In the course of the CORE Organic II project ProPIG, animal health and welfare (AHW) of organicpigs in 8 European countries was assessed to compare three husbandry systems (using non-parametrictests ...with p < 0.05): indoor with outside run (IN: n=34 farms), outdoor (OUT: n=12) andpartly outdoor (POUT: n=28). The hypothesis was that all three systems can deliver good welfarewhen well managed. Seven trained observers assessed pregnant sows (SO), weaners (WE) andfatteners (FA) using animal-based parameters.Across systems, the median prevalence of several AHW problems was 0% (shoulder lesions SO;ectoparasites SO, FA; tail lesions and lameness WE; runts FA). Also no differences between husbandrysystems in the prevalence of vulva deformation in SO (10.7%, 3.0%, 8.7%); short tails inWE (0%, 0.5%, 2.2%) or in FA (1.8%, 2.3%, 6.5%).OUT had lower prevalence of respiratory problems in WE and FA (both 0% OUT, >60% POUT, IN).Signs of diarrhoea in WE were less frequent in OUT (0%) than in IN (25.0%), and diarrhoea in FAwas less frequent in OUT than in POUT and IN (0%, 0%, 8.3%). OUT had fewer lame sows thanPOUT and IN (0%, 3.4%, 7.1%).The results showed that, across systems, prevalences of most AHW areas but respiratory problemsin IN and POUT and diarrhoea in IN were low. Beyond that, OUT appeared to be beneficial withregard to several areas of AHW, which could be explained by the environmental conditions, e.g.respiratory problems (air quality), diarrhoea (exposure to faeces) and lameness (flooring). POUTfarms in most cases kept SO outdoors and WE and FA similar to IN farms, and this was reflectedin the results obtained for these animal categories. It can be concluded, that systems do differregarding AHW. Therefore AHW benchmarking should consider the husbandry system.
The CORE Organic II project ProPIG aimed to assess animal health and welfare as well asenvironmental impact on organic pig farms across three husbandry systems in Europe (indoor,outdoor and partly ...outdoor) and to develop farm specific improvement strategies. 74 farmsacross the 8 project countries were visited three times within one year. In addition to assessinganimal health and welfare indicators and environmental impact, semi-qualitative interviews wereconducted on 63 farms during farm visits 1 and 3 to evaluate the farmer’s satisfaction with thestatus quo, perception of future aims and ideas for improvement. Some questions were asked asopen questions, while others used a five-point answer scale.A descriptive classification of the responses to the open question regarding the goals for theimmediate future revealed that most farmers were aiming to improve either health (19 responses),performance (13) or welfare (9) (two answers per farm were possible). Improving welfare wasexclusively a topic for indoor or partly indoor farmers, whereas improving performance wasproportionally more often mentioned by outdoor farmers. Similar results were found when askedto rate the satisfaction with pig health and welfare at visit 1: 9% (3) and 38% (13) of indoorfarmers were very satisfied with the health and welfare situation, respectively (point 5 on thescale), whereas on outdoor farms 50% (6) were very satisfied and 50% (6) satisfied. Outdoorfarmers were less satisfied with the production level (25% (3) very satisfied, 9% (1) satisfied and66% (8) neutral). 63% (40) and 53% (33) of all farmers across the three systems stated that animprovement in terms of health or welfare, respectively, is needed and also possible to implement.Our results show that organic pig farmers, in general and especially when pigs are kept indoors,are aware of problems relating to animal health and welfare and are willing to improve.
The CORE Organic II project ProPIG aimed to assess animal health and welfare as well asenvironmental impact on organic pig farms across three husbandry systems in Europe (indoor,outdoor and partly ...outdoor) and to develop farm specific improvement strategies. 74 farmsacross the 8 project countries were visited three times within one year. In addition to assessinganimal health and welfare indicators and environmental impact, semi-qualitative interviews wereconducted on 63 farms during farm visits 1 and 3 to evaluate the farmer’s satisfaction with thestatus quo, perception of future aims and ideas for improvement. Some questions were asked asopen questions, while others used a five-point answer scale.A descriptive classification of the responses to the open question regarding the goals for theimmediate future revealed that most farmers were aiming to improve either health (19 responses),performance (13) or welfare (9) (two answers per farm were possible). Improving welfare wasexclusively a topic for indoor or partly indoor farmers, whereas improving performance wasproportionally more often mentioned by outdoor farmers. Similar results were found when askedto rate the satisfaction with pig health and welfare at visit 1: 9% (3) and 38% (13) of indoorfarmers were very satisfied with the health and welfare situation, respectively (point 5 on thescale), whereas on outdoor farms 50% (6) were very satisfied and 50% (6) satisfied. Outdoorfarmers were less satisfied with the production level (25% (3) very satisfied, 9% (1) satisfied and66% (8) neutral). 63% (40) and 53% (33) of all farmers across the three systems stated that animprovement in terms of health or welfare, respectively, is needed and also possible to implement.Our results show that organic pig farmers, in general and especially when pigs are kept indoors,are aware of problems relating to animal health and welfare and are willing to improve.
Trough or bowl: observers need training for assessing resource as well as clinical parameters Dippel, Sabine; Bochicchio, Davide; Haun Poulsen, P ...
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level: WAFL. 2014; 6. International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level (WAFL 2014), Clermont-Ferrand, FRA, 2014-09-03-2014-09-05, 182,
2014
Conference Proceeding
While the need for training on-farm assessors in clinical animal assessment has been widelyrecognised, assessment of husbandry resources is still often regarded as self-explanatory.Within the scope ...of the international project ProPIG, 7 observers from seven co un tries weretrained by an experienced observer (gold standard) to assess 15 clinical and 11 resourceparameters in organic pigs in eight countries. The initial plan was to train and test observersbefore farm visit 1 and then again after one year before farm visit 2. Both trainings wererepeated with aU observers due to unsatisfactory agreement, resulting in Tla+b and oneyear later T2a+b. Agreement with the gold standard was calculated as exact agreement forcategorical parameters (e.g. drinker type; mean n=l1 pens/test and parameter, range 1-34) andSpearman rank correlation for numerical parameters (e.g. number of animais; mean n=9 pens,range 4-28). Median (IQR) pairwise agreements% were Tla=83 (40), Tlb=90 (29), T2a=92(43), T2b=100 (11) for clinical parameters, and Tla=100 (25), Tlb=100 (40), T2a=100 (23),T2b=90 (33) for resource parameters. Mean Spearman r for clin ica! parameters were T 1a=0.52,Tlb=0.76, T2a=0.42 and T2b=0.84 with ranges of -0.69, -0.33, -0.79 and 0.34, respectively, to1.00. Mean Spearman r for resource parameters were T 1a=0.59 (range 0 to 1), Tlb=0.71 (-1to 1), T2a=0.40 (0.30 to 0.49) and T2b=0.25 ( -1 to 1). Initial training discussions showed thatnaïve observers differed in their assessment of res ource as weil as clin ica! parameters, and reallife assessment together with training materials were needed to successfully train on both setsof parameters. We therefore recommend the inclusion of resource parameters in observertrainings for on-farm assessment in order to assure sufficient observer agreement.
Trough or bowl: observers need training for assessing resource as well as clinical parameters Dippel, Sabine; Bochicchio, Davide; Haun Poulsen, P ...
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level: WAFL. 2014; 6. International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level (WAFL 2014), Clermont-Ferrand, FRA, 2014-09-03-2014-09-05, 182,
2014
Conference Proceeding
While the need for training on-farm assessors in clinical animal assessment has been widelyrecognised, assessment of husbandry resources is still often regarded as self-explanatory.Within the scope ...of the international project ProPIG, 7 observers from seven co un tries weretrained by an experienced observer (gold standard) to assess 15 clinical and 11 resourceparameters in organic pigs in eight countries. The initial plan was to train and test observersbefore farm visit 1 and then again after one year before farm visit 2. Both trainings wererepeated with aU observers due to unsatisfactory agreement, resulting in Tla+b and oneyear later T2a+b. Agreement with the gold standard was calculated as exact agreement forcategorical parameters (e.g. drinker type; mean n=l1 pens/test and parameter, range 1-34) andSpearman rank correlation for numerical parameters (e.g. number of animais; mean n=9 pens,range 4-28). Median (IQR) pairwise agreements% were Tla=83 (40), Tlb=90 (29), T2a=92(43), T2b=100 (11) for clinical parameters, and Tla=100 (25), Tlb=100 (40), T2a=100 (23),T2b=90 (33) for resource parameters. Mean Spearman r for clin ica! parameters were T 1a=0.52,Tlb=0.76, T2a=0.42 and T2b=0.84 with ranges of -0.69, -0.33, -0.79 and 0.34, respectively, to1.00. Mean Spearman r for resource parameters were T 1a=0.59 (range 0 to 1), Tlb=0.71 (-1to 1), T2a=0.40 (0.30 to 0.49) and T2b=0.25 ( -1 to 1). Initial training discussions showed thatnaïve observers differed in their assessment of res ource as weil as clin ica! parameters, and reallife assessment together with training materials were needed to successfully train on both setsof parameters. We therefore recommend the inclusion of resource parameters in observertrainings for on-farm assessment in order to assure sufficient observer agreement.
PDF