Sow Welfare Assessment Systems in US, EU and Canada

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Welfare by admin on June 10, 2013 | No Comments

Animal welfare can be hard to quantify, especially for the freedom to express normal behaviour, and the freedom from fear and distress. Output-based measures use animal-based measures in four areas: physiological response, health and injuries, production level, and behaviour. Usually, some combination of these categories is used, as just using one can give an inaccurate assessment. Input-based measures include resource and management-based measures, and can also be considered as they assess the environment and care from the stockperson. Animal-based measures tend to more accurately reflect the actual welfare of an animal, but input-based measures are easier to measure. One system to measure welfare is the European Welfare Quality Program, which puts livestock farms into one of four welfare categories. It scores the farm on the animal-based measures of good health, housing, feeding, and appropriate behaviour from 0-2, and then puts it in the category that corresponds to the points. Another system is the American PQA Plus Program, which is mainly uses input-based measures. It involves 12 practices for swine production, and evaluate 10 of them as acceptable or to develop and implement an action plan. The Canadian ACA Program started as a voluntary program, and is now required as part of the Canadian Quality Assurance program. It is under revision, but the current mandatory requirements are largely management-based. The three programs vary in their approach, but all help to quantify animal welfare and address when it is inadequate.

Protected: National Chair for Swine Welfare in Canada

Posted in: Welfare by admin on May 16, 2013 | No Comments

National Sow Housing Conversion Project

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Prairie Swine Centre, Welfare by admin on May 13, 2013 | No Comments

The use of stall housing for gestating sows has come under criticism for being too restrictive and failing to provide adequately for the welfare of sows. From 1st January 2013, a legislated ban was implemented in the EU, banning the use of sow stalls from 28 days post breeding. In 2007, the largest pork producers in the USA and Canada pledged to transition their sow housing to group systems over the next 10 years. Now, increasing numbers of food retailers, including Tim Hortons, Burger King and McDonalds, have pledged to source pork from producers who have developed plans for conversion to group housing. In addition the
supermarket chains Safeway and Costco recently announced plans to develop a stall-free pork supply chain. Consequently, the Canadian pork industry is under increasing pressure to convert existing gestation stall housing for its 1.3 million sows to group systems.

Pain Control

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Welfare by admin on March 28, 2013 | No Comments

As the pork industry progresses, it is becoming important to consider pain management to provide higher quality animal care. The French National Institute for Agricultural Research recommends following the 3S system: suppress, substitute, and soothe. Suppress means eliminating painful procedures when possible, and each farm should individually evaluate if any procedures are not necessary. Substitute means using a less painful procedure, or altering a procedure so it is less painful. An example would be the reduction in age of castration from nursery age to 3-10 days old. Soothing pain can be done by pharmaceuticals, and hopefully will have advancements in the future for convenient, cost-effective methods. Some of the drugs that could potentially be used include anesthetics, analgesics, or sedatives (in combination with anesthetics). With the use of pharmaceuticals, the effectiveness of a drug for a certain procedure will need to be evaluated, and the withdrawal time considered.

Electronic Sow Feeders

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Welfare by admin on January 11, 2013 | No Comments

Science of Ethology,   Volume 1, Issue 4

The electronic sow feeding system represents the ultimate in the use of technical control to manage sows.  The use of electronics to control all aspects of the system is a major shift in the management of sows, somewhat akin to the use of robotic milkers for dairy cows.  It requires a significant shift in our approach to managing animals and the daily routine of the barn.

How the System Works

An ESF system generally provides a single (or very few) feeding station(s) for a large group of sows (typically 40-60 sows/station).  The sows must eat sequentially, one after the other, from the same station.  Once a sow enters the station the entrance gate locks behind her and she is identified by means of a transponder in her ear tag.  The computer controlled feeder allots her a specific amount of feed, dropped into the feed bowl over a limited period of time.  During the feed drop, and for several minutes afterward, the entrance gate remains locked so that other sows may not enter.  The sow may leave at any time, ending the dispensing of feed and unlocking the entrance for the next sow.  The computer records the amount of feed that has been dispensed to each sow (not the amount actually eaten), and allocates any undispensed allotment to a subsequent entrance by the same sow that same day, or to her next day’s feed.  The system typically cycles on a daily basis, with a new allotment of feed being made available to each sow every 24 hours.  As the stockperson will not be present while each sow eats, the system must provide feedback on any sows that fail to eat their allotment each day.  This feedback is in the form of an ‘attention’ list available to the stockperson at the end of each 24-hr cycle, and is used to identify animals that may need additional care.

Non-Competitive Feeding Systems: Gated Stalls

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Welfare by admin on | No Comments

Science of Ethology, Volume 1, Issue 3

In our previous article, we have defined a non-competitive feeding system as one in which a sow is not able to obtain more feed by winning a fight.  Fights may occur in such a system, but the winning sow does not steal food from the loser.  This is accomplished by protecting the sow in a fully enclosed stall while she eats.  There are two basic types of non-competitive feeding system, the gated stall and the electronic sow feeder (ESF).  In an ESF system, there will only be one feeding station for a group of sows.  However, in the gated stall system, all of the sows in a group eat at the same time, and there must be a stall for each sow.  Gated stalls, or free-access stalls, are the most common system used in several European countries, including Belgium where 31% of farms and 37% of sows use the system.  Within that country it is the most popular choice when making conversions (Tuyttens et al., 2011).

Competitive Feeding Systems

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Welfare by admin on November 30, 2012 | No Comments

Science of Ethology, Volume 1, Issue 2

We define competitive feeding systems as those in which an animal can obtain more feed by winning a fight.  However, this does not necessarily mean that you will observe a lot of fighting in such a system.  Often, the majority of fighting will occur within a couple of hours after mixing.  Once a sow’s dominance status has been established by aggression (fighting), it is often maintained by very subtle agonistic behaviour.  These behaviours include threats through head movements and body posture by the dominant animals, and, for subordinate sows, moving in such a way as to avoid dominant animals.  One study even referred to the social order among sows in a group to be one of ‘avoidance’ rather than ‘dominance’ (Jensen, 1982).  However, if a sow is able to obtain more feed by any of these means, it is a competitive feeding system.  Some feeding systems, such as gated stalls and ESF stations, protect a sow while she is eating and eliminate the possibility of obtaining more feed by fighting.  We will discuss these in later articles.  In this article we will discuss the ultimate competitive feeding system, floor feeding, and non-gated feed stalls that reduce but don’t eliminate competition.

Competition is a characteristic of the social system within a group of animals.  In its simplest form we have dominant/subordinate relationships among the animals.  The definition of dominance is that it results in priority of access to limited and defendable resources.  Pig producers are generally comfortable with group housing if the resource (feed) is not limited: e.g. finishing pigs fed ad-lib.  But sows are almost always limit fed to control their body condition, and so we have the possibility of competition.  Our management of competitive systems is such that we attempt to reduce the dominant sows’ ability to control the resource.  We do this in two ways: social and physical management.  We will look at different competitive systems and how they can be managed most effectively.

FLOOR FEEDING

Dominant sows have a distinct advantage in terms of feed intake and weight gain in floor feeding systems (Brouns and Edwards, 1994).  Subordinate sows, who are also usually younger and lighter, will fall behind in body condition and may have to be removed.  A ‘relief’ rate of 15% is common when floor feeding.  Social management is the primary means of evening out feed intake in floor feeding systems.  In non-competitive systems, such as finisher pigs, there is some advantage to having a significant variation in the size of the pigs.  This is because the social system actually operates better with some variation, i.e. if there are many individuals of the same competitive status, there will be increased aggression until a hierarchy is established.  The opposite is the case when dealing with competitive situations, especially situations of competition over feed.  To ensure the most even feed intake among a group of sows, the sows should be as similar as possible, making them equally competitive.  This will take the form of sorting sows by parity, weight and body condition.  The result is a group of sows having the same feed requirement, and the same potential to compete for it.  This sorting within a breeding cohort obviously results in smaller group sizes.

In order to have sows enter the system with similar body condition, it is advantageous to house them in stalls until confirmed pregnant (normally 35 days post-breeding) and feed them to achieve similar backfat levels by that time.  Use of such ‘breeding and implantation’ stalls is particularly important for floor feeding systems as excessive competition and poor feed intake during this critical phase can affect reproduction (Spoolder et al., 2009).

In terms of physical management, it is possible to use some dividers within the pen to create several feeding sites.  This is only possible with larger groups.  In general, the feed should be spread about as much as possible (multiple drop sites), to prevent a sow from defending a large drop of feed.

Large group floor feeding?

Several farms in Ontario have adopted a novel floor feeding system that differs from most in three ways:  the groups are large, and may include sows of different parities; the pen has a number of partial divisions in it that provides some separation of the multiple feeding sites; and, the feed is dropped in several (typically 6) drops per day, spaced 30 to 60 minutes apart.  Large, non-uniform groups reduce the social tension in finisher pigs, but are not generally advocated for competitive systems such as gestating sows.  The barriers provide sows some physical protection as seen in short-stall systems, but several sows still eat from the same feed drop.  The key to the system may be the frequent feed drops that allow subordinate animals to eat from the later drops as the dominant sows feel satiated from eating from the first. 

Although several farms are using the system, it has not been studied in comparative tests.  As with any floor feeding system, some sows have to be removed.  At least one producer does not include gilts with the sows.  The system as a whole, and particularly the multiple feed drops, should be studied before being adopted.  However, it illustrates that floor feeding can be managed in many different ways.

Using bulky, high fibre feed will extend the feeding time and reduce the incidence of stereotypic behaviours, but may contribute to more aggression.  Similarly, feeding on a strawed floor will extend feeding periods and increase aggression (Whittaker et al. 1999).Feeding a bulky diet ad-lib allows the subordinate sows to avoid peak feeding times and consume normal levels of feed (Brouns and Edwards, 1994), but it must be bulky enough to limit total energy intake.

Keys to successful floor feeding

• Sort sows by parity, size and body condition.
• Use the time in breeding/implantation stalls to even out body condition.
• Spread feed as evenly as possible.
• Use dividers within the pen.
• Remove sows that fall behind.

Providing Protection: Non-Gated Stalls

As an alternative to floor feeding, producers should consider the use of feeding stalls in order to provide protection during eating.  In this article we will only discuss non-gated (no back gate) systems, as gated stalls will be discussed as a type of non-competitive feeding system in a future article.  Recalling the earlier statement on dominance, we note that dominant animals will exert themselves when resources are both limited and defendable.  Defendable refers to the ability of the dominant animal to control more than their share of the resource.  Non-gated stalls prevent the dominant animal from monopolizing the feed by allowing the subordinate animals to defend a small portion of the total feed available, that is, their share of the feed.  However, with enough effort dominant sows will be able to force a subordinate out of a non-gated stall and thereby obtain more feed.

Two Types of Problems

If the performance of your sows in a competitive feeding system is below your expectations, it is very easy to blame the feeding system.  That is not always the problem.  Two types of stressors can affect animals in groups: competitive and general.  To determine which is most likely within your system you need to determine the demographics of the problem.  If the problem affects younger, smaller animals more than larger, older animals, that is, an uneven distribution, it is likely a competitive issue.  A common problem in competitive feeding systems is the fat sow/ thin sow syndrome, in which smaller sows get thinner and larger sows get fatter.  In this case you should attempt to reduce the effect of competition during feeding.  However, if your problem is just as common among larger sows as it is among smaller ones, then it is likely a general stressor that is affecting all of the pigs similarly.  Examples of these types of stressors would include high temperatures, poor flooring, poor air quality or space restriction.  The solution to these problems is quite different to that of a competition problem.  In some instances, the problem may involve both general and competitive stress.  For example, if poor flooring results in 10% of the sows becoming lame, evenly distributed across all sizes, the smaller lame sows may be at a greater disadvantage when they try to compete for feed.  If you can identify that lameness was the initial problem, and improve the flooring, you will be more successful in correcting the subsequent problem caused by competition.

Non-gated systems should make use of the social management techniques outlined for floor feeding (e.g. sorting by size and body condition).  However, these systems also use physical methods to interfere with dominant sows attempting to displace subordinates from their feed.   Non-gated stall systems use feed troughs so that the feed can be delivered and limited to a defined area.  These troughs are divided so that individual allotments of feed are dropped into each division.  Stalls are added to these divisions to provide protection to each sow as she eats.  The longer the stalls, which typically vary from shoulder length to full body length, the less aggression and more even intake of feed (Barnett et al., 1992, Andersson et al., 1999).  Floor feeding gives a distinct advantage to the dominant sow.  Partial stalls reduce this advantage and allow the subordinate animals to spend more time eating and achieve a higher intake.

Shorter stalls, such as those that only extend back to the animal’s shoulders, will not fully protect a subordinate animal.  In systems with these stalls, it is common to see cuts and scratches on the sides of the lower ranking individuals where the dominant sows have attempted to displace them from the feed trough.  Longer stalls will provide more protection, but some displacement may still occur.  If longer stalls are better, then why would a producer use short stalls?  It is a balance between protection during feeding and the amount of space the system requires.  Group housed sows should have a sufficient amount of free space (outside of the stall) to move about freely.  If a producer uses long stalls, additional space is necessary behind the stalls to provide this loafing area.  Longer stalls also represent a greater capital expense, in addition to the increased floor space.

Are there other means to reduce aggression and displacements among sows in non-gated stall systems?  There appear to be at least two:  increasing the eating speed of the sows will reduce the time required to consume their feed and decrease feeding associated aggression (Andersson et al., 1999).  One of the easiest ways to increase the speed of eating is to provide wet feed, either as a slurry, or by adding water in the feed trough.  By eating faster, the subordinate sows are nearly finished their feed by the time the dominant sow is able to displace them from the stall.  Although reducing aggression and displacements, the rapid eating may increase other problems associated with short meals, such as increased stereotypic behaviour.

Keys to successful non-gated stall systems

• Longer stalls will reduce aggression
• Wet diets take less time to consume and reduce aggression
• Trickle feeding prevents the accumulation of feed in front of slow-eating sows

Floor Space for Floor-fed Sows

The floor space allowance for floor fed sows should be fairly easy to define in terms of productivity, incidence of injuries and level of aggression.  The system is basically an open pen with the proviso that sufficient solid floor area is provided for feeding.  However, few studies have examined the question of floor space allowance.  One such study, by Sequin et al (2007), reported no advantage in any of these measures among space allowances starting at 2.3 m²/sow (24 ft²) and going up to 3.2 m²/sow (34 ft²).  Salak-Johnson et al (2007) reported problems at 1.4 m²/sow (15 ft²) compared to 2.3 m²/sow (24 ft²), but did not examine any intermediate levels.  So 1.4 m² is not enough, and 2.3 m² is sufficient; but there is a large range in between that has been poorly researched.

If we look to grower/finisher pigs, who are also housed in open pens, we see effects on productivity below a space coefficient of k=0.034 (Gonyou et al., 2006) and lying posture (comfort) when k drops below 0.038 (Averos et al., 2010).  Using weights from our facility for females near the end of gestation we see gilts at 220 kg and mature sows (3+ parity) at 310 kg.  Applying the k values given above we see gilts requiring between 1.24 and 1.39 m²/gilt (13 to 15 ft²) and sows between 1.56 and 1.74 m² (17 to 19 ft²).  The European Union specifies different amounts of floor space for gilts (1.6 m²/gilt; 18 ft²) and sows (2.3 m²/sow; 24 ft²) (Mul et al., 2010). 

We require additional research on floor space allowances in the range of 1.4 to 2.3 m²/sow (15 to 24 ft²).  Until that research has been conducted we would suggest 1.4 – 1.6 m²/gilt (15 – 18 ft²) and 1.7 – 2.3 m²/sow (19-24 ft²).  Again, there must be sufficient solid floor area to feed the sows without excessive aggression.

The second method used to reduce displacements from short stalls is trickle feeding.  Typically all of the feed for a sow is dropped into the trough at the same time.  Faster eating sows consume their feed and then attempt to displace slower eating animals and steal their remaining feed.  Trickle feeding meters the feed into the trough over an extended time, typically 30 minutes or so (Hulbert and McGlone, 2006).  Ideally, the rate of feed supply should be as slow as or slower than the eating speed of the slowest eating animal.  If a faster eating animal decides to leave its stall to displace a slower eating one, no feed would have accumulated in the slower one’s trough.  The advantage to displacing another sow is lost.  However, if the drop rate is the same as the eating speed of thefaster eating sow, the slower eating animals will accumulate feed in their trough space and be vulnerable to attack from other sows.  Trickle feeding has received mixed reviews.  If it is well managed it may well reduce feeding associated aggression among sows.  However, this is not always the case (Hulbert and McGlone, 2006).

The Bottom Line

Choosing Between Floor Feeding and Non-Gated Stalls

Both systems are less expensive than the non-competitive gated stall and ESF feeding systems.  Producers who use these systems are looking for a less expensive system and are prepared to accept more aggression and to give up some control over feed intake.  If the producer is prepared to place a great deal of emphasis on social management, then they are more likely to choose floor feeding.  It is the least expensive of all of the systems.  However, if they find social management difficult, they may want to spend more and provide their animals with the partial protection of short, non-gated stalls.  In larger operations, the decision may be based on the confidence the operator has in the ability of their staff to socially manage the animals.  As in every system, better management will result in better production.

References

Andersen, I.L., Boe, K.E. and Kristiansen, A.L.  1999.  The influence of different feeding arrangements and food type on competition at feeding in pregnant sows.  Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 65:91-104.

Averós, X., Brossard, L., Dourmad, J.Y., de Greef, K.H., Edge, H.L., Edwards, S.A. and Meunier-Salaün, M.C. (2010). Quantitative assessment of the effects of space allowance, group size and floor characteristics on the lying behaviour of growing-finishing pigs.  Animal 4:777-783.

Barnett, J.L., Hemsworth, P.H., Cronin, G.M., Newman, E.A., McCallum, T.H. and Chilton, D.  1992.  Effects of pen size, partial stalls and method of feeding on welfare-related behavioural and physiological responses of group-housed pigs.  Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 34:207-220.

Brouns, F. and Edwards, S.A.  1994.  Social rank and feeding behaviour of group-housed sows fed competitively or ad libitum.  Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 39:225-235.

Gonyou, H.W., Brumm, M.C., Bush, E., Deen, J., Edwards, S.A., Fangman, T., McGlone, J.J., Meunier-Salaun, M., Morrison, R.B., Spoolder, H., Sundberg, P.L. and Johnson, A.K. (2006). Application of broken-line analysis to assess floor space requirements of nursery and grower-finisher pigs expressed on an allometric basis.  J. Anim. Sci. 84:229-235.

Hulbert, L.E. and McGlone, J.J.  2006.  Evaluation of drop vs trickle-feeding systems for crated or group-penned gestating sows.  J. Anim. Sci. 84:1004-1014.

Jensen, P. 1982.  An analysis of agonistic interaction patterns in group-housed dry sows – aggression regulation through an ‘avoidance order’.  Appl. Anim. Ethol. 9:47-61.

Mul, M., Vermeij, I., Hindle, V. and Spoolder, H. (2010). EU-Welfare legislation on pigs.  Wageningen UR Livestock Research Report 273:1-20.

Salak-Johnson, J.L., Niekamp, S.R., Rodriguez-Zas, S.L., Ellis, M. and Curtis, S.E. (2007). Space allowance for dry, pregnant sows in pens: Body condition, skin lesions, and performance.  J. Anim. Sci. 85:1758-1769.

Séguin, M.J., Barney, D. and Widowski, T.M. (2006). Assessment of a group-housing system for gestating sows: Effects of space allowance and pen size on the incidence of superficial skin lesions, changes in body condition, and farrowing performance.  J. Swine Health Prod. 14:89-96.

Spoolder, H.A.M., Geudeke, M.J., Van der Peet-Schwering, C.M.C. and Soede, N.M. 2009.  Group housing of sows in early pregnancy: A review of success and risk factors.  Livest. Sci. 125:1-14.

Whittaker, X., Edwards, S.A., Spoolder, H.A.M., Lawrence, A.B. and Corning, S.  1999.  Effects of straw bedding and high fibre diets on the behaviour of floor fed group-housed sows.  Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 63:25-39.

A Comprehensive Approach to Animal Welfare Science

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Welfare by admin on | No Comments

Science of Ethology, Volume 1, Issue 1

Concern for animal welfare is evident at all levels of swine production, from producers and industry to society and consumers, and takes different forms at each level. For the individual producer, it involves daily decisions on the basic care of animals- from feeding and general management, to the quality of health checks and maintaining vaccination protocols. Within the pork industry, concern for animal welfare takes the form of codes of practice and quality assurance programs designed to define acceptable industry standards for the care and management of animals. From a societal perspective, concern for animal welfare is shown in laws governing major issues such as humane slaughter and housing practices, as well as in the purchasing choices of individual consumers.

Few consumers know, or are able to select, the farm from which they obtain their food. Their satisfaction with their food relies on their confidence in the industry which produces it. As such, the importance of animal welfare has increased, and with it the need for producers and the livestock industry to demonstrate good care. The field of animal welfare science arose along-side these changes as a tool to help address questions related to management practices that affect the physical and psychological well-being of animals. This article describes general perspectives in animal welfare science, it explores the measures used in welfare science, and how these measures are used to evaluate management practices.

As David Fraser of the University of British Columbia describes in his recent book, Understanding Animal Welfare (2008), animal welfare is generally viewed from three philosophical perspectives, with each perspective emphasizing different components of welfare.

One approach to animal welfare examines how well animals function in their environment.  The ‘functional approach’ assumes that if animals are healthy and productive their welfare must also be good, and uses measures related to growth, reproduction, and health (or absence of poor health) to demonstrate good welfare. Physiological measures indicative of stress are also used to demonstrate how well animals are functioning in their production system.

The functional approach can be applied to plants just as well as it can to animals, yet we are more concerned about the welfare of animals than that of plants. The reason for this is that animals are sentient, that is, they have feelings. We recognize that animals can feel pain, experience fear, and have a sense of comfort and discomfort. A second component of animal welfare relates to these ‘affective states’, or how animals feel. This approach emphasizes the importance of emotional states and the feelings of animals, using measures such as pain, fear and discomfort (or alternatively, positive emotions) as indicators of well-being.

The third component of animal welfare is known as the ‘natural approach’. Through thousands of years living in the wild, our animals have relied on their natural responses to cope with environmental challenges. When they encounter similar challenges in our production systems, they will attempt to use these same natural responses to attempt to cope. Among other things, our animals will use exploratory behaviour to become familiar with their environment, to adapt their social behaviour to alleviate competition, and use thermoregulatory behaviour to avoid cold or extreme heat. If the animal is unable to express these behaviours, it will become frustrated and stressed. It may be able to express the behaviours, but be ineffective in coping because a critical part of the environment is missing, for example, a wallow (cooling device) in hot conditions. In some cases, the behaviour may be harmful, such as when attempts to root for food result in injury. The natural approach considers how well the system accommodates the responses of the animal. Its motto can be expressed as ‘fit the farm to the animal, not the animal to the farm’. Freedom of movement is a critical component of the natural approach to animal welfare.

While these three approaches- ‘functional’, ‘affective states’ and ‘natural’- can be used separately, when used alone they run the risk of jeopardizing other components of animal welfare. Rather than placing our emphasis on any one component of animal welfare, we should look for systems that overlap (see Figure 1), and meet a comprehensive definition: a system in which an animal functions well, in which positive feelings outweigh negative, and in which it can express its natural behaviour in an effective manner.

This comprehensive definition of animal welfare meets the approval of most members of society. It is also evident in the Five Freedoms(Table 1), which are accepted guidelines for animal well-being used by many animal production organizations. In the current revision process for Canadian Codes of Practice, for pigs and other species, the mandate includes this comprehensive approach. The challenge to modern producers will be to achieve these goals in a production system that is also efficient and profitable. From a research perspective, the challenge to scientists at the Prairie Swine Centre is to identify management practices that can optimize animal welfare while at the same time maintaining or improving productivity, efficiency and profitability. This is the first in a series of articles using animal welfare science to address production issues in modern pork production.

References

Fraser, D. 2008, Understanding Animal Welfare: the science in its cultural context. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ. Farm Animal Welfare Council, 1979. See http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm a ‘drop-off’ in the middle of the day. Comparing these results with other studies suggests that the younger pigs were limited in the number of feeder spaces, and had to shift eating from the normal peak periods to the less intensive mid-day period.

On-Farm Euthanasia: Recommendations for Producers

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Welfare by admin on July 25, 2012 | No Comments

All pork producers face situations where pigs must be euthanized, such as when a pig becomes ill, injured, or otherwise disadvantaged. This brochure put out by the Pork Checkoff and American Association of Swine Veterinarians provides information about proper euthanasia techniques that are crucial for all pork producers and their employees to understand. The brochure discusses eight different ways to euthanize pigs, going into detail about how the euthanasia should be administered, how to limit the pigs pain, what equipment is required, what could potentially go wrong, as well as other important information. The methods discussed are Co2 poisoning, gunshot, penetrating captive-bolt, non-penetrating captive-bolt, electrocution heart-to-head, electrocution head only, veterinarian administered anesthetic overdose, and blunt trauma. Also provided is a chart that shows which euthanasia method is appropriate for pigs of a certain age (suckling, nursery, grow-finish, and sows and boars) and a chart that rates each method in terms of risk to human safety, skill required, aesthetics, and limitations. The end of the brochure offers a euthanasia action plan which can be printed and used.

Assessment of Lameness, Productivity and Longevity in Group and Individually Housed Gestating Sows

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Swine Innovation, Welfare by admin on July 23, 2012 | No Comments

Sow housing is the dominant issue when discussing animal welfare in pig production. Converting away from gestation crates carries several factors that must be considered, such as sow welfare and longevity in the herd, as well as their economic sustainability. Lameness sows is one of the main reasons for culling otherwise productive sows and will be important to gauge properly when considering alternative housing methods. The objective of this study is to determine the relationship among variables such as body weight, age, social rank, body condition and health status, and degree of lameness on success within the different systems based on relative productivity, culling rate, health changes, aggression and injuries. To asses lameness four methods will be used: Complex gait scoring, kinematics, accelerometers, and a forced plate weight scale. Sow temperament will be measured by 4 tests: the Open Door Test, Pig Approaching Human , Human Approaching Pig  and Novel Object Test. To measure sow longevity sows will be assessed on lameness and sow condition on the 7th, 16th, and 20th week post breeding. The need to monitor and assess animal welfare standards on commercial farms is becoming an increasingly important issue as quality assurance schemes are expanded in response to consumer demands.