Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The pig producer's perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

J. Guise
Affiliation:
Cambac Research, Manor Farm, Draycot Cerne, Nr Chippenham SN15 5LD
Get access

Abstract

This paper is designed to demonstrate that practical, applied research, which is popular with the farming community, is an important part of the decision-making process. Three recent or current projects are described in areas where strategic and basic science has made an important contribution to the debate but has not provided solutions. Confinement at farrowing, tail biting and fully slatted finishing systems are all areas of concern to producers and legislators alike and these concerns are not confined to the UK. The results of surveys of industrial practice have suggested that: (a) non-confined systems may perform as well as farrowing crates, (b) tail-docking appears an effective control measure for tail biting but more importantly, the relative influence of different management practices is measurable using the techniques described and could provide solutions to the tail-biting problem, and (c) experimental studies of finishing systems have produced ambivalent results and a new approach may be of value. The recent Scientific Veterinary Committee Report of the European Union is used extensively as the basis for the discussion.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Arey, D. S. and Sancha, E. S. 1996. Behaviour and productivity of sows and piglets in a family system and in farrowing crates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50: 135145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, M. R. 1991. The freedom farrowing system. Farm Building Progress 104: 9.Google Scholar
Burke, J. 1996. An investigation of experimental and commercial non-confinement and group farrowing systems in the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Seale Hayne Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Land Use, Newton Abbot.Google Scholar
Coburn, F. D. 1882. Swine husbandry: a practical manual. Orang Judd Co., New York.Google Scholar
Jakob, P. and Etter, H. 1980. Evaluation of economic and technical parameters of the open-front, deep-litter system for pigs. In Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemassen Tierhaltung 1980. Vortrage anlasslich der tagung ‘Kriterien artgemasser Tierhaltung’ der Deutschen Veterinarmodizinischen Gesellschaft c.V. Fachgruppe Verhaltensforschung vom 19–22 November 1980. darmstadt-Kranichstein, German Federal republic, Kuratorium fur Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft eV, pp. 133141.Google Scholar
Ewbank, R. 1973. Abnormal behaviour and pig nutrition. An unsuccessful attempt to induce tail-biting by feeding a high energy, low fibre vegetable protein diet. British Veterinary Journal 129: 366369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D. 1985. Selection of bedded and unbedded areas by pigs in relation to environmental temperature and behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 117126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, A. and Broom, D. 1990. Farm animal welfare and behaviour. Bailliere Tindall, London. Google Scholar
Guise, H. J. and Penny, R. H. C. 1998. Tail biting and tail docking in pigs. Veterinary Record 142: 46.Google ScholarPubMed
Guy, J. H., Rowlinson, P. and Chadwick, J. P. 1995. A comparison of two genotypes of finishing pig housed in outdoor paddocks, straw yards and fully slatted pens. 1. Performance. Animal Science 60: 518 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Hales, P. 1989. An analysis of piglet mortality on the new unit. Pig Unit Newsletter 29. National Agricultural Centre, Stoneleigh, Kenilworth, Warwickshire.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. B., Petherick, J. C, McLean, K. A., Deans, L. A., Chirnside, J., Vaughan, A., Clutton, E. and Terlouw, E. M. C. 1994. The effect of environment on behaviour, plasma Cortisol and prolactin in parturient sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 313 330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, C. A. P., Bruce, J. M., Fowler, V. R. and English, P. R. 1995. A comparison of the productivity and welfare of growing pigs in four intensive systems. Livestock Production Science 43: 265274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayland, A. P. and Guise, H. J. 1997. A survey of units with unconfined farrowing systems. Report to Sponsors. Cambac Research, Manor Farm, Draycot Cerne, Nr Chippenham.Google Scholar
Pearce, G. P. and Paterson, A. M. 1993. The effect of space restriction and provision of toys during rearing on the behaviour, productivity and physiology of male pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36: 1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penny, R. H. C. and Hill, F. W. G. 1974. Observations of some conditions in pigs at the abattoir with particular reference to tail-biting. Veterinary Record 94: 174180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, J. F. 1997. Management of tail-biting — a farm guide for the Scottish Pig Industry Initiative. SPII, Rural Centre, West Mains, Ingliston, Newbridge.Google Scholar
Scientific Veterinary Committee. 1997. The welfare of intensively kept pigs. DocXXIV/B3/ScVC/0005/1997 (Final) prepared in accordance with Article 6 of Council Directive 91/630/EEC.Google Scholar
Sheppard, A. 1996. The structure of pig production in England and Wales.Report 33, Agricultural Economic Unit, University of Exeter.Google Scholar
Smith, W. J. and Morgan, M. 1998a. Claw lesions: their relationship with the floor surface: finishing pigs — part 1. Proceedings of the 15th International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, Birmingham, England.Google Scholar
Smith, W. J., and Morgan, M. 1998b. Claw lesions: their relationship with the floor surface: finishing pigs — part II. Proceedings of the 15th International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, Birmingham, England.Google Scholar
Sneddon, I. A. and Beattie, V. E. 1995. Improving the welfare of pigs. Irish Journal of Psychology 16: 419426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, S. D. and Day, J. E. L. 1998. Tail biting and tail docking in pigs. Veterinary Record 142: 375.Google ScholarPubMed

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 4 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 27th February 2018 - 28th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-wphb9 Total loading time: 0.21 Render date: 2021-01-28T06:44:01.223Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The pig producer's perspective
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The pig producer's perspective
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The pig producer's perspective
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *