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 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.

[1]  C. Winckler,et al.  Animal health and welfare planning improves udder health and cleanliness but not leg health in Austrian dairy herds. , 2015, Journal of dairy science.

[2]  M. Heinonen,et al.  Application of the Welfare Quality ® animal welfare assessment system in Finnish pig production, part I: Identification of principal components , 2015 .

[3]  M. Heinonen,et al.  Application of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment system in Finnish pig production, part II: Associations between animal-based and environmental measures of welfare , 2015 .

[4]  W. Browne,et al.  Navigating the iceberg: reducing the number of parameters within the Welfare Quality(®) assessment protocol for dairy cows. , 2014, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[5]  X. Manteca,et al.  Assessment of test–retest reliability of animal-based measures on growing pig farms , 2013 .

[6]  M. Mendl,et al.  Prevalence of risk factors for tail biting on commercial farms and intervention strategies. , 2012, Veterinary journal.

[7]  X. Manteca,et al.  The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems in France and Spain: assessment of health , 2012 .

[8]  S. Edwards,et al.  Welfare science into practice: a successful case example of working with industry , 2011, Animal Welfare.

[9]  Andrew Butterworth,et al.  Inter-observer reliability testing of pig welfare outcome measures proposed for inclusion within farm assurance schemes. , 2011, Veterinary journal.

[10]  X. Manteca,et al.  Application of the Welfare Quality protocol to assess growing pigs kept under intensive conditions in Spain , 2011 .

[11]  Ludovic Brossard,et al.  A meta-analysis of the combined effect of housing and environmental enrichment characteristics on the behaviour and performance of pigs , 2010 .

[12]  H. J. Blokhuis,et al.  The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being , 2010 .

[13]  S. Edwards,et al.  Interdependence of welfare outcome measures and potential confounding factors on finishing pig farms , 2009 .

[14]  Laura E. Green,et al.  A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of lameness in finishing pigs, gilts and pregnant sows and associations with limb lesions and floor types on commercial farms in England , 2009, Animal Welfare.

[15]  Andrew Butterworth,et al.  The effect of sampling strategy on the estimated prevalence of welfare outcome measures on finishing pig farms , 2009 .

[16]  V. Courboulay,et al.  Welfare assessment in 82 pig farms: effect of animal age and floor type on behaviour and injuries in fattening pigs , 2009, Animal Welfare.

[17]  I. Veissier,et al.  European approaches to ensure good animal welfare , 2008 .

[18]  G. Garrod,et al.  Pig in the middle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards , 2007 .

[19]  L. Green,et al.  Preliminary assessment of finishing pig welfare using animal-based measurements , 2007, Animal Welfare.

[20]  S. Edwards.  Experimental welfare assessment and on-farm application , 2007 .

[21]  Welfare implications of farm assurance schemes , 2005, Veterinary Record.

[22]  H. Whay,et al.  Welfare assessment: indices from clinical observation , 2004, Animal Welfare.

[23]  L. Green,et al.  Animal-Based Measures for the Assessment of Welfare State of Dairy Cattle, Pigs and Laying Hens: Consensus of Expert Opinion , 2003, Animal Welfare.

[24]  D. Fraser.  Assessing Animal Welfare at the Farm and Group Level: The Interplay of Science and Values , 2003, Animal Welfare.

[25]  L. Green,et al.  Repeatability of a lameness scoring system for finishing pigs , 2000, Veterinary Record.

[26]  C. Whittemore.  Response to the environmental and welfare imperatives by U.K. Livestock production industries and research services , 1995 .