CHARACTERISATION OF PIG PRODUCTION IN PORTUGAL - ALTERNATIVE OUTDOOR HOUSING SYSTEMS

Author(s):  
Cruz ◽  
Vasco F.; Lucas ◽  
Eduardo M. and Baptista ◽  
Fátima J.
Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 3484
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Ludwiczak ◽  
Ewa Skrzypczak ◽  
Joanna Składanowska-Baryza ◽  
Marek Stanisz ◽  
Piotr Ślósarz ◽  
...  

Humans who care for pigs prefer an environment that not only allows the pigs to express their natural behaviors but also limits the development of aggression and stereotypes. Most of the behavioral and health problems encountered by pigs in barren, conventional conditions are solved by alternative housing systems. However, it is not known whether these systems are advantageous in terms of the performance of pigs. In this work, we review the effects of housing systems on pigs’ behaviors and performance, which are among the major indicators of the welfare of these animals. Research results point out that outdoor systems are more ideal for sows and fatteners than buildings. Nonetheless, outdoor housing is associated with two major effects in both groups: increased activity due to environmental exploration and higher space allowance, and increased incidence of injuries compared to indoor systems. Sows are more active when housed in groups, but they experience an increased frequency of injuries. According to the literature, group-housed sows give birth to healthy piglets with good daily weight gains. The difference in the fattening and slaughter performance of pigs raised indoors vs. outdoors remains unclear, and the results reported so far are inconsistent. Outdoor systems seem to be associated with a higher incidence of osteochondrosis and lesions of elbow and hock joints, whereas indoor systems cause a greater degree of body soiling in pigs. Based on the reviewed literature, it may be concluded that outdoor housing helps to solve behavioral issues in pigs but leads to other problems in pig production.


1983 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 1181-1185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bengt Gustafsson

2010 ◽  
Vol 82 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kouzo NAKAMURA ◽  
Toshio TANAKA ◽  
Kouji NISHIDA ◽  
Katsuji UETAKE

1987 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. T. Smith

AbstractCurrent pig production systems reflect management decisions taken over a period of many years. The range of constraints on pig producers has grown rapidly and priorities are in the process of change. On the basis of the available evidence, the following conclusions may be made.Less than half the pig breeding enterprises in the United Kingdom use sow housing which involves individual confinement and more than half provide dry sows with bedding. At present, there is a strong current interest in group housing systems.In the parturition and lactating stages, farrowing crates are used in the vast majority of herds and the main current practical interest is in improving crate and pen design and husbandry techniques to assist in minimizing piglet mortality.Less than half of the herds use fully slatted accommodation for newly weaned pigs and nearly one-third provide bedding. In the follow-on stage, less than one-fifth of herds use fully slatted floors and ‘fully controlled environment’ type accommodation.There is strong current interest in fully slatted finishing housing but so far less than one-tenth of herds use it. Nearly two-thirds of herds use finisher houses which are not in the ‘controlled environment’ category.


Author(s):  
J.P. Araújo ◽  
I. Amorim ◽  
J. Santos Silva ◽  
P. Pires ◽  
J. Cerqueira

2013 ◽  
Vol 146 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 37-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong-gui Liu ◽  
Chao Wang ◽  
Jing Lv ◽  
Yun-qing Yu ◽  
Jun-ling Zhang ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-104
Author(s):  
M.B.M. Bracke ◽  
J.H.M. Metz ◽  
B.M. Spruijt ◽  
A.A. Dijkhuizen

In interviews with 11 pig experts the main housing systems for pregnant sows were identified as tethering (T), individual housing in stalls (IS), group housing with stalls (GS), trickle feeding or biofix (B), electronic sow feeding (ESF), and outdoor housing with huts (O). The family pen system (Fam) was added as a reference system. The experts were asked to give a welfare score for each housing system. The 2 individual housing systems (mean scores: T=1.8; IS=2.3) scored significantly lower than more intensive indoor group housing systems (GS=5.4; B=5.3; ESF=6.2), and these scored lower than the more extensive systems (O=8.0; Fam=9.1; ANOVA, P


Planta Medica ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 81 (S 01) ◽  
pp. S1-S381
Author(s):  
F González César ◽  
BP Isabel ◽  
A Velarde ◽  
D Keller

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bożena Nowakowicz-Dębek ◽  
Henryk Krukowski ◽  
Miroslav Ondrasovic ◽  
Beata Trawińska ◽  
Justyna Martyna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document