不同生产体制下Krškopolje猪的福利评价

M. Čandek-Potokar , N. Batorek-Lukač , U. Tomažin , M. Škrlep , A.N.T.R. Monteiro , F. Garcia-Launay
{"title":"不同生产体制下Krškopolje猪的福利评价","authors":"M. Čandek-Potokar ,&nbsp;N. Batorek-Lukač ,&nbsp;U. Tomažin ,&nbsp;M. Škrlep ,&nbsp;A.N.T.R. Monteiro ,&nbsp;F. Garcia-Launay","doi":"10.1016/j.anopes.2022.100021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In the present case study, the welfare of local breed (Krškopolje pig) pigs reared indoors, outdoors, and in combined production systems (total of 10 farms) were evaluated. The multidimensional Welfare Quality® assessment protocol, with slight modifications, was used to evaluate the farms. Animal-based observations were used to examine the four main principles of welfare (good feeding, good housing, good health, and appropriate behaviour) and their twelve independent welfare sub-criteria. Scores for each criterion were calculated and each farm was classified into one of the four welfare categories (excellent, enhanced, acceptable, or not classified). Maximal total scores were determined for the “good feeding” principle in the indoor and combined systems, whereas the outdoor system had a lower score (64) because of insufficient water troughs. In the case of “good housing” principle, maximal total scores were attributed to outdoor system, and lower scores for indoor and combined systems (72 and 84, respectively) due to the lesser space allowance, dirtiness and shivering in pigs. The scores for the “principle of good health” were rather low in all husbandry systems (62, 58, 61 for outdoor, indoor and combined systems, respectively), mainly because of the castration method practised without pain relief medication. The integrated score for “appropriate behaviour” was lower in indoor systems, because of lower “exploratory behaviour” scores (64). Considering the overall assessment across all principles, farms having only outdoor or only indoor system were classified as “enhanced” (total score of 77 and 74, respectively), whereas farms with combined system (indoor housing with outdoor access) were classified as “excellent” (total score of 85). The present study showed high welfare quality of housing systems with local breed Krškopolje pigs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100083,"journal":{"name":"Animal - Open Space","volume":"1 1","pages":"Article 100021"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772694022000188/pdfft?md5=061b8ae07e133e02c3842543cc06282e&pid=1-s2.0-S2772694022000188-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Welfare assessment of Krškopolje pigs reared in different production systems\",\"authors\":\"M. Čandek-Potokar ,&nbsp;N. Batorek-Lukač ,&nbsp;U. Tomažin ,&nbsp;M. Škrlep ,&nbsp;A.N.T.R. Monteiro ,&nbsp;F. Garcia-Launay\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.anopes.2022.100021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In the present case study, the welfare of local breed (Krškopolje pig) pigs reared indoors, outdoors, and in combined production systems (total of 10 farms) were evaluated. The multidimensional Welfare Quality® assessment protocol, with slight modifications, was used to evaluate the farms. Animal-based observations were used to examine the four main principles of welfare (good feeding, good housing, good health, and appropriate behaviour) and their twelve independent welfare sub-criteria. Scores for each criterion were calculated and each farm was classified into one of the four welfare categories (excellent, enhanced, acceptable, or not classified). Maximal total scores were determined for the “good feeding” principle in the indoor and combined systems, whereas the outdoor system had a lower score (64) because of insufficient water troughs. In the case of “good housing” principle, maximal total scores were attributed to outdoor system, and lower scores for indoor and combined systems (72 and 84, respectively) due to the lesser space allowance, dirtiness and shivering in pigs. The scores for the “principle of good health” were rather low in all husbandry systems (62, 58, 61 for outdoor, indoor and combined systems, respectively), mainly because of the castration method practised without pain relief medication. The integrated score for “appropriate behaviour” was lower in indoor systems, because of lower “exploratory behaviour” scores (64). Considering the overall assessment across all principles, farms having only outdoor or only indoor system were classified as “enhanced” (total score of 77 and 74, respectively), whereas farms with combined system (indoor housing with outdoor access) were classified as “excellent” (total score of 85). The present study showed high welfare quality of housing systems with local breed Krškopolje pigs.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100083,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Animal - Open Space\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 100021\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772694022000188/pdfft?md5=061b8ae07e133e02c3842543cc06282e&pid=1-s2.0-S2772694022000188-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Animal - Open Space\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772694022000188\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal - Open Space","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772694022000188","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本案例研究中,对室内、室外和联合生产系统(共10个农场)饲养的地方品种(Krškopolje猪)猪的福利进行了评估。采用稍作修改的多维福利质量评估方案对农场进行评估。以动物为基础的观察用于检查福利的四个主要原则(良好的喂养,良好的住房,良好的健康和适当的行为)及其十二个独立的福利子标准。计算每个标准的分数,并将每个农场划分为四个福利类别(优秀,增强,可接受或未分类)中的一个。在室内和组合系统中,“良好喂养”原则获得了最高总分,而室外系统由于水槽不足而得分较低(64分)。在“良好住房”原则的情况下,室外系统的总分最高,室内和组合系统的得分较低(分别为72分和84分),因为猪的空间空间较小,肮脏和颤抖。在所有饲养系统中,“良好健康原则”的得分都相当低(室外、室内和联合饲养系统分别为62、58、61分),主要原因是阉割方法没有使用止痛药。在室内系统中,“适当行为”的综合得分较低,因为“探索行为”得分较低(64)。考虑到所有原则的总体评估,只有室外或只有室内系统的农场被归类为“增强”(总分分别为77分和74分),而拥有联合系统(室内住房与室外通道)的农场被归类为“优秀”(总分为85分)。本研究表明,本地养殖Krškopolje猪的养殖系统具有较高的福利质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Welfare assessment of Krškopolje pigs reared in different production systems

In the present case study, the welfare of local breed (Krškopolje pig) pigs reared indoors, outdoors, and in combined production systems (total of 10 farms) were evaluated. The multidimensional Welfare Quality® assessment protocol, with slight modifications, was used to evaluate the farms. Animal-based observations were used to examine the four main principles of welfare (good feeding, good housing, good health, and appropriate behaviour) and their twelve independent welfare sub-criteria. Scores for each criterion were calculated and each farm was classified into one of the four welfare categories (excellent, enhanced, acceptable, or not classified). Maximal total scores were determined for the “good feeding” principle in the indoor and combined systems, whereas the outdoor system had a lower score (64) because of insufficient water troughs. In the case of “good housing” principle, maximal total scores were attributed to outdoor system, and lower scores for indoor and combined systems (72 and 84, respectively) due to the lesser space allowance, dirtiness and shivering in pigs. The scores for the “principle of good health” were rather low in all husbandry systems (62, 58, 61 for outdoor, indoor and combined systems, respectively), mainly because of the castration method practised without pain relief medication. The integrated score for “appropriate behaviour” was lower in indoor systems, because of lower “exploratory behaviour” scores (64). Considering the overall assessment across all principles, farms having only outdoor or only indoor system were classified as “enhanced” (total score of 77 and 74, respectively), whereas farms with combined system (indoor housing with outdoor access) were classified as “excellent” (total score of 85). The present study showed high welfare quality of housing systems with local breed Krškopolje pigs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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