Ear, tail and skin lesions vary according to different production flows in a farrow-to-finish pig farm

Alessia Diana; Laura Ann Boyle; Edgar García Manzanilla; Finola Catherine Leonard; Julia Adriana Calderón Díaz

doi:10.1186/s40813-019-0126-9

Ear, tail and skin lesions vary according to different production flows in a farrow-to-finish pig farm

Porcine Health Manag. 2019 Jul 15:5:19. doi: 10.1186/s40813-019-0126-9. eCollection 2019.

Authors

Alessia Diana^{1

2}, Laura Ann Boyle¹, Edgar García Manzanilla^{1

2}, Finola Catherine Leonard², Julia Adriana Calderón Díaz¹

Affiliations

¹ Pig Development Department, Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork Ireland.
² 2School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.

Abstract

Background: Pig performance and risk of disease are associated with production flow. Given the link between health and welfare, it is likely that animal welfare indicators are also associated with production flow. This study investigated the association between production flow and tail, ear and skin lesions on a farm with a purported 'all-in/all-out' policy. This was an observational study whereby pigs were managed according to routine farm practice. A total of 1,016 pigs born within 1 week from the same batch were followed through the production stages and the presence or absence of welfare indicators was recorded at 4, 7, 9, 12, 16 and 24 weeks of age. Three production flows were retrospectively identified: flow 1 = 'normal' pigs that advanced through the production stages together 'on time', flow 2 = pigs delayed from advancing from the 1^st to the 2^nd nursery stage by 1 week and flow 3 = pigs delayed from advancing through the production stages by > 1 week. A nested case control design was applied by matching pigs by sow parity, number of born alive and birth weight.

Results: The presence of ear lesions was 4.5 less likely in pigs in flow 2 and 2.9 times less likely in pigs in flow 3 (P < 0.001) compared to pigs in flow 1. Pigs in flow 3 were 2.2 more likely to have tail and 1.6 times more likely to have ear lesions (P < 0.001) compared to pigs in flow 2. Pigs in flow 2 were less likely to have tail lesions compared with pigs in flow 1 (P < 0.05). Differences between production flows for the risk of skin lesions varied according to age (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: All production flows were associated with a high risk of lesions which raises concerns for pig welfare. However, risks for ear, tail and skin lesions varied according to each production flow likely due to the specific management practices inherent to each flow. Results from this study could be used to modify existing management practices, thus leading to improvements in animal welfare and possibly performance in intensive pig systems.

Keywords: All-in all-out; Lesions; Management; Production flow; Swine; Welfare.