IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v10y2020i6p223-d370204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Animal Welfare and Production Challenges Associated with Pasture Pig Systems: A Review

Author

Listed:
  • Silvana Pietrosemoli

    (Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7621, USA
    Departamento de Producción Agraria, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Agronómica, Alimentaria y de Biosistemas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

  • Clara Tang

    (Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7612, USA)

Abstract

A review of published literature was conducted to identify pasture pig production system features that pose risks to animal welfare, and to develop recommendations aimed at improving the wellbeing of the animals managed in those systems. Pasture pig production systems present specific challenges to animal welfare that are inherent to the nature of these systems where producers have little room to make improvements. However, these systems present other challenges that could be reduced with a carefully designed system, by adopting appropriate management strategies and by avoiding management practices that are likely to negatively affect animal wellbeing. In pasture pig production systems, exposure to extreme temperatures, potential contact with wildlife and pathogens (especially parasites), vulnerability to predators, risk of malnutrition, pre-weaning piglet mortality, complexity of processes for monitoring and treating sick animals, and for cleaning and disinfection of facilities and equipment are among the main threats to animal welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Silvana Pietrosemoli & Clara Tang, 2020. "Animal Welfare and Production Challenges Associated with Pasture Pig Systems: A Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-34, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:10:y:2020:i:6:p:223-:d:370204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/6/223/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/6/223/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin Kress & Mandes Verhaagh, 2019. "The Economic Impact of German Pig Carcass Pricing Systems and Risk Scenarios for Boar Taint on the Profitability of Pork Production with Immunocastrates and Boars," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-11, September.
    2. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "A calibrated auction-conjoint valuation method: Valuing pork and eggs produced under differing animal welfare conditions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 80-94, July.
    3. Lilith Schrey & Nicole Kemper & Michaela Fels, 2019. "Behaviour and Skin Injuries of Piglets Originating from a Novel Group Farrowing System Before and After Weaning," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-14, May.
    4. Jan Tind Sørensen & Lars Schrader, 2019. "Labelling as a Tool for Improving Animal Welfare—The Pig Case," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-13, June.
    5. Krista Marie McLennan, 2018. "Why Pain Is Still a Welfare Issue for Farm Animals, and How Facial Expression Could Be the Answer," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, August.
    6. Carolina Liljenstolpe, 2008. "Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 67-84.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kristína Tonhauzer & Lenka Zetochová & Janka Szemesová, 2023. "The Emission from Rabbits Breeding in Slovakia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-16, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marescotti, Maria Elena & Caputo, Vincenzina & Demartini, Eugenio & Gaviglio, Anna, 2020. "Consumer preferences for wild game cured meat label: do attitudes towards animal welfare matter?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(4), June.
    2. Tully, Stephanie M. & Winer, Russell S., 2014. "The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 255-274.
    3. Patterson, Jacinta & Mugera, Amin & Burton, Michael, 2015. "Consumer Preferences for Welfare Friendly Production Methods: The Case of Chicken Production in Western Australia," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202567, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Inken Christoph-Schulz & Anja-Karolina Rovers, 2020. "German Citizens’ Perception of Fattening Pig Husbandry—Evidence from a Mixed Methods Approach," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    5. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    6. Zamani, Omid & Chibanda, Craig & Pelikan, Janine, 2021. "Investigating Alternative Poultry Trade Policies in the Context of African Countries: Evidence from Ghana," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315173, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Laura Mørch Andersen, 2011. "Animal Welfare and Eggs – Cheap Talk or Money on the Counter?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 565-584, September.
    8. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    9. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Läpple, Doris & Osawe, Osayanmon Wellington, 2022. "Animal Welfare, Altruism and Policy Support," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321212, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    11. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    12. Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Salamon, Petra & Weible, Daniela, 2015. "What is the benefit of organically-reared dairy cattle? Societal perception towards conventional and organic dairy farming," 2015 International European Forum (144th EAAE Seminar), February 9-13, 2015, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 206236, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    13. Lombardini, Chiara & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Kulmala, Soile & Lindroos, Marko, 2011. "Is there a Finnish Animal Welfare Kuznets Curve?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114379, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Disdier, Anne-Célia & Marette, Stéphan & Millet, Guy, 2013. "Are consumers concerned about palm oil? Evidence from a lab experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 180-189.
    15. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    16. Chen, Junhong & Ortega, David L. & Wang, Hong Holly, 2018. "Does Animal Welfare Matter to Consumers in Emerging Countries? Evidence from China," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274069, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Naald, Brian Vander & Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2011. "Willingness to pay for other species' well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1325-1335, May.
    18. Gulati, Kajal & Ward, Patrick & Lybbert, Travis & Spielman, David, 2016. "Intrahousehold valuation, preference heterogeneity, and demand of an agricultural technology in Bihar, India," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236280, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    20. Mariel, Petr & Ayala, Amaya de & Hoyos, David & Abdullah, Sabah, 2013. "Selecting random parameters in discrete choice experiment for environmental valuation: A simulation experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 44-57.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:10:y:2020:i:6:p:223-:d:370204. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.