Formalised review of environmental enrichment for pigs in relation to political decision making

Bracke, M.B.M.; Zonderland, J.J.; Lenskens, Petra; Schouten, W.G.P.; Vermeer, H.M.; Spoolder, Hans; Hendriks, Hay J.M.; Hopster, H.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2005.08.021

Cited by 87 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is a multi-factorial problem, and a variety of risk factors have been identified which are associated with it. Various efforts have been made to review all the currently known risk factors to weight their importance in order to influence policy makers (Bracke et al, 2006;EFSA, 2007;Spoolder et al, 2011) and to provide practical advice to farmers (Bracke et al, 2004;Jensen et al, 2004;Taylor et al, 2012). Taylor et al (2010) in a recent review made a convincing case that there were at least two and possibly three different types of tail biting: two-stage, sudden-forceful and obsessive.…”

Section: Scientific Investigation Of Tail Biting Is Difficultmentioning

confidence: 99%

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

D’Eath

Arnott

Turner

et al. 2014

Animal

152

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tail biting is a serious animal welfare and economic problem in pig production. Tail docking, which reduces but does not eliminate tail biting, remains widespread. However, in the EU tail docking may not be used routinely, and some 'alternative' forms of pig production and certain countries do not allow tail docking at all. Against this background, using a novel approach focusing on research where tail injuries were quantified, we review the measures that can be used to control tail biting in pigs without tail docking. Using this strict criterion, there was good evidence that manipulable substrates and feeder space affect damaging tail biting. Only epidemiological evidence was available for effects of temperature and season, and the effect of stocking density was unclear. Studies suggest that group size has little effect, and the effects of nutrition, disease and breed require further investigation. The review identifies a number of knowledge gaps and promising avenues for future research into prevention and mitigation. We illustrate the diversity of hypotheses concerning how different proposed risk factors might increase tail biting through their effect on each other or on the proposed underlying processes of tail biting. A quantitative comparison of the efficacy of different methods of provision of manipulable materials, and a review of current practices in countries and assurance schemes where tail docking is banned, both suggest that daily provision of small quantities of destructible, manipulable natural materials can be of considerable benefit. Further comparative research is needed into materials, such as ropes, which are compatible with slatted floors. Also, materials which double as fuel for anaerobic digesters could be utilised. As well as optimising housing and management to reduce risk, it is important to detect and treat tail biting as soon as it occurs. Early warning signs before the first bloody tails appear, such as pigs holding their tails tucked under, could in future be automatically detected using precision livestock farming methods enabling earlier reaction and prevention of tail damage. However, there is a lack of scientific studies on how best to respond to outbreaks: the effectiveness of, for example, removing biters and/or bitten pigs, increasing enrichment, or applying substances to tails should be investigated. Finally, some breeding companies are exploring options for reducing the genetic propensity to tail bite. If these various approaches to reduce tail biting are implemented we propose that the need for tail docking will be reduced.

show abstract

Section: Scientific Investigation Of Tail Biting Is Difficultmentioning

confidence: 99%

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

D’Eath

Arnott

Turner

et al. 2014

Animal

152

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A conventional system, with indoor rearing of pigs on fully slatted floor, was compared with an alternative system in which pigs have more space (34) and free access to an outdoor area, and are raised on a litter bedding allowing the expression of the animal flooring behaviour (Brake et al, 2006). The alternative rearing system was chosen for agreeing with the standards for organic pig farming in France, and is close to the 'welfare 'scenario described by Stern et al (2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of pig rearing system on animal performance and manure composition

Dourmad

Hassouna²,

Robin³

et al. 2009

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A total of 200 crossbred pigs (castrated males and females) were used in five replicates to evaluate the influence of rearing conditions for fattening pigs on growth performance, manure production and gaseous emissions. Approximately at 36 kg body weight (BW), littermates were allocated to either a conventional (fully slatted floor, 0.65 m 2 /pig, considered as control, CON) or an alternative (sawdust bedding, 1.3 m 2 /pig, with free access to an outdoor area 1.1 m 2 /pig, OUT) system, until slaughter at approximately 115 kg BW. Pigs had free access to standard growing and finishing diets. Manure was stored as slurry below the slatted floor in the CON system and as litter, for the inside area, or slurry and liquid, for the outside area, in the OUT system. The amount and composition of manure were determined at the end of each replicate. Ammonia emission from the rooms was measured continuously. Dust and odour concentrations were measured in replicates 1 and 2, and CH 4 , N 2 O and CO 2 emissions were measured in replicate 3. Compared with the CON, the OUT pigs exhibited a faster growth rate (18%, P , 0.001) due to their greater feed intake (10.21 kg/day, P , 0.01), resulting in a heavier BW (17.3 kg, P , 0.001) and a lower lean meat content (21.6% points, P , 0.001) at slaughter. The total amount of manure produced per pig was similar in both systems (380 kg/pig), but because of the contribution of sawdust, dry matter (DM) content was higher ( P , 0.001) and concentrations in N, P, K, Cu and Zn in DM were lower ( P , 0.001) in manure from the OUT than from the CON system. In the OUT system, most of the manure DM (70%) was collected indoor, corresponding mostly to the contribution of the sawdust, and most of the manure water (70%) was collected outdoor. Pigs excreted indoor about 60% and 40% of urine and faeces, respectively. Ammonia emission from the room was lower for the OUT system, whereas total NH 3 emissions, including the outdoor area, tended to be higher (12.0 and 14.1 g/day N-NH 3 per pig for CON and OUT, respectively). Nitrous oxide emission was higher (1.6 and 4.6 g/day N-N 2 O per pig for CON and OUT, respectively) and methane emission was lower (12.1 and 5.9 g/day per pig for CON and OUT, respectively), for the OUT compared with the CON system.

show abstract

“…Providing fresh straw to the animals daily, from birth to fattening, is a proven measure for preventing tail biting (MOINARD et al, 2003) as there is a reduced incidence of undesirable social behaviors and increased expression of species-specific behaviors, such as exploration, food searching and play ( VAN de WEERD;DAY, 2009). The greater the interaction of the animals with the enrichment materials, the lower the incidences of ear and tail biting (BRACKE et al, 2006). Thus, straw is recognized as a premium substrate for environmental enrichment, although there are known challenges to its use (NATIONAL FARM ANIMAL CARE COUNCIL, 2014).…”

Section: Environmental Enrichment For Pigs At All Stagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most stimulating are those that become more apparent when deformed and that are suspended at the eye level of the animal or on the floor (AVERÓS et al, 2010). Bracke et al (2006) ranked enrichment materials by their benefits to animal welfare. In this classification, they are as follows, from less efficient to more efficient: metal objects, mineral blocks, rubber and plastic, ropes and fabrics, forage (hay), wood substrates (compounds, soil, sand, and peat), straw and composites (mixtures).…”

Section: Environmental Enrichment For Pigs At All Stagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Commonly, these facilities have poured concrete floors and are free of substrates for exploration, which frustrates the expression of normal, highly motivating behaviors, such as exploration and the search for food (VAN de WEERD;DAY, 2009). Therefore, environmental enrichment is undoubtedly an important requirement for the welfare of animals kept in confined environments (BRACKE et al, 2006). Pigs in boring environments have higher salivary cortisol levels than those housed in environments enriched with straw, indicating that animals in boring environments can be chronically stressed and possibly develop depression ( VAN de WEERD;DAY, 2009).…”

Section: Need For Exploration and Foragingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Necessidade e desafios do uso de materiais de enriquecimento ambiental na suinocultura industrial

Silva

Manteca²,

Dias

2016

Sem. Ci. Agr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigs have certain needs that, when unfulfilled, can affect their behavior and their productive efficiency thus promoting welfare problems. Exploration and the search for food are inherent behaviors in pigs at all stages of production, and nest preparation is an exclusive antepartum need for females. In intensive rearing units, providing environmental enrichment materials is a way to meet these needs that allows the animals to fully express their behavior and avoid problems such as tail biting, stereotypes and, specifically in the case of breeding arrays, the onset of labor due to stress, which can result in impaired births and piglets. Straw is known as an enrichment material that best meets these demands, and it is an important requirement of animal welfare legislation in several countries. This study was developed to highlight the importance of meeting the biological needs of pigs through the provision of environmental enrichment materials and to demonstrate the positive results that these materials have on pig welfare. The challenges to the viability of the regular use of these resources in industrial pig farming are also addressed. Key words: Welfare, tail-biting, stereotypes, nesting, straw, pigs ResumoOs suínos possuem necessidades natas que quando não atendidas afetam seu comportamento e sua eficiência produtiva, promovendo o surgimento de problemas de bem-estar. A exploração e a busca por alimento é um comportamento inerente dos suínos em todas as fases de produção, e a preparação do ninho é uma necessidade exclusiva da fêmea durante o pré-parto. Nas unidades de criação intensiva o fornecimento de materiais de enriquecimento ambiental é uma forma de atender estas necessidades, permitindo que os animais expressem plenamente seu comportamento, evitando problemas como caudofagia, estereotipias e, especificamente no caso das matrizes, o início do parto sob estresse, resultando no comprometimento do parto e dos leitões. A palha é reconhecidamente o material de enriquecimento com as características que melhor atende estas demandas, constituindo um item primordial descrito nas legislações de bem-estar animal de vários países. Assim, este trabalho foi desenvolvido com o objetivo de destacar a importância em atender as demandas biológicas dos suínos por materiais de enriquecimento ambiental; demonstrar os resultados positivos que estes materiais exercem no bem-estar dos suínos, ao mesmo tempo em que são abordados os desafios para a viabilização do uso regular destes recursos na suinocultura industrial.

show abstract

Formalised review of environmental enrichment for pigs in relation to political decision making

Cited by 87 publications

References 26 publications

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

Influence of pig rearing system on animal performance and manure composition

Necessidade e desafios do uso de materiais de enriquecimento ambiental na suinocultura industrial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About