Hiding walls for fattening pigs: Do they affect behavior and performance?

The impact of providing hiding spaces to farmed animals: A scoping review

Many wild animals perform hiding behaviours for a variety of reasons, such as evading predators or other conspecifics. Unlike their wild counterparts, farmed animals often live in relatively barren environments without the opportunity to hide. Researchers have begun to study the impact of access to hiding spaces ("hides") in farmed animals, including possible effects on animal welfare. The aims of this scoping review were to: 1) identify the farmed species that have been most used in research investigating the provision of hides, 2) describe the context in which hides have been provided to farmed animals, and 3) describe the impact (positive, negative or neutral/inconclusive) that hides have on animals, including indicators of animal welfare. Three online databases (CAB Abstracts, Web of Science, and PubMed) were used to search for a target population of farmed animals with access to hiding spaces. From this search, 4,631 citations were screened and 151 were included in the review. Fourteen animal types were represented, most commonly chickens (48% of papers), cattle (9%), foxes (8%), and fish (7%). Relatively few papers were found on other species including deer, quail, ducks, lobsters, turkeys, and goats. Hides were used in four contexts: at parturition or oviposition (56%), for general enrichment (43%), for neonatal animals (4%), or for sick or injured animals (1%). A total of 218 outcomes relevant to our objectives were found including 7 categories: hide use, motivation, and/or preference (47% of outcomes), behavioural indicators of affective state (17%), health, injuries, and/or production (16%), agonistic behaviour (8%), abnormal repetitive behaviours (6%), physiological indicators of stress (5%), and affiliative behaviours (1%). Hiding places resulted in 162 positive (74%), 14 negative (6%), and 42 neutral/inconclusive (19%) outcomes. Hides had a generally positive impact on the animals included in this review; more research is encouraged for under-represented species.

Linking Animal Welfare and Antibiotic Use in Pig Farming-A Review

Preventative measures, such as biosecurity and vaccinations, are essential but not sufficient to ensure high standards of health in pig production systems. Restrictive, barren housing and many widely used management practices that cause pain and stress predispose high-performance pigs reared in intensive systems to disease. In this context, antibiotics are used as part of the infrastructure that sustains health and high levels of production in pig farms. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global emergency affecting human and animal health, and the use of antibiotics (AMU) in intensive livestock farming is considered an important risk factor for the emergence and spread of resistant bacteria from animals to humans. Tackling the issue of AMR demands profound changes in AMU, e.g., reducing their use for prophylaxis and ending it for growth promotion. In support of such recommendations, we revise the link between animal welfare and AMU and argue that it is crucial to sustainably reduce AMU while ensuring that pigs can live happy lives. In support of such recommendations, we aimed to revise the link between animal welfare and AMU in pigs by analysing stress factors related to housing and management and their impact on pig welfare. In particular, we reviewed critical management practices that increase stress and, therefore, pigs' susceptibility to disease and reduce the quality of life of pigs. We also reviewed some alternatives that can be adopted in pig farms to improve animal welfare and that go beyond the reduction in stress. By minimising environmental and management stressors, pigs can become more immunocompetent and prepared to overcome pathogenic challenges. This outcome can contribute to reducing AMU and the risk of AMR while simultaneously improving the quality of life of pigs and, ultimately, maintaining the pig industry's social license.

The Impact of Grouping on Skin Lesions and Meat Quality of Pig Carcasses

Simple Summary

In practice, unfamiliar pigs are frequently mixed prior to loading in order to obtain groups of uniform weight and to adjust the group size to the dimensions of the trailer compartments. Regrouping pigs is associated with establishing a new social rank via aggressive interactions. Fighting results in skin lesions and pre-slaughter stress, which leads to reduced meat quality. In this study, four grouping strategies, namely, non-regrouping and regrouping at fattening (regrouped at 80 kg and kept till slaughter), loading and lairage, were compared by determining skin lesions and meat quality at slaughter. The non-regrouped pigs showed, at slaughter, fewer skin lesions and better meat quality than the pigs regrouped at loading or in lairage. Pigs mixed at 80 kg at the farm have, in general, a comparable amount of skin lesions and comparable meat quality as the non-mixed group. If mixing is unavoidable, due to large within-group weight variations, mixing at 80 kg can be an alternative to reduce skin lesions at slaughter and to optimise meat quality. However, mixing at 80 kg is still associated with aggressive interactions after regrouping and with weight variations at slaughter.

Abstract

In practice, unfamiliar pigs are frequently mixed prior to loading in order to obtain groups of uniform weight and to adjust the group size to the dimensions of the trailer compartments. Mixing pigs induces aggressive interactions to establish a new social rank. Fighting results in skin lesions and pre-slaughter stress and, in turn, reduced meat quality. A study was performed to compare the effect of non-regrouping and regrouping at fattening (at 80 kg and kept till slaughter), loading and lairage. A total of 1332 pigs were included over 30 transports from one pig farm to one slaughterhouse (110 km). Skin lesions were determined on 1314 carcasses. Meat quality was measured on 620 pigs. The non-regrouped pigs had fewer skin lesions and better meat quality than the pigs regrouped at loading or in lairage. Pigs mixed at 80 kg at the farm had, in general, a comparable amount of skin lesions and comparable meat quality as the non-mixed group. If mixing is unavoidable, due to large within-group weight variations, mixing at 80 kg can be an alternative to reduce skin lesions at slaughter and to optimise meat quality.

A Review of the Effects of Non-Straw Enrichment on Tail Biting in Pigs

Simple Summary

Tail biting, a damaging behaviour that one pig directs at another, causes pain, wounding and health problems. It reduces both pig welfare and market value. Enrichment can reduce tail biting substantially. Many pig producers are reluctant to use straw as enrichment, but many non-straw alternatives exist. We aimed to evaluate their ability to reduce tail biting based on studies on the effects of enrichment on tail damage and manipulation of other pigs, and on the duration of interaction with enrichment. Additionally, we reviewed how pigs interact with different enrichments (e.g., by rooting or chewing it). This was done to clarify which type of enrichment could satisfy which behavioural motivation (that may lead to tail biting if not satisfied). However, very little information on separate enrichment-directed behaviours was uncovered. Several effective types of non-straw enrichment were identified, but these correspond poorly with the types of enrichment commonly applied on commercial farms. More detailed observations of how pigs interact with different enrichments, other pigs, and their environment would improve our understanding of how to combine enrichments to minimize tail biting. This is essential because although single non-straw enrichments can reduce tail biting significantly, the remaining levels of damage can still be high.

Abstract

Tail biting remains a common problem in pig production. As producers are reluctant to use straw to reduce this behaviour, we review studies on the effectiveness of other types of enrichment. Roughage, hessian sacks, compost, fresh wood, space dividers, rope, and providing new objects regularly can significantly reduce tail damage. These results should be interpreted with some caution, as often only one study per enrichment could be identified. No evidence was found that commonly applied enrichment objects (processed wood, plastic or metal) reduce tail biting significantly unless exchanged regularly, even though multiple studies per type of enrichment were identified. Many studies evaluated the duration of enrichment use, but few evaluated the manner of use. This hampers identification of combinations of enrichment that will satisfy the pig’s motivation to eat/smell, bite, root and change enrichments, which is suggested to reduce tail biting. New objects designed to satisfy specific motivations were shown to receive high levels of interaction, but their effectiveness at reducing tail damage remains unknown. More in-depth study of how pigs interact with non-straw enrichment, which motivations this satisfies and how this affects behaviour towards conspecifics, is necessary to optimize enrichment strategies. Optimization is necessary because ceasing tail docking in a way that improves pig welfare requires more effective enrichments than those described in this review, or alternatively, better control over other factors influencing tail biting.

Factors Influencing Farmer Willingness to Reduce Aggression between Pigs

Aggression between pigs remains an important animal welfare issue despite several solutions existing. Uptake of livestock welfare research relies on various stakeholders being willing to recommend or adopt changes to farm structure or management (e.g., veterinarians, researchers, farmers). This survey provides insight into the attitudes and practices of 122 UK and Irish pig farmers regarding aggression between growing pigs. Our aim was to understand why mitigation strategies are not adequately implemented. The majority of farmers mixed pigs at least once during production and had tried at least one mitigation strategy in the past. Farmers expressed limited willingness to implement strategies in the future, and a structural equation model revealed that this was directly influenced by their beliefs about the outcome of controlling aggression, and their perception of their ability to implement the necessary changes. Willingness was indirectly influenced by their perceptions of aggression as a problem and views of relevant stakeholder groups. Veterinarians had the greatest impact on farmer behavior. We recommend that researchers test research findings in practice, calculate cost-benefits of implementation, and transfer knowledge through various sources. This study showed that structural equation modeling is a valuable tool to understand farmer behavior regarding specific and entrenched animal welfare issues.

Provision Point-Source Materials Stimulates Play in Sows but Does Not Affect Aggression at Regrouping

When sows are mixed into groups, hierarchies form and resulting aggression and stress can affect production and welfare. This study determined the effect of providing point-source materials on aggressive and play behaviors in gestating sows. Large white cross Landrace sows were mixed after insemination; six pens of 12 sows were housed in 'standard' pens, and six pens of 12 sows were housed in 'enhanced' pens. The 'enhanced' pens each contained two rubber mats, eight strands of 24 mm-thick sisal rope and two yellow plastic disks, suspended from the roof. The sows remained in these pens until pregnancy confirmation. Salivary cortisol concentration, injury counts, and sow behaviors were recorded the day before mixing (day 1), mixing (day 0) and post-mixing day 1, day 4, day 7 and day 20. At farrowing, reproductive outcomes were obtained. Play was observed (including locomotor and object play) in the 'enhanced' pen, and percentage of time spent playing was greater on d4 (1.48 ± 0.3 Square root transformed data (2.84% non-transformed adjusted mean)), d7 (1.43 ± 0.3 (2.97%)) and d20 (1.64 ± 0.3 (3.84%)), compared to d0 (0.56 ± 0.3 (0.70%)) and d1 (0.87 ± 0.3 (1.67%) (p < 0.05)). No play was observed in standard housing. Aggression, salivary free cortisol concentrations and injuries were unaffected (p > 0.05). The provision of materials had no impact on aggression, although their presence maintained sow interest and play behavior, suggesting a positive effect.

Effects of parity and litter size on cortisol measures in commercially housed sows and their offspring

Breeding sows are regularly exposed to on-farm stressors throughout the duration of their production period. The impact of such stressors may differ for primi- and multiparous sows, as sows could learn to cope with stressors as they gain experience with them. If parity affects stress in sows, it may also impact their prenatal offspring through differential maternal stress. In addition to parity, litter size is another potential factor involved in stress of sows and piglets. Larger litters may be a source of discomfort for gestating sows, while it can result in intra-uterine growth restriction of piglets. In the current study, we aimed to assess whether parity and litter size affect cortisol measures in breeding sows and their offspring. To do this, we measured salivary cortisol concentrations of 16 primiparous and 16 multiparous sows at three time points: 1) while sows were group housed, 2) after sows were separated from the group prior to moving to the farrowing unit and 3) after handling procedures. In addition, hair cortisol concentration was determined for the sows during late gestation and for their low birth weight (n = 63) and normal birth weight (n = 43) offspring on day 3 after birth, to reflect in-utero cortisol exposure. It was expected that if sows adapt to on-farm stressors, the more experienced, multiparous sows would show decreased stress responses in comparison to primiparous sows. However, we found a comparable acute stress response of primi- and multiparous sows to separation from the group. Handling procedures did not influence sows' salivary cortisol concentrations. Sows' hair cortisol concentration was positively correlated with litter size. Future research is needed to assess whether this finding reflects increased stress in sows carrying larger litters. Parity or litter size did not have a direct effect on their offspring's hair cortisol concentration. Larger litters did have a higher occurrence of low birth weight piglets. For these piglets, females had higher neonatal hair cortisol concentrations than males. Overall, our results indicate that breeding sows do not adapt to all on-farm stressors. In addition, litter size may influence HPA axis activity in both sows and piglets.