Journal Articles
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/7915
Browse
4 results
Search Results
Item Review: Space allowance for growing pigs: animal welfare, performance and on-farm practicality(Elsevier B V on behalf of The Animal Consortium, 2024-06) Chidgey KLThere is considerable variation in the recommended minimum space allowance for growing pigs in scientific literature, and growing pressure, arising from recent reviews of current animal welfare standards for pigs, to increase the minimum space allowances set in legislation in some countries (e.g., European Union countries and New Zealand). The space provided for growing pigs needs to accommodate their physical body size in addition to social behaviour, activity, and essential functional behaviours. However, recommended minimum space allowances vary according to criteria such as temperature, live weight, flooring type, group size, behaviour, and enrichment availability. Though there may be justification for increasing current space requirements, this will present a practical issue on existing farms and could even result in unintended negative welfare outcomes, depending on how farmers address an increased requirement for space. This is not helped by inconsistent scientific approaches to assessing the effect of space on pig performance, and a lack of information on how space allowance impacts a pig's affective state. This review explores the scientific basis of the most common approaches to determining minimum space allowances for growing pigs and discusses the various factors that influence and interact with their spatial requirements. Consideration is given to their nutrition, physical environment, health, and behaviour to understand the welfare, performance, and practicality implications of differing recommendations for space allowance. More research is needed that investigates a range of space allowances to better understand the relationship between animal welfare and performance outcomes, and space allowance. This must replicate commercial conditions so that recommendations are relevant, future-focused, and achieve positive welfare outcomes in a practical but meaningful manner.Item Loss of production and animal health costs in assessing economic burden of animal disease.(World Organisation for Animal Health, 2024-08) Marsh TL; Pendell D; Schrobback P; Shakil G; Tozer P; Rushton J; Cecchini MThis article focuses on identifying the loss of production and costs (or lack thereof) associated with livestock health as well as animal disease externalities, with the intent to estimate economy-wide burden. It limits its scope to terrestrial livestock and aquaculture, wherein economic burden is predominately determined by market forces. Losses and costs are delineated into both direct losses and costs and indirect losses and costs, as well as ex post costs and ex ante costs. These costs include not only private expenditures but also public expenditures related to the prevention of, treatment of, and response to livestock disease. This distinction is important because a primary role of government is to mitigate externalities. The article then discusses market impacts and investments. Finally, it provides selected examples and illustrative observations and discusses future directions for research and application. Cet article examine les pertes de production et les coûts associés (ou non) à la santé animale ainsi que les externalités liées aux maladies animales, dans le but d’estimer le fardeau pour l’ensemble de l’économie. L’examen se limite à la production d’animaux terrestres et aquatiques, secteurs où le fardeau économique est principalement déterminé par les forces du marché. Les pertes et les coûts sont répartis en pertes et coûts directs et indirects, ainsi qu’en coûts ex post et ex ante. Ces coûts comprennent non seulement les dépenses privées, mais aussi les dépenses publiques liées à la prévention, au traitement et aux réponses aux maladies des animaux d’élevage. Il s’agit d’une distinction importante car l’une des fonctions premières d’un gouvernement est d’atténuer les externalités. Les auteurs examinent ensuite les impacts sur les marchés et les investissements. Pour conclure, à partir d’exemples choisis et d’observations illustrant leur propos, les auteurs proposent des voies d’exploration pour la recherche et ses applications.Item Analysis of current equine feeding practices in the Netherlands and identification of potential nutrient leaching and environmental contamination factors.(Elsevier B.V., 2024-06-01) Karasu GK; Rogers CWThe aim of this study was to estimate the potential for nutrient leaching based on current feeding practices of horses in the Netherlands. An online survey of horse owners collected data on the demographics of the horses (n = 274) and feeding practices. The median age was 8 years, the majority being warmblood and geldings with a mean bodyweight of 542.4 ± 101.9 kg. Most horses (85 %) had access to a limited area of pasture (<200m2 per horse), with a median grazing time of 10 hours. Grass hay was the predominant conserved forage offered (77 %) within diets. Concentrate feeds were provided to most horses (93.8 %) as well as the dietary supplements (80 %). The majority of the horses were offered high levels of metabolizable energy (ME) (90 %), starch (mean 2.4 ± 0.8 g/kg bw) and sugar intake (mean 1.4 ± 1.2 g/kg bw) compared to NRC recommendations. The estimated potential nitrogen excretion per horse per day was 228 ± 134 g, or 8.47 kg of nitrogen per ton of manure. Consequently, the estimated daily fecal excretion rates of microminerals for each horse were as follows: Copper (Cu) at 141.0 ± 151.3 mg, Zinc (Zn) at 593.1 ± 504.4 mg, Manganese (Mn) at 957 ± 541.2 mg, and Cobalt (Co) at 2.3 ± 3.5 mg. The analysis indicated that many equine diets in the Netherlands offered excess ME, CP and the minerals Cu, Zn, Mn and Co. To mitigate these concerns, it is crucial to promote sustainable feeding practices and better educate horse owners.Item Review: The Five Domains model and promoting positive welfare in pigs(Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Animal Consortium, 2022-06-16) Kells NJPublic concern for the welfare of farm animals has increased over recent years. Meeting public demands for higher animal welfare products requires robust animal welfare assessment tools that enable the user to identify areas of potential welfare compromise and enhancement. The Five Domains model is a structured, systematic, and comprehensive framework for assessing welfare risks and enhancement in sentient animals. Since its inception in 1994, the model has undergone regular updates to incorporate advances in animal welfare understanding and scientific knowledge. The model consists of five areas, or domains, that focus attention on specific factors or conditions that may impact on an animal's welfare. These include four physical/functional domains: nutrition, physical environment, health, and behavioural interactions, and a fifth mental or affective state domain. The first three domains draw attention to welfare-significant internal physical/functional states within the animal, whereas the fourth deals with welfare-relevant features of the animal's external physical and social environment. Initially named "Behaviour" Domain 4 was renamed "Behavioural Interactions" in the 2020 iteration of the model and was expanded to include three categories: interactions with the environment, interactions with other animals and interactions with humans. These explicitly focus attention on environmental and social circumstances that may influence the animal's ability to exercise agency, an important determinant of welfare. Once factors in Domains 1-4 have been considered, the likely consequences, in terms of the animal's subjective experiences, are assigned to Domain 5 (affective state). The integrated outcome of all negative and positive mental experiences accumulated in Domain 5 represents the animal's current welfare state. Because the model specifically draws attention to conditions that may positively influence welfare, it provides a useful framework for identifying opportunities to promote positive welfare in intensively farmed animals. When negative affective experiences are minimised, providing animals with the opportunity to engage in species-specific rewarding behaviours may shift them into an overall positive welfare state. In domestic pigs, providing opportunities for foraging, play, and nest building, along with improving the quality of pig-human interactions, has the potential to promote positive welfare.