TECHNICAL REPORT submitted to EFSA. Prepared by Hans Spoolder 2, Marc Bracke 2, Christine Mueller-Graf 3, Sandra Edwards 4

Transcription

1 EN-181 TECHNICAL REPORT submitted to EFSA Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of pigs 1 Report 2: Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of weaned, growing and fattening pigs including aspects related to space allowance, floor types, tail biting and need for tail docking Prepared by Hans Spoolder 2, Marc Bracke 2, Christine Mueller-Graf 3, Sandra Edwards 4 2 Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO box 65, 8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands 3 Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) Head of Unit Epidemiology, Biometry and Mathematical Modelling Department Scientific Services, Alt-Marienfelde 17-21, D Berlin, Germany 4 Newcastle University, School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Agriculture Building Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK Abstract The EFSA Animal Health and Welfare panel is requested to develop several scientific opinions concerning animal based measures to assess the welfare of livestock animals. Before this work can start, it is important that conclusions and recommendations of the EFSA scientific opinions are up 1 (Question No EFSA-Q ) Accepted for Publication on 05 July 2011 tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues European Food Safety Authority - Largo N. Palli 5/a, I Parma Tel: (+39) Fax: (+39)

2 to date. The main objective of this report is to review the pig welfare literature to identify gaps and potential areas to strengthen or amend three recent pig welfare opinions: one on the welfare of Fattening pigs (2007), another on Space allowances and floor design (2005) and a final one on Tail biting (2007). The literature review was done by a group of authors and reviewers, under the supervision of an editorial team. Over 200 new scientific literature references are quoted. Regarding the first opinion, this review presents 11 new or revised conclusions. In addition it suggests several new recommendations. These include suggestions for maximum noise levels and ammonia levels, and minimum light duration. Furthermore, attention is drawn to the need of pigs to cool themselves when ambient temperature is high. Finally, the recommendations also emphasise the need to further study the relationship between space allowance and negative social behaviours. Regarding the second opinion, it draws 5 conclusions. The recommendations predominantly confirm those in the original opinion, but also emphasise the need for a well maintained substrate to reduce leg problems and gastric ulcers. For the third opinion, 10 new conclusions are added. The recommendations include the monitoring of tail length at the slaughter line, and the use of new management and housing information to avoid the need for tail docking. It also suggests that an intact curly tail can be regarded as the single most important welfare indicator in finishing pigs. Summary The EFSA Animal Health and Welfare panel is requested to develop several scientific opinions concerning animal based measures to assess the welfare of livestock. The main background documents for these mandates are the EFSA Scientific Opinions on the welfare of livestock and the Welfare Quality assessment protocols. EFSA has issued in the past the 5 scientific opinions on different aspects related to the welfare of pig. Three of these are: i) Animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry (2007); ii) The welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor (2005) and iii) The risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems (2007). The terms of reference (ToRs) of the Commission mandates on animal based measures to assess the welfare of livestock animals suggest that such measures could be used to check whether the recommendations listed in the EFSA scientific opinions are fulfilled or not. It is therefore important that conclusions and recommendations of the EFSA scientific opinions are up to date. The 5 scientific opinions are evaluated in two reports. The main objective of both reports is to present preparatory work for the future mandate on animal based measures for assessing pig welfare. It is a review of the literature provided in the opinions in order to identify gaps and potential areas to strengthen or amend the conclusions and recommendations of such opinions. It also aims to identify hazards that may be revised by the AHAW Panel in light of the newly available scientific evidence. The present report addresses the three opinions referred to above, presented here as sub-reports C, D and E, respectively. The editors of the two reports used a step wise iterative approach in which they involved experts from different research institutes. An initial literature search resulted in a large number of abstracts, of which more than 800 were read by the editorial team and analysed for statements relevant to the two reports. Authors were recruited and were sent one or more paragraphs with statements derived from the abstracts. They were asked to add their expertise, any missing references and statements, and to develop the statements into texts for each paragraph. The draft paragraph texts were then tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues

3 sent to first reviewers. These reviewers received large chunks of each report (several paragraphs from several authors) and developed the texts further. They provided additional expertise or references. Subsequently, five second reviewers were asked to do the same as the first reviewers. In a final step the editorial team over-viewed the text and put together the list of recommendations and associated hazards, based on the original recommendations list of the original EFSA reports. The literature searches conducted at the beginning of this project (for both Reports 1 and 2) resulted in 6435 unique references (for both reports). Databases searched included CAB Abstracts, Agricola and ISI Web of Knowledge (which included both the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S) databases). General searches were conducted on pig welfare as of (and including) 2007 using the key words pig*, sow*, boar*, welfare, well-being, behav* and stress. Specific searches were conducted on space and floors (as of 2005) using the key words floor*, space and castr*. For the present report a total of over 200 scientific publications were used to formulate additional conclusions and recommendations to the original opinions. Conclusions for sub-report C on Animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry include: i) genetic traits of fearfulness and aggression have been identified and could be incorporated in practical breeding programmes to improve welfare, ii) all new data reinforce the importance of providing suitable enrichment materials to allow expression of species relevant behaviours and reduce risk of injurious biting, iii) destructibility, hygiene and novelty are key elements of suitable enrichment, iv) provision of cooling facilities for pigs are important in any situation of increased ambient temperature or endogenous heat production, v) Ammonia levels of >20ppm have adverse effects on pig physiology and behaviour, vi) There is a high prevalence of locomotory disorders on many farms which should be addressed through genetic and environmental improvement. Recommendations for sub-report C include: i) since pigs have limited abilities to loose heat (they cannot sweat), pigs should be allowed to seek cooling when overheated, not only in case of elevated ambient temperatures, but also in cases of elevated activity, fever and high metabolism, ii) ammonia levels in pig housing should not exceed 20ppm, iii) noise levels in pig housing should be <80dB, iv) although the ability of pigs to discriminate between small visual cues at light intensities from 12 to 80 lux does not appear to change, a light intensity of >80 lux during activity periods reduces aggression compared to 40 lux. A minimum light period of 14h/day should be provided where artificial light is used, v) further research is needed to specify in more detail the effects of reduced space allowances on negative social behaviours, as well as the interaction between space allowance and enrichment, so as to identify the extent to which these factors can act as substitutes for each other. Conclusions for sub-report D on The welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor include: i) the allometric approach appears valid for pigs over a wide weight range, ii) behavioural measures suggest a higher optimum k value ( ) than production measures ( ), iii) the amount of space needed by an individual appears independent of group size, iv) walking safety and comfort is impaired by soiled floors, v) the effects of floor type on health are equivocal, with further evidence that solid floors are better for respiratory disease but detrimental to enteric and endoparasitic infections. The original recommendations of sub-report C tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues

4 are supported by the new data, but also include that a well maintained substrate such as straw should be used to reduce leg problems and gastric lesions. Conclusions for sub-report D on The risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems include: i) tail and ear lesions are indicative of reduced welfare (now and/or in the past). They can be detected fairly easily, even at the slaughterhouse. Healed lesions should be included in the observations, ii) while lack of enrichment is a main reason for such lesions, also a range of other factors may be involved e.g. reduced health, thermal inadequacies, problems with feed and water, etc.). All of these are associated with reduced welfare, iii) use of group selection as a breeding strategy has the potential to reduce genetic predisposition to tail bite, iv) reliable behavioural signs of an impending tail biting outbreak have been identified and can be used to take precautionary measures, v) tail and ear biting behaviour may be treated with enhanced enrichment (e.g. ample long straw provided fresh twice daily) throughout the pig s life. However, other risk factors (stocking density, ventilation, feed,...) should be investigated or audited too, vi) research to date indicates that while toys may show some reduction in tail biting, especially when they have destructible components, natural substrates such as straw or compost seem to be necessary to reduce biting problems to acceptable levels in problem pens. Recommendations for sub-report D include: i) the wealth of information on how to reduce the risk of tail biting (such as providing suitable enrichment, ensuring a good thermal environment and appropriate feeding) without docking pig tails, should be used to underpin the importance of preventative measures, ii) monitoring at slaughter should include also tail length (in addition to tail lesions) as well as ear shape (missing parts of the ears) and biting wounds on flanks and legs, iii) an intact curly tail may well be the single most important animal-based welfare indicator for weaned, growing and finishing pigs (at herd level). In addition, it stands for high-quality management and respect for the integrity of the pig. The hazards associated with the recommendations were presented for each sub-report. Overall, no new hazards were identified, although the evidence for many existing hazards was strengthened. Key words: Pig welfare, fattening pig, tail biting, swine housing tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues

5 Table of Contents Abstract... 1 Summary... 2 Table of Contents... 5 Background... 9 Terms of reference... 9 Acknowledgements Introduction and Objectives Materials and Methods Reviewer consultation Literature searches References Sub-report C: update of the underlying report on adult pigs and unweaned piglets Current production systems for fattening pigs in the EU (C.6.) Factors affecting pig welfare (C.7.) Pig genetics in relation to welfare (C.7.1.) Leg problems (C ) Cardiovascular problems (C ) Social behaviour and fearfulness (C ) Disease resistance (C ) Light inadequacy and noise (C.7.2.) Ability to rest and sleep (C.7.3.) Ability to exercise (C.7.4.) Food and water in relation to pig welfare (C.7.5.) Effects of water supply (C ) Liquid feeding (C ) Lack of food and food restriction (C ) Lack or excess of specific nutrients (C ) Undesirable compounds in feedstuffs (C ) Benefits of specific foods - including feed additives (C ) Ability to explore (C.7.6.) Ability to have proper social interaction (C.7.7.) Lack of maternal contact (C ) Contact with other pigs (C ) Mixing of unacquainted pigs (C ) Group size (C ) Space allowance and access to resources (C ) Ability to avoid fear - including noise (C.7.8.) Ability to groom (C.7.9.) Thermal inadequacy - including noxious gases (C.7.10.) Humidity (C.7.11.) Respiratory disorders (C.7.12.) Air quality (C ) Gut disorders (C.7.13.) Postweaning diarrhoea (C ) Diarrhoea during finishing period (C ) Gastric ulcers (C ) Production related and other diseases - and use of growth promotors (C.7.14.) Injuries - and pain and leg problems (C.7.15.) tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues

6 3.16. Food Safety related aspects (C.8.) Conclusions and Recommendations References for sub-report C Sub-report D: update of the underlying report on the effects of different space allowances and floor The needs and functioning of pigs, in particular in relation to effects of flooring and space allowance (D.6.) The needs of pigs in relation to the space in which they live (D.6.1.) Describing space allowance (D.6.2.) Physical dimensions of the animal (body space) (D ) Activity space (D ) Social space (D ) Group (and pig size) properties (D ) Foot size and biomechanical properties (D.6.3.) Current housing systems - in relation to space and floors (D.7.) Types of flooring used in pig production (D.8.) Effects of space allowance (D.9.) Effects of space allowance on air quality and its consequences (D.9.1.) Effects of space allowance on mobility and injuries (D.9.2.) Effect of space allowance on disease (D.9.3.) General introduction (D ) Infectious diseases of significant importance (D ) Enzootic diseases (D ) Non-infectious diseases (D ) Provision for other needs (D.9.4.) Space utilisation (D ) Activity space (D ) Interaction space and aggression (D ) Effects of space allowance on performance and adrenal responses (D ) Exploration and manipulation - tail injuries (D ) Effect of space allowance on the carcass and food safety (D.9.5.) Introduction (D ) Space allowance and carcass composition (D ) Space allowance and pig meat safety (D ) Effects of flooring (D.10.) Effects of flooring on air quality and its consequences (D.10.1.) Effects of flooring on mobility and injuries (D.10.2.) Flooring and mobility (D ) Flooring and injury in weaners (D ) Flooring and injury in Grower/Finisher pigs (D ) The effect of floor type on disease (D.10.3.) General Introduction (D ) Infectious diseases of significant importance (D ) Enzootic Enteric disorders including internal parasites (D ) Respiratory disorders (D ) Effects of flooring on other health problems (D ) Provision for other needs (D.10.4.) Space utilisation (D ) Activity space (D ) Effects of temperature (D ) tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues

7 Effects of the amount of solid versus slatted flooring on behaviour (D ) Effects of flooring on maintenance and stress (D ) Flooring and performance in weaners (D ) Flooring and performance in finishing pigs (D ) Floor type and stress physiology in pigs (D ) Exploration and manipulation (tail injuries) (D ) The effect of flooring on the carcass and food safety (D.10.5.) Conclusions and Recommendations References for sub-report D Sub-report E: update of the underlying report on the risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking Current production systems for fattening pigs in the EU (E.2.) Introduction to tail biting issues (E.3.) Tail biting process (E.3.1.) E.4. Current situation on tail (and ear) biting Recorded Prevalence in EU (E.4.1.) Welfare and health aspects of tail biting (E.5.) Behaviour (frustration, biters/bites/victims) (E.5.1.) Injuries, infections and pain (E ) Current situation on tail docking (E.6.) Legislation (E.6.1.) Current practices (E.6.2.) Welfare and health consequences of tail docking (E.7.) Hazard identification for tail biting (E.8.) Animal characteristics (E.8.1.) Breed and genetics (E ) Gender (E ) Weight or age (E ) Rearing (E.8.2.) Early housing conditions (E ) Weaning age (E ) Social environment (E.8.3.) Group size, space allowance and stocking density (E ) Other aspects of the social environment (E ) Herd size (E.8.4.) Flooring and substrates (E.8.5.) Floor type (E ) Enrichment (E ) Straw (E ) Rooting material earth, peat, compost (E ) Hanging toys, footballs, etc. (E ) Diet and feeding (E.8.6.) Restricted level of feeding and high feeding competition (E ) Form of feed (E ) Minerals (E ) Protein and amino acids (E ) Fibre (E ) Specific raw materials (E ) Feed additives (E ) Sudden changes in feed (E ) tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues

8 Water provision (E ) Health/disease (as causal factor) (E.8.7.) Growth retardation (E ) Disease (E ) Parasitism (E ) Climate and ventilation (E.8.8.) Time of year (E ) Heat stress (E ) Cold and draughts (E ) Air quality (E ) Ventilation type (E ) Light (E ) Tail docking as a control measure (E.8.9.) Presence of pig(s) with tail injury (E.8.10.) Risk assessment approach (E.9.) Management of tail biting outbreaks (E.10.) Food safety considerations (E.11.) Conclusions and Recommendations References for sub-report E tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues

9 Background The AHAW Panel is requested to develop several scientific opinions concerning animal based measures to assess the welfare of livestock animals. A first mandate on Dairy Cows has been received in June A second mandate to develop a scientific opinion on animal based measures for pigs is foreseen by the management plan. The main background documents for these mandates are the EFSA Scientific Opinions on the welfare of livestock animals and the Welfare Quality 2 assessment protocols. EFSA has issued in the past the following scientific opinions on different aspects related to the welfare of pigs: i) Animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets (2007a); ii) Animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry (2007b); iii) The risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems (2007c); iv) The welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor (2005) and v) Welfare aspects of the castration of piglets (2004). The terms of reference (ToRs) of the Commission mandates on animal based measures to assess the welfare of livestock animals suggest that such measures could be used to check whether the recommendations listed in the EFSA scientific opinions are fulfilled or not. It is therefore important that conclusions and recommendations of the EFSA scientific opinions are up to date. The main objective of this procurement project is to carry out preparatory work for the future mandate on animal based measures for assessing pig welfare. A review of the literature provided in the scientific opinions in order to identify gaps and potential areas to strengthen or amend the conclusions and recommendations of such opinions is expected. In addition, the identification of hazards that may be revised by the AHAW Panel in light of the newly available scientific evidence is also foreseen. In line with the specific pig populations, the preparatory work may be subdivided in two lots: i) preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of sow, boar and piglet including aspects related to pig castration and ii) preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of fattening pig including aspects related to tail biting. The preparatory work, to be completed by March 2011, will help the AHAW panel to update the conclusions and recommendations of the previous EFSA s scientific opinions on pig welfare in order to develop the future mandate on animal based measures for the assessment of welfare of pigs. Terms of reference The present procurement project will address the following two points: i) to review the literature provided in the scientific opinions in order to identify gaps and potential areas to strengthen or 2 Welfare Quality Consortium, ASG Veehouderij BV, Lelystad, The Netherlands. Project co-financed by the European Commission, 6 th Framework Programme. tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues

10 amend the conclusions and recommendations of such opinions; ii) to identify hazards that may be revised by the AHAW Panel in light of the newly available scientific evidence. tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues

11 Acknowledgements This contract was awarded by EFSA to: Contractor: Animal Science Group (ASG), Wageningen UR Livestock Research, The Netherlands Contract title: Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of pigs Contract number: CT/EFSA/AHAW/2011/01 11

12 Introduction and Objectives INTRODUCTION The EFSA Animal Health and Welfare panel is requested to develop several scientific opinions concerning animal based measures to assess the welfare of livestock animals. A first mandate on Dairy Cows has been received in June A second mandate to develop a scientific opinion on animal based measures for pigs is foreseen by the management plan. The main background documents for these mandates are the EFSA Scientific Opinions on the welfare of livestock animals and the Welfare Quality assessment protocols. EFSA has issued in the past the following scientific opinions on different aspects related to the welfare of pigs: i) Animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets (2007a); ii) Animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry (2007b); iii) The risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems (2007c); iv) The welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor (2005) and v) Welfare aspects of the castration of piglets (2004). The terms of reference (ToRs) of the Commission mandates on animal based measures to assess the welfare of livestock animals suggest that such measures could be used to check whether the recommendations listed in the EFSA scientific opinions are fulfilled or not. It is therefore important that conclusions and recommendations of the EFSA scientific opinions are up to date. OBJECTIVES The main objective of this report is to present preparatory work for the future mandate on animal based measures for assessing pig welfare. It is a review of the literature provided in the scientific opinions in order to identify gaps and potential areas to strengthen or amend the conclusions and recommendations of such opinions. In line with the specific pig populations, the results of this project for EFSA are presented in the following two reports: Report 1: Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of sow, boar and piglet including aspects related to pig castration. Report 2: Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of fattening pig including aspects related to tail biting. The present document is Report 2. The specific objectives for Report 2 are as follows: To review the literature provided in the previous EFSA scientific opinions: 12

13 c) Animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry (2007b); d) The welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor (2005) e) The risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems (2007c); in order to identify gaps and potential areas to strengthen or amend the conclusions and recommendations of such opinions; To identify hazards that may be revised by the AHAW Panel in light of the newly available scientific evidence (i.e. identify hazards in scientific papers about floor and space allowance for pigs published after 2005 and scientific papers about fattening pig welfare published after 2007). The focus of the report is on science-based knowledge that is important for decision makers, in particular scientific knowledge and advice (recommendations) that specifies how pig welfare may be monitored and improved in Europe in the (near) future, and that has become available after the publication of the underlying reports (or which revises them). Materials and Methods METHODS 1. Reviewer consultation The editors of this report used a step wise iterative approach in which they involved several experts from different research institutes. For this and the other report, the following steps were taken simultaneously. Step 1 An initial literature search resulted in a large number of abstracts, of which more than 800 were read by the editorial team and analysed for statements relevant to the present report. The screening of literature is described in one of the paragraphs below. The statements derived from the abstracts were allocated to chapters presented in the original EFSA reports. Step 2 Authors were recruited and they were sent one or more paragraphs with statements derived in Step 1. They were asked to add their expertise, any missing references and statements, and to develop the 13

14 statements into texts for each paragraph. A total of 20 co-authors contributed in this step of the process. They remained anonymous throughout this and the following steps. Step 3 The draft paragraph texts were then sent to first reviewers. These reviewers received large chunks of each report (several paragraphs from several authors) and developed the texts further. They provided additional expertise or references. They were also asked to check for novelty value (since original report). Altogether six first reviewers completed their work. Step 4 Was similar to step 3, but included five second reviewers. They were asked to do the same as the first reviewers. Step 5 The editors then asked all authors and reviewers to have a final look at the sub-reports they contributed to, and suggest improvements. In addition, they were asked to contribute to the recommendations section of this report, and add their recommendations. Step 6 In the final step the editorial team had their final look and put together the list of recommendations and associated hazards, based on the original recommendations list of the original EFSA reports. 2. Literature searches The literature searches conducted at the beginning of this project resulted in 6435 unique references (for both reports). Databases searched included CAB Abstracts, Agricola and ISI Web of Knowledge (which included both the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S) databases). General searches were conducted on pig welfare as of (and including) 2007 using the key words pig*, sow*, boar*, welfare, well-being, behav* and stress. Specific searches were conducted on castration (as of 2004) using the key words floor*, space and castr*. Technical details of the general searches CAB Abstracts [conducted ]: (((pig* or hog* or swine or sow* or boar*) and (((welfare or well-being or behav*) and health) or stress)).ab. and ("2007" or "2008" or "2009" or "2010" or "2011").yr.) not (pigeon* or "guinea pig" or piguvian).ab. [".ab" means "Abstract field"]. Agricola [conducted ]: (((pig* or hog* or swine or sow* or boar*) and (((welfare or well-being or behav*) and health) or stress)).ab. and ("2007" or "2008" or "2009" or "2010" or "2011").yr.) not (pigeon* or "guinea pig" or pigo*).ab. [".ab" means "Abstract field"]. ISI Web of Knowledge [conducted ]: Topic=((pig or pigs or piglet* or sow* or boar*) and animal*) AND Topic=(welfare or well-being or (behav* and health) or stress) NOT 14

15 Topic=(pigeon* or "guinea pig*" or pigo*) AND Topic=(significant*), Timespan= Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, CPCI-S. Specific searches (for castration Sub-report B) CAB Abstracts [conducted ]: ((pig or pigs or piglet* or hogs or swine or sow or sows or boar*) and castr*).ab. and ("2004" or "2005" or "2006" or "2007" or "2008" or "2009" or "2010" or "2011").yr. [".ab" means "Abstract field"]. ISI Web of Knowledge ( ): Topic=(pig or pigs or piglet* or hogs or swine or sows or boar or boars) AND Topic=(castr*), Timespan= Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, CPCI-S. Specific searches (for health ) We initially found very few references to pig health in relation to welfare. So we added two other searches: OvidMedline (((pig or pigs or piglet* or hogs or swine or sow* or boar*) and (health or disease) and (risk or odds)).ab. and ("2007" or "2008" or "2009" or "2010" or "2011").yr.) not (pigeon* or "guinea pig*" or pigo*).ab. ISI web of Sci+Conf proceedings: Topic=(pig* or hog* or swine or sow* or boar*) AND Topic=(health or disease) NOT Topic=(pigeon* or "guinea pig*" or pigo*) Timespan= Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, CPCI-S. (restricted to vet sci) 15

16 References Bracke, M.B.M., Edwards, S.A., Engel, B., Buist, W.G., Algers, B., 2008a. Expert opinion as 'validation' of risk assessment applied to calf welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50. Moura, D.J., Silva, W.T., Naas, I.A., Tolon, Y.A., Lima, K.A.O., Vale, M.M., Real time computer stress monitoring of piglets using vocalization analysis. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 64, Mullan, S., Browne, W.J., Edwards, S.A., Butterworth, A., Whay, H.R., Main, D.C.J., The effect of sampling strategy on the estimated prevalence of welfare outcome measures on finishing pig farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119, Schön, P.C., Puppe, B., Tuchscherer, A., Manteuffel, G., Changes of the vocalization during the castration of the domestic pig are indicators of pain. Zuchtungskunde 78, Scipioni, R., Martelli, G., Volpelli, L.A., Assessment of welfare in pigs. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8, Velarde, A. and Geers, R On farm monitoring of pig welfare. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. Von Borell, E., Schaffer, D., Welfare conform farm animal housing - a field study based on Critical Control Points from pig farms. Arch. Tierz.-Arch. Anim. Breed. 51, Welfare Quality, Welfare Quality assessment protocol for pigs. Welfare Quality Consortium, Lelystad, TheNetherlands. 16

17 Sub-report C: Welfare of weaned, growing and fattening pigs This part updates the underlying report on weaned, growing and fattening pigs: Animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry (EFSA, 2007b, available at Prepared by Xavier Averos 1, Sandra Edwards 2, Rony Geers 3, Giovanna Martelli 4, Eleonora Nanoni 4, Niamh O'Connell 5 and Anna Valros rue de Saint Brieuc, Rennes, France. 2 Newcastle University, School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Agriculture Building Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK 3 Laboratory for Quality Care in Animal Production, K.U.Leuven, Bijzondere weg 12, B-3360 Lovenjoel, Belgium 4 Dip. Scienze Mediche Veterinarie, Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna Via Tolara di Sopra, 50, Ozzano Emilia (Bologna)- Italy 5 School of Biological Sciences, Medical Biology Centre, Queens University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7BL, UK 6 Research Centre for Animal Welfare, Department of Production Animal Medicine P.O.Box 57, University of Helsinki, Finland 17

18 3. Sub-report C: update of the underlying report on adult pigs and unweaned piglets This chapter updates the EFSA scientific opinion on Animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry (EFSA, 2007b, available at The number following the title of the paragraphs by brackets is referred to the corresponding paragraph of the underlying report Current production systems for fattening pigs in the EU (C.6.) Although, in practice, the different housing systems for growing-finishing pigs have not undergone substantial changes since the last published Scientific Opinion (EFSA, 2007b), additional information concerning the effects of these systems exists, basically comparing the effects of often called alternative systems with respect to those of more conventional, intensive ones. As the investigated systems, measures used and climatic conditions vary a great deal from study to study, no clear conclusions can be drawn. A national-scale French project, concluded that pigs raised under alternative conditions (that is, pigs provided with litter bedding, the access to an outdoor courtyard, and a total space allowance of 2.4 m2/animal) had a better welfare and growth performance than those raised on fully slatted floor and a space allowance of 0.65 m2/pig, while pork technological quality was poorer (Bonneau et al., 2008). A Brazilian study compared the effect of deep litter systems (solid floor with the presence of bedding materials, and a total floor area of 1.3 m2/pig) with that of more conventional systems (partially slatted floors and 1.3 m2/pig) on the performance, carcass characteristics, meat quality and health condition of pigs (Dalla Costa et al., 2008). But in this case the authors found that, during the growing-finishing period, pigs housed on deep litter showed lower performance and carcass values. Furthermore, a Japanese study determined the effect of outdoor access during the fattening period (Honda and Nakazato, 2009). Indoor pigs were housed on slatted floors, and given 1.8 m2/pig. The space allowance for pigs with outdoor access was 30 m2/pig. When pigs were fed ad libitum, animals with outdoor access were more active and showed a lower performance than pigs housed indoors, although they showed longer loin lengths and thinner back fat. Trombetta et al. (2009) compared different housing systems and different diets. Housing systems consisted of an indoor system (1.5 m2/pig) or an outdoor system (paddocks with the presence of shelters; 30 m2/pig). Irrespective of the diet, pigs reared outdoor showed poorer performance, their carcasses were leaner, and their meat had lower ph 45 min after slaughter and had a lower water content. They concluded that distinct quality features allow a clear differentiation between products originating from outdoor reared pigs and indoor pigs, although differences are not always positive. Cordeiro et al. (2007) evaluated the effect of different production systems on the thermal environment and the performance of pigs. The evaluated systems were deep bedding (wood shavings or rice husk), or traditional concrete slatted floor. In all cases space allowance was 1.66 m2/pig. The thermal confort was similar for the three systems when pigs body weight (BW) ranged between 25 and 75 kg, but the black globe temperature and humidity index (BGTHI) values in the three studied systems were higher than recommended values for pigs ranging between 75 and 120 kg. Nevertheless, concrete floor temperatures were always lower than those in which bedding was used. Overall, performance was similar in the three systems. 18

19 Different modifications have been proposed to already existing productive systems. In the case of pigs with an outdoor access, the use of roughage in the outdoor area may promote activity and reduce aggressive behaviours (Presto et al., 2009). In the straw flow system, it has additionally been observed that management routines such as the daily removal of slurry and the application of a solid cover to the slurry storage may be benefitial both for the pigs welfare and for the environment (Amon et al., 2008). The effects of the production systems may extend to subsequent stages after the end of the growingfinishing period. Barton Gade (2008) compared the effect of different rearing systems, and that of mixing pigs at the moment of loading them onto the truck, on their behaviour during transport and lairage, the blood chemistry at slaughter, and the meat quality characteristics. She found that free range pigs (i.e. those born outdoors and reared in an enriched environment during the growingfinishing period) were more likely to lie down during transport, and displayed fewer aggressive interactions during lairage than conventionally raised pigs. The appearance of skin damage was less frequent among free range pigs, and they also showed higher muscle temperatures early post mortem. In a Swiss survey comparing alternative (pigs given larger, enriched pens, and outdoor access) and conventional systems (Barlocher et al., 2008), the authors found that, in most comparisons, pigs housed under alternative systems exhibited numerically higher ph values both at 35 minutes and at 2 hours post-slaughter. This was attributed to a better adaptation to transport and to the slaughterhouse conditions. Furthermore, Nanni Costa et al. (2007) observed that at loading pigs reared on slatted floors were more difficult to drive along the passageway leading to the vehicle than animals reared on solid floors. The latter pigs were more frequently observed lying in the resting pen. At exsanguination, pigs reared on slatted floors showed significantly higher values of cortisol but similar levels of creatine kinase and lactate with respect to those reared on solid floors. De Greef et al. (2011) presented the proof of principle of the so-called Comfort Class system for pigs, which was specifically designed to meet the welfare needs of the pigs. Observations showed that tail and skin damage remained at, or were reduced to, a low level (depending on whether pigs already had lesions when entering the system). Resting behaviour was highly synchronised, but synchronisation of eating was limited. The authors concluded that the Comfort Class system probably results in adequate quality of life for pigs (especially based on the absence of observed welfare infringements) Factors affecting pig welfare (C.7.) During the last years, studies have increased our understanding of the cognitive abilities of pigs, although the methodology for more systematic evaluation of pig cognition still needs further study (Kornum and Knudsen, 2011; Gieling et al., 2011). For example, Broom et al. (2009) have shown that pigs can use information gained through a mirror to find a food bowl, which indicates assessment awareness in pigs. According to Broom et al. (2009) these results might help us develop more welfare-friendly systems for housing pigs. Van Weeghel et al. (2010) noted that present enrichment materials, even the better ones such as straw and compost, provide extremely limited cognitive challenges to pigs. Along these lines, Driessen et al. (2010) even proposed to revive the idea of designing a computer game for pigs. Puppe et al. (2007) showed that a cognitive enrichment device, combining classical and operant conditioning to food rewards, had positive effects on the 19

20 behaviour of pigs. The authors suggested this might be applicable for animal welfare enhancing management of feeding. More research is needed to increase the understanding of the mental capacities of the pig, and thus allow for more accurate evaluation of housing systems and management solutions that improve pig welfare. Qualitative approaches to the study of animal behaviour may make an important contribution to the growing interest in animal s quality of life (Wemelsfelder, 2007). Douglas et al. (2010) reported that cognitive bias in pigs was changed by enriched versus barren housing, and that this might offer a useful tool to assess affective state of pigs Pig genetics in relation to welfare (C.7.1.) In reproductive females, the genetic progress for high prolificacy generates elevated foetal demands for nutrients and space that are not fully met as shown by an increased number of runt piglets having difficulties to adapt successfully to the neonatal life. Hence, artificial nursing and motherless rearing of piglets is becoming more and more practiced, also because the sow does not have enough teats for all born piglets (Prunier et al., 2010). Reduced individual birth weight reduces the likelihood of survival until the end of the nursery period. The importance of piglet birth weight was also confirmed in a study by Fix et al. (2010). They found that a low birth weight of piglets increased the risk of reduced health throughout the fattening period, as well as reduced value at slaughter Leg problems (C ) Storskrubb et al. (2010) showed that a mild form of osteochondrosis (OCD) is common in both Finnish pig breeds, that bone strength and OCD in the distal end of the femur are moderately heritable and can be improved through selection, and that selection for high meat percentage does not seem to affect bone strength or OCD. Fan et al. (2009) suggested that in some cases there may be a common genetic mechanism or linked genes regulating fatness and leg weakness. Such relationships are clearly complex, and the utilization of genetic markers associated with both traits should be treated cautiously. Information from a databank containing all pigs slaughtered in Sweden has shown an increased percentage of joint lesions in organic pigs as compared to conventional pigs (Heldmer and Lundeheim, 2010). OCD is one of the main reasons for this increase. As the Swedish organic pigs are of similar genotype to the conventionally reared pigs, this indicates an interaction between environment and genetics on the risks of joint lesions due to OCD (Gångare, 2009) Cardiovascular problems (C ) No new information. 20

21 Social behaviour and fearfulness (C ) Lankin (2008) revealed that the sample distributions of the frequencies of defensive behaviour towards humans were significantly dependent on the age and sex of the animals, and on the genotypes of the line. It is suggested that there is a major gene controlling selectively significant behaviour of pigs towards humans. Rodenburg et al. (2010) indicated that including social effects into breeding programmes is a promising way to reduce negative social interactions in farm animals, and possibly to also increase positive social interactions, by breeding animals with better social skills Disease resistance (C ) No new information Light inadequacy and noise (C.7.2.) In order to achieve a proper sensory input pigs need a sufficient illumination level in terms of both light duration and light intensity (EFSA, 2007b). Pigs are generally believed to have good visual diurnal capabilities, nevertheless Zonderland et al. (2008a) observed that the pigs ability to resolve visual details shows large individual differences and it is limited when compared to humans. Results from these authors also indicate that the detail of the visual cue (symbol size) has a more pronounced effect on the pigs' ability to distinguish visual cues, compared to the level of illumination: an increase in light level from 12 to 40 lux did not have a significant effect on the pig s abilities to distinguish visual cues. With respect to the presence of a specific need of pigs in terms of light duration, Martelli et al. (2009) found that heavy pigs receiving a prolonged photoperiod (14-h vs. 8-h of light/day with a light intensity of 70 lux) had better growth parameters and spent significantly more time resting. Although not significant, a reduction of agonistic interactions was also observed. An even more prolonged artificial photoperiod (16-h vs. 8-h/day light period ) with a lower light intensity (40 lux) compared to the aforementioned study, was also shown to significantly improve the growth and behavioural traits (greater incidence of lying behaviour and lower incidence of pseudo-rooting behaviour) of growing-fattening pigs (Martelli et. al., 2011, in press). Pigs can distinguish familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics, and will form stable social groups when given the opportunity, using visual, olfactory and auditory cues. However, this ability may be compromised by environmental factors relating to indoor commercial production systems, where high concentrations of aerial pollutants (e.g. ammonia), low light intensity and high levels of background noise may be present. Aggressive behaviour among newly mixed pigs was exacerbated at low light intensities (~ 40 lux) and at high ammonia concentrations (~ 20 ppm; Parker et al., 2010). In this framework, elevated concentrations of atmospheric ammonia (similar to 20 vs. <5 ppm) and low lighting (similar to 40 v. 200 lux) may undermine the social stability of groups of finisher pigs through a still-unknown mechanism (Parker et al., 2010). Furthermore, there is evidence for brighter light (200 vs 40 lux) to lower the effect of ammonia on salivary cortisol (O Connor et al., 2010). These results on light intensity agree with those reported by Martelli et al. (2010) who 21