EC Directive 2001/93 requires that all pigs have access to proper investigation and manipulation materials. Intensively farmed pigs in Europe are frequently provided with a short metal chain with or without an indestructible object attached to the chain. To date authorities are regarding this as proper enrichment, perhaps with (in)direct reference to the RICHPIG model as a justification. However, it has become increasingly clear that the chains do not provide proper enrichment, and that adding an indestructible object to the end of the chain may even reduce rather than improve pig welfare. To test this hypothesis an expert survey was conducted containing 26 more or less compound questions. On a scale from 0 to 10 experts specified their level of agreement with the hypothesis, the prevalence and welfare scores of nine indestructible enrichment materials. In total 36 experts, mostly pig-welfare scientists, responded (response rate: 39%). Indestructible objects are less prevalent in countries that provide straw (like Sweden and the UK) and outside the EU (US). They are more prevalent in the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Finland, while the prevalence seems to be low in Spain. Balls, wood and pipes were provided most frequently: hard wood especially in the UK (as specified in farm assurance); indestructible balls and pipes in Germany and the Netherlands. The experts’ score for agreement with the hypothesis was only 4.6 on average (scale 0–10; n = 25). Enrichment materials, ranked from high to low welfare score, were grouped in 5 significance levels as indicated by different superscripts based on Wilcoxon signed rank tests: Branched chains (5.1a), Chain on the floor (4.4b), Hard wood (3.7bc), Pipe (3.5c), Bare chain (3.3c), Short chain (3.1d), Small ball (2.8d), Big ball (2.5d), and Chain hanging too high (1.3e). Branched chains scored significantly better than all other indestructible materials and its welfare score (5.1 on average) was close to the pre-defined level of acceptability (5.5 on a scale from 0, worst, to 10, best). The welfare benefits of adding balls, pipes or hard wood to the metal chain were marginal, and well below what the experts considered acceptable enrichment. The branched-chains design, by contrast, appears to be the most viable alternative. It involves providing a longer chain, i.e. with the free end reaching to floor level, adding ‘branches’, i.e. several short chains ending at the nose height of the pigs, and providing more chains per pen (i.e. 1 branched chain per 5 pigs). Branched chains should be implemented widely and in the short term as a first step towards, and benchmark for, providing proper enrichment to intensively-farmed pigs.
展开▼
机译：EC指令2001/93要求所有猪都必须使用适当的调查和处理材料。在欧洲，精养猪通常配备一条短金属链，链上有或没有坚不可摧的物体。迄今为止，当局一直认为这是适当的充实，也许直接引用了RICHPIG模型是有道理的。但是，越来越清楚的是，链条不能提供适当的富集，并且在链条末端添加坚不可摧的物体甚至可能会减少而不是改善猪的福利。为了检验该假设，进行了一项专家调查，其中包含26个或更多或更少的复合问题。从0到10的专家规模上，他们指定了与假设，九种不可破坏的浓缩物质的患病率和福利分数相一致的水平。共有36位专家做出了回应，其中大多数是养猪场的科学家（回应率：39％）。坚不可摧的物品在提供秸秆的国家（如瑞典和英国）和欧盟以外的国家（美国）中不那么普遍。它们在荷兰，比利时，法国和芬兰更为普遍，而在西班牙看来患病率较低。球，木头和烟斗最常使用：硬木，尤其是在英国（根据农场保证书的规定）；德国和荷兰坚不可摧的球和管道。专家对该假设的同意得分平均仅为4.6（等级0-10； n = 25）。富裕程度从高到低的得分分为5个显着性水平，根据Wilcoxon签署的等级测试由不同的上标指示：分支链（5.1 a ），地板上的链（4.4 < sup> b ），硬木（3.7 bc ），管道（3.5 c ），裸链（3.3 c ），短链（3.1 d ），小球（2.8 d ），大球（2.5 d ）和链垂得太高（1.3 < sup> e ）。支链的得分明显高于所有其他坚不可摧的材料，其福利得分（平均为5.1）接近预定的可接受水平（从0（最差）到10（最佳）的等级为5.5）。在金属链中添加球，管道或硬木的福利收益微乎其微，远低于专家认为可接受的浓缩程度。相比之下，支链设计似乎是最可行的选择。它涉及到提供更长的链条，即自由端达到地板水平，添加“分支”，即在猪的鼻高处终止的几条短链，以及每笔提供更多的链条（即每5头猪有1条分支链）。 。分支链应在短期内广泛实施，作为朝着集约化养殖猪提供适当富集的第一步和基准。
展开▼
