Development of an index for the assessment of welfare of finishing pigs from farm to slaughter based on expert opinion

DISubNet: Depthwise Separable Inception Subnetwork for Pig Treatment Classification Using Thermal Data

Thermal imaging is increasingly used in poultry, swine, and dairy animal husbandry to detect disease and distress. In intensive pig production systems, early detection of health and welfare issues is crucial for timely intervention. Using thermal imaging for pig treatment classification can improve animal welfare and promote sustainable pig production. In this paper, we present a depthwise separable inception subnetwork (DISubNet), a lightweight model for classifying four pig treatments. Based on the modified model architecture, we propose two DISubNet versions: DISubNetV1 and DISubNetV2. Our proposed models are compared to other deep learning models commonly employed for image classification. The thermal dataset captured by a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) camera is used to train these models. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed models for thermal images of various pig treatments outperform other models. In addition, both proposed models achieve approximately 99.96–99.98% classification accuracy with fewer parameters.

Impact of Procedures and Human-Animal Interactions during Transport and Slaughter on Animal Welfare of Pigs: A Systematic Literature Review

Animal welfare is a high social and political priority and is enshrined in European and national legislation. This systematic literature review (funded by the German Ministry of Food and Agriculture; grant no. 2817806A18) was conducted to find animal and management-based indicators that could be influenced by changes in pig handling and management procedures on the day of slaughter and, therefore, will directly result in improved animal welfare. For this systematic literature review, following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a structured literature search using the databases PubMed^®, Web of Science^TM, and LIVIVO with set search terms and their combinations in German and English. Only peer-reviewed original articles from European countries from 2009 until 2022 that dealt with welfare during transport and/or slaughter of fattening pigs and offered potential measurable indicators on the basis of the animal or management, and either directly or indirectly recommended handling practices were included. We used the literature management system EndNote^TM, and after duplicate removal, a total of 1099 records were found for further analysis. After analysis and discussion in the review team, which consisted of three experts in total, 105 articles underwent full-text screening. Finally, 39 articles were included in the results for this systematic literature review. According to this systematic literature review, the following procedures have a positive impact on the animal welfare of pigs on the day of slaughter. Calm-rather than rough-handling of pigs was the most influential factor. This can be achieved by using animal-friendly driving aids. Loud noise should be avoided in general or reduced as far as possible. Transport time is not always influenceable, but shorter transport duration with stocking density as stated by the European regulations as a maximum will reduce stress in pigs. Our review showed that there are differing scientific results about lairage duration, although this should be set in relation to prior stress and transport time. Knowledge of good stunning parameters, such as gas concentration, exposure time to the gas, recommended amperage, and current flow duration is essential. If electrical stunning is performed, the correct attachment of electrodes is crucial. The control of stunning effectiveness is extremely important to avoid suffering and pain, with the proviso that it is assessed on the basis of multiple parameters. The corneal reflex, regular gasping, and the up-righting reflex could be assessed together. Certificates of competence and continuing educational programmes for the personnel form the basis of animal-friendly handling and a stressless slaughter routine. It can be assumed that the results of this systematic literature review reflect the state of current research of pig welfare during transport and slaughter in the European Union, even though it must be assumed that not all relevant points were covered by the review, which can be seen as a limitation at the same time because important non-European or older publications could not be included.

Characterizing candidate decompression rates for hypobaric hypoxic stunning of pigs. Part 1: Reflexive behavior and physiological responses

Alternatives to carbon dioxide (CO2) stunning for the commercial slaughter of pigs are urgently needed because there is robust evidence that exposing pigs to hypercapnic environments is associated with pain, fear, and distress. Hypobaric hypoxia (via gradual decompression, also known as Low Atmospheric Pressure Stunning or LAPS) has been validated in poultry as a humane option, but its potential to improve the welfare of pigs at slaughter is unknown. We investigated the potential of hypobaric hypoxia to reliably elicit a non-recovery state in anesthetized weaner-grower pigs within a commercially viable timeframe. We determined the effect of candidate decompression rates (40, 60, 80, 100 ms−1, at two cycle durations 480 s and 720 s) on a range of physiological and reflexive behavioral indicators of hypoxia and death. We found that the decompression rates tested caused a 100% death rate. As expected, the decompression rate had overarching effects on behavioral and physiological markers of hypoxia and death, with faster decompression rates resulting in shorter latencies to cardiac arrest and cessation of breathing. We observed a higher proportion of pigs displaying repeated and prolonged whole-body movements (likely indicative of convulsive activity) at higher frequencies when we applied the slowest decompression rate (40 ms−1) compared to all other rates. Since these responses may impact the carcass and meat quality, the slower rate of decompression (40 ms−1) should be excluded as a candidate decompression rate. Furthermore, given the marginal effects of decompression rate on physiological indicators of death and reflexive behavioral parameters, we also recommend that the fastest rate tested (100 ms−1) is excluded in further study on conscious pigs (to prevent conscious animals from being exposed to unnecessary faster decompression rates which may compromise animal welfare). This work represents a necessary proof of principle step and confirms the potential of gradual decompression for stunning purposes in pigs. Importantly, however, the data presented provide no information on the welfare outcomes associated with decompression in conscious pigs. Subsequent work should focus on the comprehensive welfare assessment of intermediate decompression rates to determine the potential of hypobaric hypoxia to provide a humane stunning method for pigs.

Characterizing candidate decompression rates for hypobaric hypoxic stunning of pigs. Part 2: Pathological consequences

Pigs are commonly stunned pre-slaughter by exposure to carbon dioxide (CO₂), but this approach is associated with significant welfare concerns. Hypobaric hypoxia, achieved with gradual decompression (also known as Low Atmospheric Pressure Stunning or LAPS) may be an alternative, allowing the retention of welfare friendly handling approaches and group stunning. Although validated in poultry, the feasibility and welfare consequences of gradual decompression for pigs are unknown. Here, we characterize pathological changes in 60 pigs resulting from exposure to a range of candidate decompression curves (ranging from 40 to 100 ms⁻¹ ascent equivalent, with two cycle durations 480 and 720 s). To protect welfare, we worked on unconscious, terminally anesthetized pigs which were subject to detailed post-mortem examinations by a specialized porcine veterinary pathologist. All pigs were killed as a result of exposure to decompression, irrespective of cycle rate or length. Pigs showed no external injuries during ante-mortem inspections. Exposing pigs to decompression and the unavoidable subsequent recompression resulted in generalized congestion of the carcass, organs and body cavities including the ears, oral cavity, conjunctivae and sclera, mucosa of other external orifices (anus and vulva), nasal planum, nasal cavities including nasal conchae, frontal sinuses, cranium, meninges, brain, larynx, trachea, lungs, heart, parietal pleura of the thoracic cavity, peritoneum of the abdominal cavity, stomach, small intestine, caecum, colon, liver, spleen and kidneys and representative joint cavities in the limbs (stifles and elbows). Various severities of hemorrhage were observed in the conjunctivae and sclera, mucosa of other external orifices (anus and vulva), nasal cavities including nasal conchae, frontal sinuses, cranium, meninges, brain, larynx, tracheal lumen, lungs, parietal pleura of the thoracic cavity, liver, spleen and kidneys and representative joint cavities in the limbs (stifles and elbows). In general, faster decompression rates produced higher scores, but in the conjunctivae, sclera and kidneys, faster decompression rates were associated with marginally lower congestion scores. There was considerable individual variation in pathological scores across all body regions. The congestion and hemorrhage observed could translate into welfare harms in conscious pigs undergoing this type of stunning, depending when in the cycle the damage is occurring, but no welfare related conclusions can be drawn from the responses of unconscious pigs. Since recompression is always required, its effects cannot be separated from decompression, however cessation of cardiac activity several minutes before recompression should have eliminated any haemodynamic effects relating to cardiac function and blood pressure. This study represents the first systematic attempt to identify candidate rate profiles to underpin future explorations of decompression as a stunning method for pigs. These pathological findings also inform discussions about the likely carcass quality implications of this novel stunning method.

Welfare of pigs at slaughter

The killing of pigs for human consumption (slaughtering) can take place in a slaughterhouse or on farm. The processes of slaughtering that were assessed for welfare, from the arrival of pigs until their death, were grouped into three main phases: pre-stunning (including arrival, unloading from the truck, lairage, handling and moving of pigs); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding. Stunning methods were grouped into three categories: electrical, controlled atmosphere and mechanical. Twelve welfare consequences the pigs can be exposed to during slaughter were identified: heat stress, cold stress, fatigue, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, impeded movement, restriction of movements, resting problem, negative social behaviour, pain, fear and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures were described. In total, 30 welfare hazards that could occur during slaughter were identified and characterised, most of them related to stunning and bleeding. Staff were identified as the origin of 29 hazards, which were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. Corrective and preventive measures for these hazards were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified, and management was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins and preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed.

'Would it sell more pork?' Pig farmers' perceptions of Real Welfare, the welfare outcome component of their farm assurance scheme

In the UK, the pig industry is leading the way in the adoption of welfare outcome measures as part of their farm assurance scheme. The welfare outcome assessment (WOA), known as Real Welfare, is conducted by the farmers' own veterinary surgeon. For the first time, this has allowed the pig industry to evaluate welfare by directly assessing the animal itself and to document the welfare of the UK pig industry as a whole. Farmer perspectives of the addition of a welfare outcome assessment to their farm assurance scheme have yet to be explored. Here, we investigate how the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol has been perceived by the farmers involved, what value it has (if any), whether any practical changes on farm have been a direct consequence of Real Welfare and ultimately whether they consider that the welfare of their pigs has been improved by the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol. Semi-structured interviews with 15 English pig farmers were conducted to explore their perceptions and experiences of the Real Welfare process. Our findings fall into three key areas: the lived experience of Real Welfare, on-farm changes resulting from Real Welfare and suggested improvements to the Real Welfare process as it currently stands. In all the three areas, the value farmers placed on the addition of WOA appeared to reflect their veterinary surgeon's attitude towards the Real Welfare protocol. If the vet was engaged in the process and actively included the farmer, for example through discussion of their findings, the farmers interviewed had a greater appreciation of the benefits of Real Welfare themselves. It is recommended that future similar schemes should work with veterinary surgeons to ensure their understanding and engagement with the process, as well as identifying and promoting how the scheme will practically benefit individual farmers rather than assuming that they will be motivated to engage for the good of the industry alone. Retailers should be encouraged to use Real Welfare as a marketing tool for pig products to enhance the perceived commercial value of this protocol to farmers.

Influence of Professional Affiliation on Expert's View on Welfare Measures

The present study seeks to investigate the influence of expert affiliation in the weighing procedures within animal welfare assessments. Experts are often gathered with different backgrounds with differing approaches to animal welfare posing a potential pitfall if affiliation groups are not balanced in numbers of experts. At two time points (2012 and 2016), dairy cattle and swine experts from four different stakeholder groups, namely researchers (RES), production advisors (CONS), practicing veterinarians (VET) and animal welfare control officers (AWC) were asked to weigh eight different welfare criteria: Hunger, Thirst, Resting comfort, Ease of movement, Injuries, Disease, Human-animal bond and Emotional state. A total of 54 dairy cattle experts (RES = 15%, CONS = 22%, VET = 35%, AWC = 28%) and 34 swine experts (RES = 24%, CONS = 35%, AWC = 41%) participated. Between-and within-group differences in the prioritization of criteria were assessed. AWC cattle experts differed consistently from the other cattle expert groups but only significantly for the criteria Hunger (p = 0.04), and tendencies towards significance within the criteria Thirst (p = 0.06). No significant differences were found between expert groups among swine experts. Inter-expert differences were more pronounced for both species. The results highlight the challenges of using expert weightings in aggregated welfare assessment models, as the choice of expert affiliation may play a confounding role in the final aggregation due to different prioritization of criteria.