Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

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)...
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.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org 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 @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ 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
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
E-mails: deborah.temple@uab.cat; antoni.dalmau@irta.cat
References
Hide All
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, 829835.
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, 237242.
Blokhuis HJ 2008. International cooperation in animal welfare: the Welfare Quality® project. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50, 15.
Botreau R, Veissier I, Butterworth A, Bracke MBM, Keeling LJ 2007. Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16, 225228.
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, 6268.
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, 515521.
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, 163170.
Dohoo I, Martin W, Stryhn H 2009. Model-building strategies. In Veterinary epidemiological research (ed. I Dohoo, W Martin and H Stryhn), pp. 368374. AVC Inc., Charlottetown, Price Edward Island, Canada.
Ekkel ED, Spoolder HAM, Hulsegge I, Hopster H 2003. Lying characteristics as determinants for space requirements in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80, 1930.
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, 353362.
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, 571578.
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, 308322.
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. 10271038. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IA, USA.
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, 233243.
Hacker RR, Ogilvie JR, Morrison WD, Kains F 1994. Factors affecting excretory behaviour of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 72, 14551460.
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, 116.
Jaume J, Alfonso L 2000. The Mallorcan Black pig. Agri 2000 27, 5358.
Johnsen PF, Johannesson T, Sandoe P 2001. Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: many goals, many methods. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 51, 2633.
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. 5464. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
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, 265274.
Meunier-Salaün MC 1989. Relations comportementales du porc avec son environnement: critères d’évaluation des systèmes d’élevage. Journées de la Recherche Porcine 21, 281296.
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, 109114.
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, 3952.
Rodríguez-Estévez V, García A, Peña F, Gómez AG 2009. Foraging of Iberian fattening pigs grazing natural pasture in the dehesa. Livestock Science 120, 135143.
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, 5362.
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, 104115.
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. 299307. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IA, USA.
Smith WJ 1993. A study of adventitious bursitis of the hock. Thesis, University of Edinburgh, UK.
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. 239274. Wageningen Academic Publishers, the Netherlands.
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, 138149.
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. 4978. Welfare Quality® Consortium, the Netherlands.
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, 205217.
Wolfinger R, O'Connell M 1993. Generalized linear mixed models: a pseudo-likelihood approach. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 4, 233243.
Recommend this journal

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

animal
  • 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? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 18
Total number of PDF views: 262 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 277 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.