Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:00:11.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationships between pig welfare, productivity and farmer disposition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

T Jääskeläinen ,
T Kauppinen ,
KM Vesala  and
A Valros
T Jääskeläinen*
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Animal Welfare and Department of Production Animal Medicine, PO Box 57, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
T Kauppinen
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Animal Welfare and Department of Production Animal Medicine, PO Box 57, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
KM Vesala
Affiliation:
Department of Social Research, PO Box 54, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
A Valros
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Animal Welfare and Department of Production Animal Medicine, PO Box 57, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
*
* 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 aim of this study was, firstly, to investigate the connection between on-farm assessed welfare scores and production parameters for sows, and secondly, to examine how farmers perceive the connection between their disposition, animal welfare and productivity. We assessed environmental and management preconditions on animal welfare and interviewed farmers on 30 Finnish farms. We studied the relationship between welfare and production using correlation and regression analyses. The theory of planned behaviour served as an articulation of farmer disposition when studying farmer perceptions. Concerning the production data, better welfare scores from the ‘health and stockmanship’ category during lactation were correlated with shorter reproduction cycle and fewer stillborn piglets and it also explained some of the variation in the number of piglets per year and the length of the farrowing interval. The farmers agreed that the productivity parameters and the principles of assessing welfare used in this study were relevant. A majority of farmers considered that animal welfare affects productivity and that there are associations between farmer attitudes, animal welfare and productivity. There were no statistical relationships between farmer perceptions and animal welfare; yet on the farms of farmers with positive perceptions of attitudes to animal welfare and productivity there were slightly lower piglet mortality rates and lower stillbirth rates than on the farms with farmers holding less positive views. We conclude that actions to improve animal welfare also have an economic impact as they enhance sow production. Good stockmanship and healthier animals result in more piglets born and a shorter reproduction cycle.

Keywords

animal welfareattitudefarmerpigproductiontheory of planned behaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , November 2014 , pp. 435 - 443
Copyright
© 2014 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ajzen, I 1991 The Theory of Planned Behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-TCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC 1996 Can we extrapolate from intensive to exten-sive conditions? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 23–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)00664-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arey, DS and Edwards, SA 1998 Factors influencing aggression between sows after mixing and the consequences for welfare and production. Livestock Production Science 56: 61–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(98)00144-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armitage, CJ and Conner, M 2001 Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology 40: 471–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/01446660 1164939CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartussek, H 1999 A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals’ well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61: 179–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00067-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Bonde, M, Butterworth, A, Perny, P, Bracke, MBM, Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2007 Aggregation of meas-ures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare Part 1: a review of existing methods. Animal 1: 1179–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lauwere, C, van Asseldonk, M, van t’Riet, J, de Hoop, J and ten Pierick, E 2012 Understanding farmers’ decisions with regard to animal welfare: the case of changing to group housing for pregnant sows. Livestock Science 143: 151–161Google Scholar
Einarsson, S, Madej, A and Tsuma, V 1996 The influence of stress on early pregnancy in the pig. Animal Reproduction Science 42: 165–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-4320(96)01516-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1992 FAWC updates the Five Freedoms. The Veterinary Record 131: 357Google Scholar
Hanna, D, Sneddon, IA and Beattie, VE 2009 The relationship between the stockperson's personality and attitudes and the pro-ductivity of dairy cows. Animal 3: 737–743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109003991Google ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH 2007 Ethical stockmanship. Australian Veterinary Journal 85: 194–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2007.00112.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Coleman, GJ 2009 The integration of human-animal relations into animal welfare moni-toring schemes. Animal Welfare 18: 335–345Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ and Barnett, JL 1994 Improving the attitude and behaviour of stockpersons towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 349–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(94)90168-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewson, C 2003 What is animal welfare? Common definitions and their practical consequence. The Canadian Veterinary Journal 44: 496–499Google Scholar
Holyoake, PK, Dial, GD, Trigg, T and King, VL 1995 Reducing pig mortality through supervision during the perinatal period. Journal of Animal Science 73: 3542–3551Google ScholarPubMed
Hubbard, C and Scott, K 2011 Do farmers and scientists differ in their understanding and assessment of farm animal welfare? Animal Welfare 20: 79–87Google Scholar
Kauppinen, T, Vainio, A, Valros, A, Rita, H and Vesala, KM 2010 Improving animal welfare: qualitative and quantitative method-ology in the study of farmers’ attitudes. Animal Welfare 19: 523–536Google Scholar
Kauppinen, T, Vesala, KM and Valros, A 2011 Farmer attitude toward improvement of animal welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters. Livestock Science 143: 142–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.09.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, LJ 2005 Healthy and happy: animal welfare as an integral part of sustainable agriculture. Ambio 34: 316–319Google ScholarPubMed
Kongsted, AG 2006 Relation between reproduction performance and indicators of feed intake, fear and social stress in commercial herds with group-housed non-lactating sows. Livestock Science 101:46–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.09.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, A, Brandt, Y, Häger, M, Razdan, P, Madej, A and Einarsson, S 2003 Influence of simulated stress during pro-oestrus on oestrous cycle characteristics in the sow. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 38: 356Google Scholar
Marchant, JN, Rudd, AR, Mendl, MT, Broom, DM, Meredith, MJ, Corning, S and Simmins, PH 2000 Timing and causes of piglet mor-tality in alternative and conventional farrowing systems. The Veterinary Record 147: 209–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.147.8.209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moberg, GP 2000 Biological response to stress: implications for animal welfare. In: Moberg, GP and Mench, JA (eds) The Biology of Animal Stress. Basic Principles and Implications for Animal Welfare pp 1–22. CABI International: Wallingford, Oxon, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9780851993591.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munsterhjelm, C, Valros, A, Heinonen, M, Hälli, O and Peltoniemi, OAT 2006 Welfare index and reproductive per-formance in the sow. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 41: 494–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2006.00700.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napolitano, F, De Rosa, G, Ferrante, V, Grasso, F and Braghieri, A 2009 Monitoring the welfare of sheep in organic and conventional farms using an ANI 35 L derived method. Small Ruminant Research 83: 49–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrum-res.2009.04.001Google Scholar
Prunier, A, de Braganca, MM and Le Dividich, J 1997 Influence of high ambient temperature on performance of repro-ductive sows. Livestock Production Science 52: 123–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(97)00137-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prunier, A, Dourmad, JY and Etienne, M 1994 Effect of light regimen under various ambient temperatures on sow and litter performance. Journal of Animal Science 72: 1461–1466CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prunier, A, Quesnel, H, de Bragança, MM and Kermabon, AY 1996 Environmental and seasonal influences on the return-to-oestrus after weaning in primiparous sows: a review. Livestock Production Science 45: 103–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(96)00007-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scientific Veterinary Committee 1997 The Welfare of Intensively kept Pigs. Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee. http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out17_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sevi, A 2009 Animal-based measures for welfare assessment. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8: 904–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straw, BE and Wilson, MR 1985 Diagnosis of Swine Diseases, Eighth Edition. Pig World. Inc: Minnesota, USAGoogle Scholar
Turner, AI, Hemsworth, PH and Tilbrook, AJ 2005 Susceptibility of reproduction in female pigs to impairment by stress or elevation of cortisol. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 29:398–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.domaniend.2005.02.031CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veissier, I and Boissy, A 2007 Stress and welfare: two comple-mentary concepts that are intrinsically related to the animal's point of view. Physiology & Behavior 92: 429–433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.11.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Borell, E, Dobson, H and Prunier, A 2007 Stress, behaviour and reproductive performance in female cattle and pigs. Hormones and Behavior 52: 130–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.03.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C and Coleman, G 2002 The relation-ship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79: 195–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00155-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, R, Keil, NM and Horat, R 2007 Piglet mortality on farms using farrowing systems with or without crates. Animal Welfare 16: 277–279Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Pigs. Welfare Quality Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar