Search

• We investigated the impacts of bedding and outdoor runs on pig welfare and environment. • Bedding improved aspects of pig welfare, e.g. exploratory behaviour and oral stereotypies. • Acidification was higher on farms with bedding due to emissions from farm yard manure. • Global warming/freshwater eutrophication did not significantly differ due to farm variability. • Manure management innovations are needed to reduce emissions on farms with bedding. Providing bedding or access to an outdoor run are husbandry aspects intended to improve pig welfare, which is currently financially supported through animal welfare schemes in several European countries. However, they may significantly affect the environment through changes in feed efficiency and manure management. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to compare farms differing in animal welfare relevant husbandry aspects regarding (1) the welfare of growing-finishing pigs and (2) environmental impact categories such as global warming (GW), acidification (AC), and freshwater (FE) and marine eutrophication (ME), by employing an attributional Life Cycle Assessment. We collected data on 50 farms with growing-finishing pigs in seven European countries. Ten animal-based welfare indicators were aggregated into three pig welfare indices using principal component analysis. Cluster analysis of farms based on husbandry aspects resulted in three clusters: NOBED (31 farms without bedding or outdoor run), BED (11 farms with bedding only) and BEDOUT (eight farms with bedding and outdoor run). Pigs on farms with bedding (BED and BEDOUT) manipulated enrichment more often (P < 0.001), pen fixtures less frequently (P = 0.003) and showed fewer oral stereotypies (P < 0.001) than pigs on NOBED farms. There were fewer pigs with a short(er) tail on farms with than without bedding (P < 0.001). Acidification of BEDOUT and BED farms was significantly higher (compared to NOBED farms P = 0.002) due to higher ammonia emissions related to farmyard manure. Also, BEDOUT farms had higher ME than NOBED farms (P = 0.035). There were no significant differences regarding GW and FE between husbandry clusters, due to the large variability within clusters regarding feed composition and conversion. Therefore, both husbandry aspects associated with improved animal welfare have a significant influence on some environmental impacts, such as acidification and marine eutrophication. Nevertheless, the large variation within clusters suggests that trade-offs may be minimised through e.g. AC and ME. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

HPAI H5N8 is currently causing an epizootic in Europe, infecting many poultry holdings as well as captive and wild bird species in more than ten countries. Given the clear clinical manifestation, passive surveillance is considered the most effective means of detecting infected wild and domestic birds. Testing samples from new species and non-previously reported areas is key to determine the geographic spread of HPAIV H5N8 2016 in wild birds. Testing limited numbers of dead wild birds in previously-reported areas is useful when it is relevant to know whether the virus is still present in the area or not, e.g. before restrictive measures in poultry are to be lifted. To prevent introduction of HPAIV from wild birds into poultry, strict biosecurity implemented and maintained by the poultry farmers is the most important measure. Providing holding-specific biosecurity guidance is strongly recommended as it is expected to have a high impact on the achieved biosecurity level of the holding. This is preferably done during peace time to increase preparedness for future outbreaks. The location and size of control and in particular monitoring areas for poultry associated with positive wild bird findings are best based on knowledge of the wider habitat and flight distance of the affected wild bird species. It is recommended to increase awareness among poultry farmers in these established areas in order to enhance passive surveillance and to implement enhanced biosecurity measures including poultry confinement. There is no scientific evidence suggesting a different effectiveness of the protection measures on the introduction into poultry holdings and subsequent spread of HPAIV when applied to H5N8, H5N1 or other notifiable HPAI viruses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little is known about the characteristics of biters and victims before the appearance of a tail-biting outbreak in groups of pigs. This study aimed to characterise biters and victims (according to gender and performance) and to quantify their behavioural development during the 6 days preceding the tail-biting outbreak. The hypotheses tested were: (a) biters are more often female, are the lighter pigs in the group, are more restless and perform more aggressive behaviour; and (b) victims are more often male, heavier and less active. Using video recordings we carried out a detailed study of 14 pens with a tail-biting outbreak among the weaned piglets. All piglets were individually marked and we observed the behaviour of biters, victims and control piglets (piglet types). In every pen, each piglet type was observed every other day from 6 days before (D−6) to the day of the first visible tail damage (i.e. day of tail biting outbreak; D0). While the number of male biters (6 of the 14 biters) and male victims (11 of the 14 victims) was not significantly different (P = 0.13), this numerical contrast was considerable. The start weight of victims was significantly (P = 0.03) higher (8.6 kg) than those of biters (7.5 kg) and control piglets (8.0 kg). Biters tended (P = 0.08) to spend longer sitting/kneeling (3.1 min/h) than controls (1.7 min/h), but no differences were seen in the time spent lying or standing. Victims tended (P = 0.07) to change posture more often (restlessness) than controls and chased penmates more (P = 0.04) than biters. Victims also performed more (P = 0.04) aggressive behaviour than biters and controls. In contrast, biters tended (P = 0.08) to be chased by penmates more often and tended (P = 0.06) to receive more aggressive behaviour than controls. Furthermore, biters spent longer manipulating the enrichment device (P = 0.01) and the posterior/tail (P = 0.02) of their penmates than controls and tended (P = 0.06) to perform more tail bites than victims. Victims received more posterior/tail manipulation (P = 0.02) and tail bites (P = 0.04) than controls. It was also noticed that, independent of piglet type, restlessness (P = 0.03) increased and the frequency of performed tail bites tended (P = 0.08) to increase in the 6 days preceding a tail-biting outbreak. These findings may contribute to the early identification of biters or victims and support the development of strategies to minimise the occurrence of tail biting. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Few issues in swine production are as complex as floor space allowances. One method for pork producers to calculate floor space allowance (A) is to convert BW into a 2-dimensional concept yielding an expression of A = k * BW0.667. Data on ADG, ADFI, and G:F were obtained from published peer-reviewed studies. Five data sets were created: A = grower-finisher pigs, fully slatted floors, and consistent group size; B = grower-finisher pigs and fully slatted floors (group size did not need to be consistent); C = grower-finisher pigs, partially slatted floors, and consistent group size; D = grower-finisher pigs, partially slatted floors (group size did not need to be consistent); and E = nursery pigs, fully slatted or woven wire floors (group size did not need to be consistent). Each data set was analyzed using a broken-line analysis and a linear regression. For the broken-line analyses, the critical k value, below which a decrease in ADG occurred, varied from 0.0317 to 0.0348. In all cases the effect of space allowance on ADG was significant (P < 0.05). Using the linear analyses based on data with k values of <0.030, the critical k values for the 4 grower-finisher data sets did not differ from those obtained using the broken-line analysis (0.0358 vs. 0.0336, respectively; P > 0.10); however, none of the linear regressions explained a significant proportion of the variation in ADG. The slopes for the nonplateau portion of the broken-line analyses based on percent values varied among data sets. For every 0.00 1 decrease in k (approximately 3% of the critical k value), ADG decreased by 0.56 to 1.41%, with an aver- age value of 0.98% for the 5%-based analyses. The use of an allometric approach to express space allowance and broken-line analysis to establish space requirements seem to be useful tools for pig production. The critical k value at which crowding becomes detrimental to the growth of the pig is similar in full- and partial- slat systems and in nursery and grower-finisher stages. The critical point for crowding determined in these analyses approximated current recommendations to ensure the welfare of pigs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence from studies of group-housed sows in unbedded systems indicates that hunger may be a cause of increased aggression between animals. The present study aimed to investigate the effects of food level on performance, aggression and skin damage in a deep-straw system. Sixteen groups offive gilts were introduced over 8 months to one of two dynamic groups in a deep-straw yard (2·35 m2 per sow) receiving different food levels from an electronic sow-feeding system: high (H: 3·0 kg and 38 MJ/day) and low (L: 1·6 kg and 20 MJ/day). Seventy second-parity sows were returned to the same treatments in the same subgroups. The behaviour of the animals was recorded throughout both pregnancies using a time sampling technique. Severity of skin damage was recorded as a number from 0 to 4 for each of nine areas, the average of which being the ‘damage score’. The total number of animals in each dynamic group was maintained at around 30, through the use of additional sows. As expected, H sows were heavier than L sows but no effect offood treatment was found on litter size or performance. L sows were more active (L v. H; standing: 41 v. 31% of total observation time respectively, F114 = 7·65, P < 0·05) and showed more straw manipulation than H sows (L v. H: 17 v. 10% respectively, F 3 34 = 18·4, P < 0·001). No differences between treatments were found either in number of aggressive interactions (L v. H: 3·6 v. 3·8 interactions per sow per observation day, F, u = 0·82, P > 0·05), or in damage score (L v. H: 0·24 v. 0·28; Flu = 0·27; P > 0·05).However, introduction of new animals did influence aggression, with sows being more involved in aggressive interactions on the day they were introduced, than on other sow's introduction days and on no introduction days (Tukey, P < 0·05). Average skin lesions per experimental sow were also higher in the days immediately following introduction. It can be concluded that in a sequential feeding system with plentiful straw, aggression is not influenced by the level offeeding. In these systems, the major factor giving rise to aggression is the introduction of new sows to the resident group. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]