|
"Hoop Housing
for Feeder Pigs Offers a Welfare-Friendly Environment Compared
to a Nonbedded Confinement System"
Authors of original
article: Donald C. Lay Jr., Mark F. Haussmann, and Mike J. Daniels
Originally published in Journal of Applied Animal Welfare
Science
Volume 3, Number 1, 2000*
Pig factories, sometimes called total confinement systems of
swine production, keep hogs under extremely crowded conditions on
hard floors in large buildings, without bedding. Lameness and
stereotypic behavior indicating extreme distress are common. Less
costly pig confinement systems-hoop structures,
half-cylinder-shaped, open-ended Quonsets lying on their flat
side-can be used to confine pigs while providing bedding on the
floor to manage manure and to provide warmth. Bedding material can
keep the animals dry and, as new layers are added on top of old,
the bottom layers compost, keeping the pigs warm in winter.
To compare the welfare of pigs in typical nonbedded confinement
systems (NBCS) of recent decades with pigs in the more recently
developed hoop system, the authors compared behavior of pigs in
the two systems. They conducted one experiment in winter and one
in summer, assessing hogs' welfare based on incidence of aberrant
behavior, physiologic response to handling, incidence of lameness,
and performance of play behavior.
The NBCS used in the two experiments provided about one-third
more floor space per pig than the hoop structure did, and more
pigs were together in each pen within the NBCS than were in each
hoop structure. The NBCS had a slatted floor over a shallow manure
pit for manure management; the hoop structures' floors were
covered with bales of cornstalks, except for a concrete slab with
feeders and waterers. When the bedding started to become wet, new
bedding was added on top of it so that the old bedding could
compost.
The pigs were observed at one, two, and three months after
entry into their structures. Among the aberrant behaviors being
compared, pigs raised in the NBCS exhibited more bar biting, belly
nosing, manipulation of other pigs, and ear and tail biting, but
less mounting behavior and less play behavior; there was no
difference in frequency of urine drinking. Those in the NBCS
produced more plasma cortisol (indicating stress) but fewer
vocalizations in response to handling and endured a higher
incidence of injury than those raised in the hoop structures.
The findings indicate pigs raised in hoop structures
experienced better welfare than pigs raised in typical pig
factories. The authors attribute that difference to differences in
bedding, temperature, space, group size, complexity of the
environment, and the animals' ability to choose a microenvironment
and perform natural behaviors. Apart from whether animals have a
right not to be exploited and whether human beings should use them
for food, these results make it difficult to substantiate claims
that people who operate unbedded pig factories and fail to use
properly maintained hoop structures are concerned with pigs'
welfare.
*Available from Psychologists for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, P.O. Box 1297, Washington Grove,
MD 20880-1297; 301-963-4751.
To order Journal
of Applied Animal Welfare Science or Society & Animals,
go to our secure online
ordering page
You
can Search the online issues of Society & Animals, as well
as the entire Society & Animals Forum (formerly PSYETA)
website,
for topics and keywords of your interest:
|
