Advances in Pork Production (2013) Volume 24, pg. 83

Sow Welfare Assessment Systems in US, EU and Canada

Renée Bergeron

University de Guelph – Alfred Campus 31, Saint-Paul, C.P. 580 Alfred, ON K0B 1A0; Email: rbergeron@alfredc.uoguelph.ca

Introduction

Due to societal values and concerns, the notion of food quality has evolved over time, and now extends far beyond nutritional value to include health, safety, environmental impact, even the local economy. As a result, animal welfare is increasingly seen as an important attribute of the food quality concept. Whether or not consumers are willing to pay more for animal friendly products, they expect their food to be produced under acceptable welfare conditions. In response to these societal concerns regarding animals, various welfare standards have been developed. These include legislation, codes of practice, and quality assurance programs with a welfare component or focusing solely on animal welfare. In order to ensure that standards are being met at the farm level, these various initiatives must include a verification process, ideally performed by a third party.

The objectives of this presentation are to give a brief definition of animal welfare, explain how it can be measured at the farm level, and to present and compare three animal welfare assessment systems that have been established in the US, the EU and in Canada.

Definition of Animal Welfare

One of the most comprehensive definitions of animal welfare is given by the Five Freedoms, established by the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1993. These state that animals must be free from hunger and thirst, free from discomfort, free from pain, injury and disease, free to express normal behaviour and lastly, they must be free from fear and distress. Although there is a general agreement on the importance of the first three freedoms, the last two have received relatively less attention and have been found to be more complex and difficult to measure.

84 Bergeron

Animal welfare is not a “black and white” concept and varies from very poor to very good (Broom, 1991). What we consider “good welfare” and the level of welfare that we are willing to offer animals depend on our values, our conception of animal welfare (see Fraser et al. 1997), economics, etc. Scientists have developed a variety of measurements to assess animal welfare as objectively as possible. These may be divided into four categories, physiological response, health and injuries, production level and behaviour. Animal welfare studies are often multidisciplinary because it is important to use several types of measures to evaluate the effects of various environmental and management conditions on the welfare of the animal. Focusing on one single category may be misleading (Fraser, 2003).

On-Farm Welfare Assessment

When animal welfare is assessed at the farm level, scientists and animal specialists not only look at the animal itself, through animal-based measures such as body condition score, health, injuries, behaviour, etc., but they also consider the quality of the environment and care provided by the stockperson. Measures associated with the environment of the animal, such as housing, feeding and water, temperature, etc. are called resource-based measures, whereas measures of the quality of husbandry, such as training, standard operating procedures, record keeping, etc., are called management-based measures. Resource and management-based measures may also be called input-based measures, and animal based-measures are the output-based measures (Main et al. 2003).

There is an agreement among scientists that output or animal-based measures are the most valid and flexible indicators to assess animal welfare. They focus on the goal, which is a good state of welfare for the animal, rather than on the way it may be achieved. However, input-based variables are essential to assess the risk for animal welfare, and tend to be more reliable, easy and quick to measure (EFSA, 2012).

Proper initial and ongoing training of those who conduct on-farm assessments is essential to ensure inter and intra-observer repeatability. This is especially important with animal-based measures, as these are more subjective and difficult to assess when dealing with (EFSA, 2012).

Sow Welfare Assessment Systems

This paper presents and compares three systems that have been recently developed to assess pig welfare at the farm level. The objectives of these programs are to help farmers make improvements to their facilities and management, and to inform consumers about the welfare status of farm animals. All three systems are based on a variety of measures, but differ in

Sow Welfare Assessment Systems in US, EU and Canada 85

their focus on input or output variables. The programs also emphasize the importance of assessor training for the validity of data collected.

European Welfare Quality® Program The European Welfare Quality® program was developed by a team of scientists from various European countries, following a research project that took place from 2004 to 2009. The program provides ways of assessing pig, poultry and cattle welfare at the farm level and to classify farms according to four welfare categories. The criteria used by the program have been discussed with members of the general public, farmers, and other stakeholders (Welfare Quality®, 2009).

The Welfare Quality® program primarily relies on animal-based measures. The criteria and measures (Tables 1 & 2) used correspond to four main goals, namely “good feeding”, “good housing”, “good health”, and “appropriate behaviour”. Most measures are scored according to a three-point scale, with a score of 0 corresponding to good welfare, a score of 1 to a situation where welfare has been somewhat compromised, and a score of 2 being unacceptable. The results may be summarized into an overall welfare score for the farm (Welfare Quality®, 2009).

The practical application of the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol has been shown to be time consuming (farm visit duration ranging from 4 to 8 hours), and therefore costly. The Welfare Quality Network is working on alternatives in the implementation of the protocol in order to reduce the workload (I. Veissier, personal communication).

American PQA Plus® Program The American PQA Plus® program was launched in 2007 under the leadership of the National Pork Board. It evolved from previous quality assurance programs (PQA and SWAP) and includes an assessment component. The goal of the program is to build trust among consumers and stakeholders and maintain high food safety and animal welfare standards within the American pork industry (National Pork Board, 2012). It comprises 10 “Good Production Practices”, one of them directly related to swine care and welfare. A total of 12 principles related to swine care are evaluated, and 10 of these are assessed (“acceptable” or “develop and implement action plan”). On-farm welfare assessments are conducted by a trained PQA Plus® Advisor. Producers may also perform a self-assessment of their farm after receiving training. In contrast with the Welfare Quality® program the PQA Plus® program relies more heavily on management and resource-based measures, and less on animal-based measures (Tables 1 & 2).

86 Bergeron

Table 1: Animal-based measures used to assess1 pregnant sow welfare according to three assessment programs

Welfare Quality®

PQA Plus® ACATM

Animal-based measures Health & injuries

Wounds on the body X2 X __ Vulva lesions X X __ Body condition score X X X Coughing (respiratory disorders) X __ __ Sneezing (respiratory disorders) X __ __ Pumping (laboured breathing) X __ __ Rectal prolapse (enteric disorders) X __ __ Scouring (enteric disorders) X __ __ Manure on body X __ __ Metritis (reproductive disorders) X __ __ Lameness X X __ Skin condition X __ __ Ruptures and hernias X __ __ Local infections (swelling & abcesses) X X __ Bursitis (pressure injuries) X __ __ Shoulder sores (pressure injuries) X X __

Behaviour & comfort Huddling X X __ Respiratory rate above normal __ X __ Panting (>28 breath/min) X __ __ Stereotypies X __ __ Social behaviour (positive & negative) X __ __ Exploratory behaviour (pen & material) X __ __ Fear of humans X Notes __ Qualitative behaviour assessment X __ __ Pigs handled appropriately __ __ X Mortality X Notes X 1Shaded = assessed by the program (PQA Plus®) or program requirements (ACATM) 2Measures marked with an “X” are evaluated by the welfare program(s), “__” are not evaluated. Notes = general observations are made without measurement.

Sow Welfare Assessment Systems in US, EU and Canada 87

Table 2: Resource and management-based measures used to assess1 pregnant sow welfare according to three assessment programs

Measures Welfare Quality®

PQA Plus® ACATM

Resource-based measures

Water supply adequate X2 X X Feeder space adequate and daily feeding __ X X Space allowance adequate X X __ Facilities (floors, fences, equipment) __ X X Air quality and ammonia (>25 ppm) __ X X Lighting provided on a daily basis __ __ X Temperatures for comfort __ __ X Place to isolate and treat sick animals __ Notes X Management-based measures

Nose ringing and tail docking X __ __ Written euthanasia plan __ X X Timely euthanasia __ X __ Veterinarian/Client/Patient Relationship __ X __ Medication and treatment records __ X __ SOP for humane treatment of sick animals __ __ X Document caretaker training programs __ X X Written emergency action plan __ X X Operating emergency backup system __ X __ Daily observation records __ X __ Proper handling and equipment __ Notes Notes Training on use of handling device __ __ X Willful acts of abuse __ X __ Access to the Code of practice __ __ X Monitoring interaction with pigs __ __ X Daily positive contact with pigs __ __ X Maintenance of ventilation systems __ __ X SOP for feeding __ __ X Daily feeding of sows __ __ X Daily monitoring of ESF records __ __ X Prompt repair of equipment causing injuries __ __ X Stockpersons aware of signs of fighting __ __ X SOP for social behaviour problems __ __ X

88 Bergeron

Canadian ACATM Program The Animal Care Assessment program was developed by a group of experts, including scientists, producers and other stakeholders, under the leadership of the Canadian Pork Council, to help Canadian pork producers demonstrate that they are following the standards of the Code of Practice. It was launched in 2005 and made available to pork producers on a voluntary basis. In January 2012, the program became an integral component of the Canadian Quality Assurance (CQA®) program, the on-farm food safety program for Canadian producers. In order to maintain their CQA® status, producers will also need to meet ACATM requirements. The “Code of Practice for the care and handling of farm animals: pigs”, is currently under revision. Because the ACATM program is meant to be an evolving document, changes will likely be made once the Code revision process is over. The current program comprises mandatory (shaded) questions that are program requirements, as well as optional ones. Some of the optional questions are open-ended and are meant to serve as a base for discussion about best practices. In order to receive their accreditation, producers must demonstrate that they comply with all mandatory questions. Compared with the other two programs, it relies more heavily on management-based measures, and uses very few animal-based measures (Tables 1 & 2).

Comparison between Animal Welfare Assessment Systems A study was undertaken in 2011 to compare the three assessment systems described above. The three assessments were applied to farrow-to-finish pig farms in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec (5 farms per province) to test inter and intra-observer repeatability of animal welfare measures and to verify if the welfare status on farms varies according to the assessment system used. Preliminary results will be presented.

Conclusion

Quality assurance programs are proactive means to demonstrate good practices at the farm level and may serve as educational tools for producers. Programs currently developed vary in the criteria used to assess welfare, which may lead to different assessment results. Regardless of the program, good training is important to ensure intra and inter-observer repeatability.

References

Broom, D.M. 1991. Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. J. Anim. Sci., 69: 4167-4175.

Canadian Pork Council. 2010. Animal Care Assessment. Date of access: November 26th 2012. <http://www.cqa-aqc.ca/aca/documents/ACA-Animal-Care-Assessment.pdf>.

Sow Welfare Assessment Systems in US, EU and Canada 89

European Food Safety Authority, 2012. Scientific opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare in pigs. EFSA Journal, 10: 2512.

Farm Animal Welfare Council, 1993. Report on the priorities for animal welfare research development. Date of access: November 26th 2012. <http://www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/old/animal-welfare-priorities-report-may1993.pdf>

Fraser, D. 2003. Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare, 12: 433-443.

Fraser, D., Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A. and Milligan, B. N. 1997. A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare, 6: 187-205.

Main, D. C. J., Kent, J.P., Wemelsfelder, F., Ofner, E. and Tuyttens, F.A.M. 2003. Applications for methods of on-farm welfare assessment, Animal Welfare, 12: 523-528.

National Pork Board, 2012. PQA Plus Manual. Date of access: November 26th 2012. <http://www.pork.org/filelibrary/PQAPlus/PQAPlusEdBook.pdf>.

Welfare Quality®, 2009. Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Pigs. Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands, 119 pp. Date of access: November 26th 2012. <http://www.welfarequality.net/network/45848/7/0/40>.

Nedap Velos. The standard in Livestock ManagementNedap-Velos Canada - Ph: 403 650 5051 - email: cawi@nedap-velos.ca - www.nedap-velos.ca

Group housed sows can be fed more efficiently.

With Nedap Velos, each sow is guaranteed to receive the right amount of feed at the right time. It’s easy money. Visit www.nedap-velos.com