Cargando…

The ‘Real Welfare’ scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs

Animal welfare standards have been incorporated in EU legislation and in farm assurance schemes, based on scientific information and aiming to safeguard the welfare of the species concerned. Recently, emphasis has shifted from resource-based measures of welfare to animal-based measures, which are co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pandolfi, F., Stoddart, K., Wainwright, N., Kyriazakis, I., Edwards, S. A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5607875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28249629
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731117000246
_version_ 1783265356058460160
author Pandolfi, F.
Stoddart, K.
Wainwright, N.
Kyriazakis, I.
Edwards, S. A.
author_facet Pandolfi, F.
Stoddart, K.
Wainwright, N.
Kyriazakis, I.
Edwards, S. A.
author_sort Pandolfi, F.
collection PubMed
description Animal welfare standards have been incorporated in EU legislation and in farm assurance schemes, based on scientific information and aiming to safeguard the welfare of the species concerned. Recently, emphasis has shifted from resource-based measures of welfare to animal-based measures, which are considered to assess more accurately the welfare status. The data used in this analysis were collected from April 2013 to May 2016 through the ‘Real Welfare’ scheme in order to assess on-farm pig welfare, as required for those finishing pigs under the UK Red Tractor Assurance scheme. The assessment involved five main measures (percentage of pigs requiring hospitalization, percentage of lame pigs, percentage of pigs with severe tail lesions, percentage of pigs with severe body marks and enrichment use ratio) and optional secondary measures (percentage of pigs with mild tail lesions, percentage of pigs with dirty tails, percentage of pigs with mild body marks, percentage of pigs with dirty bodies), with associated information about the environment and the enrichment in the farms. For the complete database, a sample of pens was assessed from 1928 farm units. Repeated measures were taken in the same farm unit over time, giving 112 240 records at pen level. These concerned a total of 13 480 289 pigs present on the farm during the assessments, with 5 463 348 pigs directly assessed using the ‘Real Welfare’ protocol. The three most common enrichment types were straw, chain and plastic objects. The main substrate was straw which was present in 67.9% of the farms. Compared with 2013, a significant increase of pens with undocked-tail pigs, substrates and objects was observed over time (P<0.05). The upper quartile prevalence was <0.2% for all of the four main physical outcomes, and 15% for mild body marks. The percentage of pigs that would benefit from being in a hospital pen was positively correlated to the percentage of lame pigs, and the absence of tail lesions was positively correlated with the absence of body marks (P<0.05, R>0.3). The results from the first 3 years of the scheme demonstrate a reduction of the prevalence of animal-based measures of welfare problems and highlight the value of this initiative.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5607875
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56078752017-09-26 The ‘Real Welfare’ scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs Pandolfi, F. Stoddart, K. Wainwright, N. Kyriazakis, I. Edwards, S. A. Animal Research Article Animal welfare standards have been incorporated in EU legislation and in farm assurance schemes, based on scientific information and aiming to safeguard the welfare of the species concerned. Recently, emphasis has shifted from resource-based measures of welfare to animal-based measures, which are considered to assess more accurately the welfare status. The data used in this analysis were collected from April 2013 to May 2016 through the ‘Real Welfare’ scheme in order to assess on-farm pig welfare, as required for those finishing pigs under the UK Red Tractor Assurance scheme. The assessment involved five main measures (percentage of pigs requiring hospitalization, percentage of lame pigs, percentage of pigs with severe tail lesions, percentage of pigs with severe body marks and enrichment use ratio) and optional secondary measures (percentage of pigs with mild tail lesions, percentage of pigs with dirty tails, percentage of pigs with mild body marks, percentage of pigs with dirty bodies), with associated information about the environment and the enrichment in the farms. For the complete database, a sample of pens was assessed from 1928 farm units. Repeated measures were taken in the same farm unit over time, giving 112 240 records at pen level. These concerned a total of 13 480 289 pigs present on the farm during the assessments, with 5 463 348 pigs directly assessed using the ‘Real Welfare’ protocol. The three most common enrichment types were straw, chain and plastic objects. The main substrate was straw which was present in 67.9% of the farms. Compared with 2013, a significant increase of pens with undocked-tail pigs, substrates and objects was observed over time (P<0.05). The upper quartile prevalence was <0.2% for all of the four main physical outcomes, and 15% for mild body marks. The percentage of pigs that would benefit from being in a hospital pen was positively correlated to the percentage of lame pigs, and the absence of tail lesions was positively correlated with the absence of body marks (P<0.05, R>0.3). The results from the first 3 years of the scheme demonstrate a reduction of the prevalence of animal-based measures of welfare problems and highlight the value of this initiative. Cambridge University Press 2017-03-02 2017-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5607875/ /pubmed/28249629 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731117000246 Text en © The Animal Consortium 2017 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pandolfi, F.
Stoddart, K.
Wainwright, N.
Kyriazakis, I.
Edwards, S. A.
The ‘Real Welfare’ scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs
title The ‘Real Welfare’ scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs
title_full The ‘Real Welfare’ scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs
title_fullStr The ‘Real Welfare’ scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs
title_full_unstemmed The ‘Real Welfare’ scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs
title_short The ‘Real Welfare’ scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs
title_sort ‘real welfare’ scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5607875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28249629
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731117000246
work_keys_str_mv AT pandolfif therealwelfareschemebenchmarkingwelfareoutcomesforcommerciallyfarmedpigs
AT stoddartk therealwelfareschemebenchmarkingwelfareoutcomesforcommerciallyfarmedpigs
AT wainwrightn therealwelfareschemebenchmarkingwelfareoutcomesforcommerciallyfarmedpigs
AT kyriazakisi therealwelfareschemebenchmarkingwelfareoutcomesforcommerciallyfarmedpigs
AT edwardssa therealwelfareschemebenchmarkingwelfareoutcomesforcommerciallyfarmedpigs
AT pandolfif realwelfareschemebenchmarkingwelfareoutcomesforcommerciallyfarmedpigs
AT stoddartk realwelfareschemebenchmarkingwelfareoutcomesforcommerciallyfarmedpigs
AT wainwrightn realwelfareschemebenchmarkingwelfareoutcomesforcommerciallyfarmedpigs
AT kyriazakisi realwelfareschemebenchmarkingwelfareoutcomesforcommerciallyfarmedpigs
AT edwardssa realwelfareschemebenchmarkingwelfareoutcomesforcommerciallyfarmedpigs