the effect of housing on animal health Flashcards

1
Q

Describe the effect of housing on animal health

A

Poor housing can cause sickness, injury, unneeded stress, poor production and poor welfare

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

effect of housing on Calf health

A

during summer months calves may experience heat stress due to inap- propriate shade.

Frequen- cies of calves with signs of respiratory disease, such as nasal discharge and coughing, were higher in the wire hutches compared with the hous- ing system adapted well to the specific environmental conditions

The lower frequency of calves with abnormal health scores and receiving veterinary treatment in housing system adapted well to the specific environmental conditions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

effect of housing on Equine health

A

tie-stall/box horses tended to have more small skin lesions at the saddling and girth sites, and in commissures of the lips. Tie-stall/box horses had had more respiratory problems and colic, possibly because of not having similar access to outdoor movement and water as group-housed horses.

group housing systems is that they aim to enable the horses to move about more freely and interact more naturally with conspecifics, thus improving horse welfare.

respiratory airway problems to be more common in horses housed in tie-stalls/boxes. This could potentially be connected to the fact that these horses were found to spend more than twice as long indoors compared with group-housed horses.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

effect of housing on Pig health

A

Forty-seven ‘‘animal friendly’’ farms meeting Swiss criteria and participating in a Swiss subsidy program and 37 farms using traditional housing with slatted floors were evaluated in an epidemiological field study.

pigs in the weight group of 90–100 kg on ‘‘animal friendly’’ farms had a lower prevalence of abnormalities compared to pigs on traditional farms. For example, 2.8% (S.D. = 7.1) of pigs on ‘‘animal friendly’’ farms had the tip or a section of tail missing compared to 21.9% (S.D. = 28.6) of pigs on traditional farms.

With the exception of sunburn, group level indicators on ‘‘animal friendly’’ farms had a lower prevalence than on traditional farms. As Table 2 shows, there were statistical differences between type of housing for the recumbency, dog sitting, injury, clean legs, ill- thrift, shortened tail and sunburn indicators in 100 kg pigs. Recumbent or seriously injured pigs were rare overall. In traditional farms more finisher pigs were recumbent or seriously injured than in ‘‘animal friendly’’ farms.

A higher prevalence of skin abnormalities at the snout found in pigs on traditional housing systems compared to on ‘‘animal friendly’’ housing systems indicate discomfort or restricted welfare due to ‘‘pseudo-digging’’ as postulated by Bo ̈hmer and Hoy (1993). Skin abnormalities at the joints may be due to lying on hard surfaces in the absence of bedding (Lahrmann et al., 2003; Busato et al., 2000; Mayer, 1999). However, there were also ‘‘animal friendly’’ farms with occurrence of skin abnormalities at the joints. This indicates that not only straw bedding but also other factors, e.g. the type and characters of floor, may have an influence on skin abnormalities

Tail biting was more frequent in traditional housing systems than in ‘‘animal friendly’’ housing systems. Tail biting indicates accumulation of several stress factors in a low- stimulus environment, whereby excitability of pigs is increased and exploration behaviour enhanced (Stolba and Woodgush, 1981). Several authors describe positive effects on pig behaviour when there is more space per pig, better climate and more behavioural diversions

The overall health status of finishing pigs on participating farms was high. It could be shown that straw bedding and daily access to outdoor facilities improved health and welfare of pigs. Additionally, a method for the on-farm assessment of health and welfare of pigs was developed which proved practical and useful.
Potential disadvantages of ‘‘animal friendly’’ housing such as sunburn or intestinal parasite infestation were rare. Overall, animal-friendly housing systems had positive effects on indicators of health and welfare of finishing pigs in Switzerland.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly