Tracey Jones, Oxford University.
The Food Animal Initiative
FAI was founded in 1998 by professional agriculturists and veterinarians.
They are based at The University Farm, Oxford, and operate a commercial 420 hectare mixed farm of sheep, finishing beef cattle, suckler beef cows, and free-range broiler chickens, laying hens, and turkeys, semi-extensive pigs, organic arable and permanent pasture/parkland.
There are four directors:
Roland Bonney manages FAI communications and marketing and has a background in arable, sheep & cattle enterprises.
Ruth Layton overseas all activities and research on the farm; for the last 9 years she has worked exclusively in the animal welfare arena predominantly advising retailers, and sits on the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC).
Malcolm Pye manages the company finance and business development, he was a senior manager in the broiler industry where he instigated pioneering work to implement solutions to problems highlighted by FAWC 1992.
Paul Cook heads the RL consultancy operation in Europe, Asia and South America, and develops financial models for high welfare systems using FAI data; previously he had extensive senior technical roles in the poultry industry.
FAI work towards the development of sustainable farming systems which provide for and respect the needs of animals, people, and the environment, within an evolving framework of consumer ethics.
This is achieved through the implementation of scientific knowledge particularly related to animal behaviour; incorporation of less intense farming practices, particularly related to housing, genetics, feed, and routine mutilations, and the solution of practical problems inherently encountered in such systems.
FAI has excellent links with academic institutions, schools, animal welfare organisations, industry, and consumers.
This allows for collaborative research, rapid dissemination of information and education for all.
The work of FAI is demonstrated here through their ‘Forest Floor Pig System'.
The forest floor pig system - Integrated environmental enrichment
Background:
Pigs have a high exploratory behaviour pattern, which is built around the need to gather many different types of food and nest materials, and to create wallows etc.
Pigs like sweet foods with high moisture contents (e.g. Kennedy and Baldwin 1972) and complex structures.
In the wild they spend 85% of their time exploring and rooting (Briedermann 1971) and more than 50% rooting and grazing in semi-natural environments where their metabolic needs are provided in the form of concentrate food (Stolba and Woodgush 1989).
Pigs in intensive systems spend the majority of their time inactive (up to 80% depending on the system) and redirect their rooting and oral manipulative behaviour.
This is towards to the fixtures & fitting of the pen, particularly in feed restricted pregnant sows (Spoolder et al 1995), and to pen mates, via vulva biting in group housed sows (e.g. Rizvi et al 2000) and belly nosing and tail biting in growing pigs (e.g. Beattie et al 1996, Hunter et al 1999).
The benefits of straw to farmed pigs is well recognised (see review by Tuyttens 2005).
Its provision assists with the reduction of tail biting (e.g. Hunter et al 2001, Moinard et al 2003), and allows for nest building in pre-parturient sows (Arey 1997).
It does not however, compensate for lack of bulk in diets, particularly for sows (Arey 1993), nor fully satisfies the oral stimulation needs of pigs (Olsen et al 2000, Olsen et al 2002); neither is it the preferred substrate of pigs (Beattie et al 1998, van de Weerd et al 2003).
System design:
The system utilises existing low cost, naturally ventilated open sided barns.
The key and unique feature is the provision of integrated environmental and nutritional enrichments, all of which have biological relevance to the pig.
FAI provide their pigs with three manipulative materials of increasing complexity and nutritive value, each with specific properties and contributions to pig behaviour and welfare.
1. Straw bedding provides physical and thermal comfort (in cooler conditions) and is used as a rooting and nest building substrate.
2. Woodchip bark provides thermal comfort in warm conditions, and is used to make wallows next to the drinkers and for oral manipulation. It reduces the volume of straw used per pen, so reducing the cost to the system. The bark is currently provided free of charge.
3. Silage based bulky feed increases the time spent feeding, provides physical satiety and improves gut health. Piglets are weaned at 7 weeks of age, there is no mixing of unfamiliar weaned pigs and no teeth clipping or tail docking procedures.
The behavioural outcomes of the system are low aggression and no vice behaviour.
In the 4 years of operation there has been no single case of tail biting in growing pigs or vulva biting in group housed sows.
There is also evidence that the provision of woodchip bark significantly reduces belly nosing of pen mates over straw provision (Wingfield-Digby 2003).
Generous space allowances are provided (2m 2 per growing pig) and four functional areas are created in the pen (feeding, drinking/wallowing (activity), resting, and toilet areas).
The combination of straw and woodchip bark allows pigs to choose their own temperature and physical comfort according to their age and reproductive status.
Five hundred and thirty finished pigs have been produced through the system from spring 2003.
Weight at slaughter averaged 98kg (range 68-122) at 158 days (range 110-190) with an average growth rate of 0.62kg/d (range 0.48-0.7). Post-wean mortality for the whole period was 3.72%.
The potential for high welfare in this system is high.
Achieving a high welfare status depends on the management and husbandry of this system.
Husbandry and management – Family groups to dynamic sow groups and free-farrowing Background:
The key features addressed in the management system are dry sow housing, free-farrowing and a reduction in piglet mortality.
Initially a management system similar to the Thorstensson system in Sweden was adopted but altered this year to resemble that of outdoor systems in the UK, based on dynamic sow groups with individual farrowing and communal areas.
Pigs in a semi-naturalistic environment make their nest away from the family group, farrowing and nursing their young in privacy for the first couple of weeks before gradually integrating them with other family members (Stolba and Woodgush 1989).
Two systems developed in Sweden attempt to emulate this (Thorstensson and Ljingström) in the commercial environment, and operate at around 15% pre-weaning piglet mortality (Mattsson 1996).
The two most common commercial farrowing systems currently in use in the UK are the indoor crate and outdoor ark, they represent the two extremes of sow restraint and straw provision, and both perform well.
Average mortality rates of 12.2% and 9.9% were reported, in indoor and outdoor systems respectively (MLC, 2002).
There are however, severe welfare concerns over the use of farrowing crates, and alternatives have been investigated; mortality rates so far have been generally high (e.g Arey 1997, Marchant et al 2000, Marchant et al 2001, Jones et al 2003).
While piglet mortality is only one of a number of key measures of a system's success, it is crucial, as pigs from alternative systems sold into a niche welfare market at higher cost must demonstrate acceptable levels of piglet mortality, or any claim to improve welfare could be questioned.
The Family Group:
Initially FAI adopted a family group system whereby three groups of five Gloucester Old Spot, Duroc, or commercial Large White/Landrace sows were kept in stable groups.
They farrowed in a communal pen with open topped nest boxes and were moved to a communal lactation pen with their piglets at 10-14 days.
At weaning the sows were removed from this pen and taken back to their home pen.
There were 49 farrowings through this system from spring 2003 to spring 2005.
Pre-wean piglet mortality was high at 25% and only 5.4 piglets were reared per sow per litter.
Fundamentally, Duroc sows were not suited to this system as they were far too aggressive to piglets and the stockperson.
The farrowing system was not suited to the open barn buildings and open nest boxes which led to chilling of piglets, additionally the sows preferred the woodchip bark over the straw kennels during farrowing and high losses were sustained from damage by other sows.
Finally, it was difficult to see the adoption of this system in the UK, so the management system was altered.
Dynamic group:
A dynamic group of 30 Gloucester and Gloucester cross sows was set up in autumn 2004 whereby five sows enter and leave the group at given intervals.
A boar resides with the dry sows permanently, and is admitted to the communal lactation pen at 5 weeks to mate sows returning to oestrus.
Since spring 2005, sows farrow in individual insulated arks in a fairly barren outdoor environment – this is to encourage the sows inside the ark at farrowing where they are provided with ample straw for nest building and thermoregulation of the piglets.
They have complete privacy for at least the first 10 days after farrowing.
At 14 days five sows and their litters are brought together in a communal lactation pen, and again the sows are moved from the pen at weaning.
Reproductive efficiency is better in this system and there are fewer piglet losses. So far there have been 31 farrowings through this system.
On average 9.4 piglets were born alive per litter (range 3-15), and 8.8 weaned (range 0-14).
Average pre-wean mortality is 9.6% with an estimated 1.96 litters/sow/year and 17.6 weaned piglets /sow/year.
The current cost of production is promising at £1.22/kg.
Encouragingly, UK consumers will pay a premium for a product that has improved welfare, and this system is more likely to be adopted by UK farmers interested in alternative systems.
The FAI pig unit has been largely developmental to date addressing many of the welfare issues concerning pig farming today.
It has progressed to a point where its design and husbandry are relatively stable, where it can be expanded upon, and is now in need of descriptive research.
The Future:
A second dynamic group will be added to the system, allowing for expansion of the unit and sow-sizing within the groups.
Boar numbers in the dynamic groups will be increased to reduce the spread of farrowing, and half Gloucester crosses will be produced for use in outdoor systems.
Adoption of the forest-floor system for growing pigs could be rapid, but at this stage it is difficult to say when the semi-extensive management system for farrowing sows could be adopted.
WSPA Model Farm Project
FAI in partnership with the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) recently formed FAI International.
A partnership dedicated to establishing animal welfare as the fourth pillar of global sustainable agriculture alongside economic development, social justice, and environmental protection.
FAI international believe there are two opportunities to develop sustainable agriculture.
The first is to provide efficient alternative approaches to industrial agriculture using an animal centred approach; the second is to promote existing examples of sustainable agriculture with good welfare that are under threat of industrialisation.
Work will start in Latin America and Asia and move to sub-Saharan Africa by year 5.
They hope to provide conference facilities, international consultants, international seminars and education materials, and set up an international network to increase trade in high welfare farm animal products.
There is much science to draw upon when redesigning animal husbandry systems for improved welfare.
However, incorporation into commercial practice can be a slow process, often because of a lack of knowledge transfer, but more often than not due to a lack of proper financing and a reluctance to overcome the practical problems that inevitably arise with a move to more extensive systems.
FAI bridges the gap between science, industry and the consumer, and are unafraid to tackle problems head-on.
They play an essential role in the development of sustainable welfare systems, and have achieved much in their short years of practice – there is however much still to do.
References:
Arey, D.S. (1997) Behavioural observations of peri-parturient sows and the development of alternative farrowing accommodation. Animal Welfare 6: 217-229
Arey, D.S. 1993. The effect of bedding on the behaviour and welfare of pigs. Animal Welfare 2: 235-246.
Beattie, V.E., Walker, N., and Sneddon, I.A. 1998. Preference testing of substrates by growing pigs. Animal Welfare 7: 27-34.
Beattie, V.E., Walker, N., and Sneddon, I.A. 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.
Briedermann, L. 1971. Ermittlugen zur aktivitätsperiodik des mitteleuropäischen wild-schweines (Sus scrofa L.). Zoologische Garten, Leipzig 40: 302-327. (Cited by Olsen et al 2000). Farm Animal Welfare Council. 1992. report on the welfare of broiler chickens. 1A Page Street, London. SW1P 4PQ. PB 0910.
Hunter, E.J., Jones, T.A., Guise, H.J., Penny, R.H.C., Hoste, S. 1999. Tail biting in pigs. 1. The prevalence at six UK abattoirs and the relationship with docking, sex, and other carcase damage. The Pig Journal 43:18-32.
Hunter, E.J., Jones, T.A., Guise, H.J., Penny, R.H.C., Hoste, S. 2001. The relationship between tail biting in pigs, docking procedure and other management practices. The Veterinary Journal 161: 72-79
Jones, T.A., Hunter, E.J., Johnson, P., and Guise H.J. 2003. Non restraint farrowing systems: An industry approach. The Pig Journal 52. 124-133.
Kennedy, J. M. and Baldwin, B. A. 1972. Taste preference in pigs for nutritive and non-nutritive sweet solutions. Animal Behaviour 20: 706-718.
Marchant, J.N., Rudd, A.R., Mendl, M.T., Broom, D.M., Meredith, M.J., Corning, S. and Simmins, P.J. (2000) Timing and causes of piglet mortality in alternative and conventional farrowing systems. Veterinary Record 147: 209-214
Marchant, J.N., Broom, D.M and Corning, S. (2001) The influence of sow behaviour on piglet mortality due to crushing in an open farrowing system Mattsson, B. 1996. Digivande suggor i grupp. Slakteriförbundets FoU-grupp Svin. Report no. 9, p16. Meat and Livestock Commission (2002) Pig Yearbook. PO Box 44, Winterhill House, Milton Keynes, MK6 1AX. ISBN 0 904650 93 6
Moinard, C., Mendl, M., Nicol., C.J., Green, L.E. 2003. A case study of on-farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 333-335.
Olsen, A.W., Vestergaard, E.M., and Dybkaer, L. 2000. Roughage as additional rooting substrates for pigs.
Olsen, A.W., Simonsen, H.B., and Dybkaer, L 2002. Effect of roughage and shelter on selected behavioural indicators of welfare in pigs housed in a complex environment. Animal Welfare 11: 75-87. Rizvi, S. Nicol, C.J., and Green, L.E. 2000. A descriptive survey of the range of injuries sustained and farmers' attitudes to vulva biting in breeding sows in south-west England. Animal Welfare 9: 273-280.
Spoolder, H.A.M., Burbridge, J.A., Edwards, S.A., Simmins, P.H., Lawrence, A.B. 1995. Provision of straw as a foraging substrate reduces the development of exceesive chain bar manipulation in food restricted sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 249-262.
Stolba, A. and Woodgush, D.G.M. 1989. The behaviour of pigs in a semi-natural environment. Animal Production 48: 419-425.
Tuyttens, F. A. M. 2005. The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: A review. Applied Animal behaviour Science 92: 261-282.
van de Weerd, H.A., Docking, C.M., Day, J.E.L., Avery P.J., Edwards, S.A. 2003. A systematic approach towards developing environmental enrichment for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 101-118.
Wingfield-Digby, E. 2003 Is woodchip bedding a superior form of enrichment to straw bedding for the domestic pig, Sus scrofa? Undergraduate project, Oxford University.
