Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:26:16.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does group size have an impact on welfare indicators in fattening pigs?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2015

S. E. K. Meyer-Hamme ,
C. Lambertz  and
M. Gauly
S. E. K. 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
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Production systems for fattening pigs have been characterized over the last 2 decades by rising farm sizes coupled with increasing group sizes. These developments resulted in a serious public discussion regarding animal welfare and health in these intensive production systems. Even though large farm and group sizes came under severe criticism, it is still unknown whether these factors indeed negatively affect animal welfare. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the effect of group size (<15 v. 15 to 30 v. >30 pigs/pen) on various animal-based measures of the Welfare Quality® protocol for growing pigs under conventional fattening conditions. A total of 60 conventional pig fattening farms with different group sizes in Germany were included. Moderate bursitis (35%) was found as the most prevalent indicator of welfare-related problems, while its prevalence increased with age during the fattening period. However, differences between group sizes were not detected (P>0.05). The prevalence of moderately soiled bodies increased from 9.7% at the start to 14.2% at the end of the fattening period, whereas large pens showed a higher prevalence (15.8%) than small pens (10.4%; P<0.05). With increasing group size, the incidence of moderate wounds with 8.5% and 11.3% in small- and medium-sized pens, respectively, was lower (P<0.05) than in large-sized ones (16.3%). Contrary to bursitis and dirtiness, its prevalence decreased during the fattening period. Moderate manure was less often found in pigs fed by a dry feeder than in those fed by a liquid feeding system (P<0.05). The human–animal relationship was improved in large in comparison to small groups. On the contrary, negative social behaviour was found more often in large groups. Exploration of enrichment material decreased with increasing live weight. Given that all animals were tail-docked, tail biting was observed at a very low rate of 1.9%. In conclusion, the results indicate that BW and feeding system are determining factors for the welfare status, while group size was not proved to affect the welfare level under the studied conditions of pig fattening.

Keywords

animal-based measuresfattening pigsgroup sizewelfare indicators
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 142 - 149
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarnink, AJA, Schrama, JW, Heetkamp, MJW, Stefanowska, J and Huynh, TTT 2006. Temperature and body weight affect fouling of pig pens. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2224–2231.Google Scholar
Averós, X, Brossard, L, Dourmad, JY, de Greef, KH, Edge, HL, Edwards, SA and Meunier-Salaün, MC 2010. Quantitative assessment of the effects of space allowance, group size and floor characteristics on the lying behaviour of growing-finishing pigs. Animal 4, 777–783.Google Scholar
Boissy, A, Manteuffel, G, Jensen, MB, Moe, RO, Spruijt, B, Keeling, LJ, Winckler, C, Forkman, B, Dimitrov, I, Langbein, J, Bakken, M, Veissier, I and Aubert, A 2007. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology and Behavior 22, 375–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botermans, JAM and Svendsen, J 2000. Effect of feeding environment on performance, injuries and behaviour in growing-finishing pigs: group-based studies. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 50, 237–249.Google Scholar
Bryant, MJ and Ewbank, R 1972. Some effects of stocking rate and group size upon agonistic behaviour in groups of growing pigs. British Veterinary Journal 128, 64–70.Google Scholar
D’Eath, RB, Arnott, G, Turner, SP, Jensen, T, Lahrmann, HP, Busch, ME, Niemi, JK, Lawrence, AB and Sandoe, P 2014. Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking? Animal 8, 1479–1497.Google Scholar
FAWC 2012. Report on Farm animal welfare: health and disease. Farm Animal Welfare Committee, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, United Kingdom, 1–72.Google Scholar
Gonyou, HW 2001. The social behaviour of pigs. In Social behaviour in farm animals (ed. LJ Keeling and HW Gonyou), pp. 147–176. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Coleman, GJ 1993. The human-animal relationship in agriculture and its consequences for the animal. Animal Welfare 2, 33–51.Google Scholar
Hoy, S, Gauly, M and Krieter, J 2006. Nutztierhaltung Und -Hygiene, Grundwissen Bachelor. Ulmer Eugen Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Hyun, Y 2001. Effect of group size and feeder type on growth performance and feeding patterns in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 79, 803–810.Google Scholar
Kamphues, J and Schulz, I 2002. Field relevant aspects of the water supply in food producing animals. Übersichten zur Tierernährung - Survey of Animal Nutrition 30, 65–107.Google Scholar
Kayser, M, Schlieker, K and Spiller, A 2012. Die Wahrnehmung des begriffs “massentierhaltung” aus sicht der gesellschaft. Berichte über Landwirtschaft 90, 417–427.Google Scholar
McGlone, J and Newby, B 1994. Space requirements for finishing pigs in confinement: behavior and performance while group size and space vary. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 331–338.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Mouttotou, N, Hatchell, FM and 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, 39–52.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS) 2011. SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 9.3. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Samarakone, TS and Gonyou, HW 2008. Productivity and aggression at grouping of grower-finisher pigs in large groups. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 88, 9–17.Google Scholar
Schmolke, SA, Li, YZ and Gonyou, HW 2003. Effect of group size on performance of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 81, 874–878.Google Scholar
Schröder, MJA and McEachern, MG 2004. Consumer value conflicts surrounding ethical food purchase decisions: a focus on animal welfare. International Journal of Consumer Studies 28, 168–177.Google Scholar
Schrøder-Petersen, DL and Simonsen, HB 2001. Tail biting in pigs. The Veterinary Journal 162, 196–210.Google Scholar
Smith, WJ 1993. A study of adventitious bursitis of the pig hock. Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery. University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Spoolder, HAM, Edwards, S and Corning, S 1999. Effects of group size and feeder space allowance on welfare in finishing pigs. Animal Science 69, 481–489.Google Scholar
Studnitz, M, Jensen, MB and Pedersen, LJ 2007. Why do pigs root and in what will they root?: a review on the exploratory behaviour of pigs in relation to environmental enrichment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107, 183–197.Google Scholar
Taylor, NR, Main, DCJ, Mendl, M and Edwards, SA 2010. Tail-biting: a new perspective. The Veterinary Journal 186, 137–147.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Temple, D, Courboulay, V, Manteca, X, Velarde, A and Dalmau, A 2012. The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems: assessment of feeding and housing. Animal 6, 656–667.Google 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).Google Scholar
Turner, SP and Edwards, SA 2004. Housing immature domestic pigs in large social groups: implications for social organisation in a hierarchical society. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 239–253.Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Sinclair, AG and Edwards, SA 2000. The interaction of liveweight and the degree of competition on drinking behaviour in growing pigs at different group sizes. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67, 321–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Velarde, A, Fabrega, E, Blanco-Penedo, I and Dalmau, A 2015. Animal welfare towards sustainability in pork meat production. Meat Science 21, 309–1740.Google Scholar
Velarde, A, Geers, R 2007. On farm monitoring of pig welfare. Wageningen Academic, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Boivin, X, Pedersen, V, Tosi, M-V, Janczak, AM, Visser, EK and Jones, RB 2006. Assessing the human–animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 185–242.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality (WQP) 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs (sow and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wolter, BF, Ellis, M, Curtis, SE, Augspurger, NR, Hamilton, DN, Parr, EN and Webel, DM 2001. Effect of group size on pig performance in a wean-to-finish production system. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1067–1073.Google Scholar