Assessment of welfare scorecard with respect to housing and other facilities for pigs in peri urban regions of Bengaluru

Introduction

The housing system has been reported to strongly influence the maternal behaviours of sows. Freedom of movement promotes the expression of farrowing behaviours, such as nest building. It is also well known that environmental conditions determine the behaviour of sows and piglets in the preweaning period and that an undesirable environment may increase the incidence of agonistic behaviours. The extensive outdoor housing piggeries are considered more ethical and welfare-friendly compared to intensive outdoor and indoor systems, from a practical perspective, outdoor rearing of pigs can lead to both management and welfare issues. At present, a great part of the society opposes pig production under intensive farming conditions, not only because of decreased welfare but also due to negative environmental consequences. A significant advantage of extensive outdoor housing systems is that they allow the pigs to express their natural behaviours, which limits or even excludes the development of abnormal or aggressive behaviours (Ludwiczak et al., 2021) [11] .

Review of Literature

Thomas et al. (2020) Studied currently, modern intensive pig farms contribute less than 5% of total pig production in India However, with the increasing demand for pork and pork products, these farms are expected to grow and become the main contributors to the pork market in the country. This growth will help make pig farming in India more organized in the future. The existing system of rearing pigs in most part of the country as a subsidiary farm activity in backyard with minimum shelter to utilize garbage and leftover grains available to produce meat for family use, should move towards intensive system of production involving good breeding stocks and better nutritional input to produce marketable quality pork and pork products (Das et al., 2018) [6] . In an established pig farm, the amount of available space plays a key role in determining the herd size and overall production capacity. As such, it is one of the most important factors to consider and represents the second highest expense in pig farming (Carpenter et al., 2018) [4] .

Evaluating the welfare of growing pigs in relation to their housing conditions should involve a combination of animalbased and resource-based indicators. These should cover aspects related to the pigs' health, their physical surroundings, and their capacity to perform strongly motivated natural behaviours (Mellor et al., 2020) [13] . The size of the pig group can affect aspects of their physical environment-for instance, larger groups tend to produce higher levels of CO 2 and greater amounts of waste. Issues like soiled pen floors, increased manure gases, and elevated CO 2 concentrations have been linked to environmental stress, poorer health outcomes, and the emergence of harmful behaviours such as ear and tail biting (Vitali et al., 2021) [21] . Additionally, the airflow speed over the pigs must be controlled. Since relative humidity is difficult to measure directly, air temperature is often used as an indirect indicator to adjust ventilation rates. However, this can create a conflict because during cold weather, maintaining optimal temperature and reducing fast airflow over pigs can cause humidity and Odor levels to increase. Pen soiling can result from poor thermoregulation caused by both excessive heat and cold, drafts, or the design of the pen itself. The likelihood of soiling increases when there is insufficient space for pigs to separate different functional areas within the pen. If pigs alter their resting habits due to uncomfortable thermal conditions, they may start defecating in areas that were previously used for resting. Similarly, changes in the pigs' preferences for the dunging area, or modifications to their environment such as changes in pen size or layout-can cause soiling in other parts of the pen (Nannoni et al., 2020) [15] . When pigs are given more space, they may create several lying areas, and some pigs might use the resting spots of others as their defecation area. Providing too much space can reduce the pigs' motivation to separate themselves from the group when performing excretory behaviours (Larsen et al., 2018) [10] . It has also been noted that when the resting area is overly spacious, pigs often defecate in empty corners or along the walls. A recent study investigated the social interactions and spatial closeness of group-housed pigs kept on partly slatted floors (Camerlink et al., 2022) [2] . Weaners were housed in groups of 10, with each pig having between 1.0 and 1.5 square meters of space, and the environment maintained at an average temperature of around 22 °C. Living conditions significantly affect the welfare of pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus) (Ludwiczak et al., 2021) [11] . Factors like indoor climate, available space, ventilation quality, and the presence of enrichment materials have been thoroughly studied for their impact on pig well-being.

Proper waste management is essential to reduce foul odours and prevent the accumulation of harmful pathogens. Waste should be regularly collected and disposed of in designated areas such as manure pits, ensuring it is properly contained and removed from the pen. Options like composting or other appropriate disposal methods can be used to manage waste effectively. Clean and dry bedding should be provided in pig pens, with regular checks for moisture or contamination and timely replacement to ensure comfort and hygiene. Proper drainage systems and easy-to-clean, disinfectable flooring are important to prevent the buildup of stagnant water or mud, maintaining a dry, clean environment that minimizes bacterial growth and promotes overall animal health (Hasahya et al., 2023) [7] . The Indian Standards (IS) recommend a covered floor space of 0.96-1.8 m² for weaner or fattening pigs, with a similar area allotted for open space. In comparison, Bhat et al. (2010) [1] suggested a covered space of 10-15 sq. ft. (approximately 0.92-1.4 m²) for weaner pigs and 12-20 sq. ft. (around 1.12-1.85 m²) for grower pigs. The temperature comfort zone for pigs varies with age and body weight. For piglets weighing less than 3 kg, the optimal temperature range is between 32 °C to 35 °C. This range shifts to 26 °C to 35 °C for pigs in the pre-nursery stage and broadens to 10 °C to 35 °C for grower-finishers, sows, and boars weighing over 100 kg. Lactating sows are more susceptible to heat stress due to their increased feed intake and metabolic rate, while dry sows may experience cold stress as a result of restricted feed intake. Generally, the preferred temperature range for dry sows is between 12 °C to 31 °C, while for lactating sows it ranges from 7 °C to 26 °C (Pietrosemoli et al., 2020) [17] .

Materials and Methods

Location of the study: Bengaluru Rural district lies in the southeastern part of the state, covering a geographical area of 229,519 hectares, which accounts for 1.2% of the state's total area. Located at 13°18′56.5″ N latitude and 77°30′53.1″ E longitude, the district is part of Bengaluru's peri-urban zone.

Parameters:

The farms were divided in to small (<100), medium (100 to 200) and large farms (>200) based on the number of pigs. Eight welfare measures were considered viz., Housing type and space availability, Type and height of the Roof, Type of Floor, Feeding and watering space availability, Drainage facility, Providing Guard rails, Segregation of animals, Protection from Predators and pests, Tabulation and analysis: After collecting responses from the participants, the data was carefully reviewed, verified, and numbered. The data were then coded, compiled, and tabulated according to standard procedures consistent with the study's objectives. statistical analysis will be carried out using Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT). This post-hoc test is applied following a significant ANOVA result to determine which specific group means differ significantly from one another. The detailed data of all the welfare measures pertaining to housing and other facilities is presented in Table 1. Housing type and space availability: The mean welfare scores were lowest in medium farms (7.00±0.40) and highest in small farms (8.6±0.33). The statistical analysis indicated significant (p<0.009) differences was found in medium farms when compared to small and large farms. Thus, suggesting that the housing and space availability was better in small farms. Therefore, the size of farms plays a critical role in ensuring adequate housing conditions. Small farms may provide more space per pig and better housing structures, thereby reducing aggression, stress, and competition for resources, which are key welfare concerns in pig production. In contrast, medium and large farms may struggle with space limitations, resulting in lower welfare scores, might be due to overcrowding of animals. Similar observations were reported by Temple et al. (2021) [19] , who highlighted that insufficient space allowance and suboptimal housing design are major risk factors compromising pig welfare in European fattening farms.

Results and Discussion

Type and height of the roof:

The mean welfare scores were lowest in small farms (1.1±0.10) and highest in large farms (1.3±0.12). The statistical analysis showed nonsignificant differences among the groups. suggesting that roof type and height were generally uniform across the production systems. Roof design is an important housing attribute as it influences ventilation, temperature regulation, and overall thermal comfort of pigs. Proper roofing with adequate height facilitates air circulation, reduces humidity, and minimizes the risk of heat stress (Huynh et al., 2005) [8] .

Type of floor:

The mean welfare scores for Type of floor were one each in small and large farms and it was 1.15 in medium farms. The results showed that there were nonsignificant differences found among the groups with respect to Type of floor used. Flooring is an essential factor affecting pig welfare, as unsuitable or poorly maintained floors may lead to injuries, lameness, and reduced comfort (KilBride et al., 2009) [9] .

Feeding and watering space hygiene:

The mean welfare scores for Feeding and watering space hygiene lowest in small farms (0.8±0.13) and highest in large farms (1.4±0.18). The statistical analysis indicated significant (p<0.011) differences was found in medium farms when compared to small and large farms. This indicates that larger farms may have better management practices, including routine cleaning and improved design of feeding and watering facilities, which directly enhance hygiene standards. Poor hygiene in feeding and watering areas is a recognized risk factor for gastrointestinal disorders and reduced growth performance in pigs. Similar findings were reported by Oczak et al. (2020) [16] , who noted that better resource design and maintenance in larger farms contributed to improved cleanliness and reduced disease prevalence in pig production systems.

Drainage facility:

The mean welfare scores were lowest in medium farms (1.4±0.16) and highest in small and large farms (1.6±0.24). The statistical analysis indicated nonsignificant differences among all the farms. Proper drainage is a critical component of housing design, as it ensures removal of excess water and waste, thereby reducing humidity, odour, and microbial load in pig pens (Choudhary et al., 2021) [5] .

Guard rails: Small and large farms did not install guard rails as a safety measure for preventing mortality in piglets. Whereas in medium (1.00±0.33) farms guard rails were commonly used as a welfare measure to prevent piglet mortality. The statistical analysis found to be significantly higher in medium farms when compared to small and large farms. Guard rails are widely recognized as an effective intervention to prevent sow overlaying, thereby improving piglet survival during early lactation. Similar findings were reported by Moustsen and Poulsen (2004) [14] , who emphasized that incorporating guard rails in farrowing pens significantly decreases piglet crushing without negatively affecting sow comfort.

Segregation of animals:

The mean scores for Segregation of animals were found to be similar in small, medium and large farms. The statistical analysis indicated non-significant differences among all the farms. Proper segregation based on age, size, and physiological status is important to minimize aggression, prevent injuries, and reduce disease transmission. Uniform but relatively low scores suggest that while farms practice some level of segregation, improvements in systematic grouping could enhance welfare and productivity (Maes et al., 2016) [12] .

Protection from predators and pests:

The mean welfare scores for Protection from predators and pests was lowest in large farm (1.80±0.20) and lowest in small and medium farms (2.00±0.00). The statistical analysis indicated nonsignificant differences among all the farms. Protection measures are essential to safeguard pigs from potential threats such as dogs, rodents, and insects, which can cause stress, injury, and act as vectors of diseases. The uniform scores indicate that all farms maintained basic protective structures, though continuous monitoring and integrated pest management are necessary to sustain welfare standards (Campos et al., 2019) [3] .

Overall welfare score for Housing and other facilities:

The overall mean welfare scores for Housing and other facilities less in medium and large farms (15.70±0.90) and it was highest in small farms (16.10±0.65). The statistical analysis indicated non-significant differences among the groups. This suggests that farm size did not markedly influence housing-related welfare conditions, which is consistent with earlier findings that housing quality in pig production often depends more on management practices than on scale (Temple et al., 2011) [18] .

Conclusion

Overall, housing and facility conditions varied notably with farm size. Small farms showed better housing type and space availability, while large farms excelled in hygienerelated aspects. Medium farms lagged in most parameters, indicating the need for targeted improvements in housing design and management practices.

References

1. Bhat PN, Mohan NH, Deo S. Pig production. New Delhi: Studium Press (India) Pvt. Ltd.; 2010.
2. Camerlink I, Scheck K, Cadman T, Rault JL. Lying in spatial proximity and active social behaviours capture different information when analysed at group level in indoor-housed pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2022;246:105540.
3. Campos J, Picó Y, Andreu V. Pesticides in water and sediments of rivers and channels of the Valencia Region (Spain). Sci Total Environ. 2019;677:467-481.
4. Carpenter CB, Holder CJ, Wu F, Woodworth JC, DeRouchey JM, Tokach MD, et al. Effects of increasing space allowance by removing a pig or gate adjustment on finishing pig growth performance. J Anim Sci. 2018;96:2659-2664.
5. Choudhary A, Chhabra S, Yadav CM. Housing management practices of pigs under smallholder production systems: A review. Indian J Anim Sci. 2021;91(12):1045-1052.
6. Das A, Deka RP, Bora DP. Housing and management practices of pigs under smallholder systems in India. Indian J Anim Sci. 2018;88(4):493-497.
7. Hasahya E, Oba P, Nsadha Z, Doyle R, Ouma EA, Dione M. Herd health management training manual for animal health care workers. Nairobi (Kenya): International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI); 2023.
8. Huynh TTT, Aarnink AJA, Gerrits WJJ, Heetkamp MJW, Kemp B, Verstegen MWA. Thermal behaviour of growing pigs in response to high temperature and humidity. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2005;91(1-2):1-16.
9. KilBride AL, Gillman CE, Green LE. A cross-sectional study of the prevalence and associated risk factors for capped hock and bursitis in weaner and finishing pigs from 93 commercial farms in England. Prev Vet Med. 2009;91(2-4):130-138.
10. Larsen MLV, Bertelsen M, Pedersen LJ. Review: factors affecting fouling in conventional pens for slaughter pigs. Anim. 2018;12:322-328.
11. Ludwiczak A, Skrzypczak E, Składanowska-Baryza J, Stanisz M, Ślósarz P, Racewicz P. How housing conditions determine the welfare of pigs. Anim. 2021;11(12):3484.
12. Maes D, Sibila M, Kuhnert P, Segalés J, Haesebrouck F, Pieters M. Update on Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae infections in pigs: knowledge gaps for improved disease control. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2016;65:110-124.
13. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PD, Jones B, et al. The 2020 Five Domains Model: including human-animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Anim. 2020;10:1870.
14. Moustsen VA, Poulsen HD. Influence of floor heating and protection rails on piglets in farrowing pens. Livest Prod Sci. 2004;87:75-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2003.09.019.
15. Nannoni E, Aarnink AJA, Vermeer HM, Reimert I, Fels M, Bracke MBM. Soiling of pig pens eliminative behaviour. Anim. 2020;10:2025.
16. Oczak M, Maschat K, Baumgartner J, Winckler C. Management and housing factors associated with pig health and welfare in Austrian pig farms. Anim. 2020;10:866. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10050866.
17. Pietrosemoli S, Tang C. Animal welfare and production challenges associated with pasture pig systems. Agric. 2020;10:223.
18. Temple D, Dalmau A, Ruiz de la Torre JL, Manteca X, Velarde A. Application of the Welfare Quality® protocol to assess growing pigs kept under intensive conditions in Spain. Prev Vet Med. 2011;98(2-3):188196.
19. Temple D, Dalmau A, Ruiz-de-la-Torre JL, Manteca X. Analysis of housing risk factors for the welfare of lean and heavy pigs in European fattening farms. Anim. 2021;11:3221. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113221.
20. Thomann B, Rushton J, Schuepbach-Regula G, Nathues H. Modeling economic effects of vaccination against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome: impact of vaccination effectiveness, vaccine price and vaccination coverage. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7:500.
21. Vitali M, Santolini E, Bovo M, Tassinari P, Torreggiani D, Trevisi P. Behaviour and welfare of undocked heavy pigs raised in buildings with different ventilation systems. Anim. 2021;11:2338.