7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Animal welfare standards have been incorporated in EU legislation and in farm assurance schemes, based on scientific information and aiming to safeguard the welfare of the species concerned. Recently, emphasis has shifted from resource-based measures of welfare to animal-based measures, which are considered to assess more accurately the welfare status. The data used in this analysis were collected from April 2013 to May 2016 through the ‘Real Welfare’ scheme in order to assess on-farm pig welfare, as required for those finishing pigs under the UK Red Tractor Assurance scheme. The assessment involved five main measures (percentage of pigs requiring hospitalization, percentage of lame pigs, percentage of pigs with severe tail lesions, percentage of pigs with severe body marks and enrichment use ratio) and optional secondary measures (percentage of pigs with mild tail lesions, percentage of pigs with dirty tails, percentage of pigs with mild body marks, percentage of pigs with dirty bodies), with associated information about the environment and the enrichment in the farms. For the complete database, a sample of pens was assessed from 1928 farm units. Repeated measures were taken in the same farm unit over time, giving 112 240 records at pen level. These concerned a total of 13 480 289 pigs present on the farm during the assessments, with 5 463 348 pigs directly assessed using the ‘Real Welfare’ protocol. The three most common enrichment types were straw, chain and plastic objects. The main substrate was straw which was present in 67.9% of the farms. Compared with 2013, a significant increase of pens with undocked-tail pigs, substrates and objects was observed over time ( P<0.05). The upper quartile prevalence was <0.2% for all of the four main physical outcomes, and 15% for mild body marks. The percentage of pigs that would benefit from being in a hospital pen was positively correlated to the percentage of lame pigs, and the absence of tail lesions was positively correlated with the absence of body marks ( P<0.05, R>0.3). The results from the first 3 years of the scheme demonstrate a reduction of the prevalence of animal-based measures of welfare problems and highlight the value of this initiative.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Assessing Animal Welfare at the Farm and Group Level: The Interplay of Science and Values

          D Fraser (2003)
          In the social debate about animal welfare we can identify three different views about how animals should be raised and how their welfare should be judged: (1) the view that animals should be raised under conditions that promote good biological functioning in the sense of health, growth and reproduction, (2) the view that animals should be raised in ways that minimise suffering and promote contentment, and (3) the view that animals should be allowed to lead relatively natural lives. When attempting to assess animal welfare, different scientists select different criteria, reflecting one or more of these value-dependent views. Even when ostensibly covering all three views, scientists may differ in what they treat as inherently important versus only instrumentally important, and their selection of variables may be further influenced by a desire to use measures that are scientifically respected and can be scored objectively. Value assumptions may also enter animal welfare assessment at the farm and group level (1) when empirical data provide insufficient guidance on important issues, (2) when we need to weigh conflicting interests of different animals, and (3) when we need to weigh conflicting evidence from different variables. Although value assumptions cannot be eliminated from animal welfare assessment, they can be made more explicit as the first step in creating animal welfare assessment tools. Different value assumptions could lead to different welfare assessment tools, each claiming validity within a given set of assumptions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prevalence of risk factors for tail biting on commercial farms and intervention strategies.

            A husbandry advisory tool (HAT) was devised to help pig producers and their advisors identify and minimise possible risk factors for tail biting in finishing pigs. The prevalence of 83 risk factors identified from the literature and expert opinion was recorded on 65 commercial pig farms in England between May 2007 and July 2009. Those considered most important were associated with atmosphere/environment, environmental enrichment, the provision of food/drink and animal health factors. Forty-six farms received advice on minimising these risks and, of these, 27 also received a financial incentive to encourage the uptake of advice. A reduction in risk factors was observed on 42/57 farms visited at the end of the study, with the greatest reduction occurring on the farms that had been incentivised. However, farms not receiving advice also had reduced risk factors associated with atmosphere/environment and stocking density over the course of the study. In conclusion, while some risk factors are structural and require substantial capital investment to change, a significant reduction in the risk of tail biting can be achieved on many farms through the systematic evaluation and modification of management practices.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              A meta-analysis of the combined effect of housing and environmental enrichment characteristics on the behaviour and performance of pigs

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Animal
                Animal
                ANM
                Animal
                Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, UK )
                1751-7311
                1751-732X
                02 March 2017
                October 2017
                : 11
                : 10
                : 1816-1824
                Affiliations
                [1 ] School of Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University , Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
                [2 ] AHDB PORK , Stoneleigh Park, Kenilworth, CV8 2TL, UK
                Author notes
                Article
                S1751731117000246 00024
                10.1017/S1751731117000246
                5607875
                28249629
                84eb9abe-10de-4ccb-b8a0-461e6bcd21f5
                © The Animal Consortium 2017

                This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.

                History
                : 21 September 2016
                : 19 January 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 6, Pages: 9
                Categories
                Research Article
                Behaviour, Welfare and Health

                Animal science & Zoology
                benchmarking,lameness,pig,tail biting,welfare assessment
                Animal science & Zoology
                benchmarking, lameness, pig, tail biting, welfare assessment

                Comments

                Comment on this article