Effects of pen size, partial stalls and method of feeding on welfare-related behavioural and physiological responses of group-housed pigs

Posted in: Welfare by admin on February 10, 1992 | No Comments

A factorial experiment was carried out to see how welfare was effected, both long and short-term, by pens size and pen design. The experiment used mated gilt pigs in groups of four. The pigs were unfamiliar with each other and were put through six treatments which were combinations of either large or small pens (1.97 m² per pig or 0.98m² per pig) and pens with or without feeding stalls  and with stall feeding or floor feeding. Pigs were video taped and analyzed on aggressive behavior such as biting and butting. They were watched in the first 90 minutes they were grouped and after that during feeding periods on certain days. Also pigs were inspected for lesions before treatment and during treatment. Pigs were assessed for cortisone levels to determine the long term effects of stress. In the initial 90 minutes, pen size had no effect on the amount of aggressive behavior, also pen design had little effect on aggression. Around feeding the large pen had less incidence of aggression. Pen design also had impacts on aggression, in the treatment with stalls and when the stalls were used, it was found that there was reduced aggressive behavior. While pens without stalls and the use of floor feeding had the most aggressive behavior. Cortisone levels were seen to improve in bigger pens and pens designed with stalls and when stalls were used. Pen size or pen design had no effect on lesions. The article concludes to say there are potential welfare improvements that can come from pen size and pen design but further research is needed to find what pen design and management practices are ideal. Also more research is required to find what behavioral and physiological parameters should be used to measure welfare.

To view this complete article please visit: http://journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/applan/home

Beak trimming effects on performance, behavior and welfare of chickens. A review.

Posted in: Welfare by admin on January 1, 1992 | No Comments

Influence of increasing photoperiod and toe clipping on breast buttons of turkeys.

Posted in: Welfare by admin on | No Comments

Stress measurements on beak-trimmed and untrimmed pullets.

Posted in: Welfare by admin on | No Comments

Effect of husbandry system on broken bones and bone strength in hens.

Posted in: Welfare by admin on January 1, 1991 | No Comments

The Acoustic Environment of the Domestic Pig

Posted in: Welfare by admin on January 1, 0000 | No Comments

Measures have been introduced to reduce the health risk and nuisance of agricultural noise to humans. However, humans are not the only animals that can be aA

Farmer and Pig Exposure to Aerial Contaminants in a Pig Confinement Building.

Posted in: Welfare by admin on | No Comments

When improperly ventilated, high-density piggeries offer poor indoor air quality (Carpenter, 1986). This problem is particularly true in high-confinement piggeries, which are increasingly common (Donham et al., 1984). Aerial contaminants in the air of piggeries can accumulate to levels damaging to the health of farmers (Crook et al., 1991) and pigs (Stombaugh et al., 1969; Malayer et al., 1988). Furthermore, this poor air quality prompts the accelerated deterioration of structures installed in the piggery (Bundy, 1984). Bongers et al. (1986) showed that lung function changes in farmers have been correlated to characteristics of the working environment, such as manual feeding and ventilation mode. Poor air quality, therefore, is a primary cause for concern in confinement piggeries (Wang et al., 2002). Various studies have been conducted in confinement piggeries to show the spatial distribution of aerial contaminants (Barber et al., 1991; Wang et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2005), the influence of environmental factors on aerial contaminants (Attwood et al., 1987; Heber et al., 1988; Kiekhaefer et al., 1995), and the exposure levels to hazardous substances and their association with observed respiratory disorders (Donham et al., 1986; Duchaine et al., 2000). However, there are few studies to date that simultaneously evaluate the exposure levels of the farmers and pigs to aerial contaminants in the confinement piggery and any correlations between them. Thus, the objective of this study was to investigate the actual concentrations of aerial contaminants in the breathing zones of the farmers and pigs, and to statistically verify their actual level of exposure and any correlations. The following aerial contaminants were evaluated: (1) odor concentration index and the gaseous compounds ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, (2) total dust and respirable dust, and (3) microbes, comprising total bacteria, fungi, and gram-negative bacteria. The data presented in the study were collected over 30 days, with sampling once every three days from April to June in 2005. Although the concentrations of all the aerial contaminants except for respirable dust and ammonia were higher in the breathing zone of the pigs than in that of farmers, the only significant differences found between farmersa

Sows on Straw: Meeting the Challenges

Posted in: Welfare by admin on | No Comments

The search for viable alternatives to the gestation crate for dry sows has lead many producers to consider a return to straw based systems. Although such systems can provide many benefits for the sow and the producer, they are not without risks. Most of these systems incorporate group housing and it was problems associated with group housing that drove the development and adoption of the now conventional stall systems for dry sows. The big challenge, then, is how to incorporate the benefits of both group housing and stall housing into an economically viable operation. This paper will identify some of the welfare and production challenges of housing sows on straw and discusses
some ways to overcome the problems. Results from research and experience with hoop structures at the University of Manitoba Glenlea Research Station will be discussed along with examples of other successful straw-based systems.

Caring for Compromised Cattle Assessing Animals at Risk

Posted in: Welfare by admin on | No Comments

Producers work hard to ensure that the animals in their care are properly cared for throughout all stages of production. Unfortunately, it is a fact of farming that some animals will become injured or ill to the extent that they are ‘compromised’ or ‘at risk’.
This would include animals that are non-ambulatory, unable to stand without assistance or to move without being dragged or carried, regardless of size or age. This guide will assist dairy, beef and veal producers to recognize health-related problems and respond to them in a responsible manner. Producers are encouraged to work with their herd veterinarians for early intervention culling decisions. In addition to the decision tree on page 4, producers should simply ask themselves
three questions before loading an animal:
■ Can it walk?
■ Will it be able to walk off the truck at the final destination?
■ Would I eat it?

If any question generates a a

Farm Animals: Who Cares? – Farmers & Ranchers: Caring for our animals 24/7

Posted in: Welfare by admin on | No Comments

Less than three percent of Canadians are involved with farming today. That leaves many people with questions about the facts on farm animals. No one knows better than the people who care for their animals 365 days a year. As farmers and ranchers, we choose to work with animals because we enjoy it. Although farms and ranches are getting larger, they are still operated with the same care, commitment
and values of the generations who came before us. Look inside to find out more about us and the latest on farm animal care in Canada.