Scientific Opinion concerning a Multifactorial approach on the use of animal and non-animal-based measures to assess the welfare of pigs

被引:42
|
作者
Authie, Edith [1 ]
Berg, Charlotte [1 ]
Botner, Anette [1 ]
Browman, Howard [1 ]
Capua, Ilaria [1 ]
De Koeijer, Aline [1 ]
Depner, Klaus [1 ]
Domingo, Mariano [1 ]
Edwards, Sandra [1 ]
Fourichon, Christine [1 ]
Koenen, Frank [1 ]
More, Simon [1 ]
Raj, Mohan [1 ]
Sihvonen, Liisa [1 ]
Spoolder, Hans [1 ]
Stegeman, Jan Arend [1 ]
Thulke, Hans-Hermann [1 ]
Vagsholm, Ivar [1 ]
Velarde, Antonio [1 ]
Willeberg, Preben [1 ]
Zientara, Stephan [1 ]
机构
[1] European Food Safety Author, Parma, Italy
关键词
pig; welfare; tail-biting; tail-docking; enrichment; manipulable material;
D O I
10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3702
中图分类号
TS2 [食品工业];
学科分类号
0832 ;
摘要
Pigs have a need for manipulable materials to satisfy a range of behavioural needs, which can be different in different classes of pig. When these needs are not met, a range of adverse welfare consequences result, one of these being an increased risk for tail-biting in weaners and rearing pigs. The ability to control the risk of tailbiting is essential when aiming to avoid tail-docking. Based on available scientific information this Opinion identifies the multiple interactions between risk factors, welfare consequences and animal and non-animal-based measures on the two subjects requested (i) the absence of functional manipulable materials, for pigs at different stages in life and (ii) tail-biting, for weaners and rearing pigs only. An attempt is made to quantify the relationships between the identified interactions by carrying out a statistical analysis of information from available databases, those being an international dataset collected using the Welfare Quality((R)) protocol, which was not designed to evaluate risk factors for tail-biting and therefore, it had limitations in fitness for this analysis, and a large Finnish dataset with undocked pigs. Based on the current state of knowledge, the AHAW Panel proposes two simple tool-boxes for on farm use to assess (i) the functionality of the supplied manipulable material and (ii) the presence and strength of risk factors for tail biting. Both proposed tool-boxes include a combination of the most important resource-based and animal-based measures. Further development and validation of decision-support tools for customised farm assessment is strongly recommended and a proposal for harmonised data collection across the range of European farming circumstances is presented. A series of further recommendations are made by the AHAW Panel. (C) European Food Safety Authority, 2014
引用
收藏
页数:101
相关论文
共 4 条
  • [1] Scientific Opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare in pigs
    Botner, Anette
    Broom, Donald
    Doherr, Marcus G.
    Domingo, Mariano
    Hartung, Joerg
    Keeling, Linda
    Koenen, Frank
    More, Simon
    Morton, David
    Oltenacu, Pascal
    Salati, Fulvio
    Salman, Mo
    Sanaa, Moez
    Sharp, James M.
    Stegeman, Jan A.
    Szucs, Endre
    Thulke, Hans-H.
    Vannier, Philippe
    Webster, John
    Wierup, Martin
    EFSA JOURNAL, 2012, 10 (01)
  • [2] Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor types
    Budka, Herbert
    Buncic, Sava
    Colin, Pierre
    Collins, John D.
    Ducrot, Christian
    Hope, James
    Mac Johnston, Alexandre
    Klein, Guenter
    Kruse, Hilde
    Luecker, Ernst
    Magnino, Simone
    Maijala, Riitta Liisa
    Lopez, Antonio Martinez
    Nguyen-The, Christophe
    Noerrung, Birgit
    Notermans, Serve
    Nychas, George-John E.
    Pensaert, Maurice
    Roberts, Terence
    Vagsholm, Ivar
    Vanopdenbosch, Emmanuel
    EFSA JOURNAL, 2005, 3 (10)
  • [3] How Well Does Australian Animal Welfare Policy Reflect Scientific Evidence: A Case Study Approach Based on Lamb Marking
    Johnston, Charlotte H.
    Richardson, Vicki L.
    Whittaker, Alexandra L.
    ANIMALS, 2023, 13 (08):