To present the outputs of both modules of WelEc, results of the default situation and after implementation of each measure were listed. To compare measures in their effects on economics and animal welfare, cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated as R𝑖=
∆NFI𝑖/∆AWS𝑖, where ∆NFI𝑖 was the difference in net farm income between measure 𝑖 and the default situation and ∆AWS𝑖 was the difference in animal welfare score between measure 𝑖 and the default situation. Based on the cost-effectiveness ratios it was possible to rank the measures; rank 1 was for the measure with the highest cost-effectiveness ratio, rank 2 was for the measure with the second highest cost-effectiveness ratio, and so on. The measure effects on net farm income (€/year) and on animal welfare scores (%
improvement) relative to the default situation were plotted. Percentages of animal welfare improvement were calculated as AWI = TWS𝑖/MAW ∗ 100 − TWS𝑑/MAW ∗ 100, where TWS was the total animal welfare score of measure 𝑖 or the default situation 𝑑 and MAW was the maximum possible animal welfare score, which was 2700.
A sensitivity analysis was carried out to test the sensitivity of the outcomes for the estimated effects of the measures. For the sensitivity analysis, per measure all the inputs for the economic and animal welfare module that changed were either increased or decreased altogether with 5%. For each measure the cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for a situation with increased inputs and for a situation with decreased inputs.
For both the increased and the decreased inputs, measures were ranked based on the effectiveness ratios. These rankings were compared to the ranking of the original cost-effectiveness ratios to determine sensitivity.
Table 5.3 Inputs for the economic module of WelEc for the default situation and the affected inputs per measure to reduce piglet mortality (PM), to prevent tail biting (TB) and to improve indoor housing (IH) (see Appendix 5.1 for a detailed description of inputs).
Input Adjusted inputs per measure
Input name Unit DF PM1a PM2 PM3 PM4 TB1 Tb2 TB3 TB4 IH1 IH2 IH3 IH4
Technical numbers
Company size sow places 440 b
Occupation (sows/sow places) percent 91
Number of litters sow/year 2.36
Litter size live piglets/litter 13.8
Piglet mortality percent 13 12.00 12.20 12.40 12.40
Replacement breeding sows percent 43
Selection sow before first insemination percent 5
Sow feed intake kg/sow/year 1165 1178.57 1175.69 1173.22 1173.22
Piglet feed intake kg/piglet 28.2
Buildings and inventory
Investment building and inventory €/sow place 2500
Depreciation period investment year 20
Market interest percent 6
Maintenance percent investment 1.5
Prices
Sow price €/sow 163
Breeding sow price €/sow 250
Selected breeding sow price €/sow 121.2
Sow feed €/100 kg 23.5
Piglet price (25 kg) €/piglet 43
Piglet feed €/100 kg 35
Labour €/hour 22.85
Other costs
Health care €/sow/year 69 70.13 69.85 69.80 62.10 64.17 64.86 62.79
Transport costs piglets €/piglet 27
Heating €/sow/year 29
Lighting €/sow/year 2.7 1.76 1.76
Pen adjustments (e.g. floor and wall) €/sow/year 0 0.67 0.33 7.31 2.50 12.74
Cameras €/sow/year 0 1.77
Jute bag €/sow/year 0 4.33
117
Straw €/sow/year 0 0.08 2.58 0.27 3.99 3.99 3.99
Environmental enrichment €/sow/year 0 0.85
Analgesia €/sow/year 0 1.45
Other costs (e.g. water) €/sow/year 60
Time management
Time cleaning sow pen hours/sow/year 0.30 0.45 0.38 0.38 0.08
Time cleaning farrowing pen hours/sow/year 0.23
Time cleaning farrowing pen after weaning hours/sow/year 3.22
Time cleaning weaned piglet pen hours/sow/year 0.18
Time tail docking hours/sow/year 0.92
Time checks piglets first 48 hours hours/sow/year 0.30 0.36
Time other tasks hours/sow/year 5.22 5.25 5.22 5.32 5.31 5.46 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37
a Explanation abbreviations: PM1: camera surveillance farrowing pen, PM2: jute sack provision sow, PM3: straw provision sow, PM4: sow habituation, TB1: tail docking with analgesia, TB2: biting material for weaned piglets, TB3: straw playing area for weaned piglets, TB4: chopped straw provision for weaned piglets, IH1: free range outside area, IH2: straw provision, IH3: straw provision and window, IH4: straw provision, window and increase group size.
b When no value is given the same value as in the default situation was assumed.
Sources: Agrovision (2012), KWIN-Veehouderij (2013/2014) and an in-depth interview with a farmer owning a sow farm comparable to the reference sow farm.
118
118
Table 5.4 Animal welfare score (AWS) per feature of the animal welfare module of WelEc for the default situation and the affected AWS per measure to reduce piglet mortality (PM), to prevent tail biting (TB) and to improve indoor housing (IH).
AWSa Affected AWS per measure
a Animal welfare scores were given on a scale of 1 (worst for animal welfare) to 100 (best for animal welfare).
b Explanation abbreviations: PM1: camera surveillance farrowing pen, PM2: jute sack provision sow, PM3: straw provision sow, PM4: sow habituation, TB1: tail docking with analgesia, TB2: biting material for weaned piglets, TB3: straw playing area for weaned piglets, TB4: chopped straw provision for weaned piglets, IH1: free range outside area, IH2: straw provision, IH3: straw provision and window, IH4: straw provision, window and increase group size.
c When no value is given the same value as in the default situation was assumed.
Chapter 5
119
5.3 Results
The net farm income and animal welfare scores for the default situation and after implementation of each measure were calculated with the WelEc model. These results are shown in Table 5.5. The measures for piglet mortality (PM) had a positive effect on net farm income. These measures showed the highest cost-effectiveness ratios, indicating effectiveness based on net farm income and animal welfare score, compared to the other measures. Measure PM1 (camera surveillance farrowing pen) had a cost-effectiveness ratio of 1700 (i.e., an increase of €1700 net farm income for an animal welfare score increase of 1) which was the highest of all ratios. The PM measures were the only measures with an effect on animal and feed costs and on total returns. These measures had a relatively low effect on animal welfare with an animal welfare improvement of maximum 2.7% compared to the default situation (Figure 5.2). The highest effect on animal welfare compared to the other measures was that of measure IH4 (straw provision, daylight and increased group size) with an animal welfare improvement of 9.4% with regard to the default situation (Figure 5.2). This
measure had a negative effect on total net farm income, i.e., a decrease of €1,773 per year relative to the default situation, but was the only measure with a decrease in total labor costs (Figure 5.2). Of the measures with a negative effect on net farm income, measure IH4 and IH1 (free range outside area) had the highest cost-effectiveness ratio with a ratio of -7 (Table 5.5). The effects on net farm income of measure TB1(tail docking with analgesia), TB4 (chopped straw provision for weaned piglets) and IH2 (straw provision) were comparable to the effects of IH1 and IH4. Measure TB4, IH1 and IH2 had a relatively high effect on animal welfare, i.e., an improvement between 5.7% and 8% relative to the default situation (Figure 5.2). Measure TB1 had a relatively low effect on animal welfare, i.e., an improvement of 0.9% relative to the default situation (Figure 5.2). This measure had the lowest cost-effectiveness ratio compared to the other measures (Table 5.5). Measure TB3 (straw playing area for weaned piglets) had the highest negative effect on net farm income compared to the other measures, i.e., a decrease of €3,718 per year relative to the default situation (Figure 5.2). The effect of measure TB3 on animal welfare was relatively high, i.e., an improvement of 6.8% relative to the default situation (Figure 5.2). Measure TB2 (biting material for weaned piglets) and IH3 (straw provision and daylight) had a relatively high negative effect on net farm income, i.e., a decrease of €3,041 and €2,638 per year respectively relative to the default situation, and a relatively low effect on animal welfare, i.e., an improvement of 5.1% and 5.6% respectively for TB2 and IH3 relative to the default
120
situation (Figure 5.2). MeasuresTB2, TB3 and IH3 had, after measure TB1, the lowest cost-effectiveness ratios (Table 5.5).
Figure 5.2 The effects of measures to reduce piglet mortality (PM), to prevent tail biting (TB) and to improve indoor housing (IH) on animal welfare and net farm income. Per measure the percentages improvement in animal welfare relative to the default situation are plotted against the increase or decrease in net farm income relative to the default situation.
Explanation abbreviations: PM1: camera surveillance farrowing pen, PM2: jute sack provision sow, PM3: straw provision sow, PM4: sow habituation, TB1: tail docking with analgesia, TB2: biting material for weaned piglets, TB3: straw playing area for weaned piglets, TB4: chopped straw provision for weaned piglets, IH1: free range outside area, IH2: straw provision, IH3: straw provision and window, IH4: straw provision, window and increase group size.