Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5187/jast.2022.e23

Correlation of animal-based parameters with environment-based parameters in an on-farm welfare assessment of growing pigs  

Hye Jin, Kang (Department of Agricultural Biotechnology and Research Institute for Agriculture and Life Science, Seoul National University)
Sangeun, Bae (Communication and Advisory Services in Rural Areas Institute of Social Sciences in Agriculture, University of Hohenheim)
Hang, Lee (Center for Animal Welfare Research (CAWR), College of Veterinary Medicine and Research Institute for Veterinary Science, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Animal Science and Technology / v.64, no.3, 2022 , pp. 539-563 More about this Journal
Abstract
Nine pig farms were evaluated for the welfare quality in Korea using animal- and environment-based parameters (particularly air quality parameters) during the winter of 2013. The Welfare Quality® (WQ®) protocol consists of 12 criteria within four principles. The WQ® protocol classifies farms into four categories ranging from 'excellent' to 'not classified'. Each of these criteria has specific measures for calculating scores. Calculations for the welfare scores were conducted online using the calculation model in the WQ® protocol. Environment-based parameters like microclimate (i.e., temperature, relative humidity, air speed, and particulate matter), bacteria (total airborne bacteria, airborne total coliform, and airborne total Escherichia coli), concentration of gases (carbon dioxide, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide) were measured to investigate the relationship between animal- and environment-based parameters. Correlations between the results of animal- and environment-based parameters were estimated using spearman correlation coefficient. The overall assessments found that five out of nine farms were 'acceptable', and four farms were 'enhanced'; no farm was 'not classified'. The average score for the four principles across the nine farms, in decreasing order, were 'good feeding' (63.13 points) > 'good housing' (59.26 points) > 'good health' (33.47 points) > 'appropriate behaviors' (25.48 points). In the result of the environment aspect, the relative humidity of farms 2 (93.4%), 3 (100%), and 9 (98%) was much higher than the recommended maximum relative humidity of 80%, and four out of the nine farms had ammonia concentrations greater than 40 ppm. Ammonia had negative correlations with 'positive social behaviors' and positive emotional states: content, enjoying, sociable, playful, lively, happy and it had positive correlations with negative emotional states: aimless, distressed. The concentration of carbon dioxide had negative correlations with positive emotional states; calm, sociable, playful, happy and it had a positive correlation with negative emotional state; aimless. Our results indicate that the control of the environment for growing pigs can help improve their welfare, particularly via good air quality (carbon dioxide, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide).
Keywords
Farm animal welfare; Growing pigs; Welfare $Quality^{(R)}$; Animal-based parameters; Environment-based parameters; Air quality parameters;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Livestock Policy Division. The requirements for permission and registration of livestock  industry in the Enforcement Decree of the Livestock Industry Act (14). (Implementation  March 25, 2021 / Presidential Decree No. 30974, August 26, 2020, partially amended)  [Internet]. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2020 [cited 2021 Dec 18]. https://law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%EC%B6%95%EC%82%B0%EB%B2%95%20%EC%8B%9C%ED%96%89%EB%A0%B9 
2 Courboulay V, Foubert C. Testing different methods to evaluate pig welfare on farm. Anim  Welf. 2007;16:193-6. 
3 Wemelsfelder F. How animals communicate quality of life: the qualitative assessment of  behavior. Anim Welf. 2007;16:25-31.    DOI
4 Yao HQ, Choi HL, Zhu K, Lee JH. Key volatile organic compounds emitted from  swine nursery house. Atmos Environ. 2011;45:2577-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.01.058    DOI
5 Temple D, Dalmau A, Ruiz de la Torre JL, Manteca X, Velarde A. Application of the Welfare  Quality® protocol to assess growing pigs kept under intensive conditions in Spain. J Vet Behav.  2011;6:138-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2010.10.003    DOI
6 Temple D, Courboulay V, Manteca X, Velarde A, Dalmau A. The welfare of growing pigs in  five different production systems: assessment of feeding and housing. Animal. 2012;6:656-67.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111001868    DOI
7 Meyer-Hamme SEK, Lambertz C, Gauly M. Does group size have an impact on  welfare indicators in fattening pigs? Animal. 2016;10:142-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115001779    DOI
8 Smith WJ. A study of adventitious bursitis of the hock of the pig [Ph.D. dissertation].  Edinburgh, Scotland: The University of Edinburgh; 1993. 
9 Mouttotou N, Green LE, Hatchell FM. Adventitious bursitis of the hock in finishing pigs:  prevalence, distribution and association with floor type and foot lesions. Vet Rec. 1998;142:109-14. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.142.5.109    DOI
10 Mouttotou N, Hatchell FM, Green LE. Prevalence and risk factors associated with  adventitious bursitis in live growing and finishing pigs in south-west England. Prev Vet Med.  1999;39:39-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(98)00141-X    DOI
11 Marx D, Mertz R. Ethically chosen studies with early-weaned piglets during their raising in  pens with different applications of straw. 1. The effects of different applications of straw and  different floor conditions in areas of uniform size. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 1989;96:20-6. 
12 Ekkel ED, Spoolder HAM, Hulsegge I, Hopster H. Lying characteristics as determinants for  space requirements in pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2003;80:19-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00154-5    DOI
13 Courboulay V, Eugene A, Delarue E. Welfare assessment in 82 pig farms: effect of animal age  and floor type on behaviour and injuries in fattening pigs. Anim Welf. 2009;18:515-21.    DOI
14 Gillman CE, Kilbride AL, Ossent P, Green LE. A cross-sectional study of the prevalence and  associated risk factors for bursitis in weaner, grower and finisher pigs from 93 commercial farms  in England. Prev Vet Med. Mar 17 2008;83(3-4):308-22. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.09.001    DOI
15 Lyons CAP, Bruce JM, Fowler VR, English PR. A comparison of productivity and welfare  of growing pigs in four intensive systems. Livest Prod Sci. 1995;43:265-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(95)00050-U    DOI
16 Velarde A, Geers R. On farm monitoring of pig welfare. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic; 2007. 
17 Petersen V, Simonsen HB, Lawson LG. The effect of environmental stimulation on the  development of behaviour in pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1995;45:215-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)00631-2    DOI
18 Vinuela-Fernandez I, Jones E, Welsh EM, Fleetwood-Walker SM. Pain mechanisms and their  implication for the management of pain in farm and companion animals. Vet J. 2007;174:227-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.02.002    DOI
19 Temple D, Manteca X, Velarde A, Dalmau A. Assessment of animal welfare through  behavioural parameters in Iberian pigs in intensive and extensive conditions. Appl Anim Behav  Sci. 2011;131:29-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.01.013    DOI
20 Duncan IJ, Petherick JC. The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare. J Anim  Sci. 1991;69:5017-22. https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.69125017x    DOI
21 Van Putten G. Ever been close to a nosey pig? Appl Anim Ethol. 1979;5:298. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(79)90076-2    DOI
22 Feddes JJR, Fraser D, Buckley DJ, Poirier P. Electronic sensing of non-destructive chewing by  growing pigs. Trans ASAE. 1993;36:955-8. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.28421    DOI
23 Van Putten G, Dammers J. A comparative study of the well-being of piglets reared  conventionally and in cages. Appl Anim Ethol. 1976;2:339-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(76)90067-576    DOI
24 Fraser AF, Broom DM. Farm animal behaviour and welfare. 3rd ed. London: Bailliere Tindall; 1990. 
25 Moinard C, Mendl M, Nicol CJ, Green LE. A case control study of on-farm risk factors for  tail biting in pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2003;81:333-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00276-9    DOI
26 Baxter S. Intensive pig production: environmental management and design. London: Granada  Technical Books; 1984. 
27 Battini M, Agostini A, Mattiello S. Understanding cows' emotions on farm: are eye white and  ear posture reliable indicators? Animals. 2019;9:477. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9080477    DOI
28 Duncan IJH, Wood-Gush DGM. Frustration and aggression in the domestic fowl. Anim  Behav. 1971;19:500-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(71)80104-5    DOI
29 Marchant-Forde JN. The welfare of pigs. Dordrecht: Springer; 2009. 
30 Waiblinger S, Boivin X, Pedersen V, Tosi MV, Janczak AM, Visser EK, et al. Assessing  the human-animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. Appl Anim Behav Sci.  2006;101:185-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.001    DOI
31 Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Coleman GJ. The human-animal relationship in agriculture and  its consequences for the animal. Anim Welf. 1993;2:33-51.    DOI
32 de Passille AM, Rushen J. Can we measure human-animal interactions in on-farm animal  welfare assessment?: some unresolved issues. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2005;92:193-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.05.006    DOI
33 Rutherford KMD, Donald RD, Lawrence AB, Wemelsfelder F. Qualitative Behavioural  Assessment of emotionality in pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2012;139:218-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.04.004    DOI
34 Moines D. Swine care handbook. Des Moines, IA: National Pork Board; 2002. 
35 Cargill C, Byrt D. The effect of environmental temperature on the development of elements of  intestinal immunity in pigs. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Enteric  Infections and their Control; 1983; Perth, WA. 
36 Morrow-Tesch JL, McGlone JJ, Salak-Johnson JL. Heat and social stress effects on pig  immune measures. J Anim Sci. 1994;72:2599-609. https://doi.org/10.2527/1994.72102599x    DOI
37 Le Dividich J. Effects of environmental temperature on the growth rates of early-weaned  piglets. Livest Prod Sci. 1981;8:75-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(81)90032-4    DOI
38 Scheepens CJM, Tielen MJM, Hessing MJC. Influence of daily intermittent draught on the  health status of weaned pigs. Livest Prod Sci. 1991;29:241-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(91)90069-3    DOI
39 Cameron R. Diseases of the skin. In: Straw BE, Zimmerman JJ, D'Allaire S, Taylor DJ.  Diseases of swine. 9th ed. Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell; 2006. 
40 Paynter S. Humidity and respiratory virus transmission in tropical and temperate settings.  Epidemiol Infect. 2015;143:1110-8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268814002702    DOI
41 Boyle L, Quinn A, Calderon Diaz JA. Lameness in pigs. In: Pig Farmers' Conference 2013;  2013; Ireland. p. 47-50. 
42 Wemelsfelder F, Millard F, De Rosa G, Napolitano F. Qualitative behaviour assessment. In:  Forkman B, Keeling L, editors. Assessment of animal welfare measures for sows, piglets and  fattening pigs. Lelystad: Welfare Quality; 2009. p. 215-25. 
43 Wemelsfelder F, Haskell M, Mendl MT, Calvert S, Lawrence AB. Diversity of behaviour  during novel object tests is reduced in pigs housed in substrate-impoverished conditions. Anim  Behav. 2000;60:385-94. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1466    DOI
44 Vitali M, Santolini E, Bovo M, Tassinari P, Torreggiani D, Trevisi P. Behavior and welfare  of undocked heavy pigs raised in buildings with different ventilation systems. Animals.  2021;11:2338. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082338    DOI
45 Wathes CM, Phillips VR, Holden MR, Sneath RW, Short JL, White RPP, et al. Emissions of  aerial pollutants in livestock buildings in Northern Europe: overview of a multinational project.  J Agric Eng Res. 1998;70:3-9. https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1998.0278    DOI
46 Kim KY, Ko HJ, Kim HT, Kim CN, Kim YS. Assessment of airborne bacteria and  fungi in pig buildings in Korea. Biosyst Eng. 2008;99:565-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2007.12.006    DOI
47 Clark S, Rylander R, Larsson L. Airborne bacteria, endotoxin and fungi in dust in poultry  and swine confinement buildings. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1983;44:537-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298668391405265    DOI
48 Griffiths WD, DeCosemo GAL. The assessment of bioaerosols: a critical review. J Aerosol Sci.  1994;25:1425-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8502(94)90218-6    DOI
49 Hayes ET, Curran TP, Dodd VA. Odour and ammonia emissions from intensive pig units in  Ireland. Bioresour Technol. 2006;97:940-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2005.04.023    DOI
50 Kim KY, Ko HJ, Lee KJ, Park JB, Kim CN. Temporal and spatial distributions of aerial  contaminants in an enclosed pig building in winter. Environ Res. 2005;99:150-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2004.10.004    DOI
51 ACGIH [American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists]. TLVs and BEIs:  Threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure  indices. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists; 1999.  Report No.: 2883. 
52 Parker MO, O'Connor EA, McLeman MA, Demmers TGM, Lowe JC, Owen RC, et al. The  impact of chronic environmental stressors on growing pigs, Sus scrofa (part 2): social behaviour.  Animal. 2010;4:1910-21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731110001084    DOI
53 Smith JH, Wathes CM, Baldwin BA. The preference of pigs for fresh air over ammoniated air.  Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1996;49:417-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(96)01048-9    DOI
54 Jones JB, Wathes CM, Webster AJF. Operant responses of pigs to atmospheric ammonia. Appl  Anim Behav Sci. 1998;58:35-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00130-5    DOI
55 Jones JB, Webster AJF, Wathes CM. Trade-off between ammonia exposure and thermal  comfort in pigs and the influence of social contact. Anim Sci. 1999;68:387-98. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800050384    DOI
56 Wathes CM, Jones JB, Kristensen HH, Jones EKM, Webster AJF. Aversion of pigs and  domestic fowl to atmospheric ammonia. Trans ASAE. 2002;45:1605-10. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.11067    DOI
57 O'Connor EA, Parker MO, McLeman MA, Demmers TG, Lowe JC, Cui L, et al. The impact  of chronic environmental stressors on growing pigs, Sus scrofa (part 1): stress physiology,  production and play behaviour. Animal. 2010;4:1899-909. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731110001072    DOI
58 Moines D. Swine welfare assurance program: a program of America's pork producers. Clive, IA; National Pork Board; 2003. 
59 Banhazi TM, Seedorf J, Rutley DL, Pitchford WS. Identification of risk factors for suboptimal housing conditions in Australian piggeries: Part 1. Study justification and design. J  Agric Saf Health. 2008;14:5-20. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.24120    DOI
60 Zejda JE, Barber E, Dosman JA, Olenchock SA, McDuffie HH, Rhodes C, et al. Respiratory  health status in swine producers relates to endotoxin exposure in the presence of low dust levels.  J Occup Med. 1994;36:49-56. 
61 Temple D. Animal welfare assessment on intensive and extensive pig farms [Ph.D.  dissertation]. Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona; 2012. 
62 Duchaine C, Grimard Y, Cormier Y. Influence of building maintenance, environmental factors,  and seasons on airborne contaminants of swine confinement buildings. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J.  2000;61:56-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298660008984515    DOI
63 Air Management Division. The act of odor prevention (Implementation January 5, 2021 / Act  No. 17845, January 5, 2021, partially amended) [Internet]. Ministry of Environment [cited  2021 Dec 18]. https://www.law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%EC%95%85%EC%B7%A8%EB%B0%A9%EC%A7%80%EB%B2%95
64 Fraser D. Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the 'inextricable connection'. Anim  Welf. 1995;4:103-17. 
65 Main DCJ, Kent JP, Wemelsfelder F, Ofner E, Tuyttens FAM. Applications for methods of   on-farm welfare assessment. Anim Welf. 2003;12:523-8.    DOI
66 Welfare Quality. Welfare Quality assessment protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and  finishing pigs) [Internet]. Welfare Quality Consortium. 2009 [cited 2021 Dec 18]. http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/media/1018/pig_protocol.pdf 
67 Hernandez A, Berg C, Westin R, Galina C. Seasonal differences in animal welfare assessment  of family farming dual-purpose cattle raised under tropical conditions. Animals. 2018;8:125.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8070125    DOI
68 Johnsen PF, Johannesson T, Sandoe P. Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level:  many goals, many methods. Acta Agric Scand A Anim Sci. 2001;51:26-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/090647001316923027    DOI
69 Main DCJ, Whay HR, Leeb C, Webster AJF. Formal animal-based welfare assessment in UK  certification schemes. Anim Welf. 2007;16:233-6.    DOI
70 Kirchner MK, Schulze Westerath H, Knierim U, Tessitore E, Cozzi G, Pfeiffer C, et al.  Application of the Welfare Quality® assessment system on European beef bull farms. Animal.  2014;8:827-35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114000366    DOI
71 Renggaman A, Choi HL, Sudiarto SIA, Alasaarela L, Nam OS. Development of pig welfare  assessment protocol integrating animal-, environment-, and management-based measures. J  Anim Sci Technol. 2015;57:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40781-014-0034-0    DOI
72 Yao HQ, Choi HL, Lee JH, Suresh A, Zhu K. Effect of microclimate on particulate matter,  airborne bacteria, and odorous compounds in swine nursery houses. J Anim Sci. 2010;88:3707-14. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2009-2399    DOI
73 Lewandowski J. Mikroklimat w obiektach inwentarskich dla trzody chlewnej i bydla.  Warszawa: IBMER; 1997. 
74 Augustynska-Prejsnar A, Ormian M. Ocena mikroklimatu w budynku dla loch w roznych  porach roku. Problemy Inzynierii Rolniczej. 2012;2:95-101. 
75 Cole D, Todd L, Wing S. Concentrated swine feeding operations and public health: a review  of occupational and community health effects. Environ Health Perspect. 2000;108:685-99.  https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.00108685    DOI
76 Meyer-Hamme S, Lambertz C, Gauly M. Assessing the welfare level of intensive fattening  pig farms in Germany with the Welfare Quality® protocol: does farm size matter? Anim Welf.  2018;27:275-86. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.27.3.275    DOI
77 Korean Statistical Information Service. The number of farms and the number of pigs by  province and city/farm size [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2021 Dec 18]. https://kosis.kr/statisticsList/statisticsListIndex.do?menuId=M_01_01&vwcd=MT_ZTITLE&parmTabId=M_01_01&outLink=Y&entrType=#content-group