Quality Of Stockmanship Research Articles

Risk Factors for Chronic Stress in Sows Housed in Groups, and Associated Risks of Prenatal Stress in Their Offspring.

Chronic stress has a detrimental effect on sow welfare and productivity, as well as on the welfare and resilience of their piglets, mediated prenatally. Despite this, the specific risk factors for chronic stress in pregnant sows are understudied. Group-housed pregnant sows continuously face numerous challenges associated with aspects of the physical (group type and size, flooring, feeding system) and social (stocking density, mixing strategy) environment. There are many well-known potent stressors for pigs that likely contribute to chronic, physiological stress, including overcrowding, hot temperatures, feed restriction, inability to forage, uncomfortable floors, and poor handling. Some of these stressors also contribute to the development of production diseases such as lameness, which in turn are also likely causes of chronic stress because of the associated pain and difficulty accessing resources. The aim of this review is to discuss potential risk factors for chronic stress in pregnant sows such as space allowance, group size and type (stable/dynamic), feeding level, lameness, pen design, feed system, enrichment and rooting material, floor type, the quality of stockmanship, environmental conditions, and individual sow factors. The mechanisms of action of both chronic and prenatal stress, as well as the effects of the latter on offspring are also discussed. Gaps in existing research and recommendations for future work are outlined.

A review of sow and piglet behaviour and performance in group housing systems for lactating sows

Commercial use of group housing systems for lactating sows is limited, but the recent transition to group housing during gestation in the EU may result in a renewed interest in such systems. Therefore, this review aims to identify key factors that may contribute to the success or failure of group housing of lactating sows in comparison with individual housing by describing the variety in group housing systems and discussing animal behaviour and performance compared with individual housing. Group housing systems can be divided in multi-suckling (MS) systems, in which sows are grouped with their litters, and get-away (GA) systems, which include a separate communal area accessible to sows only. These systems differ in many aspects regarding management and layout but, compared with individual housing, generally provide more environmental complexity, more freedom of movement for the sows and more freedom to express behaviours related to, for example, maternal care and social interactions. Group housing poses several risks, such as disrupted nursing and an increased level of crushing during the MS phase, and in the GA systems there is a risk for early cessation of nursing. On the other hand, pre-weaning mingling of litters clearly benefits piglet social development and may improve adaptation to the post-weaning situation. In addition, group-housed sows may show lactational ovulation, which provides opportunities for insemination during an extended lactation period, which benefits the piglets. Gradual transitions in social and physical environment around gestation, farrowing, grouping and weaning seem to be key success factors for group housing systems during lactation. In addition, selection of suitable sows and quality of stockmanship seem important.

Farmer attitude toward improvement of animal welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters

The quality of stockmanship has a major influence on farm animal welfare and productivity. Farmers' attitudes are reflected in their behavior toward animals which, in turn, affects animal behavior, welfare and productivity. Yet attitudes toward behaviors that are positive for the animal's welfare have been neglected in previous studies on farmers' attitudes. Our objective was to examine the relationship between farmers' attitudes toward improvement of animal welfare and productivity of the animals. In a framework of the theory of planned behavior, we used a conceptualization of the improvement of animal welfare based on an earlier on-farm interview and questionnaire studies of farmers' methods for constructing such behavior as an object of evaluation, and standardized production parameters that make farms comparable. Psycho-social, production and demographic data from 124 farms were subjected to correlation analyses. Among the farmers' attitudes and attitude-related perceptions, the significance of subjective norms, as well as perceived importance and ease of improving animal welfare, had relevant associations with piglet productivity. The most powerful factor related with several production parameters was the perceived significance of researchers and other specialists as a source of a subjective norm: appreciating researchers was associated with more piglets born, lower piglet mortality and more weaned piglets. Considering it easy to provide the animals with a favorable environment correlated negatively with piglet mortality and positively with the number of weaned piglets. The importance of humane treatment of animals was positively correlated with the number of weaned piglets, as was the perceived ease of catering for the farmer's own well-being. Studying the production parameters of the distinctively positively-oriented farmers' pigs in relation to the average production figures strengthened these results: the farmers with the most positive attitudes (except for the perceived ease of catering for own well-being) gained 0.34–0.54 piglets per litter more than average farmers. In general, farmer attitudes were more strongly correlated with production parameters of gilts and piglets in first parity litters than of multiparous sows and their piglets. Farms with good results in terms of production parameters appeared to also be farms with farmer having more positive attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control in relation to practices that improve the animals' welfare. The indicated link between farmers' attitudes and production parameters warrants further studies on how farmer behavior mediates this association and on causal relationships between attitudes, animal welfare and production.

Towards the creation of a welfare assessment system in intensive beef cattle farms

This study aimed to develop an assessment scheme for the evaluation at farm level of beef cattle welfare in the intensive rearing system that is capable of both identifying weak points in animal welfare and grading farms to such extent. The basic principle of the method was the avoidance of animal handling and the prolonged observation of cattle using animal-based and resource provision measures grouped in four classes of parameters: 1) Housing systems and facilities; 2) Health and cleanliness; 3) Animal behaviour and reactivity; 4) Quality of management and stockmanship. Each parameter was graded giving the highest scores to the best option for animal welfare, and the threshold value for distinguishing good from poor welfare conditions was set primarily on the results of scientific reports and investigations.An overall Welfare Index was calculated summing the scores of the 4 classes of parameters to formulate a general judgement of the farm and to allow comparison among them. The protocol was applied to 102 Italian intensive beef cattle farms rearing more than 300 young bulls/year. Regarding housing and facilities, the study showed that space allowance and space at the manger were the most frequent critical points. Within the “poor welfare” farms, more than 80% provided less than 3.5 m2/head to bulls weighing more than 500 kg, and none adopted a feeding frontage of at least 60 cm/head. Negatively judged farms compared to those ranked in the good welfare area for health and cleanliness showed a higher incidence of emergency slaughter (score 1.7: >1% vs score 3: 0.5-1%, P<0.05) and lameness (score 1.9: 1.5-3% vs score 3.3: <1.5%, P<0.05). Animal behaviour and reactivity parameters showed that in the “poor welfare” farms, bulls had a quicker flight reaction to the presence of both farmer and observer (P<0.01) likely due to a negative human-animal interaction. The quality of stockmanship was the category in which the highest number of farms failed to reach the acceptable threshold. Animal welfare was mainly impaired by the practice of tail docking and reduced feed availability. Although none of the farms included in the survey reached the maximum overall score, less then 30% were graded in the poor welfare area, penalized mainly by low management quality.The protocol was shown to be effective in detecting specific critical points for animal welfare, even if further development should be addressed to testing repeatability at different fattening stages.

Changing concepts of farm animal welfare: bridging the gap between applied and basic research

I discuss some of the major conceptual and methodological problems that have arisen in our attempts to assess the relative levels of farm animal welfare in different housing systems. In some cases these problems arise because applied research has not kept pace with more fundamental research. First, the concepts of animal welfare used by researchers are often too limited and do not address many of the issues of concern to the public. This is particularly true for concepts of animal welfare that ignore the topic of suffering. Redefining animal welfare to make it more convenient for research risks making research irrelevant to the issues at hand. Concepts of animal welfare have not dealt adequately with the multidimensional nature of animal welfare: when housing systems are compared, different welfare indicators favour different housing systems and there is a trade-off between different challenges to animal welfare, but conceptual solutions to this problem are few. Furthermore, we have tended to rely too much on physiological, immune and behavioural measures of welfare that have not adequately been validated, and have not given sufficient weighting to health problems, which are some of the major threats to farm animal welfare. Second, we have focused too much upon the type of housing and have paid less attention to other important sources of variability in animal welfare, especially the quality of stockmanship, nutritional effects and the effects of breeding. Third, we have relied too much on a controlled, experimental approach and have not taken enough advantage of the power of epidemiological approaches to identify the main threats to welfare. Finally, we have tried to use physiological, immune and behavioural measures of welfare before we have adequately understood their underlying biological mechanisms.

The scientific assessment of the impact of housing on animal welfare: A critical review

The issue of animal welfare, particularly in relation to legislation, involves philosophical, ethical, economic and political issues and is not just a matter for science. A scientific definition of welfare must address the concerns of the public, but is difficult to achieve because of a lack of consensus as to what good welfare involves. The assessment of animal welfare is best achieved using a mixture of design criteria (which specify what must be included in the environment) and performance criteria (which specify what the signs of good welfare are). The quality of stockmanship can have a major influence on animal welfare, and it should not be assumed that the method of housing is the major determinant of animal welfare. The validity of many of the proposed measures of welfare is difficult to determine because of a lack of understanding of the underlying biology. Measures of aversion are the best available measures of animal suffering caused by procedures of short duration, but whether they can be used to assess the effect of housing is uncertain. Consensus has not yet been reached on the issue of behavioral deprivation, but several measures of behavioral motivation can be used to determine if animals are frustrated, although none is free from criticism. Much abnormal, stereotyped behavior seems to reflect feeding rather than housing problems, and there is a lack of firm evidence that the level of stereotypic behavior correlates with the welfare of the animals. The method of housing can influence the animals' physiology, but this effect is not adequately described by measures of corticosteroids. Use of the term "stress" generates confusion. Production measures give some information about animal welfare but only if the causes of lowered production are known. Animal welfare is a complex phenomenon and one component of welfare should not be equated with the whole, nor should scientific assessment of welfare be considered a simple matter. Key words: Animal welfare, aversion, motivation, abnormal behavior, stress, stockmanship

Transportation of cattle by road

Cattle are transported by road, rail, sea and air for purposes of breeding, fattening or slaughter. In terms of volume transported and economic importance, the most significant trade is the road transportation of cattle to slaughter and is the main subject of this review. Recent research has attempted to identify situations in the transport chain that are stressful or hazardous to the cattle, or that lower carcass- and meat quality. Experimental evidence suggests that the most stressful aspect of the transportation chain for cattle is confinement on a moving vehicle. Confinement on a stationary vehicle, loading/unloading and repenning in a new environment are correspondingly less stressful events. Of particular interest is animal behaviour during confinement on a moving vehicle and how the animals respond to variations in space allowance, pen size, social regrouping and vehicle movement. The most common hazard on the moving vehicle is overloading, which greatly increases the risk of animal injury and damage to carcass and meat quality. Other major influences on cattle welfare during road transport are the quality of stockmanship and driving care, the structure and finish of stockcrates and accessories, and road conditions. For example, one-third of events where cattle were floored during transport were caused by loss of balance during cornering. Transport of cattle is inevitably associated with a degree of quantifiable stress, but distress should not occur. Distress may be avoided by observing statutory rest periods on long journeys, good animal handling, considerate driving technique, and by using correctly designed pens, loading ramps and stockcrates.