RESUMEN

The regulation for the keeping of pigs from 1988 acknowledges in principle only results of research, induced by long term problems in pig husbandry. Therefore it is only relevant for problems, that became apparent at least ten years earlier. Group housing for sows is not taken into consideration in the regulation. However, in the near future veterinarians will be expected to produce an opinion about the welfare of sows kept in group housing systems. In the houses for pregnant sows and in the ones for farrowing sows and for sows with piglets, problems can be expected resulting from group housing. Practice is not always according the nice theory, telling us, that sows want a place on their own for farrowing. Thus it can be difficult to end up with one sow in one farrowing nest. If piglets leave the farrowing nest to early, they will not be able to recognize their own sow amidst the group of others. This results in "multisuckling", with its large number of runts. However, group housing expects every piglet to stay with its own sow. In considering the welfare of sows kept in group housing systems a veterinarian will have to ask himself again and again, whether the sows are able to cope with the presented situation. The same counts for the piglets.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

A sow can cope better with a husbandry system if a new situation is in accordance with her expectations and if she has been prepared sufficiently for the social and technical problems, she will have to face. In relation with applied ethology this means, that a sow should be prepared adequately for a group-housing system of pregnant sows, by a previous establishment of the social hierarchy in her (sub)group; a previous training in operating the feeding station; providing a part of the house where she is safe for aggressive other sows; providing two simultaneous and undisturbed meals of roughage per day for all sows; providing appropriate possibilities for locomotory and for exploratory behaviour. For a farrowing house are the following provisions required: the lying places (farrowing nest) shall be clearly distinguishable for the sows; sufficient long straw for allowing satisfactory nest building shall be present in the nests; a sow shall be able to turn around in the farrowing nest; the sows shall be able to ly in a position with their heads close together; the feeding station shall be in the nearest proximity; the piglets shall be able to mix gradually after their first week of life.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In the Netherlands it is common practice to shower pigs awaiting slaughter during the two-hour period of rest in lairage. However, the quantity of water used in showering is considerable. There is a tendency to restrict the use of water for this purpose. Water, even if the well from which it is drawn is owned, is an expense, as taxes designed to cover the cost of preventing water-pollution are based on the quantity of water used. The main question asked in slaughter houses is whether spraying a mist of water is as effective as is showering (sprinkling drops of water). Another question is whether intermittent showering could replace continuous showering. The length of the periods of showering and intervals between these periods are of importance. So is the temperature of the water. By approaching these questions through two disciplines: applied ethology (preference-tests and general observations) and meat-technology (recording carcass quality), an effort was made to find an answer. Sprinkling obviously did not offer any advantage as regards the pigs or the carcass quality, when it was compared with spraying a mist of water, and uses five times as much water during a similar period and on the same surface. The pigs preferred four showers, each lasting ten minutes, to continuous showering throughout the two hours in lairage. Carcass quality was not adversely affected by intermittent showering compared with continuous showering. The experiments were carried out during a (cool) summer period. The pigs did not show any preference for lukewarm water rather than cold. Naturally, the response could be entirely different in winter time.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Compared to France, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany the production of white veal in the United Kingdom is relatively limited. Nevertheless, public interest in veal calf welfare appears to be lively. Although calves are sucklings of social-living ruminants, veal calves are not allowed to suck, to have a social life or to ruminate. This, added to anaemia in order to obtain white meat, and the high rate of morbidity caused by high density of the animals, sums up the welfare problems which arise. In principle, there are two types of housing: single housing in crates or group housing. Group housing is almost impossible for calves younger than six weeks, because of disease control and urine sucking. Even after this age it requires much skill and labour. Enforceable regulations within the European Economic Community concerning the amount of light in the fattening houses and the measurements of crates for individual housing are suggested. It is recommended that anaemia in young calves should be treated.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Lorz (5) defined well-being as: 'Living in harmony with the environment and with itself, both physically and psychologically'. His description seems to be widely accepted. However, the question of the parameters to be used continues to be open. The present paper is concerned with ten methods of quantifying well-being in general and a scheme for measuring well-being by ethological methods in particular. The diagram (4,5) is based on the assumption that a (farm)animal tries to satisfy its exogenous and endogenous needs by stimuli specific to each single need. When the animal is successful with or without adaptation, the consummatory act is regarded as 'normal'. When the stimuli do not show the specificity required or are entirely unacceptable, animals will usually express themselves in conflict behaviour or vacuum activities. These two types of behaviour are regarded as indicators of lower levels of well-being. By recording and comparing frequencies of conflict behaviour and vacuum activity in various housing systems, conclusions can be drawn regarding the well-being of the animals involved. The model adopted has its restrictions. No environment immediately provides all required stimuli, and they are entirely absent in some. This conflict behaviour and these vacuum activities may be recorded in every housing or husbandry system. As (marked) qualitative differences are not observed, differences in quantity are important. This implies that usually only 24-hour observations or at least representative periods will be reliable.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)