Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of pigs ‐ Report 1: Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of sow, boar and piglet including aspects related to pig castration

Spoolder, Hans; Bracke, M.B.M.; Mueller-Graf, Christine; Edwards, Sandra

doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2011.en-178

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 236 publications

(206 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Background information for description of pig categories and husbandry systems (General ToR‐1), welfare consequences (ToR‐2), ABMs (ToR‐3), hazards (ToR‐4) and preventive, corrective and mitigation measures (ToR‐5) is reported in previous EFSA's Scientific outputs and External reports prepared for EFSA with updated literature assessing diverse aspects of pig welfare (SVC, 1997; EFSA, 2004, 2005, 2007a,b,c, 2014; EFSA AHAW Panel, 2012, 2014; Spoolder et al., 2011a,b).…”

Section: Data and Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare of pigs on farm

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2022

EFS2

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of pigs on farm, and is based on literature and expert opinion. All pig categories were assessed: gilts and dry sows, farrowing and lactating sows, suckling piglets, weaners, rearing pigs and boars. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal-based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. Recommendations are also provided on quantitative or qualitative criteria to answer specific questions on the welfare of pigs related to tail biting and related to the European Citizen's Initiative 'End the Cage Age'. For example, the AHAW Panel recommends how to mitigate group stress when dry sows and gilts are grouped immediately after weaning or in early pregnancy. Results of a comparative qualitative assessment suggested that long-stemmed or long-cut straw, hay or haylage is the most suitable material for nest-building. A period of time will be needed for staff and animals to adapt to housing lactating sows and their piglets in farrowing pens (as opposed to crates) before achieving stable welfare outcomes. The panel recommends a minimum available space to the lactating sow to ensure piglet welfare (measured by live-born piglet mortality). Among the main risk factors for tail biting are space allowance, types of flooring, air quality, health status and diet composition, while weaning age was not associated directly with tail biting in later life. The relationship between the availability of space and growth rate, lying behaviour and tail biting in rearing pigs is quantified and presented. Finally, the panel suggests a set of ABMs to use at slaughter for monitoring on-farm welfare of cull sows and rearing pigs.

show abstract

Section: Data and Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare of pigs on farm

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2022

EFS2

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of anesthesia and or analgesia to prevent or mitigate pain during surgical castration was reviewed in 2006 [1], 2011 [59], and more recently in 2016, in the final report of the EU-funded project CASTRUM [60]. Useful information can also be found in a recently published document on best practices [30].…”

Section: Surgical Castration With Anesthesia And/or Analgesiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Pros and Cons of Alternatives to Piglet Castration: Welfare, Boar Taint, and Other Meat Quality Traits

Bonneau

Weiler

2019

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple SummaryEach alternative to traditional surgical castration has its pros and cons. Depending on the societal context, the production system, and the target market(s), pork supply chains may choose the alternative(s) that best fit(s) their situation. Conflicting aims occur between animal welfare issues and the efficiency of production, whereas product quality and welfare issues are mostly synergic.AbstractThis paper reviews the pros and cons of various alternatives to the surgical castration of male piglets without pain relief. Castration is mostly motivated by the presence of boar taint in the meat from some entire male pigs. It results in pain during surgery and markedly increases feed costs and the fat content of the carcass. Raising entire male pigs avoids pain at castration, but animals can suffer from increased stress during the finishing period because of aggressive and mounting behavior. Feed efficiency and carcass quality are much better than in surgical castrates. The quality of meat from entire male pigs is lower because of boar taint, a reduced intramuscular fat content, and increased unsaturation of the fat. Immunocastration prevents boar taint, pain associated with surgery, and stress related to aggressive and mounting behavior. Feed efficiency and carcass quality are intermediate between surgical castrates and entire males. Meat quality is similar to surgical castrates. Anesthesia alone prevents pain during surgery, but not after, while analgesia alone mitigates pain after surgery, but not during it. With the currently available methods, the cost of combined anesthesia and analgesia is too high for conventional production systems in most countries.

show abstract

“…In addition, in the Scientific Opinions of 2007 (EFSA, 2007a, b, c), a risk assessment was performed leading to the identification of all factors that are risks for poor pig welfare (hazards). In addition, two technical reports were produced, on request from EFSA in 2011, by Wageningen Livestock Research (Spoolder et al, 2011a(Spoolder et al, , 2011b to update the conclusions and recommendations of all above mentioned Opinions and for identifying hazards in light of new literature. As a consequence of these reports, all of the existing conclusions and recommendations remained but some additional recommendations were added and these are included in this Opinion.…”

Section: Eu Reports and Opinions On The Welfare Of Pigs And The Welfamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In each table, the recommendations are numbered as they were ordered in the original Scientific Opinion. Following the outcomes of the two external technical reports (Spoolder et al, 2011a(Spoolder et al, , 2011b) updating EFSA's Opinions, there were additions to existing recommendations (indicated as 19A, 23A, etc. ) and new recommendations (indicated as N1, N2, etc.…”

Section: Procedures Used To Link Measures To Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare in pigs

Prunier¹

2012

EFSA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal-based measures, identified on the basis of scientific evidence, can be used effectively in the evaluation of the welfare of on-farm pigs in relation to laws, codes of practice, quality assurance schemes and management. Some of these measures are also appropriate for ante-mortem inspection and there are additional post-mortem animal-based measures which can be taken at the slaughterhouse. Non-animal-based measures can be used when the association between them and the welfare outcome is strong and when they are more efficient than animalbased measures as a means to safeguard welfare. Both animal-based and non-animal-based measures can be useful predictors of welfare in pigs. In order to assess welfare, a wide range of measures is needed. However, to assess aspects of welfare it is unnecessary to use all animal-based measures on every occasion. The choice of animal-based measures will depend upon the specific objectives of the assessment. The full list is comparable to a 'toolbox', from which the appropriate range of measures can be selected. The Welfare Quality ® protocol provides information on the majority of the welfare outcomes of the main hazards identified in the EFSA Scientific Opinions but not those where time limitation prevents it. There are currently insufficient animal-based measures to use as welfare outcome indicators on-farm or in the slaughterhouse to assess the issues of pain, frustration and other positive and negative emotional states. The extent to which short-term management can prevent the negative effects of hazards arising from genetic selection, and of most housing-related problems, is extremely limited. Herd monitoring and surveillance programmes should be implemented within the pig industry using a range of appropriate animal-based measures to document welfare changes over time. There should be both initial and ongoing training of assessors to ensure valid and reliable welfare measurement.

show abstract

Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of pigs ‐ Report 1: Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of sow, boar and piglet including aspects related to pig castration

Cited by 8 publications

References 236 publications

Welfare of pigs on farm

Welfare of pigs on farm

Pros and Cons of Alternatives to Piglet Castration: Welfare, Boar Taint, and Other Meat Quality Traits

Scientific Opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare in pigs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About