Relationship between growing pig’s housing conditions, behaviours, lesions and health issues under Italian farming system

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive analysis of behavioural measures, lesions and health measures and housing condition measures.

Item^a	Mean	SD^b	Min^c	Max^d
Behavioural measures
Resting, %	36.85	13.889	7.33	81.08
Sucking behaviour, %	0.17	0.490	0.00	2.14
Positive behaviour, %	2.76	3.126	0.00	12.63
Negative behaviour, %	3.79	1.645	0.57	8.00
Exploring enrichment material, %	3.97	2.724	0.00	11.00
Exploring the pen, %	25.40	12.592	5.56	59.33
Other behaviour, %	27.05	13.976	6.49	60.00
Lesions and health measures
Bursitis, %	0.56	1.332	0.00	5.26
Lameness, %	1.44	2.461	0.00	11.11
Ear lesion 0, %	49.94	29.245	3.33	100.00
Ear lesion 1, %	35.50	21.641	0.00	73.33
Ear lesion 2, %	14.56	16.940	0.00	88.24
LSI Ear, n^d	64.62	42.615	0.00	176.47
Tail lesion 0, %	30.29	41.395	0.00	100.00
Tail lesion 1, %	28.03	28.649	0.00	82.35
Tail lesion 2, %	41.69	39.320	0.00	100.00
LSI Tail, n^e	111.40	75.487	0.00	200.00
Housing conditions
Dry temperature, °C	23.29	5.251	16.80	33.10
Humidity, %	70.66	7.018	59.17	81.87
Wet bulb temperature, n	19.43	4.218	13.97	27.87
Light intensity, Lux	95.08	66.001	7.33	303.67
O2, Vol%	20.63	0.654	18.10	20.90
CO2, Vol%	0.26	0.085	0.15	0.44
NH3, ppm	8.00	6.935	0.00	30.67
H2S, ppm	0.03	0.128	0.00	0.77
Space allowance, m^2/pig	0.97	0.109	0.70	1.15
Feeder front, m/pig	0.37	0.071	0.20	0.45

^aItem: all parameters involved in the descriptive analysis were recorded from each experimental pen (n = 44).

^bSD = Standard deviation.

^cMin = Minimum value.

^dMax = Maximum value.

^eLSI = lesion score index.

Table 2. Results of the ANOVA analysis on behavioural measures of fattening pigs.

Variable	Coefficient	SE Coefficient	LS Mean^a	SE Mean	P-value
Model for resting behaviour, %
Dry temperature, °C	0.85	0.443			0.06
CO2, %	50.60	27.182			0.06
Light intensity, Lux	−0.06	0.033			0.05
Tail docking^b
DT			31.1	3.74	0.07
UT			39.6	2.45
Model for sucking behaviour, %
Feeder front, m/pig	−2.72	0.979			<0.01
Model for positive behaviour, %
Wet bulb temperature, n	0.40	0.135			<0.01
Light intensity, Lux	−0.01	0.003			<0.001
NH3, ppm	0.14	0.066			0.04
O2, Vol%	2.22	1.046			0.03
Space allowance, m^2/pigs	8.62	3.768			0.02
Floor cleanness, n	−2.02	0.857			0.02
Tail docking^b
DT			3.6	0.50	0.06
UT			2.4	0.28
Model for negative behaviour, %
Farm
A			2.6	0.37	<0.001
B			4.4	0.26
Model for exploring the enrichment material, %
Wet bulb temperature, n	0.36	0.113			<0.01
Feeder front, m/pig	18.40	6.732			<0.01
Model for exploring the pen, %
Weight, Kg	0.40	0.198			0.04
Dry temperature, °C	−3.84	2.078			0.06
CO2, Vol%	−103.55	23.951			<0.01
Feeder front, m/pig	65.18	37.980			0.09
Farm
A			15.5	3.95	<0.01
B			31.7	2.48
Model for Other behaviour (%)
Dry temperature, °C	−1.22	0.430			<0.01
Feeder front, m/pig	−180.17	31.824			<0.001

^aLS Mean = least squared mean.

^bTail docking: DT = docked tail; UT = undocked tail.

Table 3. Results of the ANOVA analysis on lesions and health measures of fattening pigs.

Variable	Coefficient	SE Coefficient	LS Mean^a	SE Mean	P-value
Model for bursitis, %
Sucking behaviour, %	1.35	0.364			<0.01
Model for lameness, %
Positive behaviour, %	0.43	0.099			<0.001
Model for LSI ear, n^b
Exploring the pen, %	2.44	0.326			<0.001
CO2, Vol%	116.79	48.071			0.02
Model for LSI tail, n^b
Negative behaviour, %	8.05	3.005			<0.01
Weight, kg	−4.04	0.591			<0.001
Light intensity, Lux	0.29	0.074			<0.001
CO2, Vol%	498.31	54.169			<0.001
Space allowance, m^2/pigs	−198.93	50.342			<0.001
Tail docking^c
DT			78.5	9.11	<0.001
UT			126.8	5.71

^aLS Mean = least squared mean.

^bLSI = lesion score index.

^cTail docking: DT = docked tail; UT = undocked tail.

Data availability statement

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.