Skip to main content

Health and welfare of organic pigs in Europe assessed with animal-based parameters

Abstract

Organic pig farming aims at maintaining a high health and welfare state of the animals through appropriate housing, management and feeding. Better knowledge of health and welfare indicators should help to identify critical points and hence to improve health and welfare as well as performance of organic pigs. This paper describes the health and welfare of organic pigs from 101 farms across six EU countries, using selected animal-based parameters from the Welfare Quality® protocol. Parameters were collected in sows, suckling and weaned piglets in 3 to 20 farms per country. Their assessment was trained before farm visits and inter-observer agreement determined after farm visits. The most prevalent problems identified in sows were thinness (median farm prevalence 18.8 %, range 0–81.0), injuries on the anterior part of the body (15.5 %, 0–66.7), injuries on hind part of body (7.9 %, 0–50), obesity (4.9 %, 0–50.0) and vulva lesions (3.5 %, 0–42.9). In suckling piglets, the median prevalence in terms of groups affected per farm was 0 % for all parameters but ‘> 50 % dirty piglets in group’, for which it was 10 %. Farm prevalence ranged from 0 to 100 % for ‘≥ 1 lame piglet in group’, presence of diarrhoea, and ‘> 50 % dirty piglets in group’. In weaned piglets, the median prevalence in terms of groups affected per farm was 0 % with a range of 0 to 100 % for all parameters. Based on the collected data, body condition, skin and vulva lesions in sows, lameness, diarrhoea and respiratory problems in piglets could be used as management and welfare indicators, with good potential for enhancement through farm improvement schemes like herd health planning. However, some definitions could be improved, especially lameness, diarrhoea and respiratory problems in piglets.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Bonde M, Sorensen JT (2006) Animal health and welfare in organic European pig production: state of the art and challenges for the future, based on a Northwestern European questionnaire survey. Proc Eur Jt Org Congr 2006:562–563, Odense (DK)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bonde M, Hegelund L, Sørensen JT (2006) Forskellige sundhedsproblemer hos økologiske henholdsvis konventionelle indendørs slagtesvin (in Danish). Forskningsnytt om Økologisk Landbruk i Norden 1:8–9

    Google Scholar 

  3. Burfoot A, Kay RM, Corning S (1995) A scoring method to assess damage caused by aggression between sows after mixing. Proc Brit Soc Anim Sci, Annual Meeting: 196–197

  4. Charette R, Bigras-Poulin M, Martineau G-P (1996) Body condition evaluation in sows. Livest Prod Sci 46:107–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Commission Regulation EC no. 889/2008 (2008) Laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control. Official Journal of the European Union, L 250, p 84

  6. Day JEL, Kelly H, Martins A, Edwards SA (2003) Towards a baseline assessment of organic pig welfare. Anim Welf 12:637–641

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ebke M, Sundrum A (2005) Qualitätssicherung in der ökologischen Schweinemast (in German) [Quality assurance in organic pig finishing]. Beiträge zur 8. Wissenschaftstagung zum Ökologischen Landbau, 01. -04. 03. 2005, Kassel (DE):337–340

  8. EFSA (2007) Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from Commission 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. EFSA J 611:1–100

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fraser D, Kramer DL, Pajor EA, Weary DM (1995) Conflict and cooperation: sociobiological principles and the behaviour of pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 44:139–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Früh B, Bochicchio D, Edwards S, Hegelund L, Leeb C, Heinonen M, Maupertuis F, Sundrum A, Werne S, Wiberg S (2011) Description of organic production systems in Europe in 2007. In: Edwards S (Ed) Knowledge synthesis: animal health and welfare in organic pig production—Final Report COREPIG. http://orgprints.org/18419/

  11. Geverink NA, Meuleman M, van Nuffel A, van Steenbergen L, Hautekiet V, Vermeulen K, Lammens V, van Reenen CG, Tuyttens FAM (2009) Repeatability of lameness score measured on farm. In: Forkman B, Keeling L (ed) Assessment of animal welfare measures for sows, piglets and fattening pigs. Welfare Quality Reports No. 10:73–78

  12. Harper GC, Makatouni A (2002) Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. Brit Food J 104:287–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Heinonen M, Oravainen J, Orro T, Seppä-Lassila L, Ala-Kurikka E, Virolainen J, Tast A, Peltoniemi OAT (2006) Lameness and fertility of sows and gilts in randomly selected loose-housed herds in Finland. Vet Rec 159:383–387

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Heldmer E, Lundeheim N, Robertsson JÅ (2006) Sjukdomsfynd hos ekologiskt uppfödda grisar (in Swedish). Svensk Veterinärtidning 13:13–19

    Google Scholar 

  15. KilBride AL, Gillman CE, Green LE (2009) A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of lameness in finishing pigs, gilts and pregnant sows and associations with limb lesions and floor types on commercial farms in England. Anim Welf 18:215–224

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Leeb B, Leeb C, Troxler J, Schuh M (2001) Skin lesions and callosities in group-housed pregnant sows: animal-related welfare indicators. Acta Agr Scand A: Anim Sci Suppl 30:82–87

    Google Scholar 

  17. MAFF (1998) Condition scoring of pigs. MAFF Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  18. McGlone JJ (1985) A quantitative ethogram of aggressive and submissive behaviors in recently regrouped pigs. J Anim Sci 61:559–565

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Meagher RK (2009) Observer ratings: validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research. Appl Anim Behav Sci 119:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pedersen LJ, Jørgensen E, Heiskanen T, Damm BI (2006) Early piglet mortality in loose-housed sows related to sow and piglet behaviour and to the progress of parturition. Appl Anim Behav Sci 96:215–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Petersen HH, Enoe C, Nielsen EO (2004) Observer agreement on pen level prevalence of clinical signs in finishing pigs. Prev Vet Med 64:147–156

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rundgren M, Löfquist I (1989) Effects on performance and behavior of mixing 20-kg pigs fed individually. Anim Prod 49:311–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. SAS Institute Inc. (2008) SAS OnlineDoc® 9.1.3, http://support.sas.com/onlinedoc/913/docMainpage.jsp. Accessed 29 May 2012

  24. SAS Institute Inc. (2009). Computer estimates and tests of agreement among multiple raters (MAGREE), http://support.sas.com/kb/25/006.html. Accessed 29 May 2012

  25. Scott K, Binnendijk GP, Edwards SA, Gu JH, Kiezebrink MC, Vermeer HM (2009) Preliminary evaluation of a prototype welfare monitoring system for sows and piglets (Welfare Quality® project). Anim Welf 18:441–449

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sundrum A, Goebel A, Bochicchio D, Bonde M, Bourgoin A, Cartaud G, Dietze K, Dippel S, Gunnarsson S, Hegelund L, Leeb C, Lindgren K, Lubac S, Prunier A, Wiberg S (2011) Epidemiological study concerning the characteristics of organic pig farming in selected European countries. In: Sundrum A (ed) Final Report COREPIG. http://orgprints.org/18428/

  27. Turner SP, Farnworth MJ, White IMS, Brotherstone S, Mendl M, Knap P, Penny P, Lawrence AB (2006) The accumulation of skin lesions and their use as a predictor of individual aggressiveness in pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 96:245–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. van de Weerd HA, Day JEL (2009) A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Appl Anim Behav Sci 116:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Welfare Quality® (2009) Welfare Quality® Assessment protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and finishing pigs) Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands

  30. Winckler C, Bühnemann A, Seidel K, Küfmann K, Fenneker A (2001) Label pig production and organic pig farming—a pilot study on housing and welfare related parameters in sows. Proc. CIGR Symposium Animal Welfare Considerations in Livestock Housing Systems, Szklarska Poreba, Poland, pp 479–490

    Google Scholar 

  31. Zanoli R, Naspetti S (2002) Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food: a means-end approach. Brit Food J 104:643–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was part of the ERA-net CORE Organic project COREPIG (http://corepig.coreportal.org). The authors wish to thank all national funders for their financial support. We would also like to thank Aude Bourgoin and Lene Hegelund for collecting data on farms in France and Denmark as well as all the farmers who participated in the present study. Where required, the national sub-projects were approved according to the national regulations on Ethical approval for research in animals (Sweden: local Ethical Committee for Laboratory Animals in Gothenburg (Göteborgs djurförsöksetiska nämnd, Diary no. 45–2008)).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabine Dippel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dippel, S., Leeb, C., Bochicchio, D. et al. Health and welfare of organic pigs in Europe assessed with animal-based parameters. Org. Agr. 4, 149–161 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-013-0041-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sow
  • Suckling piglet
  • Weaned piglet
  • Inter-observer agreement
  • Monitoring
  • Status quo