Assessing the human–animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review

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.

Section: Effect Of Group Size On Welfare In Fattening Pigsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does group size have an impact on welfare indicators in fattening pigs?

Meyer-Hamme

Lambertz

Gauly

2016

“…However, it provides little information on the underlying physiological mechanisms that govern its modification in many behavioural situations (Sayers, 1973). Increased HR can occur in a state of pleasure or in response to a negative stimulus (Waiblinger et al, 2006). The complex interplay of the two branches of the autonomic nervous system is not always comprehensible when cardiac activity is measured only by HR (Porges, 1995;, as a rise in HR is due to an increase in sympathetic activity (Hainsworth, 1995), the decrease of vagal tone or the simultaneous changes in both regulatory systems (von Borell et al, 2007b).…”

Section: Significance Of Hr and Hrv As Non-invasive Stress Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare implication of measuring heart rate and heart rate variability in dairy cattle: literature review and conclusions for future research

Kovács

Jurkovich

Bakony³

et al. 2014

Heart rate (HR) measurements have been used to determine stress in livestock species since the beginning of the 1970s. However, according to the latest studies in veterinary and behaviour-physiological sciences, heart rate variability (HRV) proved to be more precise for studying the activity of the autonomic nervous system. In dairy cattle, HR and HRV indices have been used to detect stress caused by routine management practices, pain or milking. This review provides the significance of HR and HRV measurements in dairy cattle by summarising current knowledge and research results in this area. First, the biological background and the interrelation of the autonomic regulation of cardiovascular function, stress, HR and HRV are discussed. Equipment and methodological approaches developed to measure interbeat intervals and estimate HRV in dairy cattle are described. The methods of HRV analysis in time, frequency and non-linear domains are also explained in detail emphasising their physiological background. Finally, the most important scientific results and potential possibilities for future research are presented.Keywords: heart rate, heart rate variability, stress, welfare, dairy cattle ImplicationsHousing and milking technology, health status and way of handling of animals influence the well-being of animals in intensive dairy farming. Non-invasive methods of assessing stress include heart rate and heart rate variability measurements that involve the monitoring of the autonomic nervous function by digital, high frequency, 24 h multi-channel electrocardiographic recorders. As high-producing cattle breeds are very sensitive to environmental factors, monitoring and decreasing stress is of major importance in terms of both animal welfare and production. IntroductionIn intensive dairy farming, housing and milking systems are main factors in determining the welfare of animals, as adaptation to environmental changes can be challenging for high-producing breeds.Important aspects in the improvement of dairy cattle management systems in respect of animal welfare are the recognition and evaluation of stress. The stressfulness of the technological environment has been examined in many different contexts. Certain welfare studies proved that for intensively farmed cattle, the milking technology (Rushen et al., 2001;Wenzel et al., 2003), fear from given routine treatments (Holst, 1998) and pain (Broom, 1991;Mellor et al., 2000) mean such load that may cause stress (Dantzer and Mormède, 1983;von Borell, 2001) having a negative impact also on milk production (Rushen et al., 2001). Effects of technology and of social interactions can be described not only by classical descriptive behavioural observations (e.g. Milmann, 2013;Theurer et al., 2013), but with physiological measures as well (Hopster and Blokhuis, 1994;Rietmann et al., 2004). Most dairy cattle studies have focused on the stress reactions of animals expressed in neuroendocrine changes that are considered to be reliable indicators of stress and pain in livestock species (...

“…Negative interactions and fear of humans have been shown to reduce productivity and welfare and increase handling times and risks of injury to animals and stockpeople (Hemsworth, 2003;Waiblinger et al, 2006). Positive handling can improve the ease of handling and reduce fear responses in cattle (Boissy and Bouissou, 1988;Boivin et al, 1992b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…-E-mail: mairi.stewart@agresearch.co.nz this has been comprehensively reviewed (Hemsworth, 2003;Waiblinger et al, 2006). Less attention has been devoted to examining the effects that handling has on animals' ability to cope with routine husbandry procedures commonly used on farm (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of previous handling experiences on responses of dairy calves to routine husbandry procedures

Stewart

Shepherd

Webster

et al. 2013

The nature of human-animal interactions is an important factor contributing to animal welfare and productivity. Reducing stress during routine husbandry procedures is likely to improve animal welfare. We examined how the type of early handling of calves affected responses to two common husbandry procedures, ear-tagging and disbudding. Forty Holstein-Friesian calves (n 5 20/treatment) were exposed to one of two handling treatments daily from 1 to 5 weeks of age: (1) positive (n 5 20), involving gentle handling (soft voices, slow movements, patting), and (2) negative (n 5 20), involving rough handling (rough voices, rapid movements, pushing). Heart rate (HR), respiration rate (RR) and behaviour (activity, tail flicking) were measured before and after ear-tagging and disbudding (2 days apart). Cortisol was measured at 220 (baseline), 20 and 40 min relative to disbudding time. There were no significant treatment differences in HR, RR or behaviour in response to either procedure. However, the following changes occurred across both treatment groups. HR increased after disbudding (by 14.7 6 4.0 and 18.6 6 3.8 bpm, positive and negative, respectively; mean 6 s.e.m.) and ear-tagging (by 8.7 6 3.1 and 10.3 6 3.0 bpm, positive and negative, respectively). After disbudding, there was an increase in RR (by 8.2 6 3.4 and 9.3 6 3.4 breaths/min, positive and negative, respectively), overall activity (by 9.4 6 1.2 and 9.9 6 1.3 frequency/min, positive and negative, respectively) and tail flicking (by 13.2 6 2.8 and 11.2 6 3.0 frequency/min, positive and negative, respectively), and cortisol increased from baseline at 20 min post procedure (by 10.3 6 1.1 and 12.3 6 1.1 nmol/l positive and negative, respectively). Although we recorded significant changes in calf responses during ear-tagging and disbudding, the type of prior handling had no effect on responses. The effects of handling may have been overridden by the degree of pain and/or stress associated with the procedures. Further research is warranted to understand the welfare impact and interaction between previous handling and responses to husbandry procedures.