The welfare of pigs in rustic and technified production systems using the Welfare Quality protocols of pigs in Mexico: Validity of indicators of animal welfare as part of the sustainability criteria of pig production systems

Natyieli Losada-Espinosa, María Elena Trujillo Ortega, Francisco Galindo

Abstract


Veterinaria México OA
ISSN: 2448-6760

Cite this as:

  • Losada-Espinosa N,Trujillo Ortega ME, Galindo F. The welfare of pigs in rustic and technified production systems using the Welfare Quality protocols of pigs in Mexico: Validity of indicators of animal welfare as part of the sustainability criteria of pig production systems. Veterinaria México OA. 2017;4(4). doi: 10.21753/vmoa.4.4.521.

The Welfare Quality® (WQ) protocols have been developed as a tool for the assessment of farm animal welfare based on scientific evidence. Animal welfare (AW) is part of the sustainability criteria of livestock production. A study was carried out in four states of Central Mexico in seven rustic (rPS) and six technified (tPS) production systems using the WQ protocol with the objective of providing an initial approximation of the welfare of animals and to discuss the validity of indicators of AW. The results showed that the animals housed in rustic units presented better results in the Good Health category and with respect to the criterion expression of social behaviour, while the frequency of criteria concerning Positive emotional states was higher in animals in the technified units. In the changing context in which the farms operate, including changing agricultural policies, new environmental and food safety regulations, variability of climatic conditions, and volatility in prices of inputs and outputs, it is not only the attributes referring to productivity and efficiency that become relevant. It is concluded that the criteria related to the WQ principles of health and behaviour are sensitive to changes in the housing and management of pigs. The high occurrences of health and behaviour problems recorded in technified systems are an indicator of poor welfare.

Figure 4. Classification of rustic (RS) and technified (TS) production units within the welfare categories proposed by the Welfare Quality protocol.

Keywords


animal welfare; pig behaviour and health; pig production; sustainability; Welfare Quality.

Full Text:

PDF HTML

References


Galindo F, Manteca X. Evaluación científica del bienestar animal. In: Galindo F, Orihuela A, editores. Etología aplicada. DF (MX): UNAM; 2001.

Fraser D. Toward a global perspective on farm animal welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2008;113(4):330-9. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.011.

Galindo F, Huertas S, Gallo C. ‘One Welfare’: towards sustainable livestock pro¬duction systems. In: Éloit M, editor-in-chief. Animal welfare: an asset for live¬stock production. OIE Bulletin. 2017;2017(1):8-13. doi: doi.org/10.20506/bull. issue.2017.1.2586.

Botreau R, Veissier I, Butterworth A, Bracke MBM, Keeling LJ. Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Anim. Welfare. 2007;16(May):225-8.

Unión Ganadera Regional de Porcicultores de Guanajuato. Panorama Agroal¬imentario. Carne de cerdo 2017. México: FIRA. 2017. [Available from: http:// www.fira.gob.mx/InfEspDtoXML/TemasUsuario.jsp].

Losada-Espinosa N, Mercadillo-Sierra A, Martínez-Gamba R. Costo de produc¬ción e impacto de diversos insumos sobre la rentabilidad en granjas porcinas a pequeña escala en la zona metropolitana de la Ciudad de México. LRRD. 2014;26(11):1-10. Article no. 205. [Retrieved Nov 24, 2017 from http://www. lrrd.org/orrd26/11/losa26205.html].

Stern S, Sonesson U, Gunnarsson S, Oborn I, Kumm KI, Nybrant T. Sustainable development of food production: a case study on scenarios for pig production. Ambio. 2005 Jun;34:402-7. doi: doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-34.4.402.

Cardoso M, García E. Vegetation and climate in the basin of Mexico –geographi¬cal topics of Mexico City and its environs: International Geophysical Union, Latin American regional conference. DF (MX): UNAM; 1982. p. 19-24.

Welfare Quality®. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs. Lelystad (NL): Welfare Quality® consortium; 2009 Oct 1. [Available from: http://www.wel¬farequalitynetwork.net/network/45848/7/0/40].

IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY (US): IBM Corp; [update] 2012.

Siegel S, Castellan JNJr. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. Singapore (SG): McGraw-Hill; c1988.

Losada-Espinosa N. Costos de producción y evaluación del impacto de diversos insumos sobre la rentabilidad de unidades productoras porcícolas artesanales en la zona metropolitana de la Ciudad de México [tesis de licenciatura] México: UNAM; 2012.

Turner S, Ewen M, Rooke J, Edwards S. The effect of space allowance on perfor¬mance, aggression and immune competence of growing pigs housed on straw deep litter at different group sizes. Livest Prod Sci. 2000 Sep;66(1):47-55. doi: 10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00159-7.

Estevez I, Andersen IL, Nævdal E. Group size, density and social dynamics in farm animals. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007 Mar 20;103(Issues 3-4):185–204. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.025.

Broom D. Defining agricultural animal welfare. Second viewpoint: from a sus¬tainability and product quality perspective. In: Pond W, Bazer F, Rollin B, editors. Animal welfare in animal agriculture: husbandry, stewardship, and sustainability in animal production. Boca Raton, FL (US): Taylor & Francis Group; 2012. p. 84-90.

Fu L, Li H, Liang T, Zhou B, Chu Q, Schinckel A, et al. Stocking density affects wel¬fare indicators of growing pigs of different group sizes after regrouping. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2016 Jan;174:42-50. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.10.002.

Rollin B, Thompson P. Perspectives on emergence of contemporary animal ag¬riculture in the mid-twentieth century. The decline of husbandry and the rise of the industrial model. In: Pond W, Bazer F, Rollin B, editors. Animal welfare in ani¬mal agriculture: husbandry, stewardship, and sustainability in animal production. Boca Raton, FL (US): Taylor & Francis Group; 2012. p. 3-12.

Merlot E, Meunier-Salaün MC, Prunier A. Behavioural, endocrine and immune consequences of mixing in weaned piglets. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2004;85 (3-4):247–57. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2003.11.002.

Galindo F, Newberry R, Mendl M. Social conditions. In: Appleby M, Hughes B, Mench J, Olsson A, editors. Animal welfare. 2nd ed. Oxfordshire (UK): CABI; 2011. p. 228-245.

Kristensen HH, Jones RB, Schofield CP, White RP, Wathes CM. The use of olfac¬tory and other cues for social recognition by juvenil pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2001 Jun 1;72(4):321-33.

McLeman MA, Mendl M, Jones RB, White R, Wathes CM. Discrimination of con¬specifics by juvenile domestic pigs, Sus Scrofa. Anim Behav. 2005 Aug 1;70(Is¬sue 2):451-61. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.11.013.

McLeman MA, Mendl M, Jones RB, Wathes CM. Social discrimination of familiar conspecifics by juvenile pigs, Sus scrofa: development of a non-invasive meth¬od to study the transmission of unimodal and bimodal cues between live stim¬uli. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2008 Dec 31;115(Issues 3-4):123-37. doi: 10.1016/j. applanim.2008.06.010.

McGlone JJ, Curtis SE. Behavior and performance of weanling pigs in pens equipped with hide areas. J Anim Sci. 1985 Jan;60(1):20-4.

Rodenburg TB, Koene P. The impact of group size on damaging behaviours, aggresion, fear and stress in farm animals. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007 Mar 20;103(Issues 3-4):205-14. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.024.

Rollin BE. Farm animal welfare: social, bioethical, and research issues. 1st ed. Denver, CO (US): Wiley-Blackwell; 1995. Reimp. 2003.

Moinard C, Mendl M, Nicol CJ, Green LE. A case control study of on-farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2003 May 21;81(4):333-55. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00276-9.

Boyle L, Lemos DT. Caudofagia y bienestar en cerdos. Suis. 2014 Dec;113:14-8.

Balcombe JP. Laboratory environments and rodents’ behavioural needs: a re¬view. Lab Anim. 2006 Jul;40(3):217-35. doi: 10.1258/002367706777611488.

Algers B, Blokhuis HJ, Broom DM, et al. The risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems: Scientific opinion of the panel on an¬imal health and welfare. EFSA Journal. 2007 Dec 06;5(12):1-13. [last updated 2017 Dec 09]. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2007.611.

Douglas C, Bateson M, Walsh C, Bédué A, Edwards SA. Environmental enrich¬ment induces optimistic cognitive biases in pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2012 Jun;139(1-2):65-73. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2012.02.018.

Telkänranta H, Swan K, Hirvonen H, Valros A. Chewable materials before wean¬ing reduce tail biting in growing pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2014 Aug;157:14- 22. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.01.004.

Temple D, Velarde A, Manteca X, Dalmau A. Evaluación de bienestar animal mediante el protocolo Welfare Quality® en el cerdo ibérico en extensivo: resultados preliminares. SCI. 2009 Oct;22:55-64.

Vanhonacker F, Verbeke W, Van Poucke E, Buijs S, Tuyttens F. Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livest Sci. 2009 Jul;123(1):16–22. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2008.09.023.

Fraser D. Animal behaviour, animal welfare and the scientific study of af¬fect. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2009 May;118(3-4):108-17. doi: 10.1016/j. applanim.2009.02.020.

Balcombe J. Animal pleasure and its moral significance. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2009 May;118(3-4):208-16. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.012.

Duncan IJ. The changing concept of animal sentience. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2006 Oct;100(1-2):11-9. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.011.

Watanabe S. How animal psychology contributes to animal welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007 Sep;106(4):193-202. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.01.003.

Mench JA. Thirty years after Brambell: whither animal welfare science? J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 1998;1(2):91-102. doi: 10.1207/s15327604jaws0102_1.

Regan T. The case for animal rights. Berkeley (US): University of California Press; 1983.

Spinka M. How important is natural behaviour in animal farming sys¬tems? Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2006 Oct;100(1-2):117-28. doi:10.1016/j. applanim.2006.04.006.

María G. Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain. Livest Sci. 2006 Sep;103(3):250-56. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.011.

Krystallis A, de Barcellos M, Kügler J, Verbeke W, Gruner K. Attitudes of european citizens towards pig production systems. Livest Sci. 2009 Dec;126(1-3):46-56. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2009.05.016.

Miranda-de la Lama GC, Sepúlveda WS, Villarroel M, María GA. Attitudes of meat retailers to animal welfare in Spain. Meat Sci. 2013 Nov;95(3):569-75. doi: doi. org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.05.046.

Cozzi G, Brscic M, Gottardo F. Animal welfare as a pilar of sustainable farm ani¬mal production. Acta Agric Slov. 2008 Sep;91(2):23-31. [Invited lecture].

McGlone JJ. Farm animal welfare in the context of other society issues: toward sustainable systems. Livest Prod Sci. 2001 Nov;72(1-2):75-81.

Bonney RJ. Farm animal welfare at work. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2006 Oct; 100(1-2):140-47. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.007.

Boogaard BK, Boekhorst LJS, Oosting SJ, Sørensen JT. Socio-cultural sustainabili¬ty of pig production: citizen perceptions in the Netherlands and Denmark. Livest Sci. 2011 Sep;140(1-3):189-200. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.028.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21753/vmoa.4.4.521

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.