» Articles » PMID: 38487445

Identifying Areas of Animal Welfare Concern in Different Production Stages in Danish Pig Herds Using the Danish Animal Welfare Index (DAWIN)

Overview
Journal Anim Welf
Date 2024 Mar 15
PMID 38487445
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Animal welfare is of increasing public interest, and the pig industry in particular is subject to much attention. The aim of this study was to identify and compare areas of animal welfare concern for commercial pigs in four different production stages: (1) gestating sows and gilts; (2) lactating sows; (3) piglets; and (4) weaner-to-finisher pigs. One welfare assessment protocol was developed for each stage, comprising of between 20 and 29 animal welfare measures including resource-, management- and animal-based ones. Twenty-one Danish farms were visited once between January 2015 and February 2016 in a cross-sectional design. Experts (n = 26; advisors, scientists and animal welfare controllers) assessed the severity of the outcome measures. This was combined with the on-farm prevalence of each measure and the outcome was used to calculate areas of concern, defined as measures where the median of all farms fell below the value defined as 'acceptable welfare.' Between five and seven areas of concern were identified for each production stage. With the exception of carpal lesions in piglets, all areas of concern were resource- and management-based and mainly related to housing, with inadequate available space and the floor type in the resting area being overall concerns across all production stages. This means that animal-based measures were largely unaffected by perceived deficits in resource-based measures. Great variation existed for the majority of measures identified as areas of concern, demonstrating that achieving a high welfare score is possible in the Danish system.

Citing Articles

Erratum: Identifying areas of animal welfare concern in different production stages in Danish pig herds using the Danish Animal Welfare Index (DAWIN) - CORRIGENDUM.

Michelsen A, Hakansson F, Pedersen Lund V, Kirchner M, Otten N, Denwood M Anim Welf. 2024; 32:e58.

PMID: 38487463 PMC: 10936275. DOI: 10.1017/awf.2023.78.


Assessing Animal Welfare Risk in Fibre-Producing Animals by Applying the Five Domains Framework.

Salobir K, Kirchner M, Haager D Animals (Basel). 2023; 13(23).

PMID: 38067046 PMC: 10705615. DOI: 10.3390/ani13233696.

References
1.
Friedrich L, Krieter J, Kemper N, Czycholl I . Test-Retest Reliability of the 'Welfare Quality Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Sows and Piglets'. Part 1. Assessment of the Welfare Principle of 'Appropriate Behavior'. Animals (Basel). 2019; 9(7). PMC: 6680791. DOI: 10.3390/ani9070398. View

2.
de Graaf S, Ampe B, Winckler C, Radeski M, Mounier L, Kirchner M . Trained-user opinion about Welfare Quality measures and integrated scoring of dairy cattle welfare. J Dairy Sci. 2017; 100(8):6376-6388. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-12255. View

3.
Czycholl I, Kniese C, Buttner K, Grosse Beilage E, Schrader L, Krieter J . Interobserver reliability of the 'Welfare Quality(®) Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Growing Pigs'. Springerplus. 2016; 5(1):1114. PMC: 4949198. DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-2785-1. View

4.
Zoric M, Nilsson E, Lundeheim N, Wallgren P . Incidence of lameness and abrasions in piglets in identical farrowing pens with four different types of floor. Acta Vet Scand. 2009; 51:23. PMC: 2697160. DOI: 10.1186/1751-0147-51-23. View

5.
Otten N, Rousing T, Forkman B . Influence of Professional Affiliation on Expert's View on Welfare Measures. Animals (Basel). 2017; 7(11). PMC: 5704114. DOI: 10.3390/ani7110085. View