Skip to main content
NCBI home page
EFSA Journal logoLink to EFSA Journal
. 2014 May 23;12(5):3702. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3702

Scientific Opinion concerning a Multifactorial approach on the use of animal and non‐animal‐based measures to assess the welfare of pigs

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW)
PMCID: PMC13159889  PMID: 42125367

Abstract

Pigs have a need for manipulable materials to satisfy a range of behavioural needs, which can be different in different classes of pig. When these needs are not met, a range of adverse welfare consequences result, one of these being an increased risk for tail‐biting in weaners and rearing pigs. The ability to control the risk of tail‐biting is essential when aiming to avoid tail‐docking. Based on available scientific information this Opinion identifies the multiple interactions between risk factors, welfare consequences and animal and non‐animal‐based measures on the two subjects requested (i) the absence of functional manipulable materials, for pigs at different stages in life and (ii) tail‐biting, for weaners and rearing pigs only. An attempt is made to quantify the relationships between the identified interactions by carrying out a statistical analysis of information from available databases, those being an international dataset collected using the Welfare Quality® protocol, which was not designed to evaluate risk factors for tail‐biting and therefore, it had limitations in fitness for this analysis, and a large Finnish dataset with undocked pigs. Based on the current state of knowledge, the AHAW Panel proposes two simple tool‐boxes for on farm use to assess (i) the functionality of the supplied manipulable material and (ii) the presence and strength of risk factors for tail biting. Both proposed tool‐boxes include a combination of the most important resource‐based and animal‐based measures. Further development and validation of decision‐support tools for customised farm assessment is strongly recommended and a proposal for harmonised data collection across the range of European farming circumstances is presented. A series of further recommendations are made by the AHAW Panel.

Keywords: pig, welfare, tail‐biting, tail‐docking, enrichment, manipulable material

EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare) , 2014. Scientific Opinion concerning a multifactorial approach on the use of animal and non‐animal‐based measures to assess the welfare of pigs. EFSA Journal 2014;12(5):3702, 101 pp. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3702

Panel members: Edith Authie, Charlotte Berg, Anette Bøtner, Howard Browman, Ilaria Capua, Aline De Koeijer, Klaus Depner, Mariano Domingo, Sandra Edwards, Christine Fourichon, Frank Koenen, Simon More, Mohan Raj, Liisa Sihvonen, Hans Spoolder, Jan Arend Stegeman, Hans‐Hermann Thulke, Ivar Vågsholm, Antonio Velarde, Preben Willeberg and Stéphan Zientara.

Correspondence: alpha@efsa.europa.eu

Acknowledgement: The Panel wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on Multifactorial approach to assess the welfare of pigs: Sandra Edwards (chair), Hans Spoolder, Antonio Velarde, Anna Valros and Ziv Shkedy for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion and the hearing expert: Marc Brake and EFSA staff: Silvia Inés Nicolau Solano, Jose Cortiñas Abrahantes and Jane Richardson for the support provided to this scientific opinion. The Panel acknowledges: Valerie Courboulay (Institut du Porc, France), Stefan Gunnarsson (Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Sweeden), Camilla Munsterhjelm (University of Helsinki, Finland), Déborah Temple and Eva Mainau (IRTA and University of Barcelona, Spain), Alison Bond (University of Bristol, the United Kingdom) and Herman Vermeer (Wageningen UR Livestock Research, the Netherlands) for providing Welfare Quality® data and Sanna Nikunen (Association for Animal Disease Prevention ETT ra, Sikava, Finland) for providing the data from the Sikava National Health and Welfare Program.

Adoption date: 14 May 2014

Published date: 23 May 2014

Question number: EFSA‐Q‐2013‐00667

On request from: European Commission

References

  1. Andersen I and Bøe K, 1999. Straw bedding or concrete floor for loose‐housed pregnant sows: Consequences for aggression, production and physical health. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A‐Animal Science, 49, 190–195. [Google Scholar]
  2. Beattie V, Walker N and Sneddon I, 1995. Effect of rearing environment and change of environment on the behaviour of gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 46, 57–65. [Google Scholar]
  3. Beattie V, Walker N and Sneddon I, 1996. An investigation of the effect of environmental enrichment and space allowance on the behaviour and production of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 48, 151–158. [Google Scholar]
  4. Berendsen B, Pikkemaat M, Römkens P, Wegh R, Van Sisseren M, Stolker L and Nielen M, 2013. Occurrence of Chloramphenicol in Crops through Natural Production by Bacteria in Soil. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry, 61, 4004–4010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bolhuis JE, Schouten WG, Schrama JW and Wiegant VM, 2005. Behavioural development of pigs with different coping characteristics in barren and substrate‐enriched housing conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 93, 213–228. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bracke M, Zonderland JJ, Lenskens P, Schouten WG, Vermeer H, Spoolder HA, Hendriks HJ and Hopster H, 2006. Formalised review of environmental enrichment for pigs in relation to political decision making. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 98, 165–182. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bracke M, Zonderland JJ and Bleumer EJ, 2007. Expert consultation on weighting factors of criteria for assessing environmental enrichment materials for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 104, 14–23. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bracke M, 2008. RICHPIG: a semantic model to assess enrichment materials for pigs. Animal Welfare, 17, 289–304. [Google Scholar]
  9. Breiman L, Friedman J, Stone CJ and Olshen RA, 1984. Classification and regression trees. CRC press, 358 pp. [Google Scholar]
  10. Breiman L, 1996. Bagging predictors. Machine learning, 24, 123–140. [Google Scholar]
  11. Breiman L, 1998. Arcing classifier (with discussion and a rejoinder by the author). The annals of statistics, 26, 801–849. [Google Scholar]
  12. Breiman L, 1999. Prediction games and arcing algorithms. Neural computation, 11, 1493–1517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Breiman L, 2001. Random forests. Machine learning, 45, 5–32. [Google Scholar]
  14. Brennan J and Aherne F, 1987. Effect of floor type on the severity of foot lesions and osteochondrosis in swine. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 67, 517–523. [Google Scholar]
  15. Breuer K, Sutcliffe M, Mercer J, Rance K, O'Connell N, Sneddon I and Edwards S, 2005. Heritability of clinical tail‐biting and its relation to performance traits. Livestock production science, 93, 87–94. [Google Scholar]
  16. Brunberg E, Wallenbeck A and Keeling LJ, 2011. Tail biting in fattening pigs: Associations between frequency of tail biting and other abnormal behaviours. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 133, 18–25. [Google Scholar]
  17. Brunberg E, Jensen P, Isaksson A and Keeling LJ, 2013. Behavioural and Brain Gene Expression Profiling in Pigs during Tail Biting Outbreaks‐Evidence of a Tail Biting Resistant Phenotype. PloS one, 8, e66513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Bryden WL, 2012. Mycotoxin contamination of the feed supply chain: Implications for animal productivity and feed security. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 173, 134–158. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cameron CA and Windmeijer FA, 1997. An R‐squared measure of goodness of fit for some common nonlinear regression models. Journal of Econometrics, 77, 329–342. [Google Scholar]
  20. Chaloupková H, Illmann G, Barto$sn L and $npinka M, 2007. The effect of pre‐weaning housing on the play and agonistic behaviour of domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 103, 25–34. Available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159106001365. [Google Scholar]
  21. Christensen G, Vraa‐Andersen L and Mousing J, 1995. Causes of mortality among sows in Danish pig herds. Veterinary Record, 137, 395–399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Cole DJA, 1990. Nutritional strategies to optimize reproduction in pigs. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, Suppl.40, 67–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Corrêa E, Perdomo C, Jacondino I, Barioni Junior W and Tumelero I, 2000. Environmental condition and performance in growing and finishing swines raised under different types of litter. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Brazil), 29 (6) Sup 1, 2072–2079. [Google Scholar]
  24. Cragg JG and Uhler RS, 1970. The demand for automobiles. The Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'Economique, 3, 386–406. [Google Scholar]
  25. Davies P, Morrow WM, Jones F, Deen J, Fedorka‐Cray P and Harris I, 1997. Prevalence of Salmonella in finishing swine raised in different production systems in North Carolina, USA. Epidemiology and Infection, 119, 237–244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Day J, Burfoot A, Docking C, Whittaker X, Spoolder H and Edwards S, 2002. The effects of prior experience of straw and the level of straw provision on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 76, 189–202. [Google Scholar]
  27. De Jong IC, Ekkel ED, Van de Burgwal JA, Lambooij E, Korte SM, Ruis MA, Koolhaas JM and Blokhuis HJ, 1998. Effects of strawbedding on physiological responses to stressors and behavior in growing pigs. Physiology & behavior, 64, 303–310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. De Jong IC, Prelle IT, Van de Burgwal JA, Lambooij E, Korte SM, Blokhuis HJ and Koolhaas JM, 2000. Effects of environmental enrichment on behavioral responses to novelty, learning, and memory, and the circadian rhythm in cortisol in growing pigs. Physiology & Behavior, 68, 571–578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. DeBoer SP, 2012. The effects of environmental enrichment on the welfare of laboratory swine housed in isolation. ProQuest Dissertation/thesis (PQDT), ETD Collection for Purdue University, UMI Dissertations Publishing 2012, 124 pp.
  30. Douglas C, Bateson M, Walsh C, Bédué A and Edwards SA, 2012. Environmental enrichment induces optimistic cognitive biases in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 139, 65–73. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ducreux E, Aloui B, Robin P, Dourmad J, Courboulay V and Meunier‐Salaün M, 2002. Ambient temperature influences the choice made by pigs for certain types of floor. Proceedings of the 34émes Journées de la Recherche Porcine, sous l'égide de l'Association Françcaise de Zootechnie, Paris, France, 5–7 février 2002, 211–216.
  32. Durrell J, Sneddon I and Beattie V, 1997. Effects of enrichment and floor type on behaviour of cubicle loose‐housed dry sows. Animal Welfare, 6, 297–308. [Google Scholar]
  33. Edge H, Bulman C and Edwards S, 2005. Alternatives to nose‐ringing in outdoor sows: the provision of root crops. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 92, 15–26. [Google Scholar]
  34. Edwards S 2011. What do we know about tail biting today? The Pig Journal, 66, 81–86. [Google Scholar]
  35. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) , 2007a. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission on Animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry. The EFSA Journal 2007, 564, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  36. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) , 2007b. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission on Animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets. The EFSA Journal 2007, 572, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  37. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) , 2007c. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from Commission on the risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail‐docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems. The EFSA Journal 2007, 611, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  38. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) , 2012a. Scientific Opinion on the use of animal based measures to assess welfare in pigs. EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2512, 85 pp. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) , 2012b. Scientific Opinion on a statement on the use of animal‐based measures to assess welfare of animals. EFSA Journal 2012;10(6):2767, 29 pp. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) , 2012c. Scientific Opinion on the use of animal based measures to assess welfare of broilers. EFSA Journal 2012;10(7):2774, 74 pp. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Ewald C, Heer A and Havenith U, 1994. Factors associated with the occurrence of influenza A virus infections in fattening swine. Berliner und Munchener Tierarztliche Wochenschrift, 107, 256–262. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Fraser D, 1985. Selection of bedded and unbedded areas by pigs in relation to environmental temperature and behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 14, 117–126. [Google Scholar]
  43. Fraser D, Phillips P, Thompson B and Tennessen T, 1991. Effect of straw on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 30, 307–318. [Google Scholar]
  44. Freund Y and Schapire RE, 1996. Experiments with a new boosting algorithm. Proceedings of the ICML, 148–156.
  45. Freund Y and Schapire RE, 1997. A decision‐theoretic generalization of on‐line learning and an application to boosting. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 55, 119–139. [Google Scholar]
  46. Friedman J, Hastie T and Tibshirani R, 2000. Special invited paper. Additive logistic regression: A statistical view of boosting. Annals of Statistics, 337–374.
  47. Gifford AK, Cloutier S and Newberry RC, 2007. Objects as enrichment: Effects of object exposure time and delay interval on object recognition memory of the domestic pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 107, 206–217. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gjein H and Larssen R, 1995. Housing of pregnant sows in loose and confined systems‐a field study 1. Vulva and body lesions, culling reasons and production results. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 36, 185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Grandin T, Curtis SE and Greenough WT, 1983. Effects of rearing environment on the behaviour of young pigs. Journal of Animal Science, 57, 137. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hansen LL, Hagelsø AM and Madsen A, 1982. Behavioural results and performance of bacon pigs fed “ad libitum” from one or several self‐feeders. Applied Animal Ethology, 8, 307–333. [Google Scholar]
  51. Herskin MS, Jensen KH and Thodberg K, 1998. Influence of environmental stimuli on maternal behaviour related to bonding, reactivity and crushing of piglets in domestic sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 58, 241–254. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hoogerbrugge A, 1987. Housing and health of farm animals. Tijdschrift voor diergeneeskunde, 112, 1069–1074. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Jarvis S, Reed B, Lawrence A, Calvert S and Stevenson J, 2004. Peri‐natal environmental effects on maternal behaviour, pituitary and adrenal activation, and the progress of parturition in the primiparous sow. Animal Welfare, 13, 171–181. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kranendonk G, Hopster H, Fillerup M, Ekkel ED, Mulder EJ and Taverne MA, 2006. Cortisol administration to pregnant sows affects novelty‐induced locomotion, aggressive behaviour, and blunts gender differences in their offspring. Hormones and Behavior, 49, 663–672. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Lawrence AB and Terlouw E, 1993. A review of behavioral factors involved in the development and continued performance of stereotypic behaviors in pigs. Journal of Animal Science, 71, 2815–2825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Lawrence AB, Petherick J, McLean K, Deans L, Chirnside J, Gaughan A, Clutton E and Terlouw E, 1994. The effect of environment on behaviour, plasma cortisol and prolactin in parturient sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 39, 313–330. [Google Scholar]
  57. Lewis E, Boyle L, O'Doherty J, Lynch P and Brophy P, 2006. The effect of providing shredded paper or ropes to piglets in farrowing crates on their behaviour and health and the behaviour and health of their dams. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 96, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  58. Matlova L, Dvorska L, Palecek K, Maurenc L, Bartos M and Pavlik I, 2004. Impact of sawdust and wood shavings in bedding on pig tuberculous lesions in lymph nodes, and IS1245 RFLP analysis of Mycobacterium avium subsp. hominissuis of serotypes 6 and 8 isolated from pigs and environment. Veterinary Microbiology, 102, 227–236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Meunier‐Salaün M, Edwards S and Robert S, 2001. Effect of dietary fibre on the behaviour and health of the restricted fed sow. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 90, 53–69. [Google Scholar]
  60. Moinard C, Mendl M, Nicol CJ and Green LE, 2003. A case control study of on‐farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 81, 333–355. [Google Scholar]
  61. Mullan S, Edwards SA, Butterworth A, Whay HR and Main DC, 2009. Interdependence of welfare outcome measures and potential confounding factors on finishing pig farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 121, 25–31. [Google Scholar]
  62. Mullan S, Edwards SA, Butterworth A, Whay HR and Main DC, 2011a. Inter‐observer reliability testing of pig welfare outcome measures proposed for inclusion within farm assurance schemes. The Veterinary Journal, 190, e100–e109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Mullan S, Edwards S, Butterworth A, Whay H and Main D, 2011b. A pilot investigation of possible positive system descriptors in finishing pigs. Animal Welfare, 20, 439–449. [Google Scholar]
  64. Munsterhjelm C, Peltoniemi OA, Heinonen M, Hälli O, Karhapää M and Valros A, 2009. Experience of moderate bedding affects behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 118, 42–53. [Google Scholar]
  65. Munsterhjelm C, Valros A, Heinonen M, Halli O, Siljander‐Rasi H and Peltoniemi OA, 2010. Environmental enrichment in early life affects cortisol patterns in growing pigs. Animal, 4, 242–249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Munsterhjelm C, Simola O, Keeling L, Valros A and Heinonen M, 2013a. Health parameters in tail biters and bitten pigs in a case‐control study. Animal, 7, 814–821. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Munsterhjelm C, Brunberg E, Heinonen M, Keeling L and Valros A, 2013b. Stress measures in tail biters and bitten pigs in a matched case‐control study. Animal Welfare, 22, 331–338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Munterhjelm C and ja Ari Kuismin Valros A 2014: Loppuraportti Sikojen hyvinvointi kilpailuvaltiksi‐Welfare Quality® ‐järjestelmän pilotointi Suomessa. Available at: finnishpigwq.edublogs.org/files/2014/02/WELFARE‐QUALITY‐LOPPURAPORTTI‐2013_Lopullinen‐ycahip.pdf.
  69. Niemi JK, Sinisalo A, Valros A and Heinonen M, 2012. Hännänpurenta‐syy vai seuraus? Maataloustieteen Päivät 2012, 10.‐11.1. 2012, Viikki, Helsinki: esitelmät, posterit/Toim. Nina Schulman ja Heini Kauppinen.
  70. Nordkvist E, Zuidema T, Herbes R and Berendsen B, 2014. The occurrence of chloramphenicol in straw in NorthWestern Europe: A survey. Abstract accepted for oral presentation at 7th International Symposium on Hormone and Veterinary Drug Residue Analysis, De Bijloke, Ghent, Belgium, 2–5 June 2014.
  71. Oliviero C, Heinonen M, Valros A, Halli O and Peltoniemi OA, 2008. Effect of the environment on the physiology of the sow during late pregnancy, farrowing and early lactation. Animal Reproduction Science, 105, 365–377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Oliviero C, Heinonen M, Valros A and Peltoniemi O, 2010. Environmental and sow‐related factors affecting the duration of farrowing. Animal Reproduction Science, 119, 85–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Oostindjer M, Van den Brand H, Kemp B and Bolhuis JE, 2011. Effects of environmental enrichment and loose housing of lactating sows on piglet behaviour before and after weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 134, 31–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Palander PA, Heinonen M, Simpura I, Edwards S and Valros A, 2013. Jejunal morphology and blood metabolites in tail biting, victim and control pigs. Animal: an international journal of animal bioscience, 7, 1523–1531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Pedersen LJ, Holm L, Jensen MB and Jørgensen E, 2005. The strength of pigs' preferences for different rooting materials measured using concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 94, 31–48. [Google Scholar]
  76. Peeters E, Driessen B, Moons CP, Ödberg FO and Geers R, 2006. Effect of temporary straw bedding on pigs' behaviour, performance, cortisol and meat quality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 98, 234–248. [Google Scholar]
  77. Petersen V, 1994. The development of feeding and investigatory behaviour in free‐ranging domestic pigs during their first 18 weeks of life. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 42, 87–98. [Google Scholar]
  78. Prickett JR, Kim W, Simer R, Yoon K‐J and Zimmerman J. 2008. Oral‐fluid samples for surveillance of commercial growing pigs for porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus and porcine circovirus type 2 infections. J Swine Health Prod 16(2):86–91. [Google Scholar]
  79. Rizvi S, Nicol C and Green L, 1998. Risk factors for vulva biting in breeding sows in south‐west England. Veterinary Record, 143, 654–658. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Roepstorff A and Jorsal S, 1990. Relationship of the prevalence of swine helminths to management practices and anthelmintic treatment in Danish sow herds. Veterinary Parasitology, 36, 245–257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Rushen J, 1984. Stereotyped behaviour, adjunctive drinking and the feeding periods of tethered sows. Animal Behaviour, 32, 1059–1067. [Google Scholar]
  82. Rushen JP, 1985. Stereotypies, aggression and the feeding schedules of tethered sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 14, 137–147. [Google Scholar]
  83. Schapire RE, 1990. The strength of weak learnability. Machine Learning, 5, 197–227. [Google Scholar]
  84. Scholkopf B and Smola A, 2002. Learning with kernels. MIT press; Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  85. Schrøder‐Petersen DL and Simonsen H, 2001. Tail biting in pigs. The Veterinary Journal, 162, 196–210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Scott K, Chennells D, Campbell F, Hunt B, Armstrong D, Taylor L, Gill B and Edwards S, 2006a. The welfare of finishing pigs in two contrasting housing systems: Fully‐slatted versus straw‐bedded accommodation. Livestock Science, 103, 104–115. [Google Scholar]
  87. Scott K, Taylor L, Gill BP and Edwards SA, 2006b. Influence of different types of environmental enrichment on the behaviour of finishing pigs in two different housing systems: 1. Hanging toy versus rootable substrate. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 99, 222–229. [Google Scholar]
  88. Scott K, Edwards SA, Hautekiet V and Van Steenbergen L, 2007. Illness status. In: On farm monitoring of pig welfare. Eds Verlarde A and Geers R. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, 101–106. [Google Scholar]
  89. Scott K, Guy JH, Courboulay V, Meunier‐Salaun M‐C, Velarde A, Turner SP and Edwards SA. 2009. The repeatability of measures of thermoregulation in pigs. In: Assessment of animal welfare measures for sows, piglets and fattening pigs. Eds Forkman B and Keeling L. Welfare Quality® Report No 10. Cardiff University, 57–72. [Google Scholar]
  90. Schouten WGP, 1986. Rearing conditions and behaviour in pigs. PhD Thesis, Landbouwhogeschool te Wageningen, Wageningen UR, the Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  91. Skjerve E, Lium B, Nielsen B and Nesbakken T, 1998. Control of Yersinia enterocolitica in pigs at herd level. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 45, 195–203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Smith S, McOrist S and Green L, 1998. Questionnaire survey of proliferative enteropathy on British pig farms. Veterinary Record, 142, 690–693. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Sneddon I, Beattie V, Walker N and Weatherup R, 2001. Environmental enrichment of intensive pig housing using spent mushroom compost. Animal Science, 72, 35–42. [Google Scholar]
  94. Spoolder HA, Burbidge JA, Edwards SA, Howard Simmins P and Lawrence AB, 1995. Provision of straw as a foraging substrate reduces the development of excessive chain and bar manipulation in food restricted sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 43, 249–262. [Google Scholar]
  95. Terlouw E, Lawrence AB and Illius AW, 1991. Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behaviour, 42, 981–991. [Google Scholar]
  96. Spoolder HA, Aarnink AA, Vermeer HM, Van Riel J and Edwards SA, 2012. Effect of increasing temperature on space requirements of group housed finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 138, 229–239. [Google Scholar]
  97. Taylor NR, Main DC, Mendl M and Edwards SA, 2010. Tail‐biting: a new perspective. The Veterinary Journal, 186, 137–147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Taylor NR, Parker R, Mendl M, Edwards SA and Main DC, 2012. Prevalence of risk factors for tail biting on commercial farms and intervention strategies. The Veterinary Journal, 194, 77–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Telkänranta H, Kirsi S, Hirvonen H and Valros A, 2012. The effect of postnatal environmental enrichment on tail biting in growing pigs. Proceedings of the 46th International congress of the ISAE, Vienna, Austria 31 July – 4 August, 2012.
  100. Telkänranta H, Marchant‐Forde JN and Valros A, 2014a. Can tear staining in pigs be useful as an on‐farm indicator of stress? Abstract accepted to WAFL 2014 congress.
  101. Telkänranta H, Swan K, Hirvonen H and Valros A, 2014b. Chewable materials before weaning reduce tail biting in growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, in press.
  102. Telkänranta H, Bracke M and Valros A, 2014c. Developing chewable and rootable low‐cost objects for commercial pig farms. Proceedings of the 25th ISAE Nordic Regional Meeting, p. 10.
  103. Terlouw EC and Lawrence AB, 1993. Long‐term effects of food allowance and housing on development of stereotypies in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 38, 103–126. [Google Scholar]
  104. Trickett SL, Guy JH and Edwards SA, 2009. The role of novelty in environmental enrichment for the weaned pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 116, 45–51. [Google Scholar]
  105. Turner SP, 2011. Breeding against harmful social behaviours in pigs and chickens: State of the art and the way forward. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 134, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  106. Tuyttens FAM, 2005. The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: a review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 92, 261–282. [Google Scholar]
  107. Valros A, Palander P, Heinonen M, Brunberg E, Keeling L, and Piepponen P, 2013. Preliminary evidence of an altered serotonin metabolism in the prefrontal cortex of tail biting pigs. 47th Congress of International Society for Applied Ethology 2013 Congress, Florianopolis, Brazil, 2–6 June 2013.
  108. Van de Weerd HA, Docking CM, Day JE, Avery PJ and Edwards SA, 2003. A systematic approach towards developing environmental enrichment for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 84, 101–118. [Google Scholar]
  109. Van de Weerd H, Docking C, Day J and Edwards S, 2005. The development of harmful social behaviour in pigs with intact tails and different enrichment backgrounds in two housing systems. Anim. Sci, 80, 289–298. [Google Scholar]
  110. Van Putten G and Van de Burgwal J, 1990. Vulva biting in group‐housed sows: preliminary report. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 26, 181–186. [Google Scholar]
  111. Van Veen H, Vcllenga L and Hoogerbrugge A, 1985. Mortality, morbidity, and external injuries in piglets housed in two different housing systems: II. Rearing period of weaned piglets (age 5.5–10 weeks). Veterinary Quarterly, 7, 127–132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Vapnik V, 2000. The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer, 315pp. [Google Scholar]
  113. Velarde A and Geers R, 2007. On farm monitoring of pig welfare. Wageningen Academic Pub, 208pp. [Google Scholar]
  114. Weerd HA, Docking CM, Day JE, Breuer K and Edwards SA, 2006. Effects of species‐relevant environmental enrichment on the behaviour and productivity of finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 99, 230–247. [Google Scholar]
  115. Welfare Quality , 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, the Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  116. Westin R, Holmgren N, Mattsson B and Algers B, 2013. Throughput capacity of large quantities of chopped straw in partly slatted farrowing pens for loose housed sows. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A‐Animal Science, 63, 18–27. [Google Scholar]
  117. Whittaker X, Spoolder H, Edwards S, Lawrence A and Corning S, 1998. The influence of dietary fibre and the provision of straw on the development of stereotypic behaviour in food restricted pregnant sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 61, 89–102. [Google Scholar]
  118. Whittaker X, Edwards S, Spoolder H, Lawrence A and Corning S, 1999. Effects of straw bedding and high fibre diets on the behaviour of floor fed group‐housed sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 63, 25–39. [Google Scholar]
  119. Yun J, Swan K‐M, Vienola K, Farmer C, Oliviero C, Peltoniemi O and Valros A, 2013. Nest‐building in sows: Effects of farrowing housing on hormonal modulation of maternal characteristics. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 148, 77–84. [Google Scholar]
  120. Yun J, Swan K, Vienola K, Kim Y, Oliviero C, Peltoniemi O and Valros A, 2014. Farrowing environment has an impact on sow metabolic status and piglet colostrum intake in early lactation. Livestock Science, 163, 120–125. [Google Scholar]

Articles from EFSA Journal are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES