Document type: scientific article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science
Authors: Jachens M, Herbrandt S, Kemper N, and Fels M
Abstract in French (translation): It’s All a Matter of Perspective: A Comparison of Scientific Experts’ and Pig Farmers’ Views on Best Practices for Pig Welfare
Background: animal welfare is an important issue in pig farming, and numerous resources offer recommendations aimed at improving it. These resources are often based on scientific knowledge, while farmers’ practical experiences are rarely taken into account. This study aimed to address this gap in research by comparing the perceptions of scientific experts and farmers regarding best practices for improving the welfare of finishing pigs on the farm. Candidate best practices aimed at preventing and reducing tail and ear lesions, skin lesions, and bursitis were identified through a literature review and incorporated into two online surveys for scientific experts and farmers. Participants could rate these measures on a scale ranging from 0% (inappropriate) to 100% (very appropriate). Responses from the two groups were compared using a mixed-effects linear regression model. Results: A total of 47 scientific experts and 80 pig farmers participated in the surveys. Almost all of the proposed “best practices” received higher ratings from scientific experts than from farmers. Nevertheless, the highest- and lowest-rated measures were similar for both groups, and many measures showed no significant difference between farmers and scientific experts (p ≥ 0.05). Among the highest-rated candidate best practices were “A good climate in the pig barns / good air quality” (median for experts: 84.0% vs. median for farmers: 72.0%, p = 1.000) as well as “Good health” (81.5% vs. 75.0%; p = 1.000) for tail and ear lesions and “as few groupings/mixing of animals on the farm as possible” (88.0% vs. 71.0%, p = 0.006) for skin lesions. Candidate best practices that are labor-intensive and costly, such as “reducing stocking density” (71.5% vs. 40.0%, p ≤ 0.001) and “sufficient feeding space per pig” (80.0% vs. 46.0%; p ≤ 0.001), were rated significantly lower by farmers than by scientific experts. With regard to bursitis, all proposed measures related to floor conditions showed a significant difference between the two groups (p ≤ 0.05), with farmers again assigning lower ratings to all candidate “best practices” than scientific experts. Conclusion: While scientific experts favored most of the measures, farmers gave them lower scores, which may be explained by their experience with practical constraints such as feasibility, workload, and costs. The ranking of the candidate “best practices,” however, was similar in both groups, indicating a certain degree of consensus. To promote the implementation of animal welfare measures on farms, it therefore seems important to take farmers’ opinions and concerns into account and provide them with appropriate support.
Preview: Background: Animal welfare presents an important topic in pig farming, with numerous resources offering recommendations on welfare improvements. These resources are often based on scientific knowledge, while practical experiences from farmers are rarely considered. This study aimed to bridge this gap in research by comparing scientific experts’ and farmers’ perceptions of Best Practices to improve on-farm welfare of fattening pigs. Candidate Best Practices to prevent and reduce tail and ear lesions, skin lesions and bursitis were identified in a literature review and integrated into two online surveys aimed at scientific experts and farmers. Participants could evaluate these measures on a scale from 0% (unsuitable) to 100% (very suitable). Answers were compared between both groups using a mixed linear regression model. Results: Overall, 47 scientific experts and 80 pig farmers participated in the surveys. Nearly all proposed Best Practices received a higher rating from scientific experts than from farmers. Nevertheless, the highest and lowest rated measures were similar for both groups and numerous measures did not show a significant difference between farmers and scientific experts (p ≥ 0.05). Top-rated candidate Best Practices included “Good barn climate/air quality” (median experts: 84.0% vs. median farmers: 72.0%, p = 1.000) as well as “Good health status” (81.5% vs. 75.0%; p = 1.000) for tail and ear lesions and “As little regrouping/mixing of animals on farm as possible” (88.0% vs. 71.0%, p = 0.006) for skin lesions. Labor and cost-intensive candidate Best Practices such as “Lowering stocking density” (71.5% vs. 40.0%, p ≤ 0.001) and “Enough feeding space per pig” (80.0% vs. 46.0%; p ≤ 0.001) were scored significantly lower by farmers than by scientific experts. For bursitis, all proposed measures concerning floor condition showed a significant difference between the two groups (p ≤ 0.05), with farmers again scoring all candidate Best Practices lower than scientific experts. Conclusion: While scientific experts favored most measures, farmers gave lower scores, potentially due to their experience with practical constraints such as feasibility, workload and costs. The ranking of candidate Best Practices, however, was similar in both groups, indicating a certain consensus. To promote the implementation of animal welfare measures on farms, it therefore seems important to consider farmers’ opinions and concerns and provide them with appropriate support.
