Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:22:05.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expert opinion regarding environmental enrichment materials for pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

MBM Bracke
MBM Bracke*
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
*
email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The aim of this article is to report on the expert opinion regarding the provision of environmental enrichment for pigs. A questionnaire was sent to 53 pig welfare scientists who were asked to specify which enrichment materials they considered sufficient to ensure pig welfare; 68% responded. 89% stated that providing a chain was not sufficient, while 84% stated that the provision of straw could be sufficient. ‘Sustained animal-material interactions’, ‘rootability’, ‘manipulability’ and ‘chewability’ were the main material properties referred to as being required for enriching pig pens. Areas of further research suggested by the respondents encompassed both fundamental and applied research, including preference tests and demand studies, deprivation studies and quantitative studies to determine cut-off points. A case is made for modelling the available knowledge to help close the gap between what is known in science and what is decided in society regarding animal welfare and environmental enrichment for pigs.

Keywords

animal welfareenvironmental enrichmentEUhousingpigsquestionnaire
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , February 2006 , pp. 67 - 70
Copyright
© 2006 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bracke, MBM, Hulsegge, B, Keeling, L and Blokhuis, HJ 2004a Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs: 1. Modelling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87: 31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Hulsegge, B, Keeling, L and Blokhuis, HJ 2004b Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs: 2. ‘Validation’. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87: 45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Metz, JHM, Spruijt, BM and Schouten, WGP 2002b Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows. B: validation by expert opinion. Journal of Animal Science 8: 1835–1845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM, Metz, JHM and Schouten, WGP 2002a Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows. A: model structure and weighting procedure. Journal of Animal Science 8: 1819–1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feddes, JJR and Fraser, D 1994 Non-nutritive chewing by pigs: implications for tail-biting and behavioral enrichment. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 37: 947–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, Avery, PJ and Edwards, SA 2003 A systematic approach towards developing environmental enrichment for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar