scholarly journals A review of recent research outcomes on the housing of farmed domestic rabbits: reproducing does

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zsolt Szendrő ◽  
Angela Trocino ◽  
Steffen Hoy ◽  
Gerolamo Xiccato ◽  
Arantxa Villagrá ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Good Health ◽  
Continuous Group ◽  
Group Housing ◽  
Alternative Housing ◽  
Housing Systems ◽  
Part Time ◽  
Welfare Quality ◽  
Domestic Rabbits ◽  
Hygienic Conditions

<p>The housing of farmed animals is increasingly scrutinised by society and thereby subject to a change towards more animal-friendly systems. For rabbits, also kept as pets, there are no EC regulations regarding their housing under farming conditions. In many countries, studies have been carried out to improve their welfare and health under current and alternative housing systems. This paper reviews and integrates the research efforts made since the EFSA report in 2005 on reproducing rabbit does and provides some conclusions, where possible, with special emphasis on animal welfare according to the principles stated by the Welfare Quality® project, i.e. good housing, good health and appropriate behaviour. The use of an elevated platform provides greater opportunities for does and their kits to move, jumping up and down. Management and housing systems (especially flooring) must guarantee good hygienic conditions (all-in, all-out) and separation of the rabbits from their excreta for proper resting places, hygiene and health. Plastic floors and footrests and environmental enrichments (e.g. gnawing material) are also recommended. Continuous group housing systems for reproducing females have been definitively proven to challenge animal welfare by increased aggression and injuries among does and to kits. Part-time group housing systems have proven to have potential, but cannot yet be recommended in farms until major problems of aggression and injuries among animals are solved.</p>

scholarly journals Comparing welfare indicators in dairy cattle under different loose housing systems (deep litter vs cubicle barns) using recycled manure solids for bedding

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. e0501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Molina ◽  
Estrella I. Agüera ◽  
Carlos C. Pérez-Marín ◽  
Francisco Maroto-Molina
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Health Indicators ◽  
Dairy Farms ◽  
Housing System ◽  
Housing Conditions ◽  
Dairy Farmers ◽  
Welfare Assessment ◽  
Housing Systems ◽  
Welfare Quality ◽  
The Impact

Aim of study: Dairy farmers in Southern Spain are continuously investing in the modernization of their facilities and frequently ask technicians about the type of housing they should choose for their farms. Although some studies have analysed the economic impact of different housing systems, there are no reports evaluating the impact of these systems on animal wellbeing. To remedy this deficit, a study was carried out to analyse animal welfare status in two types of loose housing conditions: deep litter (DL) and cubicle (CU) barns.Area of study: This study was conducted in Cordoba (Spain).Material and methods: A total of 1,597 cows from nineteen commercial dairy farms were involved in this study, of which twelve had CU barns and seven had DL barns. Welfare Quality assessment was used to evaluate animal wellbeing, inn order to compare both housing systems.Main results: The study found some weaknesses for feeding and health indicators of animal welfare in both types of housing systems. The overall welfare assessment based on feeding, housing and health indicators showed no differences between farms with DL or CU barns.Research highlights: A good welfare status could be reached under any type of housing system.

scholarly journals The welfare of pigs in rustic and technified production systems using the Welfare Quality protocols of pigs in Mexico: Validity of indicators of animal welfare as part of the sustainability criteria of pig production systems

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Natyieli Losada-Espinosa ◽  
María Elena Trujillo Ortega ◽  
Francisco Galindo
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Initial Approximation ◽  
Good Health ◽  
Climatic Conditions ◽  
Emotional States ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
Pig Production ◽  
Sustainability Criteria ◽  
Welfare Quality

Veterinaria México OA ISSN: 2448-6760Cite this as:Losada-Espinosa N,Trujillo Ortega ME, Galindo F. The welfare of pigs in rustic and technified production systems using the Welfare Quality protocols of pigs in Mexico: Validity of indicators of animal welfare as part of the sustainability criteria of pig production systems. Veterinaria México OA. 2017;4(4). doi: 10.21753/vmoa.4.4.521.The Welfare Quality® (WQ) protocols have been developed as a tool for the assessment of farm animal welfare based on scientific evidence. Animal welfare (AW) is part of the sustainability criteria of livestock production. A study was carried out in four states of Central Mexico in seven rustic (rPS) and six technified (tPS) production systems using the WQ protocol with the objective of providing an initial approximation of the welfare of animals and to discuss the validity of indicators of AW. The results showed that the animals housed in rustic units presented better results in the Good Health category and with respect to the criterion expression of social behaviour, while the frequency of criteria concerning Positive emotional states was higher in animals in the technified units. In the changing context in which the farms operate, including changing agricultural policies, new environmental and food safety regulations, variability of climatic conditions, and volatility in prices of inputs and outputs, it is not only the attributes referring to productivity and efficiency that become relevant. It is concluded that the criteria related to the WQ principles of health and behaviour are sensitive to changes in the housing and management of pigs. The high occurrences of health and behaviour problems recorded in technified systems are an indicator of poor welfare.Figure 4. Classification of rustic (RS) and technified (TS) production units within the welfare categories proposed by the Welfare Quality protocol.

AN ALTERNATIVE HOUSING SYSTEM FOR SOWS

1990 ◽  
Vol 70 (3) ◽  
pp. 957-961 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. MORRIS ◽  
J. F. HURNIK
Keyword(s):  
Physical Exercise ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Housing System ◽  
Feed Consumption ◽  
Group Housing ◽  
Alternative Housing ◽  
Learning Capabilities ◽  
Existing Housing

A group housing system for sows, the Hurnik-Morris (H-M) System, is described which addresses several of the serious animal welfare limitations of existing housing methods. The H-M System permits socially coordinated eating and resting, controlled and socially undisturbed feed consumption, physical exercise and regular exposure to boars. Sows adjusted relatively rapidly to the H-M System, indicating that its design concurs with their perceptual and learning capabilities. Key words: Swine, housing, behavior, welfare

scholarly journals Effects of health disorders, genetic modifications and new technologies on the welfare of dairy cattle

2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (12) ◽  
pp. 6468-2020
Author(s):  
ROMAN KOŁACZ ◽  
JĘDRZEJ M. JAŚKOWSKI ◽  
MARCIN CIORGA
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Animal Husbandry ◽  
Good Health ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Cattle Production ◽  
Reproductive Disorders ◽  
Housing Systems ◽  
Genetic Modifications

The purpose of this review was to present the effect of selection of cows for increased milk and meat yields on the animal welfare status in advanced cattle production systems during the last two decades. Numerous health problems are due to housing systems characterized by the lack of pastures and runs, litterless floors, animal congestion limiting cows’ movement, feeding on roughage, social conflicts and bad management. The most frequent causes of culling are lameness, mastitis and reproductive disorders in dairy and beef cattle, which reduce cows’ longevity and result in economic losses in animal husbandry. In addition, lameness and mastitis cause severe pain, exposing cows to suffering and thus reducing their welfare, which is currently unacceptable to consumers. Animal welfare in cattle production should be ensured not only for legal and ethical reasons, but also because it is essential for the good health of the animals, making it possible to limit the use of antibiotics, which are a threat to food safety and public health.

scholarly journals Animal welfare assessment in Slovenian conventional and alternative pig production systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-174
Author(s):  
Irena Golinar-Oven ◽  
Jan Plut ◽  
Marina Stukelj
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Critical Evaluation ◽  
Good Health ◽  
The Body ◽  
Assessment Protocol ◽  
Conventional Farms ◽  
Suckling Piglets ◽  
Welfare Quality ◽  
Fattening Pigs

The aims of the study were to assess the welfare of pigs in Slovenian farms based on the international Welfare Quality? Assessment protocol for pigs and to gain a first insight into the welfare of pigs in Slovenian conventional and alternative farms. Pig welfare in Slovenia was assessed using the Welfare Quality? protocol on 10 alternative and 10 conventional farms. The size of the farm ranged from 11 to 1900 breeding sows in conventional farms and from three to 50 breeding sows in alternative farms. Using the protocol, the welfare of breeding sows, suckling piglets, growers, and fattening pigs was evaluated. The protocol consisted of four main principles of animal welfare (good feeding, good housing, good health, and appropriate behaviour), which were subdivided into 12 independent criteria. To evaluate each of these criteria, a set of measures was used. Overall animal welfare quality was calculated with a mathematical model incorporated into the protocol. Depending on the scores of the four principles, farms were classified as excellent, enhanced, acceptable or not classified. According to the Welfare Quality? protocol and statistical calculation, growers and fatteners in Slovenian conventional farms were rated as acceptable, while Slovenian alternative farms were rated as enhanced. We can conclude that the welfare of the growers and fatteners in our alternative farms is at a higher level than in conventional farms. The most critical evaluation points in sows were bursitis, wounds on the body, stereotypies, and fear of humans.

scholarly journals Alternative and enriched housing systems for breeding does: a review

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
ZS. Szendrő ◽  
J.I. McNitt ◽  
ZS. Matics ◽  
A. Mikó ◽  
ZS. Gerencsér
Keyword(s):  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Social Contact ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Housing System ◽  
Group Housing ◽  
Semi Group ◽  
Alternative Housing ◽  
Housing Systems ◽  
Dutch Housing ◽  
Positive Results

The main results and observations on group and individually housed rabbit does were reviewed by Szendrő and McNitt in 2012, but in recent years several new papers in this field have been published. This provides a new opportunity to summarise the current knowledge on alternative housing systems for breeding does. In Switzerland, rabbit does are generally housed in group systems. The recently legislated Belgian and Dutch housing systems will be converted step by step into group housing systems. Recent research demonstrated that with semi-group housing systems much better performance levels are possible than with the Swiss group housing system. However, solutions to eliminate aggression, stress and injuries which are common among rabbit does in group housing systems have yet to be found. Some authors are of the opinion that individual cages are too small and allow limited possibilities for movement and social contact. Positive results were seen when platforms were inserted into the cages and the possibility for movement increased. The does and their kits could jump up and down using the platforms. Using footrests, the incidence of sore hocks declined. Several environmental enrichments which increase the well-being of rabbit does can also be used. These enriched cages (equipped with platforms, footrests, gnawing sticks, etc.) are fully in line with animal welfare requirements. Increasing the size of cages and enriching them increases the production cost and the meat will be more expensive.

scholarly journals Behaviour of veal calves in individual crates and in group pens.

1986 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-235
Author(s):  
J.G. de Wilt
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Direct Observation ◽  
Group Housing ◽  
Doctoral Thesis ◽  
Veal Calves ◽  
Housing Systems

The differences in behaviour between calves in the two housing systems are discussed with regard to animal welfare. The behaviour of each calf was recorded by direct observation every 10 mins. over a 24 h period in weeks 8, 12, 16 and 20 after arrival for fattening at approx. 1 week. Lying posture, licking, head butting, mounting, intersucking and urine drinking were monitored. Group housing is seen as an important step towards improved calf welfare. This paper is based on part of a doctoral thesis published by IMAG and available in printed form and on microfiche from: NARD, c/o Pudoc, P.O. Box 4, 6700 AA Wageningen, Netherlands. (Abstract retrieved from CAB Abstracts by CABI’s permission)

A review of sow group-housing systems in germany and holland with respect to animals welfare - braude scholarship 1993

1994 ◽  
Vol 1994 ◽  
pp. 196-196
Author(s):  
Nicola Hodgkiss
Keyword(s):  
Group Housing ◽  
Alternative Housing ◽  
Housing Systems ◽  
Research Institutes

As a result of welfare legislation introduced in recent years, systems in which dry sows are confined are no longer considered acceptable practice and will be phased out entirely in Europe by 2005. Consequently, there is a need to research and develop alternative housing systems before this deadline is reached.To review the present day developments in this area and to observe different approaches to solving the question of how to improve the welfare of the group-housed sow without compromising productivity, a number of farms and research institutes were visited in Germany andHolland. The aims of the trip were as follows:

scholarly journals Evaluation of different pig production systems including economic, welfare and environmental aspects

2002 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 223-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Krieter
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Social Contact ◽  
Integrated System ◽  
Head Group ◽  
Group Housing ◽  
Environmental Aspects ◽  
Housing Systems ◽  
Lactation Length ◽  
Fattening Pigs

Abstract. The aim of the study is to evaluate different production systems in pig farming including economic, animal welfare and environmental aspects with computer simulation. The computer model considers a vertically integrated system with farrowing, weaning, fattening and slaughtering stage as well as the transportation of pigs between theses stages. Housing systems were distinguished in individual and group housing with partly/fully slatted flooring or straw. Housing conditions were scaled to animal welfare in a decreasing order from straw, social contact to movement. Environmental issues were measured by nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) excretion. With standard pork production (slatted floors, individual housing of sows, small groups of fattening pigs) the cost per fattening pig accounted for € 131.72, N- and P-excretion were 7.1 and 1.2 kg per head. Group housing for gestating sows (slatted floor) and a higher number of fattening pigs per group increased welfare scoring by 25%. Cost, N- and P-excretion were reduced by 3.5, 5.1 and 5.2%. Group housing of sows during lactation, mating and gestation (with prolonged lactation length 5 weeks; welfare scoring 100%) and straw in each stage raised production cost by 24.6% (€ 32.31), N- and P-excretion were enhanced to 8.0 kg (12.7%) and 1.3 kg (10.5%) per head.

scholarly journals 5 Precision animal welfare for pigs

2019 ◽  
Vol 97 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 11-12
Author(s):  
Lindsey E Hulbert
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Environmental Enrichment ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Tracking System ◽  
Swine Production ◽  
Alternative Housing ◽  
Housing Systems ◽  
Animal Management ◽  
Mental Stimulation ◽  
Real Time Information

Abstract Precision animal management (PAM), was a term created by engineers to describe technologies that improve the sustainability of intensive animal production systems. Focused efforts include improving product-efficiency and environmental impact (e.g. robotics in milk production). These PAM technologies have been incorporated in intensive swine production systems (e.g. feeding systems, waste-management). There is a perception that animal welfare efforts reduce efficiency, thus reducing sustainability. This perception is challenged with the development and application of precision animal welfare (PAW) technologies. Examples include: 1) a response system to stimulate sows to stand when they are crushing piglets (Swineguard, Swine Tech, Cedar Rapids, IA); 2) a visual-based automatic tracking system to detect sickness and agonistic interactions at an per-animal level (Schmidt et al., University of Nebraska at Lincoln, NE), and; 3) environmental enrichment (EE) that simultaneously provides mental-stimulation to pigs and automatically collects data (Hulbert et al., K-State, Manhattan, KS). The first two technologies may be applied for improved efficiency, which may not motivate animal caretakers to adopt new housing strategies. Restricted space-allowance limits behavior-expression, and consequently, limits the amount and type of data that can be gained from the technologies. Therefore, more work is needed to apply these technologies on pigs in alternative housing systems (e.g. pens instead of farrowing stalls). Animal welfare improves with EE, but pigs can extinguish EE-use (i.e. boredom) or destroy EE-devices. Non-destructible, stimulating EE were tested on mini-boars. The automated data served a behavioral-biomarker for detecting subclinical injury biomedical research projects. This EE can be scaled-up for commercial pigs and has great potential for improving welfare of pigs in intensive systems while simultaneous providing semi real-time information to animal caretakers at an per-animal level. For swine production, early-adopters and investors are needed to help animal welfare researchers and engineers to transform technologies from PAM into PAW.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document