Suppr超能文献

爱尔兰养猪农户对咬尾和咬耳的认知与经历

Irish pig farmer's perceptions and experiences of tail and ear biting.

作者信息

Haigh Amy, O'Driscoll Keelin

机构信息

1Present address: School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

2Pig Development Department, Centre for Grassland Research and Innovation, Teagasc, Fermoy, Co. Cork Ireland.

出版信息

Porcine Health Manag. 2019 Dec 17;5:30. doi: 10.1186/s40813-019-0135-8. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

Abnormal behaviours such as ear and tail biting of pigs is of significant welfare and economic concern. Currently, pig welfare legislation is under renewed focus by the EU commission and is likely to be enforced more thoroughly. The legislation prohibits routine tail docking and requires adequate enrichment to be provided. In Ireland, tail-docking is still the most utilised control mechanism to combat tail biting, but biting is still widespread even in tail-docked pigs. In addition, as pig farms are almost all fully slatted, bedding type material cannot be provided. Thus, the opinions, and practices of farmers in countries like Ireland, which may need to make significant adaptations to typical pig management systems soon, need to be considered and addressed. We carried out a survey of pig farmers during 2015 in order to gain a greater understanding of the extent of biting on Irish farms, perception on the most important preventive measures, current enrichment use and actions following outbreaks. Fifty-eight farmers from 21 Counties responded with an average herd size of 710 ± 597 sows (range 90-3000 sows). Only two farms had experienced no biting in the last year. Of the farms that had experienced tail biting (88%), 86% had also experienced ear biting. The most common concerns relating to biting were condemnation and reduced productivity of bitten pigs with both receiving an average score of 4 (most serious). Ear biting occurred most commonly in the 2nd stage (approximately 47-81 days from weaning) weaner and tail biting in the finishing stage. The most important preventive measures were felt to be taking care of animal health, restricting density, maintaining an even quality of feed/content and maintaining good air movement. Sixty-five percent of respondents added additional enrichment following an outbreak. Chains were the most common form of enrichment currently used (83%). Those not using chains favoured wood, toys and rope (17%). Identification of the most effective and accessible control and prevention measures both for the animals and for the farming community is thus essential. Improved understanding of the concerns and practices of producers, which this survey contributes to, is a first step towards this aim.

摘要

猪的诸如咬耳和咬尾等异常行为,在福利和经济方面都备受关注。目前,欧盟委员会重新聚焦猪福利立法,且可能会更严格地执行。该立法禁止常规断尾,并要求提供充足的丰富环境。在爱尔兰,断尾仍是应对咬尾最常用的控制手段,但即使是断尾的猪,咬尾现象仍很普遍。此外,由于养猪场几乎全是全漏缝地板,无法提供垫料类材料。因此,像爱尔兰这样的国家,农民的观点和做法可能很快需要对典型的养猪管理系统做出重大调整,这些都需要加以考虑和解决。我们在2015年对养猪户进行了一项调查,以便更深入了解爱尔兰农场咬尾的程度、对最重要预防措施的看法、当前丰富环境措施的使用情况以及疫情爆发后的应对行动。来自21个郡的58位农民做出了回应,平均猪群规模为710±597头母猪(范围为90 - 3000头母猪)。去年只有两个农场没有出现咬尾情况。在经历过咬尾的农场中(88%),86%的农场也出现过咬耳情况。与咬尾相关的最常见担忧是被咬猪的胴体被判不合格以及生产力下降,两者平均得分均为4分(最为严重)。咬耳最常发生在第二阶段(断奶后约47 - 81天)的断奶仔猪,咬尾则发生在育肥阶段。最重要的预防措施被认为是关注动物健康、控制饲养密度、保持饲料/内容物质量均匀以及保持良好的空气流通。65% 的受访者在疫情爆发后增加了额外的丰富环境措施。链条是目前最常用的丰富环境形式(83%)。不使用链条的人则倾向于使用木头、玩具和绳子(17%)。因此,确定对动物和养殖群体而言最有效且可行的控制和预防措施至关重要。本调查有助于更好地理解生产者的担忧和做法,但这只是朝着该目标迈出的第一步。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/df6f/6918573/3b6af530d3af/40813_2019_135_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验