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

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.     

Interdependence of welfare outcome measures and potential confounding factors on finishing pig farms

The factors influencing the observed prevalence of some welfare outcome measures were investigated as part of a larger project examining the feasibility and benefits of incorporating on-farm welfare outcome assessments into UK Pig Farm Assurance Schemes. All finishing pigs (>40 kg) on six farms that had pens containing 25 pigs or less were assessed for dirtiness, body lesions, tail lesions, bursitis, lameness, oral behaviour and pigs requiring hospitalisation. The overall small number of significant correlations between the measures across all farms (29 out of a possible 120) and the lack of a significant correlation between any pair of measures on all six or even five farms suggests that no measure can be reliably replaced by another. On the three farms with the highest farm prevalence of dirtiness there were significant negative correlations between pen prevalences of dirtiness and recorded tail and/or body lesions (p < 0.02). The prevalence of pigs requiring hospitalisation was positively correlated with lameness on four farms (p < 0.001) and tail lesions on three farms (p < 0.005). Using a univariate general linear model the time of observation was only found to correlate with one measure, the dirtiness of the pigs (p = 0.004), with the prevalence of dirtiness in pens on the three ‘dirtiest’ farms increasing as the day progressed. There was no effect of the stocking density, group size, time since feeding and time since straw provision on the prevalence of any of the outcome measures. It is recommended that to prevent bias in the recording of tail and body lesions farm assurance assessments are conducted on pigs with a prevalence for dirtiness of less than 17%. Lower prevalences of dirtiness are more likely to occur on some farms first thing in the morning.     

Monitoring the welfare of sheep in organic and conventional farms using an ANI 35 L derived method

The present study was undertaken to evaluate the inter-observer reliability of a welfare monitoring scheme to be applied to sheep, and compare the welfare state of the animals between 10 organic and 10 conventional sheep farms. Two trained observers performed recordings. A graded point protocol was used, that relies on five sheets mostly derived by the Animal Needs Index, which is mainly based on resource-based parameters. Therefore, in the fifth sheet animal-based parameters, deemed relevant to sheep welfare, were taken into account. In particular, the following animal-based variables were assessed: integument alterations, animal dirtiness, hoof overgrowth, lameness and lesions, which where scored on the basis of their prevalence (number of affected animals/numbers of observed animals), longevity (age in years), and mutilations, such as de-horning and caudotomy, evaluated in terms of presence/absence. No significant differences were observed between organic and conventional farms in terms of ANI scores, housing characteristics and animal-based parameters. This result was not surprising, as most of the farms, both conventional and organic, based their farming systems on an extensive use of the land by grazing animals. The monitoring protocol proved to be feasible (the mean time needed to perform the assessment of welfare was 85 min per farm) and reliable: a significant Spearman's correlation coefficient between observers was observed for total score and all sheets. As to animal-based parameters, body condition could not be assessed visually due to the presence of flee in winter; the correlation between observers was significant for integument alterations, animal dirtiness, hoof overgrowth and lameness, whereas inter-observer reliability was not significant for lesions. This result indicated that more training is needed for the assessment of lesions in order to increase the reliability of the measure. In addition, we suggest visiting farms in early summer, soon after shearing, in order to make easier the detection of lesions and the assessment of body condition.     

Sensitivity of the Welfare Quality® broiler chicken protocol to differences between intensively reared indoor flocks: which factors explain overall classification?

There is a large demand for holistic welfare assessment systems that result in a singular balanced summary of welfare. The Welfare Quality® (WQ) broiler protocol summarizes 18 welfare measures into four principles (‘good feeding’, ‘good housing’, ‘good health’ and ‘appropriate behaviour’), which are then integrated into one overall category (‘excellent’, ‘enhanced’, ‘acceptable’ or ‘not classified’). But the protocol is time consuming which hampers implementation. Furthermore, WQ’s aim to assess animal welfare in a wide range of husbandry systems may decrease its ability to discriminate between flocks from the same system. We applied the protocol in the context of intensive indoor rearing to assess whether it discriminated sufficiently between flocks, could be shortened without losing essential information, and provided a balanced summary of welfare. The vast majority of the flocks (88%) received the same overall classification (acceptable) whilst all other flocks received an adjacent classification (enhanced), suggesting poor discriminative capacity. For 95% of the flocks overall classification was explained by two measures only (‘drinker space’ and ‘stocking density’). A system based on these two measures would reduce assessment time from 3.5 h to a few minutes. However, both measures’ validity can be questioned as they are risk factors for poor welfare rather than animal-based outcome measures and they suffer from methodological weaknesses. Furthermore, the possibility for such an extreme simplification raises doubts on whether the overall classification reflects a balanced summary of different welfare aspects. In line with this, overall classification was not affected by replacing single measures within the ‘good health’ and ‘appropriate behaviour’ principles with realistically attainable minima or maxima for intensively reared flocks. Even replacing either of these two principles entirely with their realistically obtainable minimum or maximum did not affect classification. Such insensitivity to change may discourage attempts to improve the welfare of intensively reared flocks when assessments are made based on the overall classification. This calls for an adjustment of the classification system, which is currently being developed by the Welfare Quality Network.     

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

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.     

Why are most EU pigs tail docked? Economic and ethical analysis of four pig housing and management scenarios in the light of EU legislation and animal welfare outcomes

To limit tail biting incidence, most pig producers in Europe tail dock their piglets. This is despite EU Council Directive 2008/120/EC banning routine tail docking and allowing it only as a last resort. The paper aims to understand what it takes to fulfil the intentions of the Directive by examining economic results of four management and housing scenarios, and by discussing their consequences for animal welfare in the light of legal and ethical considerations. The four scenarios compared are: ‘Standard Docked’, a conventional housing scenario with tail docking meeting the recommendations for Danish production (0.7 m²/pig); ‘Standard Undocked’, which is the same as ‘Standard Docked’ but with no tail docking, ‘Efficient Undocked’ and ‘Enhanced Undocked’, which have increased solid floor area (0.9 and 1.0 m²/pig, respectively) provision of loose manipulable materials (100 and 200 g/straw per pig per day) and no tail docking. A decision tree model based on data from Danish and Finnish pig production suggests that Standard Docked provides the highest economic gross margin with the least tail biting. Given our assumptions, Enhanced Undocked is the least economic, although Efficient Undocked is better economically and both result in a lower incidence of tail biting than Standard Undocked but higher than Standard Docked. For a pig, being bitten is worse for welfare (repeated pain, risk of infections) than being docked, but to compare welfare consequences at a farm level means considering the number of affected pigs. Because of the high levels of biting in Standard Undocked, it has on average inferior welfare to Standard Docked, whereas the comparison of Standard Docked and Enhanced (or Efficient) Undocked is more difficult. In Enhanced (or Efficient) Undocked, more pigs than in Standard Docked suffer from being tail bitten, whereas all the pigs avoid the acute pain of docking endured by the pigs in Standard Docked. We illustrate and discuss this ethical balance using numbers derived from the above-mentioned data. We discuss our results in the light of the EU Directive and its adoption and enforcement by Member States. Widespread use of tail docking seems to be accepted, mainly because the alternative steps that producers are required to take before resorting to it are not specified in detail. By tail docking, producers are acting in their own best interests. We suggest that for the practice of tail docking to be terminated in a way that benefits animal welfare, changes in the way pigs are housed and managed may first be required.     

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.     

Short communication: Evaluation of the sample size of individual indicators in gestating sows concerning the Welfare Quality® protocol applied to sows and piglets

Sample sizes of welfare assessment protocols must warrant to reflect prevalences on-farm properly – regardless of farm size. Still, solely a fixed sample size was specified for the Welfare Quality® protocol for sows and piglets. The present study investigated whether animals may be assessed from only one body side as applied in the protocol and whether the pre-set sample size of 30 animals mirrors the prevalences of the animal-based indicators on-farm in the gestation unit considering different farm sizes. All indicators were assessed for both sides of an animal’s body by one observer on 13 farms in Germany, which were visited five times within 10 months. The farm visits were treated as independent since different animals were housed in the gestation units. The number of sows in the gestation units varied between 18 and 549 animals. The comparison of sides was carried out calculating exact agreement between animals’ sides and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test (W). The results signified that it is sufficient to assess the animal from one side (exact agreement: 88.3% to 99.5%, except for bursitis (70.0%); W: P-values 0.14 to 0.92). However, if side preferences existed in the indicator bursitis a potential bias must be considered. In the following, the sample size was evaluated by comparing samples’ prevalences against true prevalence, that is, the prevalence of all observed animals in the gestation unit in each farm visit. Therefore, subsets of data were generated by applying simple random sampling without replacement. The samples randomly included the animals’ right or left sides. Linear regression was rated as appropriate provided: coefficient of determination R² ≥ 0.90, slope = 1 and intercept = 0 signifying exact agreement. The results revealed that the sample size required by the protocol and the application of calculation formulas are solely appropriate to mirror the prevalences of frequent indicators in the gestation unit, for example, bursitis (mean prevalence 34.4%). Using a proportion of animals, for example, a sample of 30% of all observed animals in a farm visit, pointed out that proportions must increase with indicators’ underlying prevalence narrowing 0.00%. Local infections (mean prevalence 13.3%) needed samples including 60% of all observed animals in each farm visit, whereas vulva lesions (mean prevalence 7.28%) only reached accuracy with the inclusion of 70% of the animals. Indicators with a mean prevalence of <1% were not analysed but can most likely only be ascertained by the assessment of all animals.     

Register-based predictors of violations of animal welfare legislation in dairy herds

The assessment of animal welfare can include resource-based or animal-based measures. Official animal welfare inspections in Denmark primarily control compliance with animal welfare legislation based on resource measures (e.g. housing system) and usually do not regard animal response parameters (e.g. clinical and behavioural observations). Herds selected for welfare inspections are sampled by a risk-based strategy based on existing register data. The aim of the present study was to evaluate register data variables as predictors of dairy herds with violations of the animal welfare legislation (VoAWL) defined as occurrence of at least one of the two most frequently violated measures found at recent inspections in Denmark, namely (a) presence of injured animals not separated from the rest of the group and/or (b) animals in a condition warranting euthanasia still being present in the herd. A total of 25 variables were extracted from the Danish Cattle Database and assessed as predictors using a multivariable logistic analysis of a data set including 73 Danish dairy herds, which all had more than 100 cows and cubicle loose-housing systems. Univariable screening was used to identify variables associated with VoAWL at a P-value<0.2 for the inclusion in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Backward selection procedures identified the following variables for the final model predictive of VoAWL: increasing standard deviation of milk yield for first lactation cows, high bulk tank somatic cell count (⩾250 000 cells/ml) and suspiciously low number of recorded veterinary treatments (⩽25 treatments/100 cow years). The identified predictors may be explained by underlying management factors leading to impaired animal welfare in the herd, such as poor hygiene, feeding and management of dry or calving cows and sick animals. However, further investigations are required for causal inferences to be established.     

The effects of enriching laboratory cages using various physical structures on multiple measures of welfare in singly-housed rats

The single housing of laboratory rats may be recommended in some situations such as hypothesis-driven or test-specific studies, during electroencephalogram recording of phases of sleep and after surgical procedures. However, as single housing of laboratory rats has been shown to be stressful, modification of the housing environment is needed to improve the welfare of these animals. This experiment was carried out to investigate the long-term effects of environmental enrichment on some behavioural, physiological, pathological and psychological measures of welfare. With two batches of animals, 24 rats were housed singly in either enriched cages (EC) (n = 12 cages) or unenriched cages (UC) (n = 12 cages). Behaviour was sampled every week and so was body weight and weight gain over a six-week observation period. Behaviours of the rats in the elevated plus-maze were recorded on the seventh week, whereas organ weights were recorded postmortem. The results revealed that long-term single housing of rats in super-enriched cages increased levels of indicators of good welfare including sleep, exploration, movement and feeding behaviour, body weights, weight gains and the relative weights of the thymus gland and spleen, and decreased levels of indicators of poor welfare such as stationary behaviour and the relative weight of adrenal glands. Thus, enrichment of conventional cages of newly weaned singly-housed laboratory rats with multiple physical structures appeared to improve their ability to control the environment and to promote their species-specific behaviour; changes that can ultimately result in good welfare.     

Farm and management characteristics associated with boar taint

Pig farms in the Netherlands producing boars have different levels of boar taint prevalence, as assessed by sensory evaluation with the human nose at the slaughter line. With a questionnaire to 152 Dutch pig producers (response rate 59%), farm and management characteristics were identified that are potentially associated with farm-level boar taint prevalence. Lower farm-level boar taint prevalence was associated with a smaller group size, a smaller pen surface per boar, newer housing equipment, not practicing restricted feeding in the last period before delivery, a longer fasting period before slaughter, a higher stocking weight and a lower fraction of boars from purebred dam line sows or from Pietrain terminal boars. These characteristics can be used to develop farm-level intervention strategies to control boar taint. More research effort is needed to establish causal relationships.     

Detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Iberian pigs

Aims: Iberian pigs are bred in Spain for the production of high‐value dry‐cured products, whose export volumes are increasing. Animals are typically reared outdoors, although indoor farming is becoming popular. We compared carriage of methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Iberian pigs, raised indoors and outdoors, with intensively farmed Standard White pigs. Methods and Results: From June 2007 to February 2008, 106 skin swabs were taken from Iberian pigs and 157 samples from SWP at slaughterhouses in Spain. We found that Iberian pigs carried MRSA, although with a significantly lower prevalence (30/106; 28%) than SWP (130/157; 83%). A higher prevalence of indoor Iberian pigs compared with animals reared under outdoor conditions was not significant; however, all but one positive indoor Iberian pig samples were detected from one slaughterhouse. Overall, 16 different spa types were identified, with t011 predominating in all three animal populations. A subset of isolates was characterized by MLST. Most of these belonged to ST398. MRSA isolates from Iberian pigs presented a higher susceptibility to antibiotics than those isolated from SWP. Conclusions: Despite limited contact with humans, pigs raised outdoors are colonized by an MRSA population that genetically overlaps with that of intensively farmed pigs, although antimicrobial resistance is lower. Significance and Impact of the Study: To our knowledge, this is the first detection of MRSA in food animals raised in free‐range conditions.     

Effect of pen design on tail biting and tail-directed behaviour of finishing pigs with intact tails

Tail biting is a welfare and economical concern in modern pig production. One common preventive measure used throughout the world is tail docking, which is generally considered one of the most effective methods for limiting tail biting. However, tail docking is a painful mutilation and systematic tail docking is not allowed in the EU. Therefore, the aim was to compare pig behaviour and the prevalence of tail biting in finishing pigs with intact tails housed in two different pen designs under Danish commercial conditions. PEN1 was a traditional Danish pen and PEN2 was inspired by Swedish finisher pen design and had a larger proportion of solid floor area (PEN1: 1/3 and PEN2: 2/3), reduced group size (PEN1: 15 and PEN2: 12), increased space allowance per head (PEN1: 0.7 m² and PEN2: 0.89 m²) and straw allocated on the floor (PEN2) whereas straw was provided in a straw rack in PEN1. Tail damage observations were carried out daily by the stockperson and every 2 weeks one trained research technician assessed tail damages according to a tail scoring system. Tail lesions were observed in 51% of PEN1 and in 11% of PEN2 (P < 0.001). PEN1 had higher prevalence of tail damages than PEN2 (23% v. 5%, P < 0.001). Behavioural observations were carried out by the use of video recordings. Pigs in PEN2 tended to spend more time on tail-directed behaviour than pigs in PEN1 (P = 0.07), whereas pigs in PEN1 tended to spend more time on ear-directed behaviour (P = 0.08). Pigs in PEN2 spent more time on straw-directed behaviour compared to pigs in PEN1 (P < 0.001). Pen design did not affect time spent on other penmate-directed behaviour. In addition, the level of welfare between the two pen designs was compared using the Welfare Quality® protocol. PEN2 received an overall score of ‘excellent’ while PEN1 scored ‘enhanced’. PEN2 scored higher on all principles besides ‘good health’, where PEN1 scored better on lameness and wounds. The main measurements accounting for the differences were water supply, huddling, tail biting, social behaviour and fear of humans. In conclusion, the combination of increased space allowance, increased area of solid flooring, straw allocated onto the floor and reduced group size (PEN2) resulted in fewer tail damaged pigs and a better overall welfare assessment, despite a tendency for more tail-directed behaviour.     

Herd- and sow-related risk factors for lameness in organic and conventional sow herds

Lameness in sows is an animal welfare problem which also presents an economic challenge to pig producers. Information about the prevalence of herd lameness in organic sows is relatively scarce. The first objective of this study was to establish the prevalence of lameness and to identify risk factors associated with sow lameness in Danish outdoor organic sow herds by analysing the association between risk factors at both sow and herd level using clinical records of lameness. A total of 1850 sows from nine organic herds were included in the study. Second, the study examined differences in the prevalence of sow lameness between outdoor organic and indoor conventional herds. An additional aim here was to identify risk factors associated with clinical records of sow lameness in Danish sow herds by analysing the association between risk factors with lameness at sow and herd level. One thousand and fifty four gestation sows from 44 indoor conventional and nine organic sow herds were included in this study. The nine organic herds were visited twice: once in summer/autumn 2011, and once in winter/spring 2012. In winter/spring 2011, a total of 44 indoor conventional herds were visited. Risk factors included in the study were clinical parameters and factors related to the production system. Sows were examined visually by one of four trained observers. The organic sows were assigned scores for lameness, body condition, hoof length, bursitis, abscesses and leg wounds, while the conventional sows were assigned scores for lameness, body condition and bursitis. A multivariable analysis was carried out by logistic regression with the herd and observer as random effects. The average herd lameness prevalence in gestation and lactation sows in organic herds was 11% in summer/autumn and 4.6% in winter/spring. ‘Wounds, bursitis and abscess’ on legs (OR=4.7, P<0.001) and body condition score >3 (OR=1.79, P=0.008) were associated with increased risk of lameness in Danish organic sow herds. Season (winter/spring v. summer/autumn) lowered the risk of lameness (OR=0.37, P<0.001). Average prevalence of lameness in gestation sow herds in winter/spring in conventional herds was 24.4%, and in organic herds it was 5.4%. An organic sow had a decreased risk of lameness (OR=0.28, P<0.001) as compared with a conventional sow. Bursitis was associated with increased risk of lameness (OR=2.08, P=0.002) regardless of the production system (i.e. whether the herd was organic or conventional).     

Aligning health and welfare principles and practice in organic dairy systems: a review

This review provides an assessment of research findings into the current practices and standards and the principles and aspirations for organic dairy production, with respect to the health and welfare of the dairy cow. The relationships between the four main factors: management, environment, genetics and nutrition and their impact on the health and welfare status of organic dairy cows are considered. The concept that good animal health and welfare is more than merely the absence of disease, with behavioural aspects of health and welfare such as physiological and psychological needs, is also discussed. These factors are inter-related and important in all dairy systems, irrespective of whether the system is organic, low-input or intensive. Incidences of individual clinical and sub-clinical diseases that are recorded in conventional dairy systems also occur in organic dairy systems, with infertility, lameness and mastitis being the major problems. However, the magnitude of the incidence of many of these diseases may be either lower or higher in organic systems due to different management practices and the standards defined for organic milk production that, for example, prohibit the routine use of conventional medicines and require the feeding of high-forage diets. In relation to different systems, it is important to note that contrary to a common assumption, good welfare does not necessarily occur with more extensive systems. The type of organic system (self-sufficient, purchased-feed) also has the potential to have a major influence on the incidence of health problems and the reproductive status of organic dairy herds. Health status is also influenced by environmental and welfare factors, including the method of rearing replacement animals, type of housing and the geographical and climatic conditions of individual farms. Overall, this review identifies where conflicts arise between current practice and the organic principles and standards, and aims to provide suggestions to bring about further improvement in organic dairy health and welfare.     

My pigs are ok,why change? – animal welfare accounts of pig farmers

Intensive pig production systems are a source of stress, which is linked to reduced animal welfare and increased antimicrobial use. As the gatekeepers of the welfare of the animals under their care, farmers are seen as the stakeholder responsible for improving animal welfare. The aim of this study was to explore the knowledge and attitudes of pig farmers towards pig welfare and the impact of such attitudes on farmers' selection of management strategies on the farm. We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 44 pig farmers in one of the main pig producing regions of Brazil. Interviews covered knowledge and attitudes towards pig sentience and behaviour and welfare-related issues commonly observed in intensive pig farms (belly-nosing, fights, tail-biting, diarrhoea and castration without pain control) and farmers' conception and attitudes towards pig welfare. We identified many management and animal-based indicators of poor welfare, such as the use of painful and stressful management practices and use of environments that limit the expression of natural behaviours. However, most farmers were satisfied with animal welfare standards at their farms. Farmers' perceptions are aligned with their understanding of animal welfare. Although they identified all the dimensions that impact the welfare of a pig on a farm (affect, biological functioning and naturalness), their social reality, industry demands and available advice pushed them to perceive their range of action limited to biological and environmental aspects of the animals that do not necessarily benefit affective state. This precluded farmers from making associations between good health and the animal's ability to express a full behavioural repertoire, as well as from viewing abnormal behaviours as problems. The negative consequences for the welfare of the animals were commonly alleviated by routines that relied on constant use of medication, including high dependence on antibiotics. Expressions of estrangement from the production chain were common voices among the participants. This suggests that farmers may not be sufficiently informed or engaged in responding to consumers' expectations and commitments made by companies, which can pose a severe economic risk for farmers. The findings of this study indicate that economic, technical and social factors restrict farmers' autonomy and their ability to perform their role as stewards of animal welfare. (Re)connecting different human, animal and environmental interests may be a step to changing this scenario.     

On-farm assessment of laying hen welfare: a comparison of one environment-based and two animal-based methods

Methods available to assess animal welfare at farm level are based on a range of welfare parameters, which can be divided into two categories, environment-based and animal-based parameters. The first category describes features of the environment and management, which can be considered prerequisites for welfare. The second category records animals’ responses to that particular environment and management more directly. Objective of this study was to validate a mainly environment-based method, the animal needs index (ANI), with animal-based methods: behavioural observations and feather condition scores (FCS). The study was conducted on 20 commercial laying hen farms, 10 farms with battery cages and 10 farms with deep litter systems. During a 1-day visit on each farm, ANI was assessed, FCS was scored, and behavioural observations were performed. Instantaneous scan sampling and continuous focal sampling were used to assess the time spent on different behaviours and the occurrence of event behaviours. Data from behavioural observations and FCS were reduced with principal factor analysis. This resulted in two factors for each method. Significant positive correlations were found between ANI, on the one hand, and ‘movement’ and ‘comfort’, two factors from behavioural observations, on the other hand. A significant negative correlation was found between ANI and ‘wing damage’ (from FCS). The results of this study show that ANI is valid and sensitive enough to show differences in animal welfare between housing systems, whereas differences in welfare within housing systems cannot be shown. In conclusion, ANI is an appropriate method for assessment of laying hen welfare on a large number of farms with different housing systems.     

Development of a new production system for weaned and growing pigs

The design of modem housing systems for farm animals calls for cooperation between scientists within different disciplines. This article describes the design of a new production system for weaned and growing pigs, as well as the analyses and working processes behind its development. The aim of the study was to develop an economically competitive system that also provided better welfare for the animals and a healthier environment for the workers. Analyses were carried out with emphasis on behavioral needs and building design and economy. The resulting system, the “safari system, ”consists of a number of straw flow pens of increasing size. Pigs are moved to larger and larger pens each week until slaughter. The main advantage is that pigs are not mixed during the growth period and that they are given more space, especially toward the end of the growth period when their space demand is high. Furthermore, the provision of straw for comfort and exploration and of wallow basins for cooling in the pens for the larger pigs were considered significant welfare improvements. An analysis revealed that the safari system would be economically competitive in comparison to traditional intensive systems.     

Development of a New Production System for Weaned and Growing Pigs

The design of modem housing systems for farm animals calls for cooperation between scientists within different disciplines. This article describes the design of a new production system for weaned and growing pigs, as well as the analyses and working processes behind its development. The aim of the study was to develop an economically competitive system that also provided better welfare for the animals and a healthier environment for the workers. Analyses were carried out with emphasis on behavioral needs and building design and economy. The resulting system, the "safari system," consists of a number of straw flow pens of increasing size. Pigs are moved to larger and larger pens each week until slaughter. The main advantage is that pigs are not mixed during the growth period and that they are given more space, especially toward the end of the growth period when their space demand is high. Furthermore, the provision of straw for comfort and exploration and of wallow basins for cooling in the pens for the larger pigs were considered significant welfare improvements. An analysis revealed that the safari system would be economically competitive in comparison to traditional intensive systems.