Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Nov 11;11(11):3221.
doi: 10.3390/ani11113221.

Analysis of Housing Risk Factors for the Welfare of Lean and Heavy Pigs in a Sample of European Fattening Farms

Affiliations

Analysis of Housing Risk Factors for the Welfare of Lean and Heavy Pigs in a Sample of European Fattening Farms

Paolo Ferrari et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

Pig welfare is affected by housing conditions, the minimum requirements of which are set up by EU legislation. Animal and non-animal-based measures are useful indicators to investigate housing risk factors for pig welfare. An observational study on 51 pig farms in seven EU countries, aimed at investigating housing risk factors for the welfare of finishing pigs, showed body weight and presence of bedded solid floored resting area (BED) identifying three clusters of farms. Farms with BED were featured by no or limited tail docking, larger availability of manipulable materials and lower number of pigs per farm and per annual work unit. In these farms, less skin and ear lesions were found, compared with lean pigs of farms without BED, which were characterized by lower pig space allowance, mortality rate and medication cost. In farms without BED, heavy pigs were featured by more space per pig, more pigs per drinker and higher mortality rate and medication cost per pig, compared to lean pigs. No statistical difference in tail lesions was found between the three farm clusters, although tail docking was performed in all farms without BED and not performed on most farms with BED.

Keywords: bedding material; body lesion scores; enriched environment; fattening pig; housing system; pig welfare; roughage; tail docking.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Loading plot of PC1 and PC2; (b) Score plot of PC1 and PC2, representing organic and non-organic farms.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Score plot of PC1 and PC2; farm countries in evidence.

References

    1. European Commission Council Directive 91/630/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Off. J. Eur. Communities. 1991;340:33–38.
    1. Pedersen L.J. Advances in Pig Welfare. Aarhus University; Tjele, Denmark: 2018. Overview of Commercial Pig Production Systems and Their Main Welfare Challenges; pp. 3–25. Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition. - DOI
    1. Averós X., Aparicio M.A., Ferrari P., Guy J.H., Hubbard C., Schmid O., Ilieski V., Spoolder H.A.M. The effect of steps to promote higher levels of farm animal welfare across the EU. Societal versus animal scientists’ perceptions of animal welfare. Animals. 2013;3:786–807. doi: 10.3390/ani3030786. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Welfare Quality® . Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Pigs (Sows and Piglets, Growing and Finishing Pigs) Welfare Quality® Consortium; Lelystad, The Netherlands: 2009.
    1. EFSA Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare in pigs. EFSA J. 2012;10:2512. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2512. - DOI

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources