The 'Real Welfare' scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs

Benchmarking Giant Panda Welfare in Tourism: A Co-Design Approach for Animals, Tourists, Managers, and Researchers

This study introduces a co-design benchmarking framework to understand tourists' perceptions of animal welfare, integrating diverse perspectives from tourists, researchers, and animals. By leveraging scientific theories to establish benchmark dimensions, the framework is refined through visitor input, ensuring a robust and adaptable methodological tool for assessing tourists' perceptions and animal informed consent in wildlife tourism. Using the Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding as an example, we analyzed 4839 visitor comments collected from March to August 2023 to benchmark perceptions of giant panda welfare. This approach underscores the importance of effective communication in educational initiatives, aiming to enhance public literacy and knowledge about animal welfare. By addressing the complexity and variability in tourists' perceptions, the proposed framework contributes to more impactful conservation education efforts. The study demonstrates that a collaborative effort results in a benchmarking framework that is firmly grounded in theoretical foundations yet flexible enough to adapt based on visitors' insights and animal participation. Ultimately, this comprehensive approach ensures that educational initiatives resonate with tourists' diverse backgrounds, fostering a deeper understanding and commitment to animal welfare and conservation, which, we argue, should be key components of sustainable tourism.

Access to bedding and outdoor runs for growing-finishing pigs: is it possible to improve welfare without increasing environmental impacts?

Providing bedding or access to an outdoor run are husbandry aspects intended to improve pig welfare, which is currently financially supported through animal welfare schemes in several European countries. However, they may significantly affect the environment through changes in feed efficiency and manure management. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to compare farms differing in animal welfare relevant husbandry aspects regarding (1) the welfare of growing-finishing pigs and (2) environmental impact categories such as global warming (GW), acidification (AC), and freshwater (FE) and marine eutrophication (ME), by employing an attributional Life Cycle Assessment. We collected data on 50 farms with growing-finishing pigs in seven European countries. Ten animal-based welfare indicators were aggregated into three pig welfare indices using principal component analysis. Cluster analysis of farms based on husbandry aspects resulted in three clusters: NOBED (31 farms without bedding or outdoor run), BED (11 farms with bedding only) and BEDOUT (eight farms with bedding and outdoor run). Pigs on farms with bedding (BED and BEDOUT) manipulated enrichment more often (P < 0.001), pen fixtures less frequently (P = 0.003) and showed fewer oral stereotypies (P < 0.001) than pigs on NOBED farms. There were fewer pigs with a short(er) tail on farms with than without bedding (P < 0.001). Acidification of BEDOUT and BED farms was significantly higher (compared to NOBED farms P = 0.002) due to higher ammonia emissions related to farmyard manure. Also, BEDOUT farms had higher ME than NOBED farms (P = 0.035). There were no significant differences regarding GW and FE between husbandry clusters, due to the large variability within clusters regarding feed composition and conversion. Therefore, both husbandry aspects associated with improved animal welfare have a significant influence on some environmental impacts, such as acidification and marine eutrophication. Nevertheless, the large variation within clusters suggests that trade-offs may be minimised through e.g. AC and ME.

Relationship between animal-based on-farm indicators and meat inspection data in pigs

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to validate slaughterhouse indicators collected during meat inspection as an alternative to on-farm animal welfare indicators. For this purpose, the assessments of twelve on-farm and seven slaughterhouse indicators of 628 pigs from three different farms were combined into three indices, differentiated between on-farm and slaughterhouse: (1) limb health, (2) other organ health, and (3) respiratory health. At first, an assessment at animal-level using agreement parameters was carried out to ascertain whether the same welfare or health issues were identified on-farm and at slaughterhouse, taking the production period (farrowing, rearing and fattening period) and the last weeks before slaughtering into account. Second, the connection of slaughterhouse findings on the individual on-farm health indices was examined using logistic regressions, to determine whether certain welfare issues can be better monitored using slaughterhouse indicators.

RESULTS

Acceptable agreement was determined using the Prevalence-Adjusted Bias-Adjusted Kappa (PABAK) for the farrowing and fattening period, but not for the rearing period. A more detailed analysis of the weeks before slaughter shows that there is still a poor agreement 8 weeks before slaughter and an acceptable agreement 4 weeks before slaughter. This indicated the slaughterhouse indicators pneumonia, pleuritis and pericarditis as possible estimators of fever and deviant behavior on-farm and the slaughterhouse indicators bursitis and joint inflammations as possible estimators of lameness. In the second part of the analysis, the connection of slaughterhouse findings on the individual on-farm health indices was investigated; a significant influence of the farm on the limb and respiratory indices and no significant influence of the slaughterhouse findings could be determined, provided that all weekly assessments during the lifetime of the pigs have been taken into account. However, an influence of the slaughterhouse findings on the respiratory index and on the other organ index could be determined if only the weekly assessments four and eight weeks before slaughter, respectively, were taken into account.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, the possible suitable indicators detected by the PABAK, could replace some health-related indicators but a complete substitution of on-farm welfare assessment is not possible. In addition, the traceability over time must be investigated further.

Assessment of animal welfare in fattening pig farms certified in good livestock practices

Commercial swine producers are responsible for implementing changes in their production systems to ensure animal welfare. The objective of this study is to evaluate the levels of animal welfare on rearing and fattening farms certified in good animal husbandry practices using the Welfare Quality® protocol. Eighty-one certified commercial farms (n = 2,150 pigs), distributed in six geographical areas of Colombia, were evaluatedby six trained veterinarians. . A multilevel analysis was performed to identify variables associated with the animal welfare/farm rating and to identify behavioral variables. Farms evaluated had an enhanced (n = 68, 83.9%), followed by excellent (n = 7, 8.7%) and acceptable (n = 6, 7.4%) level of animal welfare. Variables significantly associated with the overall protocol rating (R2 = 0.37) were temperature comfort (OR: 1.05, p = 0.008), absence of disease (OR: 1.06, p = 0.02) and absence of pain (OR: 1.06, p = 0.0001). Significant differences in behavioral measures were observed across farms (P < 0.05). The high animal welfare scores of certified farms suggest changes in producers' understanding and attitudes towards production and animal welfare.

Global and Brazilian Scenario of Guidelines and Legislation on Welfare in Pig Farming

Simple Summary

As with all production animals, pigs need environments suitable for their species, which results in less stress and suffering and more productivity. Therefore, there are quality standards and good management and production practices that must be followed to ensure their well-being. In this sense, over the last few years, many advances have been made, banning or restricting practices capable of causing suffering to animals in most producing countries. This review seeks to explore current global and Brazilian regulations on good production practices in swine farming.

Abstract

The evolution of scientific knowledge regarding animal sentience, together with the growing concerns of consumers regarding current production models, has brought with it the responsibility of reviewing many practices carried out in industrial swine farming, with the purpose of improving the life quality of animals throughout the entire production cycle. In this sense, many initiatives have been taken by European Union, OIE and other countries to abolish questionable practices from an animal welfare point of view, being signed through legislation or normative instructions, which guide governments and companies on the best practices to be adopted. Among the main changes that have taken place in swine farming are the ban or reduction in the use of cages for sows, restrictions on the age at weaning, ban on painful procedures such as surgical castration, tail and teeth clipping, as routine procedures or without the use of anesthesia/analgesia. In addition, these acts also prescribe practices that must be adopted in order to respect the natural behavior of animals, such as the use of environmental enrichment. This review aims to address the main advances made over the last few years in the protection of swine, as well as Brazilian initiatives in this regard.

The "Real Welfare" Scheme: Changes in UK Finishing Pig Welfare since the Introduction of Formal Welfare Outcome Assessment

Farm animal welfare is an increasingly important issue, leading to the need for an efficient methodology to deliver accurate benchmarking. The "Real Welfare" project developed a methodology based on regular recording of a limited number of animal-based measures, so-called welfare outcomes, which allows faster and easier on-farm assessment of finishing pig welfare. The objective of this paper is to estimate, with sufficient robustness and confidence, the prevalence of different mandatory and optional welfare outcomes in the mainstream herd of the finishing farms in the UK based on the "Real Welfare" scheme data and to assess the changes in prevalence over time, inspection visits and seasons. The mean overall prevalence of the four mandatory welfare outcomes (pigs requiring hospitalization, lame pigs, pigs with severe body marks, and pigs with severe tail lesions) was very low (≤0.2%) and a significant decreasing trend was observed for the first three of these mandatory welfare outcomes since the inception of the scheme. This result might reflect either a reduction in factors giving rise to welfare problems in the mainstream herd or increasing awareness about management of compromised pigs. Additional data are required to clarify these possibilities, but both represent improved pig welfare.

The Evidence for a Causal Link Between Disease and Damaging Behavior in Pigs

Damaging behaviors (DB) such as tail and ear biting are prevalent in pig production and reduce welfare and performance. Anecdotal reports suggest that health challenges increase the risk of tail-biting. The prevalence of tail damage and health problems show high correlations across batches within and between farms. There are many common risk factors for tail-biting and health problems, notably respiratory, enteric and locomotory diseases. These include suboptimal thermal climate, hygiene, stocking density and feed quality. The prevalence of tail damage and health problems also show high correlations across batches within and between farms. However, limited evidence supports two likely causal mechanisms for a direct link between DB and health problems. The first is that generalized poor health (e.g., enzootic pneumonia) on farm poses an increased risk of pigs performing DB. Recent studies indicate a possible causal link between an experimental inflammation and an increase in DB, and suggest a link between cytokines and tail-biting. The negative effects of poor health on the ingestion and processing of nutrients means that immune-stimulated pigs may develop specific nutrient deficiencies, increasing DB. The second causal mechanism involves tail-biting causing poor health. Indirectly, pathogens enter the body via the tail lesion and once infected, systemic spread of infection may occur. This occurs mainly via the venous route targeting the lungs, and to a lesser extent via cerebrospinal fluid and the lymphatic system. In carcasses with tail lesions, there is an increase in lung lesions, abscessation, arthritis and osteomyelitis. There is also evidence for the direct spread of pathogens between biters and victims. In summary, the literature supports the association between poor health and DB, particularly tail-biting. However, there is insufficient evidence to confirm causality in either direction. Nevertheless, the limited evidence is compelling enough to suggest that improvements to management and housing to enhance pig health will reduce DB. In the same way, improvements to housing and management designed to address DB, are likely to result in benefits to pig health. While most of the available literature relates to tail-biting, we suggest that similar mechanisms are responsible for links between health and other DB.

Analysis of Housing Risk Factors for the Welfare of Lean and Heavy Pigs in a Sample of European Fattening Farms

Simple Summary

Animal welfare is a major challenge that most European pig producers have been facing in recent decades to comply with EU legislation and to meet the increasing societal and market demand for pork produced in a sustainable way. Pig welfare is ruled in terms of minimum requirements for housing and management, but stakeholders have considered that both farm-level and animal-based indicators are fundamental to monitor animal welfare. Some of the welfare issues still affecting fattening pigs are the lack of space, bedding and manipulable material, and the continued practice of routine tail docking of pigs. Tail docking is applied routinely across most European countries to reduce the occurrence of severe tail biting lesions, despite its ban in the EU. An observational study on 51 pig farms in seven EU countries, aimed at investigating housing risk factors for the welfare of finishing pigs, showed that body weight and presence of bedded solid floored resting area (BED) identify three clusters of farms. The outcomes of this study confirmed that BED and larger availability of space per pig, above the minimum requirement of EU legislation, can limit the occurrence of lesions in pigs with undocked tails.

Abstract

Pig welfare is affected by housing conditions, the minimum requirements of which are set up by EU legislation. Animal and non-animal-based measures are useful indicators to investigate housing risk factors for pig welfare. An observational study on 51 pig farms in seven EU countries, aimed at investigating housing risk factors for the welfare of finishing pigs, showed body weight and presence of bedded solid floored resting area (BED) identifying three clusters of farms. Farms with BED were featured by no or limited tail docking, larger availability of manipulable materials and lower number of pigs per farm and per annual work unit. In these farms, less skin and ear lesions were found, compared with lean pigs of farms without BED, which were characterized by lower pig space allowance, mortality rate and medication cost. In farms without BED, heavy pigs were featured by more space per pig, more pigs per drinker and higher mortality rate and medication cost per pig, compared to lean pigs. No statistical difference in tail lesions was found between the three farm clusters, although tail docking was performed in all farms without BED and not performed on most farms with BED.

Abattoir-Based Measures to Assess Swine Welfare: Analysis of the Methods Adopted in European Slaughterhouses

The assessment of swine welfare requires feasible, reliable, and reasonable indicators. On-farm evaluation of pig welfare can provide valuable information to veterinarians and farmers. However, such protocols can result expensive and time-consuming. With this regard, an interest in the appraisal of swine welfare at abattoir has grown over the recent years. In particular, the use of certain lesions collected directly from slaughtered animals to determine the welfare status of pigs has been evaluated by several authors. In the present review, the different methods developed to score lesions collected directly from the body and the viscera of animals slaughtered in European abattoirs ("abattoir-based measures") are presented. The text specifically focuses on the methods currently available in the literature for the scoring of body, pluck and gastric lesions during post-mortem activities. Moreover, the strengths and weaknesses of abattoir-based measures schemes are discussed. To conclude, the future perspectives of the assessment of pig welfare at the slaughterhouse are described, appealing for a benchmarking system that can be systematically used by veterinarians and other professional figures involved in the process.

On-Farm Welfare Assessment Protocol for Suckling Piglets: A Pilot Study

Piglets experience welfare issues during the nursery phase. This pilot study aimed to test a protocol for identifying the main welfare issues in suckling piglets and to investigate relationships among animal-based indicators and management conditions. Litters (n = 134), composed of undocked and tail-docked piglets, were assessed at two farms. After birth, observations were made at the age of 7 days and 20 days. At each observation, housing conditions (HCs) were measured, and 13 animal-based indicators, modified from Welfare Quality, Classyfarm, Assurewel and others introduced ex novo, were recorded. A generalized linear mixed model was used, considering animal-based indicators as dependent variables and farm, piglets' age, tail docking and HCs as independent variables. The main welfare issues were lesions of the limb (32.6%) and the front area of the body (22.8%), a poor body condition score (BCS) (16.1%), ear lesions (15.5%), and tail lesions (9.7%). Negative social behaviour (e.g., fighting and biting) represented 7.0% of the active behaviour, with tail biting observed in 8.7% of the piglets. While lesions on the front areas of the body were mostly associated with the farm, tail lesions, low BCS, tear staining, and diarrhoea were associated with light and nest temperature (p < 0.05). In particular, tail biting increased with scarce light (p = 0.007). Tail docking did not influence any animal-based indicator except for tear staining which was higher in the tail-docked as compared to the undocked piglets (p = 0.05), increasing awareness on this practice as a source of negative emotion in piglets. The protocol tested may be a promising tool for assessing on-farm piglets' welfare.

Health scores for farmed animals: Screening pig health with register data from public and private databases

There are growing demands to ensure animal health and, from a broader perspective, animal welfare, especially for farmed animals. In addition to the newly developed welfare assessment protocols, which provide a harmonised method to measure animal health during farm visits, the question has been raised whether data from existing data collections can be used for an assessment without a prior farm visit. Here, we explore the possibilities of developing animal health scores for fattening pig herds using a) official meat inspection results, b) data on antibiotic usage and c) data from the QS (QS Qualität und Sicherheit GmbH) Salmonella monitoring programme in Germany. The objective is to aggregate and combine these register-like data into animal health scores that allow the comparison and benchmark of participating pig farms according to their health status. As the data combined in the scores have different units of measure and are collected in different abattoirs with possibly varying recording practices, we chose a relative scoring approach using z-transformations of different entrance variables. The final results are aggregated scores in which indicators are combined and weighted based on expert opinion according to their biological significance for animal health. Six scores have been developed to describe different focus areas, such as "Respiratory Health", "External Injuries/ Alterations", "Animal Management", "Antibiotic Usage", "Salmonella Status" and "Mortality". These "focus" area scores are finally combined into an "Overall Score". To test the scoring method, existing routine data from 1,747 pig farm units in Germany are used; these farm units are members of the QS Qualität und Sicherheit GmbH (QS) quality system. In addition, the scores are directly validated for 38 farm units. For these farm units, the farmers and their veterinarians provided their perceptions concerning the actual health status and existing health problems. This process allowed a comparison of the scoring results with actual health information using kappa coefficients as a measure of similarity. The score testing of the focus area scores using real information resulted in normalised data. The results of the validation showed satisfactory agreement between the calculated scores for the project farm units and the actual health information provided by the related farmers and veterinarians. In conclusion, the developed scoring method could become a viable benchmark and risk assessment instrument for animal health on a larger scale under the conditions of the German system.

Recording behaviour of indoor-housed farm animals automatically using machine vision technology: A systematic review

Large-scale phenotyping of animal behaviour traits is time consuming and has led to increased demand for technologies that can automate these procedures. Automated tracking of animals has been successful in controlled laboratory settings, but recording from animals in large groups in highly variable farm settings presents challenges. The aim of this review is to provide a systematic overview of the advances that have occurred in automated, high throughput image detection of farm animal behavioural traits with welfare and production implications. Peer-reviewed publications written in English were reviewed systematically following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. After identification, screening, and assessment for eligibility, 108 publications met these specifications and were included for qualitative synthesis. Data collected from the papers included camera specifications, housing conditions, group size, algorithm details, procedures, and results. Most studies utilized standard digital colour video cameras for data collection, with increasing use of 3D cameras in papers published after 2013. Papers including pigs (across production stages) were the most common (n = 63). The most common behaviours recorded included activity level, area occupancy, aggression, gait scores, resource use, and posture. Our review revealed many overlaps in methods applied to analysing behaviour, and most studies started from scratch instead of building upon previous work. Training and validation sample sizes were generally small (mean±s.d. groups = 3.8±5.8) and in data collection and testing took place in relatively controlled environments. To advance our ability to automatically phenotype behaviour, future research should build upon existing knowledge and validate technology under commercial settings and publications should explicitly describe recording conditions in detail to allow studies to be reproduced.

Reducing estimated tail biting risk in German weaner pigs using a management tool

The tail biting management tool 'SchwIP' was developed to analyse estimated farm individual risk for tail biting and to support farmers to reduce risk. The risk factors included in SchwIP had been weighted by 61 experts regarding their strength of influence on tail biting. SchwIP was applied on 21 conventional farms throughout Germany that kept weaner pigs in closed barns. All farms were assessed with the SchwIP questionnaire and received farm-individual feedback and advice on how to reduce tail biting risk. There were no control farms with assessment only, because asking questions could raise awareness thus triggering improvements. Each farm was visited three times at 6 monthly intervals. Risk factor data collected on farms were replaced with the corresponding expert weighting, and weightings were then standardised to a range of 0 - 1 across all farms and visits. All standardised risks were summarised per farm and visit. From this, within-farm differences in farm risk sums between visit 1 and 2 (ΔRS12), 2 and 3 (ΔRS23) and 1 and 3 (ΔRS13), and the association between changes in single risk factors with ΔRS, were calculated. Farm risk sums significantly decreased from visit 1 to visit 2 and 3, respectively, but not from visit 2 to visit 3. Change in farm risk sums between visit 1 and 2 was significantly correlated with 59 factors; ΔRS23 with 54 factors; and ΔRS13 with 57 factors. Eighteen factors were significantly associated with all three ΔRS. The management tool SchwIP contributed to a reduction in estimated risk for tail biting in weaners after the first visit. There was no apparent pattern of changes in risk factors on the farms, which underlines the multifactorial nature of tail biting. Further on-farm research on tail biting risk factors and tail lesions is needed to better understand the complex relationship.

Damaging Behaviour and Associated Lesions in Relation to Types of Enrichment for Finisher Pigs on Commercial Farms

Simple Summary

EU legislation states that all pigs must have access to material that allows them to perform investigation and manipulation activities. This reduces the risk of pigs performing damaging behaviours (e.g., tail, ear and flank biting). The aim of this study was to determine associations between damaging behaviours performed by finisher pigs, the related lesions and the use of different types of enrichment. Finisher pigs were observed on 31 commercial pig farms in Ireland and the number of pigs affected by tail, ear and flank lesions as well as all occurrences of damaging behaviour (tail-, ear- and flank-directed behaviour) were recorded. The type (chain, plastic or wood) of enrichment provided was noted; chains were the most common (41.4% of farms), followed by plastic (37.9%) and wood (20.7%). Damaging behaviour was more frequent on farms that provided chains compared to plastic or wood, particularly tail- and flank-directed behaviour was affected. The prevalence of lesions tended to be higher on farms where chains were provided compared to wooden enrichment devices. This was due to a higher prevalence of mild tail lesions on farms using chains. Results suggest that despite chains being commonly used, they did not fulfill their role in reducing damaging behaviours and associated lesions in finisher pigs.

Abstract

EU legislation states that all pigs must have access to material that allows them to perform investigation and manipulation activities, thereby reducing the risk of pigs performing damaging behaviours (e.g., tail, ear and flank biting). We aimed to determine associations between damaging behaviours performed by finisher pigs, the related lesions and the use of different types of enrichment. Six randomly selected pens of finisher pigs were observed for 10 min each on 31 commercial pig farms in Ireland. All pigs were counted and the number of pigs affected by tail, ear and flank lesions was recorded. During the last 5 min, all occurrences of damaging behaviour (tail-, ear- and flank-directed behaviour) were recorded. The type (chain, plastic or wood) and number of accessible enrichment objects/pen was recorded. Chains were the most common (41.4% of farms), followed by plastic (37.9%) and wood (20.7%). Damaging behaviour was more frequent on farms that provided chains compared to plastic or wood. Farms with chains were associated with a higher frequency of flank-directed behaviour and tended to be associated with a higher frequency of tail-directed behaviour compared to farms that provided plastic devices. The prevalence of lesions tended to be higher on farms where chains were provided compared to wooden enrichment devices, mostly driven by a difference in the prevalence of mild tail lesions. Results support expert opinions that despite being commonly used, chains did not fulfill a role in reducing damaging behaviours and associated lesions in finisher pigs compared to other forms of enrichment.

Producer Perceptions of the Prevention of Tail Biting on UK Farms: Association to Bedding Use and Tail Removal Proportion

Simple Summary

Tail biting is a serious behavioural problem in modern pig production which causes both animal welfare challenges and economic losses. The aim of this study was to collect information on the perceptions of farmers on how to best prevent tail biting, and on their attitudes towards tail biting and docking. Further, the aim was to investigate if perceptions are influenced by the specific system of farming, with a focus on different levels of bedding use and different tail docking practices. To achieve the goal, pig producers in the UK were surveyed. The results show that producers rank the importance of preventive measures differently to scientists and other experts. This calls for consideration when communicating with producers, and for further consideration of producer knowledge, which might be based on a more holistic view than that of researchers. The study also shows that the perception of how to best prevent and intervene to avoid tail biting differs between farms of different types, and that these perceptions might be influenced by the farmers’ own experiences, which again, might differ between countries and farming systems.

Abstract

Tail biting causes widespread problems both for animal welfare and in the form of economic losses in pig production. This study was performed to better understand the perceptions of farmers on how to best prevent tail biting, and if perceptions are influenced by the specific system of farming, with a focus on different levels of bedding use and docking different proportions of the tail of their pigs. Pig producers in the UK were surveyed on their perceptions of the efficacy of preventive measures and attitudes towards tail biting and docking. In total, 204 responses were included. The results show that producers rank the importance of preventive measures differently to scientists and other experts. This calls for consideration when communicating with producers; and for better integration of knowledge based on practical experiences with scientific results. The study also shows that the perception of how to best avoid tail biting differs between farms of different types, and that these perceptions might be influenced by the farmers´ own experiences—one example being that farms currently using plentiful amounts of bedding also value this more highly as a way to avoid tail biting than those that do not.

Changes in saliva proteins in two conditions of compromised welfare in pigs: An experimental induced stress by nose snaring and lameness

The aim of this study was to identify biological pathways and proteins differentially expressed in saliva of pigs in two conditions of compromised welfare: an acute stress consisting of restraint with a nose snare and in pigs with lameness which is a highly frequent problem in the swine industry. For this purpose, high-resolution quantitative proteomics based on Tandem Mass Tags labelling was used. Four proteins showed significant differences in the conditions of compromised welfare, namely cornulin, the heat shock protein 27 and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), that showed significant increases, whereas immunoglobulin J chain showed a significant decrease. LDH, which was the protein that showed the highest differences, was selected for validation and clinical evaluation as a diagnostic biomarker. Significant changes in this protein were observed between pigs restrained with a nose snare and pigs with lameness compared with healthy pigs when measured with available commercial assays in a larger population of pigs. In conclusion, this study reports that in situations of compromised welfare on farm, such as acute stress and lameness in pigs, there are changes in proteins and metabolic pathways in saliva, and describes a series of proteins that could potentially be used as biomarkers for both short term acute stress and longer term chronic stress of lameness. These biomarkers would have the advantage of being measured in saliva by a noninvasive and not stressful collection sampling procedure.

Providing Effective Environmental Enrichment to Pigs: How Far Have We Come?

Science has defined the characteristics of effective environmental enrichment for pigs. We provide an overview of progress towards the provision of pig enrichment in the three largest global pork producing regions. In the USA, enrichment has not yet featured on the policy agenda, nor appeared on farms, except when required by certain farm assurance schemes. China has very limited legal animal welfare provisions and public awareness of animal welfare is very low. Food safety concerns severely restrict the use of substrates (as enrichment) on farms. Providing enrichment to pigs is a legal requirement in the EU. In practice, enrichment is not present, or simple (point-source) objects are provided which have no enduring value. Other common issues are the provision of non-effective or hazardous objects, inadequate presentation, location, quantity and size or inadequate maintenance of enrichment. Improvements can be made by applying principles from the field of experimental analysis of behaviour to evaluate the effectiveness of enrichment; providing welfare knowledge transfer, including training and advisory services; highlighting the economic benefits of effective enrichment and focusing on return on investment; increasing pressure from the financial sector; using novel drivers of change, such as public business benchmarking. The poor implementation of scientific knowledge on farms suggests that the pig industry has not fully embraced the benefits of effective enrichment and is still a long way off achieving an enriched pig population.

'Would it sell more pork?' Pig farmers' perceptions of Real Welfare, the welfare outcome component of their farm assurance scheme

In the UK, the pig industry is leading the way in the adoption of welfare outcome measures as part of their farm assurance scheme. The welfare outcome assessment (WOA), known as Real Welfare, is conducted by the farmers' own veterinary surgeon. For the first time, this has allowed the pig industry to evaluate welfare by directly assessing the animal itself and to document the welfare of the UK pig industry as a whole. Farmer perspectives of the addition of a welfare outcome assessment to their farm assurance scheme have yet to be explored. Here, we investigate how the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol has been perceived by the farmers involved, what value it has (if any), whether any practical changes on farm have been a direct consequence of Real Welfare and ultimately whether they consider that the welfare of their pigs has been improved by the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol. Semi-structured interviews with 15 English pig farmers were conducted to explore their perceptions and experiences of the Real Welfare process. Our findings fall into three key areas: the lived experience of Real Welfare, on-farm changes resulting from Real Welfare and suggested improvements to the Real Welfare process as it currently stands. In all the three areas, the value farmers placed on the addition of WOA appeared to reflect their veterinary surgeon's attitude towards the Real Welfare protocol. If the vet was engaged in the process and actively included the farmer, for example through discussion of their findings, the farmers interviewed had a greater appreciation of the benefits of Real Welfare themselves. It is recommended that future similar schemes should work with veterinary surgeons to ensure their understanding and engagement with the process, as well as identifying and promoting how the scheme will practically benefit individual farmers rather than assuming that they will be motivated to engage for the good of the industry alone. Retailers should be encouraged to use Real Welfare as a marketing tool for pig products to enhance the perceived commercial value of this protocol to farmers.

Effects of three husbandry systems on health, welfare and productivity of organic pigs

Organic pig husbandry systems in Europe are diverse - ranging from indoor systems with concrete outside run (IN) to outdoor systems all year round (OUT) and combinations of both on one farm (POUT). As this diversity has rarely been taken into account in research projects on organic pig production, the aim of this study was to assess and compare pig health, welfare and productivity in these three systems. Animal health and welfare were assessed using direct observation and records of 22 animal-based measures, comprising 17 health-, 3 productivity- and 2 behavioural measures. These were collected in pregnant sows, weaners and fattening pigs during direct observations and from records within a cross-sectional study on 74 farms (IN: n = 34, POUT: n = 28, OUT: n = 12) in eight countries. Overall, prevalence of several animal health and welfare issues was low (e.g. median 0% for pigs needing hospitalisation, shoulder lesions, ectoparasites; <5% for runts, tail lesions, conjunctivitis). Exceptions in particular systems were respiratory problems in weaners and fatteners (IN: 60.0%, 66.7%; POUT: 66.7%, 60.0%), weaning diarrhoea (IN: 25.0%), and short tails in fatteners (IN: 6.5%, POUT: 2.3%). Total suckling piglet losses (recorded over a period of 12 months per farm) were high in all three systems (IN: 21.3%; POUT: 21.6; OUT: 19.2%). OUT had lower prevalences of respiratory problems, diarrhoea and lameness of sows. POUT farms in most cases kept sows outdoors and weaners and fatteners similar to IN farms, which was reflected in the results regarding several health and welfare parameters. It can be concluded, that European organic pigs kept in all three types of husbandry system showed a low prevalence of health and welfare problems as assessed by our methodology, but respiratory health and diarrhoea should be improved in weaners and fatteners kept indoors and total piglet mortality in all systems. The results provide benchmarks for organic pig producers and organisations which can be used in strategies to promote health and welfare improvement. Furthermore, in future research, the identified health and welfare issues (e.g. suckling piglet mortality, weaning diarrhoea) should be addressed, specifically considering effects of husbandry systems.

Prevalence of welfare outcomes in the weaner and finisher stages of the production cycle on 31 Irish pig farms

BACKGROUND

Knowledge on the most prevalent welfare problems for pigs in different production stages is required to improve herd management plans. Thirty-one farrow-to-finish pig farms were visited between July and November 2015 to assess the welfare of pigs using the multicriteria approach of the Welfare Quality® protocol. On each farm, 6 pens were selected using proportionate stratified sampling in the first weaner (S1, 4 to 8 wks), second weaner (S2, 8 to 13 wks) and finisher stage (S3, 13 to 23 wks), excluding hospital pens. Each pen was observed for 10 min and the number of pigs affected by different welfare outcomes was recorded. The percentage of pigs affected was calculated and ranked to identify the most prevalent outcomes within each production stage. Differences between production stages were analysed using generalised linear mixed models for binomial data with pen within stage and farm as a random effect.

RESULTS

Tail and ear lesions showed the highest prevalence; however, large variation was observed between farms. In S1 the most prevalent welfare outcomes (presented as median prevalence) were poor body condition (4.4%), lethargic pigs (1.5%), scouring (20.3% of pens) and huddling (3.7%). In S2 and S3 outcomes related to injurious behaviour (tail lesions: 5.9% [S2] and 10.5% [S3], ear lesions: 9.1% [S2] and 3.3% [S3], and flank lesions: 0.4% [S2] and 1.3% [S3]), lameness (0.8% [S2] and 1.1% [S3]), bursitis (3.9% [S2] and 7.5% [S3]) and hernias (1.6% [S2] and 1.8% [S3]) were more prevalent.

CONCLUSIONS

A large variation was observed for the recorded welfare outcomes corresponding to the different challenges pigs experience during the different stages of production on commercial pig farms. The prevalence of pigs affected by lesions caused by injurious behavior is a cause for concern and requires a collaborative approach to identify appropriate intervention strategies. This information could be used to further investigate appropriate benchmark values for different welfare outcomes that would assist the pig industry to develop appropriate health and welfare management plans to minimise welfare problems. At herd level such plans should include information on aspects of intervention, treatment, and the management of hospital pens as well as euthanasia.

Connecting Different Data Sources to Assess the Interconnections between Biosecurity, Health, Welfare, and Performance in Commercial Pig Farms in Great Britain

This study aimed to provide an overview of the interconnections between biosecurity, health, welfare, and performance in commercial pig farms in Great Britain. We collected on-farm data about the level of biosecurity and animal performance in 40 fattening pig farms and 28 breeding pig farms between 2015 and 2016. We identified interconnections between these data, slaughterhouse health indicators, and welfare indicator records in fattening pig farms. After achieving the connections between databases, a secondary data analysis was performed to assess the interconnections between biosecurity, health, welfare, and performance using correlation analysis, principal component analysis, and hierarchical clustering. Although we could connect the different data sources the final sample size was limited, suggesting room for improvement in database connection to conduct secondary data analyses. The farm biosecurity scores ranged from 40 to 90 out of 100, with internal biosecurity scores being lower than external biosecurity scores. Our analysis suggested several interconnections between health, welfare, and performance. The initial correlation analysis showed that the prevalence of lameness and severe tail lesions was associated with the prevalence of enzootic pneumonia-like lesions and pyaemia, and the prevalence of severe body marks was associated with several disease indicators, including peritonitis and milk spots (r > 0.3; P < 0.05). Higher average daily weight gain (ADG) was associated with lower prevalence of pleurisy (r > 0.3; P < 0.05), but no connection was identified between mortality and health indicators. A subsequent cluster analysis enabled identification of patterns which considered concurrently indicators of health, welfare, and performance. Farms from cluster 1 had lower biosecurity scores, lower ADG, and higher prevalence of several disease and welfare indicators. Farms from cluster 2 had higher biosecurity scores than cluster 1, but a higher prevalence of pigs requiring hospitalization and lameness which confirmed the correlation between biosecurity and the prevalence of pigs requiring hospitalization (r > 0.3; P < 0.05). Farms from cluster 3 had higher biosecurity, higher ADG, and lower prevalence for some disease and welfare indicators. The study suggests a smaller impact of biosecurity on issues such as mortality, prevalence of lameness, and pig requiring hospitalization. The correlations and the identified clusters suggested the importance of animal welfare for the pig industry.