Overall welfare assessment of pregnant sow housing systems based on interviews with experts

M. Bracke, J. Metz, B. Spruijt, A. Dijkhuizen
{"title":"Overall welfare assessment of pregnant sow housing systems based on interviews with experts","authors":"M. Bracke, J. Metz, B. Spruijt, A. Dijkhuizen","doi":"10.18174/NJAS.V47I2.469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In interviews with 11 pig experts the main housing systems for pregnant sows were identified as tethering (T), individual housing in stalls (IS), group housing with stalls (GS), trickle feeding or biofix (B), electronic sow feeding (ESF), and outdoor housing with huts (O). The family pen system (Fam) was added as a reference system. The experts were asked to give a welfare score for each housing system. The two individual housing-systems (mean scores: T = 1.8; IS = 2.3) scored significantly lower than more intensive indoor group-housing systems (GS = 5.4; B = 5.3; ESF = 6.2), and these scored lower than the more extensive systems (O = 8.0; Fam = 9.1; ANOVA, P < 0.001). Furthermore, T ranked lower than IS in the Sign test (P = 0.008). The most important aspects for welfare assessment were space, substrate, feeding-related agonism and social parameters such as group size and group stability. Three different models were constructed to calculate welfare scores from the arguments given by the experts. When represented graphically the results seem comparable to the expert scores, although two of the three models differed significantly from the expert scores using analysis of variance. These results indicate that pig experts are able to perform overall welfare assessment in a rational way that allows modelling and that there is a consensus underlying welfare assessment. These outcomes provide support for the further development of a decision support system to assess farm animal welfare on a scientific basis.","PeriodicalId":324908,"journal":{"name":"Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18174/NJAS.V47I2.469","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

In interviews with 11 pig experts the main housing systems for pregnant sows were identified as tethering (T), individual housing in stalls (IS), group housing with stalls (GS), trickle feeding or biofix (B), electronic sow feeding (ESF), and outdoor housing with huts (O). The family pen system (Fam) was added as a reference system. The experts were asked to give a welfare score for each housing system. The two individual housing-systems (mean scores: T = 1.8; IS = 2.3) scored significantly lower than more intensive indoor group-housing systems (GS = 5.4; B = 5.3; ESF = 6.2), and these scored lower than the more extensive systems (O = 8.0; Fam = 9.1; ANOVA, P < 0.001). Furthermore, T ranked lower than IS in the Sign test (P = 0.008). The most important aspects for welfare assessment were space, substrate, feeding-related agonism and social parameters such as group size and group stability. Three different models were constructed to calculate welfare scores from the arguments given by the experts. When represented graphically the results seem comparable to the expert scores, although two of the three models differed significantly from the expert scores using analysis of variance. These results indicate that pig experts are able to perform overall welfare assessment in a rational way that allows modelling and that there is a consensus underlying welfare assessment. These outcomes provide support for the further development of a decision support system to assess farm animal welfare on a scientific basis.
基于专家访谈的怀孕母猪住房系统整体福利评估
在对11位养猪专家的采访中,怀孕母猪的主要饲养系统被确定为系绳(T)、单间猪舍(IS)、带猪舍的群体猪舍(GS)、滴灌或生物固定(B)、电子母猪饲养(ESF)和带猪舍的户外猪舍(O)。家庭猪舍系统(Fam)被添加为参考系统。专家们被要求给每个住房制度打分。两个个体住房系统(平均得分:T = 1.8;IS = 2.3)得分明显低于更密集的室内集体住房系统(GS = 5.4;B = 5.3;ESF = 6.2),这些评分低于更广泛的系统(O = 8.0;Fam = 9.1;方差分析,p < 0.001)。在Sign检验中,T的排名低于IS (P = 0.008)。福利评估最重要的方面是空间、基质、饲养相关的激动性和社会参数,如群体规模和群体稳定性。根据专家给出的论点,构建了三种不同的模型来计算福利分数。当用图形表示结果时,结果似乎与专家分数相当,尽管使用方差分析的三个模型中有两个与专家分数有显着差异。这些结果表明,养猪专家能够以合理的方式进行整体福利评估,允许建模,并且有一个共识的基础福利评估。这些结果为进一步开发决策支持系统以科学地评估农场动物福利提供了支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信