Survey among Belgian pig producers about the introduction of group housing systems for gestating sows1

Tuyttens, Frank; Gansbeke, Suzy Van; Ampe, Bart

doi:10.2527/jas.2010-2978

Cited by 20 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These concerns may have been influenced in some cases by a lack of personal experience of group housing, and by early Canadian experiences of electronic sow feeding systems that did not function successfully. If so, then the growing familiarity of producers with successful non-stall systems may lead to a gradual increase in acceptance (see Tuyttens et al 2011;van Huik and Bock 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attitudes of Canadian Pig Producers Toward Animal Welfare

Spooner

Schuppli

Fraser

2013

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As part of a larger study eliciting Canadian producer and non-producer views about animal welfare, open-ended, semi-structured interviews were used to explore opinions about animal welfare of 20 Canadian pig producers, most of whom were involved in confinement-based systems. With the exception of the one organic producer, who emphasized the importance of a ''natural'' life, participants attached overriding importance to biological health and functioning. They saw their efforts as providing pigs with dry, thermally regulated, indoor environments where animals received abundant feed, careful monitoring and where prospective disease outbreaks could be minimized and controlled. Emphasis was also placed on low-stress handling and agreeable working conditions which were believed to promote good animal care. The fact that pigs tend to respond to such conditions with steady growth reinforced the belief that good welfare was provided. Participants supported the use of sow gestation stalls, but with some reservations, and expressed concern about welfare problems that could occur if sows were grouped. Invasive procedures (castration, tail-docking, teeth clipping) were recognized as painful but were accepted because they were seen as: (1) necessary for sales or management; (2) satisfactory trade-offs to prevent worse welfare problems such as injury or infection; or (3) sufficiently short-term to be relatively unimportant. Participants were adamantly opposed to animal neglect and some welcomed actions of animal protectionists that expose poor care. Producers also welcomed natural-sciencebased approaches to improving animal welfare. The findings contribute to a broader effort to identify overlapping values among different stakeholder groups as a basis for formulating mutually agreeable, farm animal care and handling polices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attitudes of Canadian Pig Producers Toward Animal Welfare

Spooner

Schuppli

Fraser

2013

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The choice for a housing system is usually not based on fertility criteria, but may be based on, for example, welfare legislation, trade mark production, building costs, labour requirements or level of control of the animals (Tuyttens et al. 2008, 2011).…”

Section: The Pregnant Sowmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproductive Issues in Welfare‐Friendly Housing Systems in Pig Husbandry: A Review

Kemp

Soede

2012

Reprod Domestic Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contents In Europe, housing conditions of sows are currently changing, related with a larger emphasis on pig welfare. As a result, sows are and will be less kept in crates, but more so in loose housing systems (farrowing, lactation) and group housing systems (pregnancy, lactation, weaning‐to‐oestrus interval). These changes in housing conditions may affect reproductive functioning of the sows. Group housing of sows may decrease farrowing rate and litter size when stress levels rise or when feed intake in early pregnancy is not fully secured. Loose housing during farrowing results in an improved farrowing process, but may increase piglet mortality by crushing during early lactation. Further, group housing during lactation may increase the risk of lactational oestrus. Thus, new – welfare friendly – housing systems require increased attention to management to ensure optimal reproductive performance.

show abstract

“…For growing-finishing pigs electronic feed stations have been developed and used to log time and duration per feeding visit as well as the feed intake of the individual pig (Hyun et al, 1997;Bruininx et al, 2001aBruininx et al, , 2001bHyun and Ellis, 2002). Electronic sow feeders have been used in research (Cornou et al, 2008) as well as in practice (pig farmers with group housing of gestating sows) (Tuyttens et al, 2011). However, these feeders only allow access to one pig at a time and mostly only one feeder is available per group.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Range measurements of a High Frequency Radio Frequency Identification (HF RFID) system for registering feeding patterns of growing–finishing pigs

Maselyne

Nuffel²,

Ketelaere

et al. 2014

Computers and Electronics in Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Survey among Belgian pig producers about the introduction of group housing systems for gestating sows1

Abstract: Thyssen and J. Somers for collecting the survey data, and S. Millet and M. Levenson for commenting on an earlier draft. We are also grateful to the Central Animal Health Association for providing us the contact addresses of the sow farmers based on the Sanitel record.

Cited by 20 publications

References 9 publications

Attitudes of Canadian Pig Producers Toward Animal Welfare

Attitudes of Canadian Pig Producers Toward Animal Welfare

Reproductive Issues in Welfare‐Friendly Housing Systems in Pig Husbandry: A Review

Range measurements of a High Frequency Radio Frequency Identification (HF RFID) system for registering feeding patterns of growing–finishing pigs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About