Animal welfare assessment in Slovenian conventional and alternative pig production systems

Main Article Content

Irena Golinar Oven
Jan Plut
Marina Štukelj


The aims of the study were to assess the welfare of pigs in Slovenian farms based on the international Welfare Quality® Assessment protocol for pigs and to gain a first insight into the welfare of pigs in Slovenian conventional and alternative farms. Pig welfare in Slovenia was assessed using the Welfare Quality® protocol on 10 alternative and 10 conventional farms. The size of the farm ranged from 11 to 1900 breeding sows in conventional farms and from three to 50 breeding sows in alternative farms. Using the protocol, the welfare of breeding sows, suckling piglets, growers, and fattening pigs was evaluated. The protocol consisted of four main principles of animal welfare (good feeding, good housing, good health, and appropriate behaviour), which were subdivided into 12 independent criteria. To evaluate each of these criteria, a set of measures was used. Overall animal welfare quality was calculated with a mathematical model incorporated into the protocol. Depending on the scores of the four principles, farms were classified as excellent, enhanced, acceptable or not classified. According to the Welfare Quality® protocol and statistical calculation, growers and fatteners in Slovenian conventional farms were rated as acceptable, while Slovenian alternative farms were rated as enhanced. We can conclude that the welfare of the growers and fatteners in our alternative farms is at a higher level than in conventional farms. The most critical evaluation points in sows were bursitis, wounds on the body, stereotypies, and fear of humans.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Golinar Oven, I., Plut, J., & Štukelj, M. (2021). Animal welfare assessment in Slovenian conventional and alternative pig production systems. Veterinarski Glasnik, 75(2), 162–174.
Full research article


Arellano P. E., Pijoan C., Jacobson L. D., Algers B. 1992. Stereotyped behaviour, social interactions and suckling pattern of pigs housed in groups or in single crates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 35(2): 157-166.

Azarpajouh S., Colpoys J. 2015. Understanding the effect of humans on pig behaviour. Pig Progress, 31(4): 22-23.

Blokhuis H. J., Veissier I., Miele M., Jones, B. 2010. The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A, 60(3): 129-140.

Botreau R., Veissier I., Butterworth A., Bracke M.B.M., Keeling L.J. 2007. Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 16: 225-228.

Brambell F. W. R. 1965. Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London UK, Cmnd. 2836.

Castrum consortium. 2016. Pig castration: methods of anaesthesia and analgesia for all pigs and other alternatives for pigs used in traditional products. https://doi:10.2875/057159

European Food Safety Authority. 2015. The use of animal-based measures to assess animal welfare in EU – state of the art of 10 years of activities and analysis of gaps.

European Union. 2008. Council Directive 2008/120/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, L 52:5-13.

Hemsworth P. H., Barnett J. L., Hofmeyr C., Coleman G. 2002. The effects of fear of humans and pre-slaughter handling on meat quality of pigs. Crop and Pasture Science, 53(4): 493-501.

Higuera M. A. 2019. Pig castration: Where are we at in finding alternatives? Available at: Accessed 04.11.2021.

Johnson A. K., Colpoys J. D., Edwards-Callaway L. N., Calvo-Lorenzo M., McGlone J. I., Millman S. T., Phillips C. E., Ritter M. J., Sutherland M. A., Tucker A. L., Webb S. R. 2019. Behavior and welfare. In: Diseases of Swine (Eleventh Edition). Eds. J. J. Zimmerman, L. A. Karriker, A. Ramirez, K. J. Schwartz, G. W. Stevenson, J. Zhang, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, pp.17-41.

KilBride A. L., Gillman C. E., Ossent P., Green L. E. 2008. A cross-sectional study of the prevalence and associated risk factors for capped hock and the associations with bursitis in weaner, grower and finisher pigs from 93 commercial farms in England. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 83(3-4): 272-284.

Meyer-Hamme S., Lambertz C., Gauly M. 2018. Assessing the welfare level of intensive fattening pig farms in Germany with the Welfare Quality® protocol: does farm size matter? Animal Welfare, 27(3): 275-286.

Mouttotou N., Hatchell F. M., Green L. E. 1998. Adventitious bursitis of the hock in finishing pigs: prevalence, distribution and association with floor and type foot lesions. Veterinary Record, 142: 109-114.

Republic of Slovenia. 2021. Decree about the animal welfare measure of Rural Development Programme of the Republic of Slovenia 2014-2020 in the year 2021. Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No.3/21 and 28/21.

Scipioni R., Martelli G., Volpelli L. A. 2009. Assessment of welfare in pigs. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 8(1): 117-137.

Tuyttens F. A. M., Vanhonacker F., Verhille B., De Brabander D., Verbeke W. 2012. Pig producer attitude towards surgical castration of piglets without anaesthesia versus alternative strategies. Research in Veterinary Science, 92: 524-530.

Vanhonacker F., Verbeke W. 2011. Consumer response to the possible use of vaccine with anaesthesia: a quantitative study in four European countries. Animal, 5(7): 1107-1118.

Welfare Quality®. 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands.

Most read articles by the same author(s)