Production systems for fattening pigs have been characterized over the last 2 decades by rising farm sizes coupled with increasing group sizes. These developments resulted in a serious public discussion regarding animal welfare and health in these intensive production systems. Even though large farm and group sizes came under severe criticism, it is still unknown whether these factors indeed negatively affect animal welfare. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the effect of group size (<15 v. 15 to 30 v. >30 pigs/pen) on various animal-based measures of the Welfare Quality ® protocol for growing pigs under conventional fattening conditions. A total of 60 conventional pig fattening farms with different group sizes in Germany were included. Moderate bursitis (35%) was found as the most prevalent indicator of welfare-related problems, while its prevalence increased with age during the fattening period. However, differences between group sizes were not detected ( P > 0.05). The prevalence of moderately soiled bodies increased from 9.7% at the start to 14.2% at the end of the fattening period, whereas large pens showed a higher prevalence (15.8%) than small pens (10.4%; P < 0.05). With increasing group size, the incidence of moderate wounds with 8.5% and 11.3% in small-and medium-sized pens, respectively, was lower ( P < 0.05) than in large-sized ones (16.3%). Contrary to bursitis and dirtiness, its prevalence decreased during the fattening period. Moderate manure was less often found in pigs fed by a dry feeder than in those fed by a liquid feeding system ( P < 0.05). The human-animal relationship was improved in large in comparison to small groups. On the contrary, negative social behaviour was found more often in large groups. Exploration of enrichment material decreased with increasing live weight. Given that all animals were tail-docked, tail biting was observed at a very low rate of 1.9%. In conclusion, the results indicate that BW and feeding system are determining factors for the welfare status, while group size was not proved to affect the welfare level under the studied conditions of pig fattening.

The housing condition of pig (Sus scrofa) fattening farms are increasingly receiving criticism, because they are associated with impaired animal welfare. Consumers view the increase in farm sizes critically, even though scientifically based knowledge on the relationship between farm size and welfare is still limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the welfare level of conventional fattening pig farms in Germany and to evaluate the relationship between farm size and animal welfare level. In total, the Welfare Quality® protocol (WQ) for pigs was applied on 60 farms. Farms were classified according to their size into small (< 1,500 pigs per farm), medium (1,500-3,000 pigs per farm) and large (> 3,000 pigs per farm). Independent of the farm size, the overall WQ classifications ‘excellent’ and ‘not classified’ were not recorded in any of the farms, while ‘enhanced’ and ‘acceptable’ was achieved by 80 and 20% of the farms, respectively. Farm sizes had no effect on any of the four principles ‘good feeding’, ‘good housing’, ‘good health’ or ‘appropriate behaviour’. Overall, moderate bursitis (35%) was found to be the most prevalent indicator of welfare-related problems. However, it did not differ between farm sizes. Another highly prevalent indicator, moderately soiled body, increased from 11.1% in small-to 20.8% in large-sized farms. In conclusion, our findings show that none of the farm sizes were superior in terms of animal welfare. Overall, acceptable or enhanced scores were achieved for many of the criteria, however the need for improvement in other criteria such as ‘expression of other behaviour’ and ‘positive emotional state’, was clear.

drei Bestandsgrößen-Kategorien (jeweils 20 Betriebe/Kategorie) eingeteilt: 1) klein = < 1.500 Mastplätze, 2) mittel = 1.500 bis 3.000 Mastplätze und 3) groß = 3.000 Mastplätze. Es wurden nur konventionell arbeitende Betriebe mit den am weitesten verbreiteten Haltungsverfahren (Planbefestigter Boden, Zwangsbelüftung, Automatische Fütterung) in die Untersuchungen einbezogen. Die teilnehmenden Betriebe hielten durchschnittlich 2.641 Schweine, wobei die Zahl der Mastplätze zwischen 260 und 11.000 variierte. Die Mehrheit der Betriebe (92%) hielt die Tiere auf Voll-und 8% auf Teilspaltenböden. Die Gruppengröße variierte von 10 bis 350 Schweinen pro Bucht (Mittelwert: 20 Schweine/Bucht, Median 16 Schweine/Bucht). Um den Einfluss der Gruppengröße auf das Tierwohl betrachten zu können, wurden drei Gruppengrößen-Kategorien definiert: klein: < 15 Schweine/Bucht, n = 207 Buchten; mittel: 15 bis 30 Schweine/Bucht, n = 257; groß: > 30 Schweine/Bucht, n = 136. Im Durchschnitt betrug das Platzangebot 0,83 m 2 /Schwein (0,31 m 2 bis 2,5 m 2 /Schwein). Das Welfare Quality® Protokoll ist ein vornehmlich tierorientiertes Indikatorensystem, das der umfassenden Beurteilung des Wohlergehens von Nutztieren auf Betriebsebene dient. Es beinhaltet vier verschiedene Stufen, über die aus den ursprünglich 34 Indikatoren in einem hierarchischen Aggregierungsprozess 12 Kriterien, 4 Grundsätzen und schließlich ein einziger Gesamtscore gebildet wird. Die Betriebe wurden auf dieser Basis als "ausgezeichnet", "verbessert", "akzeptabel" oder "nicht klassifiziert" eingestuft. Die drei Bestandsgrößen-sowie Gruppengrößen-Kategorien wurden anhand der Mittelwerte aus der Tierwohl-Bewertung des Protokolls miteinander vergleichen. Der Betrieb wurde als zufälliger Effekt berücksichtigt. Annähernd 80% der Betriebe wurden als "verbessert" klassifiziert; alle anderen Betriebe als "akzeptabel". Grundsätzlich ist das Tierwohl-Niveau damit als eher niedrig einzustufen. Die Bestandsgröße hatte keinen signifikanten Effekt auf die Ausprägung des Gesamtscores. Auf der Grundsatz-und auf der Kriterienebene konnten keine signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen den Bestandsgrößen-Kategorien abgesichert werden. Der Grundsatz "Gute Fütterung" erzielte mit Abstand die höchste Punktzahl, obwohl das dazugehörige Kriterium SUMMARY 8 conclusion, none of the evaluated group sizes with respect to the indicators of the Welfare Quality® Protocol proved to be superior to others. It is more appropriate that the importance of the group size, as well as the herd size, with regard to animal welfare seems to be overestimated. At the same time, the overall situation has to be considered as unsatisfying, based on the detected prevalence's of technopathies. The discussion about animal protection and animal welfare has to be continued. Other factors like the management or husbandry system should be taken into the focus of further studies to improve sustainable animal welfare on farms Literaturverzeichnis

No abstract