The "Real Welfare" scheme: Identification of risk and protective factors for welfare outcomes in commercial pig farms in the UK.

From 2013-2016, animal-based measures were collected as part of the "Real Welfare" protocol adopted by the Red Tractor Pigs Assurance Scheme to assess the welfare in finisher pig herds in the UK. Trained veterinarians from 89 veterinary practices assessed 112,241 pens (hospital pens excluded) from 1928 farms using a multistage sampling protocol, and collected data about pig welfare, management and farm environment. Multivariable analyses were conducted for five main welfare outcomes: lameness, pigs requiring hospitalization, severe tail lesions, severe body marks and enrichment use ratio (number of active pigs interacting with the enrichment/total number of active pigs). Additionally, a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) was conducted to analyse systematic patterns of variations of environmental characteristics and improve understanding of the connection between welfare outcomes and environment. The prevalence of the four welfare outcomes and the mean enrichment use ratio differed between pen types (P<0.05), with a higher mean prevalence of lame pigs (0.39%) but lower mean prevalence of pigs requiring hospitalization (0.07%), severe tail lesions (0.07%) and severe body marks (0.12%) in outdoor pens. In&outdoor pens had the highest mean prevalence of the measured outcomes (P<0.05). After adjusting for the farm, date and pen type, lameness, pigs requiring hospitalization and severe tail lesions were less prevalent in large pens (P<0.01), pens with substrates (P≤0.05) and pens fed with meal (P≤0.05), while enrichment use ratio was higher with substrates (P<0.001). Moreover, pigs requiring hospitalization and severe body marks were more prevalent in pens with powered ventilation (P<0.05). On the MCA graph, higher prevalences of lameness and pigs requiring hospitalization (>1, 5 and 10%) were located in the same direction as lower enrichment use ratio, liquid feed, trough feeding, floor feeding, restricted feed and in&outdoor pens. Results suggested that higher prevalences were not specifically connected to a particular system, but that all welfare outcomes were connected to several inappropriate features in the environment. This study highlights individual risk factors which can be considered to improve animal welfare, but also indicates the need to consider the environment as a whole because of potential factor combinations and confounds. Understanding of these requires a large scale database, which can be drawn from assessments carried out as part of farm assurance and support evidence-based advice and future formulation of standards for good practice.