Alternatives to nose-ringing in outdoor sows: the provision of root crops

Edge, H.L.; Bulman, C.A.; Edwards, Sandra A.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2004.10.021

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, only 5 percent of pigs are raised in free range systems in Australia (APL 2018a) due to significant economic, environmental, and climate constraints. Pigs are sensitive to heat (CIWF 2006) and cause damage to vegetation and soils through foraging and rooting behavior (Edge, Bulman, and Edwards 2005; Bondi et al 2015), and excess nutrients from manure can leach into land and water systems (Siegford, Powers, and Grimes‐Casey 2008). However, there is ongoing social movement activism in Australia for further improvements to pig welfare beyond “sow stall free.” These “response movements” (King and Busa 2017) are a source of contestation, and they open up the possibility for further improvements to animal welfare.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Free Is Sow Stall Free? Incremental Regulatory Reform and Industry Co‐optation of Activism

Carey¹,

Parker²,

Scrinis³

2020

Law & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article critically examines how interactions between social movement activism, supermarkets, and the pork industry led to the voluntary adoption of “sow stall free” standards in Australia. We “backwards map” the regulatory space behind “sow stall free” products to show how the movement against factory farming became selectively focused on the abolition of one form of confinement for sows rather than on other forms of confinement and the conditions of the sows’ offspring, the piglets that are consumed. We argue that this facilitated an incremental shift to “sow stall free” production, allowing the concept of pig welfare to be corporatized in a way that maintains the dominant model of factory farmed pig meat production.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Free Is Sow Stall Free? Incremental Regulatory Reform and Industry Co‐optation of Activism

Carey¹,

Parker²,

Scrinis³

2020

Law & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alternatives to nose rings have been employed with different degrees of success. Some examples are the use of forages species that could withstand and recover from rooting, reduction in stocking rates, implementation of rotational stocking systems, manipulation of edible substrate-silage [199], and provision of root crops [200].…”

Section: Painful Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal Welfare and Production Challenges Associated with Pasture Pig Systems: A Review

Pietrosemoli

Tang

2020

Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of published literature was conducted to identify pasture pig production system features that pose risks to animal welfare, and to develop recommendations aimed at improving the wellbeing of the animals managed in those systems. Pasture pig production systems present specific challenges to animal welfare that are inherent to the nature of these systems where producers have little room to make improvements. However, these systems present other challenges that could be reduced with a carefully designed system, by adopting appropriate management strategies and by avoiding management practices that are likely to negatively affect animal wellbeing. In pasture pig production systems, exposure to extreme temperatures, potential contact with wildlife and pathogens (especially parasites), vulnerability to predators, risk of malnutrition, pre-weaning piglet mortality, complexity of processes for monitoring and treating sick animals, and for cleaning and disinfection of facilities and equipment are among the main threats to animal welfare.

show abstract

“…Materials that reduce the occurrence of harmful redirected behaviours are less well studied in sows than in rearing pigs, but include straw (Whittaker et al, 1999) and peat (Durrell et al, 1997). Since pregnant sows and boars are feed restricted and the motivation to explore is thus predominantly appetitive foraging, materials that contain edible parts are probably the most appropriate to satisfy the motivation to explore in sows and boars and prevent abnormal behaviours (van Putten and van de Burgwal, 1990;Gjein and Larssen, 1995;Edge et al, 2005). There is not enough scientific evidence to state the minimum amount of rooting materials that is needed to satisfy the behavioural needs of sows.…”

Section: For Pregnant Sows and Boarsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion concerning a Multifactorial approach on the use of animal and non‐animal‐based measures to assess the welfare of pigs

Authié¹,

Berg²,

Bøtner³

et al. 2014

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigs have a need for manipulable materials to satisfy a range of behavioural needs, which can be different in different classes of pig. When these needs are not met, a range of adverse welfare consequences result, one of these being an increased risk for tail‐biting in weaners and rearing pigs. The ability to control the risk of tail‐biting is essential when aiming to avoid tail‐docking. Based on available scientific information this Opinion identifies the multiple interactions between risk factors, welfare consequences and animal and non‐animal‐based measures on the two subjects requested (i) the absence of functional manipulable materials, for pigs at different stages in life and (ii) tail‐biting, for weaners and rearing pigs only. An attempt is made to quantify the relationships between the identified interactions by carrying out a statistical analysis of information from available databases, those being an international dataset collected using the Welfare Quality® protocol, which was not designed to evaluate risk factors for tail‐biting and therefore, it had limitations in fitness for this analysis, and a large Finnish dataset with undocked pigs. Based on the current state of knowledge, the AHAW Panel proposes two simple tool‐boxes for on farm use to assess (i) the functionality of the supplied manipulable material and (ii) the presence and strength of risk factors for tail biting. Both proposed tool‐boxes include a combination of the most important resource‐based and animal‐based measures. Further development and validation of decision‐support tools for customised farm assessment is strongly recommended and a proposal for harmonised data collection across the range of European farming circumstances is presented. A series of further recommendations are made by the AHAW Panel.

show abstract

Alternatives to nose-ringing in outdoor sows: the provision of root crops

Cited by 11 publications

References 8 publications

How Free Is Sow Stall Free? Incremental Regulatory Reform and Industry Co‐optation of Activism

How Free Is Sow Stall Free? Incremental Regulatory Reform and Industry Co‐optation of Activism

Animal Welfare and Production Challenges Associated with Pasture Pig Systems: A Review

Scientific Opinion concerning a Multifactorial approach on the use of animal and non‐animal‐based measures to assess the welfare of pigs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About