Human–animal relationship influences husbandry practices, animal welfare and productivity in pig farming

Pol, Françoise; Kling‐Eveillard, Florence; Champigneulle, F.; Fresnay, E.; Ducrocq, M.; Courboulay, Valérie

doi:10.1016/j.animal.2020.100103

Cited by 32 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Any similar economic results concerning human–animal interaction were not identified in the literature. Yet, there is evidence that increased interaction between the pigs and the farmer can have positive effect on animal welfare and farm productivity [ 47 ]. Kirkden et al [ 48 ] reviewed different management procedures to improve piglet survival and pointed out that labor intensive interventions might result in a net economic benefit even in countries where labor is costly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic feasibility of interventions targeted at decreasing piglet perinatal and pre-weaning mortality across European countries

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Piglet perinatal and pre-weaning mortality is a welfare problem causing economic losses in pig production. In this study, the effects of housing and management interventions on the economic result of sow enterprises representing six European countries (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands and Spain) were tested. Interventions concerned: (1) installing mechanical ventilation, (2) re-designing of the gestation unit, (3) drying and warming newborn piglets, (4) providing enrichment for gestating sows, including high-fiber dietary supplementation and point-source objects, and (5) music provision and backscratching of sows in the farrowing unit. A bio-economic model was used to determine the effects of interventions on economic outcomes during the nursery phase and to calculate a maximum cost of 1%-point reduction in perinatal and pre-weaning mortality, irrespective of the intervention type. Biological parameters were set according to previous observational and experimental studies. Interventions 1–4 were expected to decrease perinatal mortality, defined as stillbirths and deaths occurring within the first 48 h of postnatal life. Intervention 5 was expected to decrease pre-weaning mortality. Interventions increased fixed (1–3) and variable costs (3–5). We hypothesized that housing and management interventions would have a positive economic effect. Results Piglet mortality can be decreased in various ways. Interventions concerning ventilation and re-designing of the gestation unit (1 and 2) were the most beneficial in countries with low housing costs and high perinatal mortality. Drying and warming newborn piglets (3) resulted in varying economic results, with the highest increase in profits obtained in a country with low labor costs and high litter size. Interventions providing sows with enrichment and human–animal interaction (4 and 5) were effective across varying conditions. Regardless of intervention type, policies aiming at 1%-point reduction in perinatal and pre-weaning mortality could cost from €0.2 to €0.5 (average €0.4) and from €0.4 to €0.5 (average €0.5) per piglet, respectively, depending on productions conditions. Conclusions To decrease piglet mortality, farmers should consider low input interventions, such as those targeting appropriate behavior. Our results suggest that providing enrichment or increasing human–animal interaction pays off and brings positive economic result even when piglet mortality is marginally reduced.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic feasibility of interventions targeted at decreasing piglet perinatal and pre-weaning mortality across European countries

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The respondents’ ability to identify the role of humans as an element necessary for positive animal welfare aligns with a recent shift in the literature underscoring the important impact human behavior can have on animal well-being. Human factors such as age, gender, occupational stress, social support, knowledge and experience, empathy for people and animals, well-being, ability to recognize pain, attitudes towards animals, locus of control, and personality have all been found to influence animal welfare via HAIs [ 54 , 57 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 ]. Although these factors have an indirect influence (e.g., increased human empathy can lead to gentler animal handling which decreases animal stress) on welfare, Mellor [ 57 ] argues that humans have almost complete control over many direct aspects of animal welfare such as access to water and food, the space in which the animals reside, and the environmental complexity and social groupings for domestic and captive wildlife animals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the development of needs and standards of animal care (e.g., Animal Welfare Act of 1966 [ 74 ]; the Five Freedoms [ 43 ]) were created to prevent the poor treatment of animals, research indicates that animals in this category benefit not only from the reduction of negative HAIs but also through repeated, positive human interactions [ 68 , 69 , 75 ]. Regular, positive interactions have been shown to reduce stress, increase the number of offspring, improve disease resistance, and increase productivity in agricultural animals [ 67 , 68 ]. Future research should seek to understand why many students do not perceive human interaction as an essential need for agricultural animals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Nationwide Survey of Animal Science Students’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare across Different Animal Categories at Institutions in the United States

Sullivan

Mijares

Davis

et al. 2022

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal welfare is an increasingly important topic across multiple academic disciplines; however, few studies have investigated student perceptions of animal welfare outside of veterinary medicine. The objective of the study was to evaluate animal science students’ perceptions of animal welfare to determine if perceptions differ across animal categories. An online survey was distributed to animal science programs at institutions across the United States. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed on 624 responses. Almost all respondents agreed welfare was important for all animal categories (≥97%). The survey asked respondents to rate the level of importance of 12 welfare parameters and there was evidence that the level of importance differed by animal category (p < 0.0001), e.g., fewer respondents indicated having positive interactions with humans was important for agricultural animals. In a subset of questions about agricultural animals, fewer respondents agreed that swine (325, 52.1%) and poultry (268, 43.0%) are raised with an appropriate level of welfare compared to dairy (425, 68.1%) and beef cattle (421, 67.5%). Four free-response questions asked respondents to report their general perceptions of welfare. Thematic analysis identified multiple themes, such as basic needs and human interaction, with most responses (75%) including two or more themes.

show abstract

“…Differences in the frequency of human-animal interactions among population groups, ( Rabinowitz and Conti, 2013 ) individual and cultural food practices, ( Wolfe et al, 2005 ; Kamau et al, 2021 ) livelihood systems, ( Woldehanna and Zimicki, 2015 ) and livestock production practices ( Edwards-Callaway, 2018 ; Ducrot et al, 2008 ) could lead to health disparities. These relationships are particularly relevant for populations such as farmworkers, ( Pol et al, 2021 ) people experiencing homelessness, ( Hanrahan, 2019 ) individuals living in agricultural communities, ( Wing and Wolf, 2000 ) and certain racial and ethnic category minorities. For example, individuals with high fish diets have the potential for increased exposure to harmful contaminants influenced by waterway pollutants, marine food webs, and climate change ( Gribble et al, 2016 ).…”

Section: Health Disparities and One Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adding a One Health approach to a research framework for minority health and health disparities

Morgan

Stern

Pérez‐Stable

et al. 2022

eLife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) has developed a framework to guide and orient research into health disparities and minority health. The framework depicts different domains of influence (such as biological and behavioral) and different levels of influence (such as individual and interpersonal). Here, influenced by the “One Health” approach, we propose adding two new levels of influence – interspecies and planetary – to this framework to reflect the interconnected nature of human, animal, and environmental health. Extending the framework in this way will help researchers to create new avenues of inquiry and encourage multidisciplinary collaborations. We then use the One Health approach to discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated health disparities, and show how the expanded framework can be applied to research into health disparities related to antimicrobial resistance and obesity.

show abstract

Human–animal relationship influences husbandry practices, animal welfare and productivity in pig farming

Cited by 32 publications

References 36 publications

Economic feasibility of interventions targeted at decreasing piglet perinatal and pre-weaning mortality across European countries

Economic feasibility of interventions targeted at decreasing piglet perinatal and pre-weaning mortality across European countries

A Nationwide Survey of Animal Science Students’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare across Different Animal Categories at Institutions in the United States

Adding a One Health approach to a research framework for minority health and health disparities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About