Welfare of pigs on farm

Abstract

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.

Transitioning from crates to free farrowing: A roadmap to navigate key decisions

“…Interrupting nest-building to crate before farrowing may be undesirable, but interrupting once farrowing has commenced can have detrimental consequences, including increasing farrowing duration (48,68). This is discussed at length elsewhere (3,7).…”

“…This has been demonstrated in research [e.g., (8) for review] and, perhaps more importantly, under commercial conditions [e.g., (14,38,40,115)]. Review articles attempting to summarize performance information of alternative farrowing systems have cited a number of important caveats (3,(5)(6)(7)(8); specifically that summarizing can result in loss of details of particular studies that might contribute to explaining performance outcomes. For example, breed differences, sow parity and previous experiences, the similarity between dry sow accommodation and farrowing accommodation have all been shown to influence piglet survival.…”

“…A typical farrowing crate occupies 1.2–1.4 m 2 within an overall pen spatial footprint of 3.6–4.6 m 2 ( 8 , 24 – 26 ). Simply removing the crate and using this space for FF or operating it as a swing-side TC option, generally results in higher piglet losses ( 3 , 7 , 27 , 28 ) because the sow cannot easily exhibit piglet avoidance behaviors when changing posture. Sows and litters are now bigger than when many current crate systems were built ( 29 – 31 ).…”

“…Subsequently the European Commission stated that “by the end of 2023, a legislative proposal to phase out, and finally prohibit all cage systems would be in place,” with possible implementation as soon as 2027. They stipulated that this would follow an appropriate transition period, after a robust scientific and impact assessment [since partially completed—( 3 )] as part of their “fitness check” of Council Directive 98/58/EC (the current animal welfare regulations). Outside Europe, only New Zealand has committed to phasing out farrowing crates (by 2025).…”

Ultra-early weaning alters growth performance, hematology parameters, and fecal microbiota in piglets with same genetic background

“…Therefore, consistently intaking low-quality milk will limit the growth of piglets. On the contrary, with the growth of piglets, sows are reluctant to suckle the piglets, and they will limit the piglets getting in touch with the udder through frequent posture adjustments and even attack them ( EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, 2022 ). Therefore, shortening the suckling period seems to have positive effects on the growth of piglets and the welfare of sows.…”