Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T19:00:31.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preliminary evaluation of a prototype welfare monitoring system for sows and piglets (Welfare Quality® project)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

K Scott ,
GP Binnendijk ,
SA Edwards ,
JH Guy ,
MC Kiezebrink  and
HM Vermeer
K Scott*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
GP Binnendijk
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Netherlands
SA Edwards
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
JH Guy
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
MC Kiezebrink
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Netherlands
HM Vermeer
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Netherlands
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Kamara.Scott@newcastle.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Welfare Quality® project aims to develop a European on-farm welfare assessment standard for pigs, amongst other species. A prototype monitoring system was developed for sows and piglets using predominantly animal-based measures of behaviour, health and physiology to assess welfare. The prototype monitoring system was evaluated on a total of 82 farms in the UK and The Netherlands, encompassing a wide variety of farming systems. Preliminary analysis of the data indicates that the incidence of clinical welfare problems were low, with 1.2, 0.8, 1.1 and 0.1%, respectively of pregnant and lactating sows recorded as having substantial skin lesions, bursitis and vulval lesions, and extremely poor body condition. Some clinical problems were more prevalent in certain types of feeding system than others, particularly the severity of vulval lesions with electronic sow feeding (ESF) systems. Fear of humans, assessed by the extent of withdrawal behaviour from an unknown human, was low, and median scores were similar for sows housed in groups indoors, outdoors and in stalls. Some form of stereotyped behaviour was observed on almost 75% of farms visited, with sham chewing the most commonly recorded stereotyped behaviour. System design affected the practicality of some measures, particularly on outdoor farms. Full investigation of the complete data set will enable a refined, final, on-farm monitoring system to be developed and benchmark standards established.

Keywords

animal welfarebody injurieshuman-animal relationshipsowsstereotypieswelfare monitoring system
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 18 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2009 , pp. 441 - 449
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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

Andersen, IL, Berg, S, B⊘e, KE and Edwards, SA 2006 Positive handling in late pregnancy and the consequences for maternal behaviour and production in sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99: 64–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ 2008 International cooperation in animal welfare: the Welfare Quality® project. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50: S10Google Scholar
Charette, R, Bigras-Poulin, M and Martineau, GP 1996 Body condition evaluation in sows. Livestock Production Science 46: 107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forkman, B, Boissy, A, Meunier-Salaün, MC, Canali, E and Jones, RB 2007 A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiology and Behaviour 92: 340–374Google ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH, Price, EO and Borgwardt, R 1996 Behavioural responses of domestic pigs and cattle to humans and novel stimuli. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50: 43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, L and Veissier, I 2005 Developing a monitoring system to assess welfare quality in cattle, pigs and chickens. In: Butterworth, A (ed) Science and Society Improving Animal Welfare, Welfare Quality® Conference Proceedings pp 46–50. 17-18 November 2005, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Maes, DGD, Janssens, GPJ, Delputte, P, Lammertyn, A and de Kruif, A 2004 Back fat measurements in sows from three commercial pig herds: relationship with reproductive efficiency and correlation with visual body condition scores. Livestock Production Science 91: 57–67Google Scholar
Rizvi, S, Nicol, CJ and Green, LE 1998 Risk factors for vulva biting in breeding sows in south-west England. Veterinary Record 143: 654–658CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rousing, T, Ibsen, B and S⊘rensen, JT 2005 A note on: on-farm testing of the behavioural response of group-housed calves towards humans; test-retest and inter-observer reliability and effect of familiarity of test person. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 94: 237–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, Lawrence, AB and Illius, AW 1991 Influences of feeding level and physical restraint on the development of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behaviour 42: 981–992Google Scholar
Velarde, A, Algers, B, Bracke, MBM, Chaloupkova, H, Courboulay, V, D’Eath, R, Edwards, SA, Forkman, B, Geers, R, Geverink, NA, Guy, JH, Hautekiet, V, Illmann, G, Keeling, L, Lammens, V, Lenskens, P, Meuleman, M, Meunier-Salaün, MC, Millard, F, Namestkova, P, Neuhauserova, K, van Nuffel, A, van Reenen, CG, Scott, K, Spinka, M, Spoolder, HAM, van Steenbergen, L, Turner, S, Tuyttens, FAM, Vermeulen, K, Wemelsfelder, F and Dalmau, A 2007 Sows and piglets. In: Veissier, I, Forkman, B and Jones, B (eds) Proceedings of the Second WelfareGoogle Scholar