Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-31T20:08:08.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RICHPIG: a semantic model to assess enrichment materials for pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

MBM Bracke
MBM Bracke*
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group of Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
*
Email: marc.bracke@wur.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A computer-based model was constructed to assess enrichment materials (EMats) for intensively-farmed weaned, growing and fattening pigs on a scale from 0 to 10. This model, called RICHPIG, was constructed in order to support the further implementation of EC Directive 2001/93/EC, which states that “pigs must have permanent access to a sufficient quantity of material to enable proper investigation and manipulation activities”. This paper describes the underlying conceptual framework for assessing EMats and explains the concepts, procedures and calculation rules used for semantic modelling. A (parsimonious) weighted average calculation rule was used to calculate enrichment scores from assessment criteria scores (which specify welfare relevant material properties of EMats) and weighting factors (WFs, which specify the relative importance of the assessment criteria). In total, 30 assessment criteria were identified and classified as object design criteria (eg novelty and accessibility), behavioural elements (eg nose, root, chew), biological functions (explore and forage), manipulations (ie object-directed behaviours), other (non-manipulative) consequences (eg aggression and stress) and object performance criteria (eg changeability/destructibility and hygiene). WFs were calculated from a systematic analysis of 573 scientific statements collected in the database, using 11 so-called weighting categories (Wcat, ie scientific paradigms to assess welfare such as the study of natural behaviour, consumer demand studies and stress-physiology) to assign Wcat level scores (which indicate the intensity, duration and incidence of a welfare impact) to the assessment criteria. The main advantages of the RICHPIG model are that it is based explicitly on available scientific information, that it has an explicitly formulated conceptual framework, is transparent, disputable, upgradeable, robust and reasonably in accordance with expert opinion. Major scope for improvements exist in the form of the need for further upgrading with new knowledge, empirical validation and (further) implementation in political decision-making processes.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourdecision support systemenvironmental enrichmentpigssemantic modelling
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , August 2008 , pp. 289 - 304
Copyright
© 2008 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anonymous 1993 Genstat 5 Release 3 Reference Manual, 1993. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 2001a Scientists' assessment of the impact of housing and management on animal welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4: 3–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 2001b SPSS ® Base 11.0 User's Guide. SPSS: Chicago, Illinois, USAGoogle Scholar
Apple, JK and Craig, JV 1992 The influence of pen size on toy preference of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 35: 149–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arey, DS and Maw, SJ 1995 Food substrates as environmental enrichment for pigs. Farm Building Progress 118: 9–12Google Scholar
Beattie, VE, Sneddon, IA and Walker, N 1993 Behaviour and productivity of the domestic pig in barren and enriched environments. Livestock Environment IV. Fourth International Symposium pp 42–50. American Society of Agricultural Engineers: St. Joseph, Michigan, USAGoogle Scholar
Beattie, VE, Walker, N and Sneddon, IA 1996 An investigation of the effect of environmental enrichment and space allowance on the behaviour and production of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48: 151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, VE, Walker, N and Sneddon, IA 1998 Preference testing of substrates by growing pigs. Animal Welfare 7: 27–34Google Scholar
Beattie, VE, Sneddon, IA, Walker, N and Weatherup, RN 2001 Environmental enrichment of intensive pig housing using spent mushroom compost. Animal Science 72: 35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, JK, Thomas, FJ and Lee, J-A 1997 The effect of a fixed or free toy on the growth rate and aggressive behaviour of weaned pigs and the influence of hierarchy on initial investigation of the toys. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bøe, KE 1992 The effect of different kinds of bedding on the behaviour of fattening pigs. Proceedings of the CIGR Congress pp 76-83. 8 September 1992, Szklarska Poreba, PolandGoogle Scholar
Bolhuis, JE, Parmentier, HK, Schouten, WGP, Schrama, JW and Wiegant, VA 2003 Effects of housing and individual coping characteristics on immune responses of pigs. Physiology and Behavior 79: 289–296CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM and Metz, JHM 1999a Overall welfare assessment reviewed. Part 1: Is it possible? Netherland Journal of Agricultural Science 47: 279–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Metz, JHM and Spruijt, BM 1999b Overall welfare reviewed. Part 2: Assessment tables and schemes. Netherland Journal of Agricultural Science 47: 293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM and Metz, JHM 1999c Overall welfare reviewed. Part 3: Welfare assessment based on needs and supported by expert opinion. Netherland Journal of Agricultural Science 47: 307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM 2001 Modelling of animal welfare: the development of a decision support system to assess the welfare status of pregnant sows. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM, Metz, JHM and Schouten, WGP 2002a Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows A: Model structure and weighting procedure. Journal of Animal Science 8: 1819–1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Metz, JHM, Spruijt, BM and Schouten, WGP 2002b Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows B: Validation by expert opinion. Journal of Animal Science 8: 1835–1845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Hulsegge, B, Keeling, L and Blokhuis, HJ 2004a Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs: 1: Modelling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87: 31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Hulsegge, B, Keeling, L and Blokhuis, HJ 2004b Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs: 2; ‘Validation’. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87: 45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM 2006 Expert opinion regarding environmental enrichment materials for pigs. Animal Welfare 15: 67–70Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM and Hopster, H 2006 Assessing the importance of natural behavior for animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19: 77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Zonderland, JJ, Lenskens, P, Schouten, WGP, Vermeer, H, Spoolder, HAM, Hendriks, HJM and Hopster, H 2006 Formalised review of environmental enrichment for pigs in relation to political decision making. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 98: 165–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Zonderland, JJ and Bleumer, EJB 2007a Expert judgement on enrichment materials for pigs validates preliminary RICHPIG Model. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 104: 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Zonderland, JJ, Bleumer, EJB 2007b Expert consultation on weighting factors of criteria for assessing environmental enrichment materials for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 104: 14–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM 2007 Multifactorial testing of enrichment criteria: pigs ‘demand’ hygiene and destructibility more than sound. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107: 208–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM and Spoolder, HAM 2008 Novel object test can detect marginal differences in environmental enrichment in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109: 39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke MBM, de Bakker E, Beekman V, Jansson K and de Graaff 2008 Voedselkwaliteit op het spoor – Op weg naar een transparant beleidsafwegingskader. LEI Report 2008. LEI: The Netherlands. [Title translation: Food quality on track towards a tranparent policy decision framework]Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Edwards, SA, Metz, JHM, Noordhuizen, JPTM and Algers B Synthesis of semantic modelling and risk analysis methodology applied to animal welfare. Animal, in press, aGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Edwards, SA, Engel, B, Buist, WG and Algers, B Expert opinion as ‘validation’ of risk assessment applied to calf welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, at press, bGoogle Scholar
Buré, RG, Kerk, Pvd and Koomans, P 1983 Het verstrekken van stro, compost en tuinaarde aan mestvarkens: Report 190. IMAG: Wageningen, The Netherlands [Title translation: Providing straw, compost and garden mould to fattening pigs]Google Scholar
Courboulay, V, Roubelet, A and Loiseau, D 2004 How do ground fixed or suspended objects influence the activity of growing-finishing pigs housed on fully slatted floor? Journee Recherche Porcine 36: 389–394Google Scholar
Day, JEL, Spoolder, HAM and Edwards, SA 2001 Straw as environmental enrichment: which properties do growing pigs find behaviourally rewarding? Proceedings of the International Symposium of the C.IGR pp 157-166. 23-25 October 2001, Szklarska Poreba, PolandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, JEL, Burfoot, A, Docking, CM, Whittaker, X, Spoolder, HAM and Edwards, SA 2002a The effects of prior experience of straw and the level of straw provision on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76: 189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, JEL, Spoolder, HAM, Burfoot, A, Chamberlain, HL and Edwards, SA 2002b The separate and interactive effects of handling and environmental enrichment on the behaviour and welfare of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75: 177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Mol, RM, Schouten, WGP, Evers, E, Drost, WC, Houwers, HWJ and Smits, AC 2004 Integrale welzijnsbeoordeling leghennen. Report 239. Agrotechnology & Food Innovations of Wageningen University and Research Centre: Wageningen, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Integrated welfare assessment laying hens]Google Scholar
De Mol, RM, Schouten, WGP, Evers, E, Drost, WC, Houwers, HWJ and Smits, AC 2006 A computer model for welfare assessment of husbandry systems for laying hens. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 54: 157–168Google Scholar
EFSA 2007 Scientific report on the risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems. The EFSA Journal 611: 2–98. Available at http://www.efsa.europe.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178672658201.htmGoogle Scholar
Feddes, JJR and Fraser, D 1994 Non-nutritive chewing by pigs: implications for tail-biting and behavioral enrichment. Transactions of the ASAE 37: 947–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1987 Mineral-deficient diets and the pig's attraction to blood: implications for tail-biting. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 6: 909–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser 1988 Behavioural needs in relation to livestock maintenance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19: 368–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Phillips, PA, Thompson, BK and Tennessen, T 1991 Effect of straw on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonyou, HW and Bench, CJ 2002 Effects of environmental enrichment at two phases of development on the incidence of belly nosing behaviour in early weaned pigs. In: Koene P (ed) Proceedings of the 36th International Congress of the ISAE p 114. 6-10 August 2002, Egmond aan Zee, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T and Curtis, SE 1984 Toy preferences in young pigs. Journal of Animal Science 59 (S1): 85Google Scholar
Grandin, T, Curtis, SE and Taylor, IA 1987 Toys, mingling and driving reduce excitability in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 65(S1): 230–231Google Scholar
Heizmann, V, Hauser, C and Mann, M 1988 Zum Erkundungs- und Spielverhalten juveniler Hausschweine in der Stallhaltung. KTBL Schrift 323: 243–265. [Title translation: On exploration and play behaviour of juvenile domestic pigs housed indoors]Google Scholar
Hill, JD, McGlone, JJ, Fullwood, SD and Miller, MF 1998 Environmental enrichment influences of pig behavior, performance and meat quality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 57: 51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höges, J 1991 Beschäftigungsmaterial für Schweine. DGS Magazin 17: 492. [Title translation: Occupational materials for pigs]Google Scholar
Horrell, I and Ness, PA 1995 Enrichment satisfying specific behavioural needs in early-weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorgensen, B 2003 Influence of floor type and stocking density on leg weakness, osteochondrosis and claw disorders in slaughter pigs. Animal Science 77: 439–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kress, B, Ross, A, van den Weghe, H and Steffens, G 1999 Straw as a material for occupying fattening pigs in a fully slatted floor system taking animal behaviour into special consideration. In: Internationale tagung “Bau, Technik und Umwelt in der landwirt-schaftlichen Nutztierhaltung” pp 279-283. 9-10 March 1999, Freising, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Krötzl, H, Sciarra, C and Troxler, J 1993 Der Einfluss von Rauhfutterautomaten, Strohraufen und Nagebalken auf das Verhalten von Mastschweinen. KTBL Schrift 361: 181–191. [Title translation: Effects of roughage automats, straw racks and gnawing timber on the behaviour of fattening pigs]Google Scholar
Lyons, CAP, Bruce, JM, Fowler, VR and English, PR 1995 A comparison of productivity and welfare of growing pigs in four intensive systems. Livestock Production Science 43: 265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinnon, AJ, Edwards, SA, Stephens, DB and Walters, DE 1989 Behaviour of groups of weaner pigs in three different housing systems. British Veterinary Journal 145: 367–372CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, B, Hagelso, M, Hansen, LL and Jeppesen, LL 1984 Effect of environment and rank order on agonistic behaviour in pigs. Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology in Farm Animals pp 162-165. 4-6 August 1984, Kiel, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Moore, EA, Broom, DM and Simmins, PH 1994 Environmental enrichment in flatdeck accomodation for exploratory behaviour in early weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41: 3–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, AW, Vestergaard, EM and Dybkjaer, L 2000 Roughage as additional rooting substrates for pigs. Animal Science 70: 451–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, AW, Simonsen, HB and Dybkjaer, L 2002 Effect of access to roughage and shelter on selected behavioural indicators of welfare in pigs housed in a complex environment. Animal Welfare 11: 75–87Google Scholar
Pearce, GP, Paterson, AM and Pearce, AN 1989 The influence of pleasant and unpleasant handling and the provision of toys on the growth and behaviour of male pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, GP and Paterson, AM 1993 The effect of space restriction and provision of toys during rearing on the behaviour, productivity and physiology of male pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36: 11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, V, Simonsen, HB and Lawson, LG 1995 The effect of environmental stimulation on the development of behaviour in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45: 215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sambraus, HH and Kuchenhoff, R 1992 The effects of environmental objects on the resting behaviour and behavioural abnormalities of piglets. Tierarztliche Umschau 47: 233–242Google Scholar
Sambrook, TD and Buchanan-Smith, HM 1997 Control and complexity in novel object enrichment. Animal Welfare 6: 207–216Google Scholar
Schaefer, AL, Salomons, MO, Tong, AKW, Sather, AP and Lepage, P 1990 The effect of environment enrichment on aggression in newly weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoolder, H, De Rosa, G, Hörning, B, Waiblinger, S and Wemelsfelder, F 2003 Integrating parameters to assess on-farm welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 529–534Google Scholar
Stubbe, A 2000 Entwicklung und Beurteilung einer Beschäftigungstechnik für Mastschweine in intensiven Haltungssystemen. PhD thesis, Institut für Agrartechnik, Universität Hohenheim, Hohenheim, Germany. [Title translation: Development and assessment of an occupation technique for fattening pigs in intensive housing systems]Google Scholar
SVC (Scientific Veterinary Committee) 1997 The welfare of intensively kept pigs. Report to the Directorate General XXIV of the European Commission. Adopted 30th September 1997. Doc. XXIV/ScVc/0005/97, Scientific Veterinary Committee, Animal Welfare Section: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, Breuer, K and Edwards, SA 2003a Longitudinal study of adverse behaviour of undocked pigs in two different housing systems. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science. 9-10 September 2003, Nottingham, UKGoogle Scholar
van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, Avery, PJ and Edwards, SA 2003b A systematic approach towards developing environmental enrichment for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Putten, G 1980 Objective observations on the behaviour of fattening pigs. Animal Regulation Studies 3: 105–118Google Scholar
van Rooijen, J 1981 Die Anpassungsfähigkeit von Schweinen an einstreulose Buchten. KTBL Schrift 281: 174–185. [Title translation: Adaptability of pigs to strawless pens]Google Scholar
van Rooijen, J 1982 Operant preference test with pigs. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 87–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiepkema, PR 1987 Behavioural aspects of stress. In: Wiepkema, PR and van Adrichem, PWM (eds) Biology of Stress in Farm Animals: An Integrative Approach pp 113–133. Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiepkema, PR and Koolhaas, JM 1993 Stress and animal welfare. Animal Welfare 2: 195–218Google Scholar
Willeberg, P 1991 Animal welfare studies: Epidemiological considerations. Proceedings of the Society of Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine pp 76-82. 17-19 April 1991, London, UKGoogle Scholar
Wood-Gush, DGM and Beilharz, RG 1983 The enrichment of a bare environment for animals in confined conditions. Applied Animal Ethology 10: 209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood-Gush, DGM and Vestergaard, K 1991 The seeking of novelty and its relation to play. Animal Behaviour 42: 599–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Fillerup, M, Van Reenen, CG, Hopster, H and Spoolder, HAM 2003a Preventie en behandeling van staartbijten bij gespeende biggen. RIAH report 18. Praktijkonderzoek: Lelystad, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Prevention and treatment of tail biting in weaned piglets]Google Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Vermeer, HM, Vereijken, PFG and Spoolder, HAM 2003b Measuring a pig's preference for suspended toys by using an automated recording technique. CIGR Ejournal V: 1-11Google Scholar