Filetype PDF | Posted on 07 Jan 2023 | 3 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
286x Filetype PDF File size 1.00 MB Source: www.porcat.org
EN-181
TECHNICAL REPORT submitted to EFSA
Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures
1
for assessing the welfare of pigs
Report 2: Preparatory work for the future development of animal based
measures for assessing the welfare of weaned, growing and fattening pigs
including aspects related to space allowance, floor types, tail biting and
need for tail docking
2 2 3
Prepared by Hans Spoolder , Marc Bracke , Christine Mueller-Graf ,
4
Sandra Edwards
2
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO box 65, 8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands
3 Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) Head of Unit Epidemiology, Biometry and
Mathematical Modelling Department Scientific Services, Alt-Marienfelde 17-21, D-12277 Berlin,
Germany
4 Newcastle University, School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Agriculture Building
Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
Abstract
The EFSA Animal Health and Welfare panel is requested to develop several scientific opinions
concerning animal based measures to assess the welfare of livestock animals. Before this work can
start, it is important that conclusions and recommendations of the EFSA scientific opinions are up
1 (Question No EFSA-Q-2011-00879)
Accepted for Publication on 05 July 2011
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out
exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a
tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety
Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
European Food Safety Authority - Largo N. Palli 5/a, I - 43121 Parma
Tel: (+39) 0521 036 200 • Fax: (+39) 0521 036 0200 • www.efsa.europa.eu
Preparatory work for pig welfare indicators – Report 2
to date. The main objective of this report is to review the pig welfare literature to identify gaps and
potential areas to strengthen or amend three recent pig welfare opinions: one on the welfare of
Fattening pigs (2007), another on Space allowances and floor design (2005) and a final one on Tail
biting (2007). The literature review was done by a group of authors and reviewers, under the
supervision of an editorial team. Over 200 new scientific literature references are quoted. Regarding
the first opinion, this review presents 11 new or revised conclusions. In addition it suggests several
new recommendations. These include suggestions for maximum noise levels and ammonia levels,
and minimum light duration. Furthermore, attention is drawn to the need of pigs to cool themselves
when ambient temperature is high. Finally, the recommendations also emphasise the need to further
study the relationship between space allowance and negative social behaviours. Regarding the
second opinion, it draws 5 conclusions. The recommendations predominantly confirm those in the
original opinion, but also emphasise the need for a well maintained substrate to reduce leg problems
and gastric ulcers. For the third opinion, 10 new conclusions are added. The recommendations
include the monitoring of tail length at the slaughter line, and the use of new management and
housing information to avoid the need for tail docking. It also suggests that an intact curly tail can
be regarded as the single most important welfare indicator in finishing pigs.
Summary
The EFSA Animal Health and Welfare panel is requested to develop several scientific opinions
concerning animal based measures to assess the welfare of livestock. The main background
documents for these mandates are the EFSA Scientific Opinions on the welfare of livestock and the
®
Welfare Quality assessment protocols. EFSA has issued in the past the 5 scientific opinions on
different aspects related to the welfare of pig. Three of these are: i) Animal health and welfare in
fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry (2007); ii) The welfare of weaners and rearing
pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor (2005) and iii) The risks associated with tail
biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different
housing and husbandry systems (2007). The terms of reference (ToRs) of the Commission mandates
on animal based measures to assess the welfare of livestock animals suggest that such measures
could be used to check whether the recommendations listed in the EFSA scientific opinions are
fulfilled or not. It is therefore important that conclusions and recommendations of the EFSA
scientific opinions are up to date.
The 5 scientific opinions are evaluated in two reports. The main objective of both reports is to
present preparatory work for the future mandate on animal based measures for assessing pig
welfare. It is a review of the literature provided in the opinions in order to identify gaps and
potential areas to strengthen or amend the conclusions and recommendations of such opinions. It
also aims to identify hazards that may be revised by the AHAW Panel in light of the newly available
scientific evidence. The present report addresses the three opinions referred to above, presented
here as sub-reports C, D and E, respectively.
The editors of the two reports used a step wise iterative approach in which they involved experts
from different research institutes. An initial literature search resulted in a large number of abstracts,
of which more than 800 were read by the editorial team and analysed for statements relevant to the
two reports. Authors were recruited and were sent one or more paragraphs with statements derived
from the abstracts. They were asked to add their expertise, any missing references and statements,
and to develop the statements into texts for each paragraph. The draft paragraph texts were then
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out
exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a
tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety
Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Preparatory work for pig welfare indicators – Report 2
sent to „first reviewers‟. These reviewers received large chunks of each report (several paragraphs
from several authors) and developed the texts further. They provided additional expertise or
references. Subsequently, five „second reviewers‟ were asked to do the same as the first reviewers.
In a final step the editorial team over-viewed the text and put together the list of recommendations
and associated hazards, based on the original recommendations list of the original EFSA reports.
The literature searches conducted at the beginning of this project (for both Reports 1 and 2)
resulted in 6435 unique references (for both reports). Databases searched included CAB Abstracts,
Agricola and ISI Web of Knowledge (which included both the Science Citation Index Expanded
(SCI-EXPANDED) and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S) databases).
General searches were conducted on pig welfare as of (and including) 2007 using the key words
pig*, sow*, boar*, welfare, well-being, behav* and stress. Specific searches were conducted on
space and floors (as of 2005) using the key words floor*, space and castr*.
For the present report a total of over 200 scientific publications were used to formulate additional
conclusions and recommendations to the original opinions.
Conclusions for sub-report C on “Animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing
and husbandry” include: i) genetic traits of fearfulness and aggression have been identified and
could be incorporated in practical breeding programmes to improve welfare, ii) all new data
reinforce the importance of providing suitable enrichment materials to allow expression of species
relevant behaviours and reduce risk of injurious biting, iii) destructibility, hygiene and novelty are
key elements of suitable enrichment, iv) provision of cooling facilities for pigs are important in any
situation of increased ambient temperature or endogenous heat production, v) Ammonia levels of
>20ppm have adverse effects on pig physiology and behaviour, vi) There is a high prevalence of
locomotory disorders on many farms which should be addressed through genetic and environmental
improvement.
Recommendations for sub-report C include: i) since pigs have limited abilities to loose heat (they
cannot sweat), pigs should be allowed to seek cooling when overheated, not only in case of elevated
ambient temperatures, but also in cases of elevated activity, fever and high metabolism, ii) ammonia
levels in pig housing should not exceed 20ppm, iii) noise levels in pig housing should be <80dB, iv)
although the ability of pigs to discriminate between small visual cues at light intensities from 12 to
80 lux does not appear to change, a light intensity of >80 lux during activity periods reduces
aggression compared to 40 lux. A minimum light period of 14h/day should be provided where
artificial light is used, v) further research is needed to specify in more detail the effects of reduced
space allowances on negative social behaviours, as well as the interaction between space allowance
and enrichment, so as to identify the extent to which these factors can act as substitutes for each
other.
Conclusions for sub-report D on “The welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effects of different space
allowances and floor” include: i) the allometric approach appears valid for pigs over a wide weight
range, ii) behavioural measures suggest a higher optimum k value (0.037-0.039) than production
measures (0.032-0.035), iii) the amount of space needed by an individual appears independent of
group size, iv) walking safety and comfort is impaired by soiled floors, v) the effects of floor type
on health are equivocal, with further evidence that solid floors are better for respiratory disease but
detrimental to enteric and endoparasitic infections. The original recommendations of sub-report C
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out
exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a
tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety
Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Preparatory work for pig welfare indicators – Report 2
are supported by the new data, but also include that a well maintained substrate such as straw
should be used to reduce leg problems and gastric lesions.
Conclusions for sub-report D on “The risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to
reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems” include:
i) tail and ear lesions are indicative of reduced welfare (now and/or in the past). They can be
detected fairly easily, even at the slaughterhouse. Healed lesions should be included in the
observations, ii) while lack of enrichment is a main reason for such lesions, also a range of other
factors may be involved e.g. reduced health, thermal inadequacies, problems with feed and water,
etc.). All of these are associated with reduced welfare, iii) use of group selection as a breeding
strategy has the potential to reduce genetic predisposition to tail bite, iv) reliable behavioural signs
of an impending tail biting outbreak have been identified and can be used to take precautionary
measures, v) tail and ear biting behaviour may be treated with enhanced enrichment (e.g. ample long
straw provided fresh twice daily) throughout the pig‟s life. However, other risk factors (stocking
density, ventilation, feed, ...) should be investigated or audited too, vi) research to date indicates
that while toys may show some reduction in tail biting, especially when they have destructible
components, natural substrates such as straw or compost seem to be necessary to reduce biting
problems to acceptable levels in problem pens. Recommendations for sub-report D include: i) the
wealth of information on how to reduce the risk of tail biting (such as providing suitable
enrichment, ensuring a good thermal environment and appropriate feeding) without docking pig
tails, should be used to underpin the importance of preventative measures, ii) monitoring at
slaughter should include also tail length (in addition to tail lesions) as well as ear shape (missing
parts of the ears) and biting wounds on flanks and legs, iii) an intact curly tail may well be the single
most important animal-based welfare indicator for weaned, growing and finishing pigs (at herd
level). In addition, it stands for high-quality management and respect for the integrity of the pig.
The hazards associated with the recommendations were presented for each sub-report. Overall, no
new hazards were identified, although the evidence for many existing hazards was strengthened.
Key words:
Pig welfare, fattening pig, tail biting, swine housing
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out
exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a
tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety
Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
