732X
  • URL: /core/journals/animal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *