Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:06:04.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the welfare level of intensive fattening pig farms in Germany with the Welfare Quality® protocol: does farm size matter?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

SEK Meyer-Hamme ,
C Lambertz  and
M Gauly
SEK Meyer-Hamme
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Georg-August-University, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, 37075 Göttingen, Germany
C Lambertz*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Universitätsplatz 5, 39100 Bolzano, Italy
M Gauly
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Universitätsplatz 5, 39100 Bolzano, Italy
*
∗ Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The housing condition of pig (Sus scrofa) fattening farms are increasingly receiving criticism, because they are associated with impaired animal welfare. Consumers view the increase in farm sizes critically, even though scientifically based knowledge on the relationship between farm size and welfare is still limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the welfare level of conventional fattening pig farms in Germany and to evaluate the relationship between farm size and animal welfare level. In total, the Welfare Quality® protocol (WQ) for pigs was applied on 60 farms. Farms were classified according to their size into small (< 1,500 pigs per farm), medium (1,500-3,000 pigs per farm) and large (> 3,000 pigs per farm). Independent of the farm size, the overall WQ classifications ‘excellent’ and ‘not classified’ were not recorded in any of the farms, while ‘enhanced’ and ‘acceptable’ was achieved by 80 and 20% of the farms, respectively. Farm sizes had no effect on any of the four principles ‘good feeding’, ‘good housing’, ‘good health’ or ‘appropriate behaviour’. Overall, moderate bursitis (35%) was found to be the most prevalent indicator of welfare-related problems. However, it did not differ between farm sizes. Another highly prevalent indicator, moderately soiled body, increased from 11.1% in small-to 20.8% in large-sized farms. In conclusion, our findings show that none of the farm sizes were superior in terms of animal welfare. Overall, acceptable or enhanced scores were achieved for many of the criteria, however the need for improvement in other criteria such as ‘expression of other behaviour’ and ‘positive emotional state’, was clear.

Keywords

animal-based indicatorsanimal welfarefarm sizefattening pigshousing systemsWelfare Quality® assessment protocol
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , August 2018 , pp. 275 - 286
Copyright
© 2018 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Baptista, FM, Alban, L, Nielsen, LR, Domingos, I, Pomba, C and Almeida, V 2010 Use of herd information for predicting sal-monella status in pig herds. Zoonoses and Public Health 57: 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1863-2378.2010.01354.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, H, Jones, B, Veissier, I and Miele, M 2013 Assessing and improving farm animal welfare: the way forward. In: Blokhuis H, Jones B, Veissier I and Miele M (eds) Improving Farm Animal Welfare - Science and Society Working Together: The Welfare Quality® Approach pp 215–222. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Gelderland, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-770-7_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Geers, R, Miele, M and Veissier, I 2003 Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 12: 445–455Google Scholar
Botermans, JAM and Svendsen, J 2000 Effect of feeding envi-ronment on performance, injuries and behaviour in growing-fin-ishing pigs: Group-based studies. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 50:237–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/090647000750069430Google Scholar
Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz 2013 Gesetz zum Schutz vor schädlichen Umwelteinwirkungen durch Luftverunreinigungen, Geräusche, Erschütterungen und ähnliche Vorgänge (Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz-BImSchG) in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 17. Mai 2013 (BGBl. I S. 1274). [Title trans-lation: Act on the prevention of harmful effects on the environ-ment caused by air pollution, noise, vibration and similar phenom-ena (Federal Emission Control Act) as amended and promulgated on 17 May 2013, Federal Law Gazette I p 1274]Google Scholar
Carstensen, B and Christensen, J 1998 Herd size and sero-prevalence of Salmonella enterica in Danish swine herds: a random-effects model for register data. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 34:191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(97)00072-XGoogle ScholarPubMed
Courboulay, V and Foubert, C 2007 Testing different methods to evaluate pig welfare on farm. Animal Welfare 16: 193–196Google Scholar
Czycholl, I, Grosse Beilage, E, Henning, C and Krieter, J 2017 Reliability of the quantitative behavior assessment as includ-ed in the Welfare Quality® Assessment protocol for growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 95: 3445–3454Google Scholar
Duncan, IJ and Petherick, J 1991 The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare. Journal of Animal Science 69: 5017–5022. https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.69125017xGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAWC 2012 Report on farm animal welfare: Health and disease pp 1–72. Farm Animal Welfare Committee, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UKGoogle Scholar
Gardner, IA, Willeberg, P and Mousing, J 2002 Empirical and theoretical evidence for herd size as a risk factor for swine dis-eases. Animal Health Research Reviews 3: 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1079/AHRR200239Google Scholar
Grøntvedt, CA, Er, C, Gjerset, B, Hauge, AG, Brun, E, Jørgensen, A, Lium, B and Framstad, T 2013 Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection in Norwegian swine herds 2009/10: The risk of human to swine transmission. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 110: 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevet-med.2013.02.016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Coleman, GJ 1993 The human-animal relationship in agriculture and its consequences for the animal. Animal Welfare 2: 33–51Google Scholar
Hyun, Y and Ellis, M 2001 Effect of group size and feeder type on growth performance and feeding patterns in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 79: 803–810. https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.794803xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kayser, M, Schlieker, K and Spiller, A 2012 Die Wahrnehmung des Begriffs “Massentierhaltung” aus Sicht der Gesellschaft. Berichte über Landwirtschaft 90: 417–427. [Title translation: Societal perception of the term ‘mass animal husbandry’]Google Scholar
Knage-Rasmussen, KM, Sørensen, JT, Rousing, T and Houe, H 2013 No association between sow and slaughter pig herd size and ani-mal welfare index based on on-farm welfare assessment. Proceedings of Does Big Mean Bad? The Science Behind Large Scale Production. 23-24 May 2013, Roslin Institute, University Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2009 On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future per-spectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach. Animal Welfare 18: 451–458Google Scholar
Maes, D, Segales, J, Meyns, T, Sibila, M, Pieters, M and Haesebrouck, F 2008 Control of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae infections in pigs. Veterinary Microbiology 126: 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.09.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer-Hamme, SEK, Lambertz, C and Gauly, M 2016 Does group size have an impact on welfare indicators in fattening pigs? Animal 10: 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115001779CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moinard, C, Mendl, M, Nicol, CJ and Green, LE 2003 A case control study of on-farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00276-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munsterhjelm, C, Heinonen, M and Valros, A 2015 Application of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment system in Finnish pig production, part II: Associations between animal-based and environmental measures of welfare. Animal Welfare 24: 161–172. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.24.2.161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Rourke, N and Hatcher, L 2013 Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. SAS® Institute Inc: Cary, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
Otten, D, Annas, E and van den Weghe, HFA 2013 The appli-cation of animal welfare standards in intensive production systems using the assessment protocols of Welfare Quality®: Fattening pig husbandry in Northwest Germany. International Journal of Livestock Production 4: 49–59. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJLP12.037Google Scholar
Pandolfi, F, Stoddart, K, Wainwright, N, Kyriazakis, I and Edwards, SA 2017 The ‘Real Welfare’ scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for comercially farmed pigs. Animal 10: 1816–1824. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731117000246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rencher, AC 2002 Principal Component Analysis. John Wiley and Sons: New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471271357.ch12Google Scholar
Report of the Agricultural Policy Advisory Council 2015 Report of the agricultural policy advisory council of the German Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection - Bericht des Wissenschaftlichen Beirats der Agrarpolitik: Wege zu einer gesellschaftlich akzeptierten Nutztierhaltung - Gutachten des Wissenschaftlicher Beirats Agrarpolitik beim. BMEL: Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Robbins, JA, von Keyserlingk, MA, Fraser, D and Weary, DM 2016 Invited review: Farm size and animal welfare. Journal of Animal Science 94: 5439–5455. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016-0805Google ScholarPubMed
Robbins, JA, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Fraser, D and Weary, DM 2015 Is bigger better? Farm size and animal welfare. In: Dumitras, DE, Jitea, IM and Aerts, S (eds) Know Your Food. Food Ethics and Innovation pp 121–126. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-813-1_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleicher, C, Scheriau, S, Kopacka, I, Wanda, S, Hofrichter, J and Köfer, J 2013 Analysis of the variation in meat inspection of pigs using variance partitioning. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 111: 278–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevet-med.2013.05.018Google ScholarPubMed
Stärk, KDC, Pfeiffer, DU and Morris, RS 1998 Risk factors for respiratory diseases in New Zealand pig herds. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 46: 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.1998.36043CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistisches Bundesamt 2014 Viehhaltung der Betriebe. Landwirtschaftszählung. Agrarstrukturerhebung. Fachserie 3 Reihe 2.1.3. Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis): Wiesbaden, Germany.[Title translation: Livestock farming. Census of Agriculture. Special Series 3 Series 2.1.3, Federal Statistical Office]Google Scholar
Sutherland, MA, Bryer, PJ, Krebs, N and McGlone, JJ 2008 Tail docking in pigs: acute physiological and behavioural responses. Animal 2: 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731107001450CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Temple, D, Courboulay, V, Manteca, X, Velarde, A and Dalmau, A 2012 The welfare of growing pigs in five different pro-duction systems: assessment of feeding and housing. Animal 6:656–667. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111001868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temple, D, Dalmau, A, Ruiz de la Torre, J, Manteca, X and Velarde, A 2011b Application of the Welfare Quality® protocol to assess growing pigs kept under intensive conditions in Spain. Journal of Veterinary Behaviour: Clinical Applications and Research 6:138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2010.10.003Google Scholar
Temple, D, Manteca, X, Dalmau, A and Velarde, A 2013 Assessment of test-retest reliability of animal-based measures on growing pig farms. Livestock Science 151: 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.10.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temple, D, Manteca, X, Velarde, A and Dalmau, A 2011a Assessment of animal welfare through behavioural parameters in Iberian pigs in intensive and extensive conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 131: 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appla-nim.2011.01.013Google Scholar
Tierschutz-Nutztierhaltungsverordnung 2006 Verordnung zum Schutz landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere und anderer zur Erzeugung tierischer Produkte gehaltener Tiere bei ihrer Haltung (Tierschutz-Nutztierhaltungsverordnung - TierSchNutztV) in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 22. August 2006, Bundesgesetzblatt Jahrgang 2006 Teil I Nr. 41, ausgegeben zu Bonn, Germany, am 31. August 2006, (BGBl. I S. 2053). [Title translation: Order for the protection of production animals used for farming purposes and other animals kept for the production of animal products in the way they are kept (Animal Protection Keeping of Production Animals Order German designation: TierSchNutztV) as amended and promulgated on 22 August 2006; Federal Law Gazette I p. 2053]Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Allcroft, DJ and Edwards, SA 2003 Housing pigs in large social groups: a review of implications for performance and other economic traits. Livestock Production Science 82: 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(03)00008-3Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Ewen, M, Rooke, JA and Edwards, SA 2000 The effect of space allowance on performance, aggression and immune competence of growing pigs housed on straw deep-litter at differ-ent group sizes. Livestock Production Science 66: 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00159-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, de Graaf, S, Heerkens, JLT, Jacobs, L, Nalon, E, Ott, S, Stadig, L, Van Laer, E and Ampe, B 2014 Observer bias in animal behaviour research: can we believe what we score, if we score what we believe? Animal Behaviour 90: 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.02.007Google Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA and Day, JEL 2009 A review of environ-mental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Wolf, PJ 2001 Herd level husbandry factors associated with the serological Salmonella prevalence in finishing pig herds in The Netherlands. Veterinary Microbiology 78: 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(00)00294-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veissier, I 2007 Assuring animal welfare: from societal concerns to implementation. Rationale behind the Welfare Quality® assessment of animal welfare. Second Welfare Quality® Stakeholder Conference pp 19–22. 3-4 May 2007, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Velarde, A, Fabrega, E, Blanco-Penedo, I and Dalmau, A 2015 Animal welfare towards sustainability in pork meat production. Meat Science 109: 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.05.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Velarde, A and Geers, R 2007 On Farm Monitoring of Pig Welfare. Wageningen Academic: Wageningen, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-591-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Boivin, X, Pedersen, V, Tosi, M-V, Janczak, AM, Visser, EK and Jones, RB 2006 Assessing the human–ani-mal relationship in farmed species: A critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101: 185–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs (sow and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Millard, F 2009 Qualitative behavioural assessment. In: Forkman B and Keeling L (eds) Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Sows, Piglets and Fattening Pigs. Welfare Quality Report No 10 pp 213–219. SLU Service: Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Winckler, C and Leeb, C 2010 Wachsende Betriebsgrößen und Tierschutz ein Widerspruch? Proceedings of the Nutztierschutztagung pp 11–14. 27 May 2010, Raumberg-Gumpenstein, Austria. [Title translation: Are increasing farm sizes and animal welfare a contradiction?]Google Scholar
Zheng, DM, Bonde, M and Sørensen, JT 2007 Associations between the proportion of Salmonella seropositive slaughter pigs and the presence of herd level risk factors for introduction and transmission of Salmonella in 34 Danish organic, outdoor (non-organic) and indoor finishing-pig farms. Livestock Science 106: 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.08.003Google Scholar