Expert consultation on weighting factors of criteria for assessing environmental enrichment materials for pigs

Bracke, M.B.M.; Zonderland, J.J.; Bleumer, E.J.B.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.006

Cited by 27 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This type of activity, however, was also displayed independent of feeding. Similar to other intelligent species such as pigs and chimpanzees (Videan et al, 2005;Bracke, 2006), parrots were found to have a preference for chewable and destructible enrichments (van Hoek and King, 1997;Reed and Price, 2000;Kim et al, 2009;Webb et al, 2010). Destructible materials may serve as foraging substitutes, providing the parrot with an opportunity to display chewing and tearing behaviours that are part of normal foraging behaviour (Reed and Price, 2000;Kim et al, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of foraging enrichments to increase foraging time in Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus erithacus)

Zeeland

Schoemaker

Ravesteijn

et al. 2013

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tForaging enrichment is considered one of the most effective strategies to improve welfare and reduce stereotypies and other abnormal repetitive behaviours in captive animals, including parrots. Few studies, however, have investigated the effects of the different types of enrichment and determined their effect on increasing foraging times and foraging-related activities.To study the effect of different types of enrichment on foraging activity, eleven types of foraging enrichment [multiple bowls, mixing food with inedible items, larger-sized food particles, and 8 puzzle feeders] were tested in 12 Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus erithacus). After acclimatization and assessment of baseline foraging times, enrichments were presented in a random order. Video recordings were used to analyze total foraging times and times spent on the different foraging activities. In addition, the frequencies and duration of foraging bouts, and the times at which they occurred, were determined. The learning curves and presence of habituation to the enrichment over a 1-week period were also assessed.Parrots needed 8.3 ± 1.1 days to learn how to use the foraging enrichments. For two of the puzzle feeders, it took considerably longer. Nine out of eleven foraging enrichments were able to significantly increase foraging times, with the most effective enrichments resulting in a 2-to 2.5-fold increase compared to baseline values (47 ± 18 min). The increases in time spent on foraging could be attributed to an increased amount of time spent on enrichmentrelated activities and/or an increased amount of time spent on food-related activities. None of the enrichments (including the use of multiple bowls in different locations) resulted in significant increases in time spent on locomotory behaviours (i.e. movement towards or away from the feeding site). No significant downwards trends in foraging times were observed over the 1-week observation period. The duration of the observations may, however, have been too short to demonstrate habituation effects.Results of this study show that distinct differences are present in the difficulty level, efficacy and time allocation, thereby affecting the choice for a particular foraging enrichment. Although most of the foraging enrichments were able to significantly increase foraging time, none of the enrichments were able to increase foraging times to levels comparable with that of wild conspecifics (i.e. 4-6 hours per day). New, more effective types of foraging enrichment should therefore be developed and tested.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of foraging enrichments to increase foraging time in Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus erithacus)

Zeeland

Schoemaker

Ravesteijn

et al. 2013

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, from an SM perspective (e.g. Bracke et al, 2002aBracke et al, , 2007aBracke et al, and 2007b, the decision-maker/Risk Manager must set the thresholds, because, whereas SM restricts itself to the descriptive task of assessing the factual welfare status as best we can scientifically, the decision-maker must specify what level is acceptable/sufficient politically and ethically, taking into account other concerns such as economic, environmental and food safety considerations. These are formally separate tasks (e.g.…”

Section: Dichotomous Hazards and Scientific Basismentioning

confidence: 99%

Synthesis of semantic modelling and risk analysis methodology applied to animal welfare

Bracke

Edwards

Metz

et al. 2008

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision-making on animal welfare issues requires a synthesis of information. For the assessment of farm animal welfare based on scientific information collected in a database, a methodology called 'semantic modelling' has been developed. To date, however, this methodology has not been generally applied. Recently, a qualitative Risk Assessment approach has been published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for the first time, concerning the welfare of intensively reared calves. This paper reports on a critical analysis of this Risk Assessment (RA) approach from a semantic-modelling (SM) perspective, emphasizing the importance of several seemingly self-evident principles, including the definition of concepts, application of explicit methodological procedures and specification of how underlying values and scientific information lead to the RA output. In addition, the need to include positive aspects of welfare and overall welfare assessments are emphasized. The analysis shows that the RA approach for animal welfare could benefit from SM methodology to support transparent and science-based decision-making.

show abstract

“…The recorded behavioural pattern was similar to previously observed ones (Guy et al, 2002;Martelli et al, 2010;Morrison et al, 2003;Scipioni et al, 2009;Stolba and Wood-Gush, 1989) and showed very low frequencies of abnormal behaviours and stereotypies (dog-sitting posture o5%; bar biting was not observed). This is particularly interesting because the animals were fed-restricted and environmental enrichment was provided only by hanging chains, which offer a limited advantage in terms of pig welfare (Brake, 2006;Studnitz et al, 2007). On the other hand, Scott et al (2007) observed that liquid feeding can also have some behavioural effects as compared to dry-fed pigs, since liquidfed pigs spent less time standing and investigating.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water requirements of liquid-fed heavy pigs: Effect of water restriction on growth traits, animal welfare and meat and ham quality

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expert consultation on weighting factors of criteria for assessing environmental enrichment materials for pigs

Cited by 27 publications

References 8 publications

Efficacy of foraging enrichments to increase foraging time in Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus erithacus)

Efficacy of foraging enrichments to increase foraging time in Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus erithacus)

Synthesis of semantic modelling and risk analysis methodology applied to animal welfare

Water requirements of liquid-fed heavy pigs: Effect of water restriction on growth traits, animal welfare and meat and ham quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About