A review of published literature was conducted to identify pasture pig production system features that pose risks to animal welfare, and to develop recommendations aimed at improving the wellbeing of the animals managed in those systems. Pasture pig production systems present specific challenges to animal welfare that are inherent to the nature of these systems where producers have little room to make improvements. However, these systems present other challenges that could be reduced with a carefully designed system, by adopting appropriate management strategies and by avoiding management practices that are likely to negatively affect animal wellbeing. In pasture pig production systems, exposure to extreme temperatures, potential contact with wildlife and pathogens (especially parasites), vulnerability to predators, risk of malnutrition, pre-weaning piglet mortality, complexity of processes for monitoring and treating sick animals, and for cleaning and disinfection of facilities and equipment are among the main threats to animal welfare.

Due to its distinct properties, wild boar meat is considered a highly desirable consumer product, in a market that is expanding. Outdoor production is also favoured by consumers who value animal welfare and environmental sustainability when choosing meat products. There is evidence that farms that include pasture for grazing typically have reduced feeding costs. Such production systems can also be more environmentally sustainable as the input (pasture) is inedible to humans, compared to conventional indoor systems, which use human-edible feeds (e.g., soya). However, some wild boar farms have performed poorly compared to those rearing other swine such as hybrid wild boar and domestic pigs. Diet is central to all livestock production and is likely a significant influencing factor of wild boar performance, both in terms of forage consumption and nutritional composition. Other factors may also influence performance, such as weather, behaviour and grazing management. Wild boar production systems hold their own intrinsic value in a growing marketplace. However, information gathered through the study of wild boar has external applications in informing outdoor domestic pig production systems to encourage the use of pasture as part of the habitat of domestic pigs.

Opportunities for alternative swine production and marketing are emerging across the value chain. Given the developing nature of the differentiated pork industry, measurements of niche performance and success are not yet fully known. For this reason, the objectives of this study were to determine performance metrics across all major life phases for niche pork production and compare such metrics with national averages of conventional commodity pork production. Additionally, this study aimed to quantify producers’ reasoning and barriers to successfully raising niche swine. Niche meat producers in the USA self-identified for this study (n = 176); their swine production had alternative characteristics that included small- to mid-sized farms, farrow-to-finish operations, heritage breeds, housing with bedding and outdoor or pasture access, no use of antibiotics (sub-therapeutic for growth promotion or no antibiotics ever), vegetarian feed, diverse agricultural enterprises and alternative marketing avenues. This study focused on the metric categories regarding reproduction, mortality, culling and growth characteristics. The niche system produced approximately 15% fewer weaned piglets per bred sow per year than the conventional system due to fewer breeding cycles, smaller litters and higher piglet mortality in alternative production. Similarly, niche production finished 12% fewer hogs per bred sow per year than conventional production. Regarding age benchmarks of finishing and breeding, the niche system averaged 18 additional days to finish hogs at a standardized market weight of 124 kg. Likewise, niche production gilts were first bred at 283 days, whereas conventional production breeds gilts at 225 days. All directly comparable metrics were found to be statistically significant with 95% confidence for the one-sample test of means. Regarding farmer attitudes toward niche pork, survey participants shared personal reasons for raising swine and barriers to successful niche production. Choosing niche over commodity swine, participants’ reasons were grouped into three intra-related categories: (1) farm and producer viability, (2) animal and environmental welfare, and (3) consumer preference and taste. Despite these benefits, participants were faced with numerous challenges, which were organized into four intra-related categories: (1) alternative production requirements, restrictions and knowledge; (2) access and affordability of credit and inputs; (3) alternative supply chain for processing, marketing and customers; and (4) non-niche production competition and governmental policies. In sum, the success of these niche pork operations equates to high welfare for the pigs, economic viability for the operation, personal enjoyment for the farmer, customer satisfaction with meat flavor and quality, and responsible environmental practices, inclusive of many components of an alternative food system.

Two alternative stocking methods (rotational and strip-grazing) were compared to continuous stocking at a stocking rate of 47 pigs ha⁻¹ in tall fescue pastures. The research was conducted during two twelve-weeks grazing periods in North Carolina (USA). In total 144 (females and castrated males, 17.5 and 29.1 kg initial body weight) crossbred Yorkshire X Berkshire, Yorkshire/Landrace X Hampshire and Yorkshire/Landrace X Duroc pigs without nose rings were used. Greater soil bulk density and soil concentrations of NO₃⁻, P, K, Mn, Zn and Cu were observed in paddocks managed continuously, while greater final ground cover (+22%) was recorded in paddocks managed with rotational and strip-grazing stocking methods. No differences were detected in botanical composition of the paddocks. Greater weight gains (+8.5%) were registered for rotationally managed pigs. Feed efficiency was better (+8%) for rotationally than for continuously stocked pigs, while strip-grazed pigs presented intermediate values. The results indicated the potential of both alternative stocking methods to be implemented in sustainable pasture-based pig production systems.

This study focused on assessing the language needs of English-speaking animal professionals in their interactions with Hispanic/Spanish-speaking animal caretakers. A survey was administered to a target audience of non-Spanish speaking and bilingual animal professionals to identify communication gaps while interacting with Hispanic/Spanish-speaking animal caretakers. The data was analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics, including ordinal regression analyses to examine the impact of demographic variables on respondents’ answer choices. The results showed that English-speaking professionals struggled with written and oral communication, which differed compared to bilingual professionals (p < 0.05). Additionally, responses of female professionals varied regarding the aspects of Spanish necessary for interacting with Hispanic/Spanish-speaking animal caretakers, as well as the topics likely to be addressed when agriculture professionals communicate with animal caretakers (p < 0.05). Communication difficulties in the oral medium for both oral receptive skills (listening) and oral productive skills (speaking) were reported as the major barriers that animal professionals need to overcome in their attempt to communicate with the Hispanic/Spanish-speaking workforce in farm settings. This emphasizes the need to address oral communication barriers, and to a lesser degree, the development of reading and writing skills. The topics: typical clinical signs of illness, euthanasia, treatment—drugs, and identification of sick or injured animals were identified as the most likely to be addressed during on-farm interactions. These findings indicate that there are gaps in communication that need to be overcome to improve communication with on-farm Hispanic/Spanish-speaking animal caretakers and consequently contribute to enhancing animal health, welfare, and production.