从动物福利谈猪栏设计

~~从动物福利谈猪栏设计@王燕丽$浙江金华职业技术学院!金华321007~~~~~~     

生猪栏舍设计发展现状与思考

基于后非洲猪瘟时代下生猪生产所面临的疫病防控、资源节约、环境保护和动物福利等诸多要素叠加影响,笔者全面分析近年来生猪栏舍设计发展趋势,提出生猪栏舍设计的好坏直接关系到生猪产业可持续健康发展,生猪栏舍设计应主动转变思维方式,实现资源、环境、动物福利与经济之间的有效协同。     

畜禽养殖中营养、生产环境与动物福利的关系

当今畜牧业的发展面临许多潜在的威胁和挑战。近年来发生的疯牛病、非典型肺炎和禽流感几乎均与动物养殖有关。这些疾病的发生不仅威胁动物、食品安全和人类健康．还给畜禽养殖业及相关行业带来很大的冲击，为此引发了消费者对动物和食品安全等一系列问题的极大关注，除了考虑动物产品本身的质量，动物的福利和健康也是消费者关注的新领域。日粮的营养水平和舍饲条件影响动物的行为和生理；日粮中添加抗生素虽可改善动物的健康、生长和饲料转化率．但却存在残留和抗药性等问题；栏舍的设计和空间（如猪栏和家禽笼的大小）在商业化养殖中也有争议，最普遍的看法是畜禽的圈和笼会影响动物的福利和生产力；饲养员对动物的态度和行为与动物的生产力、健康和福利之间也有密切关系；动物克隆和转基因技术不仅存在伦理道德和商业问题，而且对动物福利而言最具争议性。今后，畜牧业及其相关产业的可持续性发展将依赖于动物福利事业的进步，未来的挑战不仅仅是动物营养、饲养管理以及兽医预防与治疗问题，而且需要制定严格的与动物福利相关的法律与法规体系。本文就营养，     

探索如何取得动物福利与动物生产的双赢—荷兰母猪饲养管理的做法与经验及其启示

近几年来,在不断提高母猪生产性能的同时,母猪的动物福利问题也日益受到广泛的关注。特别是使用单体限位猪栏（即“妊娠栏”）饲养母猪,给母猪带来了许多动物伤病问题,在欧美等一些国家已经受到限制。如何保证动物的福利,科学饲养母猪,取得动物福利与动物生产的双赢,成为全球养猪业研究的一个热点。荷兰是一个养猪业发达的国家,特别是在母猪饲养管理方面取得了举世公认的成绩,既充分照顾到了母猪的动物福利,又提高了母猪的生产性能。荷兰在母猪饲养管理上的理念先进科学。主要是完全根据母猪的生物学行为特点设计栏舍,充分照顾到母猪的动物福利要求;全面实现母猪单独、精确、安全、无应激饲喂;注重保持母猪体况,根据个体的体型、胎次、背膘厚度来确定饲喂量,实现了大群条件下的个体精确饲养;在饲养管理过程中充分考虑到母猪的动物福利要求,值得我国在发展现代健康养殖业进程中学习与借鉴。     

我国动物福利立法探讨

动物福利法在西方已有～。百多年的历史，美国、欧盟、加拿大、澳大利亚等经济发达国家已为动物福利立法。西方发达国家常以自己国家的动物福利法案为法律依据，要求进口动物产品必须满足其福利规定，实质上形成了动物福利壁垒。随着经济和社会的进一步发展，动物福利和动物福利立法在中国开始被提到议事日程中，成为公众和知识界关注的话题。     

国际贸易壁垒视域下动物福利立法研究

近年来，动物福利逐渐在国际上引发强烈关注，各国对动物福利的保护从国内立法保护发展到在对外贸易中设置壁垒的方式。动物福利壁垒也因此逐渐成为国际贸易中的主要新型壁垒。本文首先对动物福利理念的发展历程进行简要梳理，其次归纳总结动物福利的域外立法规范，再次对我国在养殖与屠宰中所遭遇的贸易壁垒典型案例进行剖析，藉此分析我国之所以面临动物福利壁垒的根结所在。最后从构建农场动物福利法律体系和普及福利理念的角度为应对动物福利壁垒、提高农场动物福利水平提出建议。     

笼养产蛋母鸡饲养的动物福利问题

近几年来，全世界特别是发达国家对动物福利问题日益重视，保护动物福利的呼声日见高涨，动物福利作为生产实践活动一个明显决定因素的情况已经出现，关心维护动物福利正在从一种观念发展成为一项普遍的原则，甚至将动物福利作为动物性产品国际贸易的标准或壁垒。农场动物的动物福利问题主要表现在饲养、运输、屠宰过程中的方方面面，尤其受到关注。     

试论加快我国动物福利立法的现实意义

动物福利，就是让动物在健康、快乐的状态下生存。从动物福利运动兴起至今，许多国家和国际组织在动物福利方面已经制定或即将制定相应的法律、法规、标准和准则。中国是一个农业大国，尽快制定出适合国情的动物福利法律、法规及标准，提高我国的动物福利水平，已显得十分紧迫和必要。     

我国农畜动物福利的现状和对策

“动物福利”（animal welfare)这一概念由国外学者提出到现在已有100多年的历史。动物福利制度已经在世界范围内迅速地发展起来，动物福利的条款写入了世界贸易组织的规则中，但是，我国的动物福利立法和制度化工相当落后，这一问题亟待解决。本文作者通过对我国农畜动物福利现状的透视、分析漠视动物福利所带来的负面影响，提出了改善我国农畜动物福利现状的科技对策。     

国外动物福利发展动态及启示

6．3．3明确福利标准，推行标准化生产。 食用饲养动物的动物福利主要体现在饲养、运输、屠宰等过程中，动物福利要在这些环节中体现出来，最有效的途径是在畜牧业中积极推进符合动物福利要求的标准化生产。在制定饲养、运输、屠宰标准时，要借鉴国际标准，明确动物福利的具体要求，标准和要求要有可操作性，避免含糊笼统。据悉，我国正在修订《中华人民共和国畜牧法》，在“动物屠宰     

Happy pigs are dirty! – conflicting perspectives on animal welfare

The study of animal welfare cannot be based entirely on science. For a number of assumptions of an ethical nature will it inevitably enter the study of how good or bad animals fare under different systems of animal production.

In some cases, ethical assumptions may be uncontroversial, but they may also be the cause of disagreement. A case study is presented that seems to indicate that there is systematic disagreement between lay and expert views about what a good animal life is. The study is based on interviews about modern pig production. The title of this paper summarises the reaction of an interviewee when commenting on pictures of what is generally regarded as animal-friendly pig production. In the lay perspective, living a natural life is an important part of animal welfare – a part that supplements, and therefore needs to be combined with, the absence of suffering and frustration that are central components of the expert approach.

The main message of the paper for those who are professionally involved in animal production is that ethical assumptions and potential conflicts of view should be recognised and brought into the discussion of animal welfare.     

猪的福利与放牧养猪

通过对动物福利的概况阐述,分析了我国猪饲养环境中存在的动物福利问题以及放牧养猪对猪只福利的影响,提出了发展放牧养猪的思路。     

Toward a better understanding of pig behavior and pig welfare

Pork production began to flourish in the USA after the practice of finishing pigs on corn was popularized in the late 1600s. By the 1840s, there were 35 million pigs and 20 million people in the USA and Cincinnati was the world's largest pork market. Between 1890 and the present, the total number of pigs in the USA has remained at 50-60 million, but dramatic changes in swine husbandry over the course of the 20th century have metamorphosed pig production from small, extensive (outdoor), labor-dependent enterprises into large, intensive (indoor), capital-dependent, production systems. This development has led to debate concerning the impact of swine production on animal/human health, the environment, and the welfare of the animals under our care. In a very tangible way, the future of pork production depends on effectively addressing the public's concerns regarding animal welfare and health. Here, we review basic sensory and behavioral aspects of swine with the objective of reaching a better understanding of pig behavior and pig welfare. The premise of this discussion is that safeguarding animal welfare and health is good for pigs, pork producers and the animal-conscious public.     

Technical note: A model to estimate individual feed intake of swine in group feeding

In most animal growth experiments, groups of animals are housed within a pen. Occasionally, an individual animal shows a very different growth rate than its pen mates or dies during the experiment. When this happens, if pen feed intake (PFI) cannot be reestimated for the calculation of ADFI and feed efficiency, an observation will be lost from the data set. Therefore, we propose a model to estimate individual feed intake (IFI) of pigs in group feeding, with subsequent validation of the model using group feeding simulation studies. In the proposed model, the feed intake (FI) of each affected pen is partitioned into FI for maintenance (FI(m)) and FI for growth (FI(g)) for each animal within that pen. First, individual pig FI(m) for the period is calculated using the 1998 National Research Council estimation of ME for maintenance. Then, FI(m) for all pigs in the pen is summed. The difference between the summed FI(m) and the total PFI is that which supported growth in the pen. Next, FI(g) is calculated by apportioning the remaining feed equally to each unit of gain within the pen. Finally, the estimated IFI for the pig being removed from the pen is the sum of FI(m) and FI(g) for that pig; this FI estimate is subtracted from the original PFI to leave the new PFI for the remaining pigs. The validity of the estimated IFI is dependent on the accuracy of the maintenance energy equation and the energy analysis of the feedstuffs. In simulation studies, we compared the accuracy of the proposed method with 2 other methods. In simulation study 1, the proposed model showed better accuracy than at least one of the other methods during all tested periods (P < 0.001). In simulation study 2, the greater accuracy of the proposed method compared with 2 other methods was demonstrated again. Because calculation of IFI is relatively cumbersome, we developed a feed intake correction spreadsheet (FICS), an Excel spreadsheet containing macros for FI correction. All of the calculation procedures in the proposed model are included within the feed intake correction spreadsheet. The Excel file and instructions are being made available via a Web site.     

Good animal welfare makes economic sense: potential of pig abattoir meat inspection as a welfare surveillance tool

ABSTRACT: During abattoir meat inspection pig carcasses are partially or fully condemned upon detection of disease that poses a risk to public health or welfare conditions that cause animal suffering e.g. fractures. This incurs direct financial losses to producers and processors. Other health and welfare-related conditions may not result in condemnation but can necessitate 'trimming' of the carcass e.g. bruising, and result in financial losses to the processor. Since animal health is a component of animal welfare these represent a clear link between suboptimal pig welfare and financial losses to the pig industry.Meat inspection data can be used to inform herd health programmes, thereby reducing the risk of injury and disease and improving production efficiency. Furthermore, meat inspection has the potential to contribute to surveillance of animal welfare. Such data could contribute to reduced losses to producers and processors through lower rates of carcass condemnations, trimming and downgrading in conjunction with higher pig welfare standards on farm. Currently meat inspection data are under-utilised in the EU, even as a means of informing herd health programmes. This includes the island of Ireland but particularly the Republic.This review describes the current situation with regard to meat inspection regulation, method, data capture and utilisation across the EU, with special reference to the island of Ireland. It also describes the financial losses arising from poor animal welfare (and health) on farms. This review seeks to contribute to efforts to evaluate the role of meat inspection as a surveillance tool for animal welfare on-farm, using pigs as a case example.     

Intensive housing: the last straw for pigs?

The concept of coping can be used to relate the environmental conditions provided for livestock to their responses--their productivity and their welfare. Pigs are "ecological generalists" and hence are "designed" to cope with a wide variety of environmental conditions. They, however, show clear limits to their adaptability both in terms of the space they require and the pen materials they can endure without injury. Even where they adapt to a wide range of conditions, there often is a particular environment that gives optimum performance. Examples of temperature requirements and feeding facilities are discussed. The process of coping is shown to impose a biological "cost" in some instances and, although a pig has adapted to a specific environment, questions still remain concerning whether keeping a pig in that environment is justifiable.     

Effects of confinement and research needs to underpin welfare standards

Although there is no agreement on how to measure animal welfare, how to interpret some of the observed changes in behavior and physiology, and how much confinement of animals is acceptable, this has not stopped animal welfare standards from being set in the form of either voluntary or mandatory recommendations. Notwithstanding that there are gaps in knowledge about a number of farming practices, there is some emphasis by scientists, industry, politicians, and some animal welfare groups for any changes to welfare-related recommendations to be based on scientific evidence. This article discusses the related issues of confinement and its effects on farm animals, research gaps in the field of animal welfare, the development of welfare standards, and whether such standards should be underpinned by science. For some issues there is a general consensus, for example, that animals feel pain and have emotions and that animals' appearance and behavior are used by good farmers to recognize both the ‘normality’ and deviations from normal of their animals. However, these variables are difficult to measure or define. Nevertheless, if issues are considered important to animals' welfare, should difficulty of measurement or definition be a barrier to the creation of legislated standards? Thus, options for legislated standards include either comprehensive standards, some of which may be difficult to measure, similar to current legislation on cruelty to animals, or only a limited number of standards with targets that can be measured, some of which may have less relevance to welfare outcomes.     

Tail Biting in Pigs

One of the costly and welfare-reducing problems in modern pig production is tail biting. Tail biting is an abnormal behaviour, characterized by one pig's dental manipulation of another pig's tail. Tail biting can be classified into two groups: the pre-injury stage, before any wound on the tail is present, and the injury stage, where the tail is wounded and bleeding. Tail biting in the injury stage will reduce welfare of the bitten pig and the possible spread of infection is a health as well as welfare problem. The pigs that become tail biters may also suffer, because they are frustrated due to living in a stressful environment. This frustration may result in an excessive motivation for biting the tails of pen mates. This review aims to summarize recent research and theories in relation to tail biting.     

Natural living—a precondition for animal welfare in organic farming

This article discusses animal welfare in organic farming systems in relation to values and aims in organic farming. It sums up experiences from a 4-year interdisciplinary project. An important finding is that animal welfare is understood somewhat differently in organic farming from what is common in conventional agriculture. It is interpreted in terms of natural living, which includes the possibility to perform a natural behaviour, feed adapted to the animal's physiology and a natural environment. Some of the criticism of animal welfare in organic farming may stem from different understandings of what “welfare” actually means. However, although welfare is an important aim in organic farming, the overall concern is to develop sustainable farming systems. This causes some welfare dilemmas. For example, a healthy system does not automatically mean good welfare for the individual. Based on available literature the actual welfare situation in organic systems was scrutinized. Unfortunately little research has been done, but a careful conclusion was that animal health is as good or better than in conventional farming—with the exception of parasitic diseases. Organic farming systems have a “welfare potential”, but organic farmers must deal with the dilemmas and take animal welfare issues seriously.     

Effect of shade area on performance and welfare of short-fed feedlot cattle

One hundred twenty-six Black Angus yearling heifers were used in a 119-d study to assess the effect of shade allocation (0, 2.0, 3.3, or 4.7 m(2)/animal) on the performance and welfare of feedlot cattle. Shade treatments were replicated 4 times and the no-shade treatment was replicated twice. Shade was provided by 70% solar block shade cloth, attached to a 4-m-high frame with a north-south orientation. Cattle were randomly allocated to a pen (9/pen; 19.2 m(2)/animal) within treatment. Performance was assessed using DMI, G:F, ADG, HCW, dressing percentage, and rump fat depth. Climatic data (ambient and black globe temperature, solar radiation, wind speed, relative humidity, and rainfall) were recorded. From these data, the heat load index (HLI) was calculated. When the daily maximum HLI (HLI(Max)) was <86, individual panting score (0 = no panting; 4 = open mouth, tongue extended), animal location (eating, drinking, under shade), and animal posture (standing or lying) were collected at 0600, 1200, and 1800 h. When HLI(Max) was ≥ 86, these data were collected every 2 h between 0600 and 1800 h. Feed intake was recorded weekly and water intake was recorded daily on a pen basis. When HLI(Max) was ≥ 86, mean panting score (MPS: mean of animals within treatment) was greatest (1.02; P < 0.001) for unshaded cattle compared with cattle in the shade treatments, which were similar (0.82; P = 0.81). During heat waves, the MPS of unshaded cattle was greater (2.66; P < 0.001) than that for shaded cattle. The MPS of cattle in the 2.0 m(2)/animal treatment (2.43 ± 0.13) was greater (P < 0.001) than that of cattle in the 3.3 (2.11 ± 0.13) and 4.7 m(2)/animal (2.03 ± 0.13) treatments. The MPS of cattle in the 3.3 and 4.7 m(2)/animal treatments were similar (P = 0.09). Number standing was similar (P = 0.98) between unshaded and shaded at 2.0 m(2)/animal treatments with 4.75 and 4.76 animals/pen, respectively. Fewer (P < 0.0001) were standing in the 3.3 (4.19 animals/pen) and 4.7 m(2)/animal (4.06 animals/pen) treatments. Fewer (P = 0.004) cattle were under the shade at 2.0 m(2)/animal (47.1%) compared with the number under the shade at 3.3 (53.7%) and 4.7 m(2)/animal (53.6%). Unshaded cattle had the smallest (0.085 ± 0.006) G:F ratio (P = 0.01), followed by cattle shaded at 4.7 m(2)/animal (0.104 ± 0.006; P ≤ 0.001). There was no difference (P = 0.12) between the 2.0 and 3.3 m(2)/animal treatments. There were no differences (P > 0.10) for final BW, HCW, dressing percentage, and rump fat depth. Cattle with access to shade had smaller panting scores, which suggests improved welfare, and had better feed efficiency. Shade reduced the intensity of the heat load but did not fully remove the effect of heat.