Estimates of Water Consumption of Growing Pigs under Practical Conditions Based on Climate and Performance Data.

The water consumption of fattening pigs was recorded under practical conditions and compared with calculated water consumption. The experiment was carried out in the summer of 2020 with 79 fattening pigs. Data loggers were used to record the climate data, such as temperature and relative humidity. These data were used to calculate the temperature-humidity index (THI). It was found that there were sometimes considerable discrepancies between the measured and the calculated water consumption. One possible reason for this discrepancy could be the age of the existing water requirement equations, as in recent decades there has been a clear breeding development and thus a strong increase in pig performance. Based on these deviations, six new water consumption equations were established, which considered the variables body weight (BW), temperature, THI and feed consumption. It was found that the THI and BW should be included in one equation as predictor variables and the evaluation also showed good results. Its use, in practice, should also be considered. Overall, it became apparent that there is still a need for further research to make water consumption equations more precise. This would require a larger database.

Does the Implementation of an Animal Welfare Programme on a Farm Yield a Demonstrable Improvement in Fattening Pig Welfare?

In the course of social criticism of fattening pig farming, an animal welfare programme called "Initiative Animal Welfare" (ITW) was founded to increase animal welfare in pig farming in Germany. Furthermore, there is a legal obligation to record animal welfare parameters as a self-monitoring measure. The "German Association for Technology and Structures in Agriculture" published a guideline on the applicable animal welfare criteria. This guide formed the basis of this study's data collection. The aim was to apply the animal welfare parameters on farms by comparing the results between farms participating in ITW with those not participating. A cumulative score was calculated by evaluating the collected data. In addition, the relative risk was calculated in order to estimate the risk of finding a negative expression of a parameter. Our data show that ITW farms did not perform significantly better than the farms without ITW in terms of both the cumulative score and the relative risk. Overall, it must be considered that in both farm variants the occurrence of negative evaluations was very rare and the visited farms thus certainly can be considered to be well-managed farms. Climate parameters were recorded in each compartment and showed no significant differences in most cases.