title: The 'Real Welfare' scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs.
abstract: Animal welfare standards have been incorporated in EU legislation and in farm assurance schemes, based on scientific information and aiming to safeguard the welfare of the species concerned. Recently, emphasis has shifted from resource-based measures of welfare to animal-based measures, which are considered to assess more accurately the welfare status. The data used in this analysis were collected from April 2013 to May 2016 through the 'Real Welfare' scheme in order to assess on-farm pig welfare, as required for those finishing pigs under the UK Red Tractor Assurance scheme. The assessment involved five main measures (percentage of pigs requiring hospitalization, percentage of lame pigs, percentage of pigs with severe tail lesions, percentage of pigs with severe body marks and enrichment use ratio) and optional secondary measures (percentage of pigs with mild tail lesions, percentage of pigs with dirty tails, percentage of pigs with mild body marks, percentage of pigs with dirty bodies), with associated information about the environment and the enrichment in the farms. For the complete database, a sample of pens was assessed from 1928 farm units. Repeated measures were taken in the same farm unit over time, giving 112 240 records at pen level. These concerned a total of 13 480 289 pigs present on the farm during the assessments, with 5 463 348 pigs directly assessed using the 'Real Welfare' protocol. The three most common enrichment types were straw, chain and plastic objects. The main substrate was straw which was present in 67.9% of the farms. Compared with 2013, a significant increase of pens with undocked-tail pigs, substrates and objects was observed over time (P0.3). The results from the first 3 years of the scheme demonstrate a reduction of the prevalence of animal-based measures of welfare problems and highlight the value of this initiative.
authors.affiliation: 1School of Agriculture Food and Rural Development,Newcastle University,Newcastle upon Tyne,NE1 7RU,UK.
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Pandolfi
authors.affiliation: 2AHDB PORK,Stoneleigh Park,Kenilworth,CV8 2TL,UK.
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Stoddart
authors.affiliation: 2AHDB PORK,Stoneleigh Park,Kenilworth,CV8 2TL,UK.
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Wainwright
authors.affiliation: 1School of Agriculture Food and Rural Development,Newcastle University,Newcastle upon Tyne,NE1 7RU,UK.
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Kyriazakis
authors.affiliation: 1School of Agriculture Food and Rural Development,Newcastle University,Newcastle upon Tyne,NE1 7RU,UK.
authors.forename: S A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Edwards
mesh_terms: D000822:Animal Husbandry; D000827:Animal Welfare / Q000592:standards*; D000818:Animals; D001522:Behavior, Animal; D019985:Benchmarking; D001733:Bites and Stings / Q000662:veterinary*; D000072480:Farms; D007794:Lameness, Animal; D015995:Prevalence; D013552:Swine / Q000293:injuries / Q000502:physiology*; D013623:Tail / Q000293:injuries
keywords: benchmarking; lameness; pig; tail biting; welfare assessment