Practical quantification of animal welfare in pigs of small producers in southern Veracruz, Mexico

Cuantificación práctica del bienestar animal en porcinos de pequeños productores del sur de Veracruz, México

Objective. To quantify the animal welfare of pigs of small producers in communities of southern Veracruz. Materials and methods. We carried out a study in ten production units where we performed a diagnosis and analyzed ten variables in the categories of feeding, housing, health, and behavior of piglets according to the Welfare Quality^® protocol of the European Union, which were scored on a 0 to 1 scale, where 0= none, 0.5= fair, and 1= ideal animal welfare. Results. The human-animal relationship was satisfactory; however, there was low thermal comfort associated with the type of facilities. The main indicators of animal welfare were feeding 0.9±0.235, housing 0.6±0.319, health 0.7±0.252, and behavior 0.9±0.192. Conclusions. The quantification of animal welfare allows the practical identification of management aspects that producers have developed intrinsically, such as the human-animal relationship and cleanliness of the facilities. Animal welfare can be quantified in a practical way, offering management alternatives to the producers, who develop adequate (frequent cleaning of the facilities) and inadequate (low-protein diets, tail docking, and castration) activities.

1. Hlongwane NL, Hadebe K, Soma P, Dzomba EF, Muchadeyi FC. Genome Wide Assessment of Genetic Variation and Population Distinctiveness of the Pig Family in South Africa. Front Genet. 2020; 11:344. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2020.00344
2. Martínez-Castañeda FE, Perea-Peña M. Estrategias locales y de gestión para la porcicultura doméstica en localidades periurbanas del Valle de México. Agric Soc Desarro. 2012; 9(4):411-425. https://www.revista-asyd.mx/index.php/asyd/article/view/1180/515
3. Temple D, Courboulay V, Velarde A, Dalmau A, Manteca X. The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems in France and Spain: assessment of health. Anim Welfare. 2012; 21(2):257-271. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.2.257
4. Mora QRA. Enfoque eficiente del bienestar animal en el contexto nacional e internacional. Rev Colomb Cienc Pecu. 2011; 24(3):327-331. https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/rccp/article/view/324691/20782035
5. Kittawornrat A, Zimmerman JJ. Toward a better understanding of pig behavior and pig welfare. Anim Health Res Rev. 2011; 12(1):25-32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252310000174
6. Johnson N, Iorliam B. Minimizing Stress In Pigs In Confinements When Conducting Research-A Review. Int J Adv Res Publ. 2020; 4(3):158-160. http://www.ijarp.org/published-research-papers/mar2020/Minimizing-Stress-In-Pigs-In-Confinements-When-Conducting-Research-A-Review.pdf
7. Gutiérrez-Ruiz E, Aranda-Cirerol F, Rodríguez-Vivas R, Bolio-González M, Ramírez-González S, Estrella-Tec J. Factores sociales de la crianza de animales de traspatio en Yucatán, México. Bioagrociencias. 2012; 5:20-28. https://www.ccba.uady.mx/bioagro/V5N1/V5N1.pdf
8. Benítez-Meza A, Gómez-Gurrola A, Hernández-Ballesteros J, Navarrete-Méndez R, Moreno-Flores L. Evaluación de parámetros productivos y económicos en la alimentación de porcinos en engorda. Aban Vet. 2015; 5(3):36-41. https://abanicoacademico.mx/revistasabanico/index.php/abanico-veterinario/article/view/80/63
9. Sanvicente L, Vargas L, Bustamante G, Jaramillo V. La crianza de cerdos en vida libre y pecaríes silvestres en zonas de transición de áreas protegidas del sureste de México. Arch Zootec. 2020; 69(266):216-224. https://doi.org/10.21071/az.v69i266.5117
10. González OF, Pérez MA, Ocampo FI, Paredes SJA, de la Rosa PP. Contribuciones de la producción en traspatio a los grupos domésticos campesinos. Estud Soc. 2014; 22(44):146-170. https://www.ciad.mx/estudiosociales/index.php/es/article/view/145/92
11. Reyna-Ramírez CA, Fuentes-Ponce MH, Rossing WA, López-Ridaura S. Caracterización de unidades de producción familiar agropecuarias mesoamericanas. Agrociencia. 2020; 54(2):259-277. https://agrociencia-colpos.mx/index.php/agrociencia/article/view/1905/1902
12. Stockemer D. Conducting a Survey. In: Stockemer D, editor. Quantitative Methods for the Social Sciences: A Practical Introduction with Examples in SPSS and Stata. Cham: Springer Inte Publ; 2019.. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99118-4_5
13. Courboulay V, Meunier-Salaün M-C, Stankowiak M, Pol F. BEEP: An advisory pig welfare assessment tool developed by farmers for farmers. Lives Sci. 2020; 240:104107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104107
14. Hawe SJ, Scollan N, Gordon A, Muns R, Magowan E. Impact of feeding low and average birthweight pigs on a weight basis post-weaning on growth performance and body composition. Livest Sci. 2020;241:104233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104233
15. Verdon M, Hansen CF, Rault JL, Jongman E, Hansen LU, Plush K, et al. Effects of group housing on sow welfare: A review. J Anim Sci. 2015; 93(5):1999-2017. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-8742
16. Hemsworth P. Key determinants of pig welfare: implications of animal management and housing design on livestock welfare. Anim Prod Sci. 2018; 58(8):1375-1386. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN17897
17. Manteca X, Mainau D, Temple D. Bienestar animal. Manual de Buenas Prácticas de Producción Porcina Lineamientos generales para el pequeño y mediano productor de cerdos Red Porcina Iberoamericana. 2012: 97-111. http://200.23.35.7/archivos/productos/vinculacion/librosdivulgacion/300700005_1.pdf
18. Varón-Álvarez L, Romero M, Sánchez J. Caracterización de las contusiones cutáneas e identificación de factores de riesgo durante el manejo presacrificio de cerdos comerciales. Arch Med Vet. 2014; 46(1):93-101. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0301-732X2014000100013
19. Verma J. Data analysis in management with SPSS software: Springer Sci Bus Media; 2012. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9788132207856
20. García-Contreras A, Ortega YDL, Yagüe A, González JG, Artiga CG. Alimentación práctica del cerdo. Rev Complut Cienc Vet. 2012; 6(1):21. http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_RCCV.2012.v6.n1.38718
22. Hemsworth PH, Rice M, Nash J, Giri K, Butler KL, Tilbrook AJ, et al. Effects of group size and floor space allowance on grouped sows: Aggression, stress, skin injuries, and reproductive performance1. J Anim Sci. 2013 2013; 91(10):4953-4964. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5807
23. Cadéro A, Aubry A, Dourmad JY, Salaün Y, Garcia-Launay F. Effects of interactions between feeding practices, animal health and farm infrastructure on technical, economic and environmental performances of a pig-fattening unit. animal. 2020: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731120000300
24. Vitali M, Santacroce E, Correa F, Salvarani C, Maramotti FP, Padalino B, et al. On-Farm Welfare Assessment Protocol for Suckling Piglets: A Pilot Study. Animals. 2020; 10(6):1016. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10061016
25. Heid A, Hamm U. Animal welfare versus food quality: Factors influencing organic consumers’ preferences for alternatives to piglet castration without anaesthesia. Meat Sci. 2013; 95(2):203-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.052
26. Morgan L, Itin-Shwartz B, Koren L, Meyer JS, Matas D, Younis A, et al. Physiological and economic benefits of abandoning invasive surgical procedures and enhancing animal welfare in swine production. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):16093. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52677-6
27. Van Beirendonck S, Driessen B, Verbeke G, Permentier L, Van de Perre V, Geers R. Improving survival, growth rate, and animal welfare in piglets by avoiding teeth shortening and tail docking. J Vet Behav. 2012; 7(2):88-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2011.08.005
28. Kauppinen T, Vesala KM, Valros A. Farmer attitude toward improvement of animal welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters. Livest Sci. 2012; 143(2):142-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.09.011
29. Garcia ADM. Tipificación del maltrato animal en el Estado de Hidalgo, México: Derecho Animal Forum of Animal Law Studies; 2016.
30. Vargas-Bello-Pérez E, Miranda-de la Lama GC, Teixeira DL, Enríquez-Hidalgo D, Tadich T, Lensink J. Farm Animal Welfare Influences on Markets and Consumer Attitudes in Latin America: The Cases of Mexico, Chile and Brazil. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2017; 30(5):697-713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017-9695-2
31. Nowland TL, van Wettere WHEJ, Plush KJ. Allowing sows to farrow unconfined has positive implications for sow and piglet welfare. Applied Anim Behav Sci. 2019; 221:104872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.104872
32. Yang CH, Ko HL, Salazar LC, Llonch L, Manteca X, Camerlink I, et al. Pre-weaning environmental enrichment increases piglets’ object play behaviour on a large scale commercial pig farm. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2018; 202:7-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.02.004
34. Bensoussan S, Tigeot R, Meunier-Salaün M-C, Tallet C. Broadcasting human voice to piglets (Sus scrofa domestica) modifies their behavioural reaction to human presence in the home pen and in arena tests. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2020; 225:104965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2020.104965
35. de Oliveira D, Paranhos da Costa MJR, Zupan M, Rehn T, Keeling LJ. Early human handling in non-weaned piglets: Effects on behaviour and body weight. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2015; 164:56-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.01.002
36. Fraser D, Duncan IJH, Edwards SA, Grandin T, Gregory NG, Guyonnet V, et al. General Principles for the welfare of animals in production systems: The underlying science and its application. Vet J. 2013; 198(1):19-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.06.028
37. Nowak B, Mucha A, Kruszyński W, Moska M. Phenotypic correlations between reproductive charac-teristics related to litter and reproductive cycle length in sows. Czech J Anim Sci. 2020; 65(6):205-212. https://doi.org/10.17221/108/2020-CJAS
38. Manteca X. Bienestar animal en explotaciones de porcino. Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Pecuarias. 2011; 24(3):303-305. https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/rccp/article/view/324687/20782025