Impact of Animal Welfare on Costs and Viability of Pig Production in the UK

  • H. L. I. Bornett
  • J. H. Guy
  • P.J. Cain

Abstract

The European Union welfare standardsfor intensively kept pigs have steadilyincreased over the past few years and areproposed to continue in the future. It isimportant that the cost implications of thesechanges in welfare standards are assessed. Theaim of this study was to determine theprofitability of rearing pigs in a range ofhousing systems with different standards forpig welfare. Models were constructed tocalculate the cost of pig rearing (6–95 kg) in afully-slatted system (fulfilling minimum EUspace requirements, Directive 91630/EEC); apartly-slatted system; a high-welfare,straw-based system (complying with the UK-basedRoyal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty toAnimals, Freedom Food standards) and afree-range system. The models were also used toassess the consequences of potential increasesin space allowance, and to estimate the cost ofrearing pigs under organic standards.

The cost of rearing pigs ranged from92.0 p/kg carcass weight (cw) and 94.6 p/kgcw forthe partly-slatted and fully-slatted systems,to 98.8 p/kgcw and 99.3 p/kgcw for the FreedomFood and free-range systems respectively. Whenspace allowance was increased by 60% to levelsin a recent proposal to revise pig welfareDirective (91/630/EEC), the rearing costs wereunchanged for the free-range system but rose by4.6 p/kgcw for the fully-slatted system. Rearingcosts under organic standards were 31% higherthan in the free-range system. These resultssuggest that improved pig welfare can beachieved with a modest increase in cost

At present, price premiums received for meatproduced under high welfare systems in the UKoffset the higher costs of production in thesesystems. To ensure profitability in the longterm, it is important that these premiums aremaintained.

economics pig housing pigmeat welfare 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Beattie, V. E., N. E. O'Connell, and B. W. Moss, “Influence of Environmental Enrichment on the Behaviour, Performance and Meat Quality of Domestic Pigs,” Livestock Production Science 65 (2000), 71–79.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, R. M., “People'sWillingness to Pay for Farm Animal Welfare,” Animal Welfare 5 (1996), 3–11.Google Scholar
  3. Chadwick, L. (ed.), The Farm Management Handbook 2000/2001, 21st edn (Scottish Agricultural College, 2000).Google Scholar
  4. den Ouden, M., Economic Modelling of Pork Production - Marketing Chains. PhDThesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. Edwards, S. (1996). “Nutrition and Feeding Management in Outdoor Pig Production,” in Proceedings of 1st Symposium on Swine Raised Outdoors (Concordia, Brasil, 1996), pp. 117–126.Google Scholar
  6. Edwards, S. A. and F. Casabianca, “Perception and Reality of Product Quality from Outdoor Production systems in Northern and Southern Europe,” in J. T. Sorensen (ed.), Livestock Farming Systems - More than Food Production, EAAP Publication No. 89 (Wageningen Pers, Wageningen, 1997), pp. 145–156.Google Scholar
  7. Edwards, S. A., Outdoor Finishing Systems for Pigs (Proceedings of 2nd Symposium on Swine Raised Outdoors, (Concordia, Brasil, 1999).Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, S. A., The Role of Animal Welfare in Quality Assurance Schemes for Livestock Products (Proceedings of the Ist PIC Espana Pork Chain Meeting, Barcelona, Spain, 2000).Google Scholar
  9. Edwards, S. A., Personal Communication (School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK, 2001).Google Scholar
  10. EU Scientific Veterinary Committee (Animal Welfare Section), The Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs (1997). http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out17_en.pdf.Google Scholar
  11. Fraser, D., P. A. Phillips, and T. Tennessen, “Effect of Straw on the Behaviour of Growing Pigs,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30 (1991), 307–318.Google Scholar
  12. Gloag, D., Personal Communication (Signet, PO Box 603,Winterhill, Milton Keynes, UK, 2001).Google Scholar
  13. Gourmelen, C., Y. Salaun, and P. Rousseau, “Economic Incidence of Possible Future Regulations Regarding the Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs on Pig Meat Cost in France,” in 51st Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production (The Hague, 2000a).Google Scholar
  14. Gourmelen, C., Y. Salaun, and P. Rousseau, “Incidences economiques en production porcine de l'evolution des contraintes reglementaires relatives au bien-etre animal,” Insitut Technique Du Porc (Le Rheu Cedex, 2000b).Google Scholar
  15. Grey, S., Personal Communication, A. M. Warkup, Aerodrome Works (Lisset Driffield, East Yorkshire, YO25 8PT, 1999).Google Scholar
  16. Guy, J. H., P. Rowlinson, J. P. Chadwick, and M. Ellis, “Behaviour of Two Genotypes of Finishing Pig in Three Different Housing Systems,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75 (2002), 193–206.Google Scholar
  17. Guy, J. H., P. Rowlinson, J. P. Chadwick, and M. Ellis, “Welfare of two Genotypes of Growing-Finishing Pig in Three Different Housing Systems,” Livestock Production Science 75 (2002), 233–243.Google Scholar
  18. Kelly, H. R. C., J.M. Bruce, S. A. Edwards, P. R. English, and V. R. Fowler, “Limb Injuries, Immune Response and Growth Performance of Early-Weaned Pigs in Different Housing Systems,” Animal Science 70 (2000), 73–83.Google Scholar
  19. Lampkin, N. and M. Measures (eds.), 2001 Organic Farm Management Handbook (University of Wales, Aberystwyth Organic Advisory Service (ERFC), 2001), p. 3 and 127- 129.Google Scholar
  20. MAFF, Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Pigs, Farm Animal Welfare Council. Booklet No.: PB 0075 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London, 1999a).Google Scholar
  21. MAFF, MAFF Pig Survey, 29 March 1999 (1999b) www.defra.gov.uk/esg/Work_htm/ Notices/pigsur.pdfGoogle Scholar
  22. McEachern, M. and A. Tregear, “Farm Animal Welfare in the UK: A Comparison of Assurance Schemes,” Farm Management 10 (2000), 685–708.Google Scholar
  23. Meunier-Salaun, M. C., M. N. Vantrimponte, A. Raab, and R. Dantzer, “Effect of Floor Area Restriction upon Performance, Behaviour and Physiology of Growing-Finishing Pigs,” Journal of Animal Science 64 (1987), 1371–1377.Google Scholar
  24. Morgan, C. A., L. A. Deans, A. B. Lawrence, and B. L. Nielsen, “The Effects of Straw Bedding on the Feeding and Social Behaviour of Growing Pigs Fed by Means of Single-Space Feeders,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58 (1998), 23–33.Google Scholar
  25. Mortensen, B., V. Ruby, B. K. Pedersen, J. Smidth, and V. A. Larsen, “Outdoor Pig Production in Denmark,” Pig News and Information 15 (1994), 117N–120N.Google Scholar
  26. NAC (National Agricultural Centre), Pig Unit: The Outdoor Unit (Pig Demonstration Unit, NAC, Stonleigh Park, Warwickshire, 1992).Google Scholar
  27. NAC (National Agricultural Centre), Pig Unit: A Review of Rearing Systems at the NAC Pig Unit (Pig Demonstration Unit, NAC, Stonleigh Park, Warwickshire, 1994a).Google Scholar
  28. NAC (National Agricultural Centre), Pig Unit: Outdoor Unit - Up-Date (Pig Demonstration Unit, NAC, Stonleigh Park, Warwickshire, 1994b).Google Scholar
  29. Nix, J., Farm Management Pocket Book (Imperial College at Wye, September 2001).Google Scholar
  30. Pearce, C. A., Behaviour and other Indices of Welfare in Grower/Finisher Pigs Kept in Straw-Flow, Bare-Concrete, Full-Slats and Deep Straw. PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen, 1993.Google Scholar
  31. Peet, B., Personal Communication (Pig Industry Consultant, Harepit House, Fenny Compton, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV33 OYG, 1999).Google Scholar
  32. Petherick, J. C., “A Biological Basis for the Design of Space in Livestock Housing,” in S. H. Baxter, M. R. Baxter, and J. A. D. MacCormack (eds.), Farm Animal Housing and Welfare (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1983).Google Scholar
  33. PIC, PIC Management Yearbook 1997- 1998 (PIC UK, Fyfield Wick, Abingdon, UK, 1998), p. 70.Google Scholar
  34. RSPCA, Profit with Principle, Animal Welfare and UK Pig Farming (2000).Google Scholar
  35. Sheppard, A. (1996). “The Structure of Pig Production in England and Wales,” The Results of the National Survey of Pig Production Systems (Agricultural Economics Unit, University of Exeter, 1996).Google Scholar
  36. Sheppard, A., Economic Efficiency in the Use of Inputs: Pigs (University of Exeter, 2001).Google Scholar
  37. Signet, Pigfacts, April 2001 (Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes, Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, 2001).Google Scholar
  38. Soil Association, The Organic Food and Farming Report 2000 (2000).Google Scholar
  39. Stolba, A. and D. G. M. Wood-Gush, “The Behaviour of Pigs in a Semi-Natural Environment,” Animal Production 48 (1989), 419–425.Google Scholar
  40. Thompson G., Personal Communication (Pyramid Systems (Malton) Ltd. Showfield Lane, Malton, YO17 6BY, 1999).Google Scholar
  41. Weng, R. C., S. A. Edwards, and P. R. English, Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59 (1998), 307–316.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. L. I. Bornett
    • 1
  • J. H. Guy
    • 1
  • P.J. Cain
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Agriculture, Food and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of NewcastleNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations