Factors Influencing Farmer Willingness to Reduce Aggression between Pigs

Abstract

Simple SummaryAggression between pigs is an important animal welfare issue in commercial farming, and is caused by an unstable social structure due to regular regrouping of unfamiliar pigs. The behavior has been extensively researched and several strategies to reduce aggression have been identified, however, they are not commonly used by farmers in practice. We conducted a survey of 122 UK and Irish pig farmers with the aim of understanding why farmers do not adequately implement aggression control strategies. This was important in order to identify targets for encouraging a change in practice. We found that the majority of farmers mixed pigs at least once during production and had tried at least one mitigation strategy in the past. However, farmers expressed limited willingness to implement strategies in the future, and this was influenced by: (1) their beliefs about the outcome of controlling aggression; (2) their perception of their ability to implement the necessary changes; (3) their perceptions of aggression as a problem and; (4) their views of relevant stakeholder groups. Based on these findings we make important recommendations on how to bridge the gap between research and practice.AbstractAggression between pigs remains an important animal welfare issue despite several solutions existing. Uptake of livestock welfare research relies on various stakeholders being willing to recommend or adopt changes to farm structure or management (e.g., veterinarians, researchers, farmers). This survey provides insight into the attitudes and practices of 122 UK and Irish pig farmers regarding aggression between growing pigs. Our aim was to understand why mitigation strategies are not adequately implemented. The majority of farmers mixed pigs at least once during production and had tried at least one mitigation strategy in the past. Farmers expressed limited willingness to implement strategies in the future, and a structural equation model revealed that this was directly influenced by their beliefs about the outcome of controlling aggression, and their perception of their ability to implement the necessary changes. Willingness was indirectly influenced by their perceptions of aggression as a problem and views of relevant stakeholder groups. Veterinarians had the greatest impact on farmer behavior. We recommend that researchers test research findings in practice, calculate cost-benefits of implementation, and transfer knowledge through various sources. This study showed that structural equation modeling is a valuable tool to understand farmer behavior regarding specific and entrenched animal welfare issues.

Multi-Stakeholder Focus Groups on Potential for Meat Inspection Data to Inform Management of Pig Health and Welfare on Farm

“…Veterinarians are particularly important in this regard as they are often used, and they are trusted information sources for pig producers. Discussion and sharing of information among pig producers is also considered important [31,32] which was reiterated during the focus groups. Furthermore, when veterinary practitioners and farm advisors are informed, they can assist in the development of herd management plans to reduce the prevalence of health and welfare conditions [13,14].…”

“…Financial considerations are an important driver for herd health management, to reduce the impact of disease on performance and mortality [31]. In addition, the perceived ability of producers to control these issues more successfully than welfare issues such as aggression [32] or tail biting [33] can play a role. Bruising and skin lesions are important indicators of pig welfare on-farm [7,34].…”

“…They often reflect problems with aggression which impede productivity and economic returns [35]. In spite of being aware of such implications [32], pig producers did not discuss the potential for inclusion of such lesions in the MI process. This is likely because they do not consider aggression as an issue on their farm [32].…”

“…In spite of being aware of such implications [32], pig producers did not discuss the potential for inclusion of such lesions in the MI process. This is likely because they do not consider aggression as an issue on their farm [32]. The same considerations can be made for tail lesions [29,30,33,36].…”

“…The researchers reported individual variation in the uptake of advice even when financial incentives were provided due to producers' attitudes [49], showing that financial incentives are not always sufficient to induce change. Indeed, producer attitudes to and their perceived ability to control certain health or welfare issues appear to play an important role, especially in regard to tail lesions [30,33] and aggression [32] in pigs. This could explain the concerns expressed by producers in the current study regarding tail lesions stating that they require assistance in managing tail biting in a sustainable way due to small profit margins, and their opposition to penalties on carcasses with docked tails or tail lesions.…”