Enrichment for commercially raised pigs

Ratification date: 16/07/2026 

Purpose 

To advocate for the mandatory provision of appropriate, evidence-based environmental enrichment for all commercially raised pigs in Australia, and for its explicit inclusion as a requirement during development of Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Pigs. 

To support veterinarians to contribute to the development, communication, and implementation of effective, evidence-based, enrichment plans that promote intrinsic behaviours, reduce abnormal behaviours, and enhance overall pig welfare. 

Policy 

  1. All commercially raised pigs must be provided with effective, safe, accessible and sufficient enrichment appropriate to their class, age, behavioural needs, health status and housing system.
  2. Enrichment plans must be developed by each farm in conjunction with their consulting veterinarian utilising current, evidence-based methods to support positive animal welfare outcomes.
  3. There should be regular review and updates of enrichment plans to align with emerging evidence.
  4. Any update, when available, of the current Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Pigs 3rd Edition (MCOP) (Pigs, 2008) to Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Pigs must ensure that all pigs are provided with enrichment appropriate to the class of pig, with a clear framework and measurable targets (e.g., Qualitative behavioural assessment or Animal-Based Measures) for auditing enrichment provision. 
  5. Research on enrichment should continue and evolve as our ability to accurately measure positive emotional welfare state progresses. 

Definition 

Enrichment in the context of this policy is adapted from work by P. Taylor and defined as, enrichment that maintains interest and is used, is appropriate to the class of pig and that contributes to a sustained positive welfare state in the animals it is applied to (Taylor et al., 2023). 

Background 

Pigs are intelligent and social. The goal of environmental enrichment is to promote a sustained positive welfare state by making the pigs’ environment more engaging and by supporting intrinsic behaviours that pigs are highly motivated to perform such as rooting, foraging, nesting and positive social interactions (e.g., play behaviour). Enrichment  provides stimulation, cognitive challenges, opportunities to make choices, supports positive social interactions and intrinsic behaviours (Bracke, 2006). Traditionally environmental enrichment was often used reactively when pigs were at risk of increased aggression e.g. post mixing. More recently this has evolved to enrichment being considered proactively as an essential resource to promote a positive welfare state.  

Key enrichment times and behavioural needs for different classes of pig have been identified and are listed below: 

Sows: 

  • Farrowing = nest building (Monteiro et al., 2023) 
  • Mixing = aggression 
  • Gestation = foraging  

Growing pigs: 

  • Lactation = maternal contact 
  • Weaning = continuity with farrowing, sucking and feeding, exploration 
  • Growing = foraging (EFSA (AHAW) et al., 2022) 

Boars: 

  • Sub-mature = exploration, foraging 
  • Mature = exploration, foraging, reproduction (van de Weerd & Ison, 2019) 

When designing an enrichment plan it is important to consider the following factors: 

  • Enrichment is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Pigs of different ages, at different stages of production (e.g. lactation/gestation) or pigs in different environments e.g., indoor vs outdoor housing, solid vs slatted flooring will have different needs and preferences. Plans will need to be developed for an individual system and may need to be adapted over time.  
  • Future planning of facilities and infrastructure should address the need to provide effective enrichment options 
  • The material used, amount and type of enrichment (destructive/ chewable/ investigative/ manipulable/ olfactory/ auditory)  
  • To maintain pig engagement and prevent habituation, some forms of environmental enrichment (particularly inanimate objects) may require regular rotation, replacement, multiple types in a single space to build complexity, specific timing or periodic adjustment. 
  • Effective enrichment should stimulate important intrinsic behaviours such as foraging, maintain health and promote a sustained positive welfare state.  
  • Objects are more successful when they are ingestible, odorous, chewable, deformable and/or destructible. Pigs may lose interest in items that do not meet these criteria (such as indestructible materials e.g., chains) (Van de Weerd et al., 2003).  
  • Regular decontamination or replacement and responsible sourcing of enrichment items is essential to maintain on-farm biosecurity and prevent disease transmission.  
  • Food safety, in particular the risk of chemical and physical hazards such as metal foreign bodies, must be considered when choosing enrichment items. 
  • Workplace health and safety must be considered when choosing, introducing and replacing enrichment

Provision for individualised, flexible plans that recognise between and within farm variation is important to optimise the efficacy of enrichment plans. 

Consideration must be given to the enrichment object to ensure there are no detrimental outcomes to pigs , such as increased competition, aggression/stress post addition of enrichment, or to pig products (Taylor et al., 2023). The nature of the pig’s environment must also be considered. For example, the provision of straw in a system with fully slatted flooring can result in blocked drains and effluent systems (Scott et al., 2006).  

Hazards to consider are: 

  • Physical hazards: Enrichment must be free from foreign objects that may cause injury or where ingestion may cause intestinal blockages (e.g., access to wire leading to piercing of tongues or intestinal obstruction) or that may impact the food safety of pig products. e.g. tyres.   
  • Chemical hazards: Enrichment must be free from chemical contaminants that may cause a pig health issue, chemical residue that may cause pigs not to engage with it or that may lead to residues in pig products, e.g. unclean chemical drums, bedding material exposed to farm chemicals or oils used in the production of materials such as hessian. 
  • Biological hazards: Where enrichment tools are to be re-used or shared between pigs, there must be consideration of health, biosecurity and food safety hazards. Risk of disease transmission must be minimised both within farms and from the source of the enrichment e.g. lick blocks, solid toys, chains. Decontamination protocols should be developed for any re-usable types of enrichment, and all types of enrichment must also be free from mould, mycotoxins, cat and rodent faeces.  

An overview of enrichment and further detail on enrichment types and enrichment by phase of production can be found in the Prairie Swine Centre Quality of Life Handbook on The use of Environmental Enrichment (Prairie Swine Centre, 2025). Examples of suitable enrichment includes but is not limited to: 

  • Physical enrichment: Including objects to play with, such as balls, natural fibre ropes, lick blocks or straw (Winfield et al., 2017).  
  • Sensory enrichment: That stimulates all their senses e.g. different smells, tastes, noises (suitable music), textures, sights.  
  • Social enrichment: Provide opportunities to interact with other pigs, directly or indirectly, where appropriate (e.g. visual contact, exercise of boars). Social enrichment can be provided by housing pigs in groups; however, this is not necessarily enough enrichment on its own (Jensen et al., 2010). Consideration must be given to group stability/dynamics and space allowance to reduce the risk of fighting and bullying. 

Enrichment must be provided in sufficient quantities to ensure there is no undue competition for that resource which may lead to an increase in aggression and/ or stress. Monitoring of enrichment provision and effectiveness must be conducted regularly to prevent habituation, or negative changes in behaviour (e.g., aggression leading to mutilation) 

Ongoing efforts to better understand normal pig behaviour, identify and manage abnormal behaviours, and improve overall pig psychological health and welfare is encouraged. Abnormal behaviours include aggression, champing, injuries, frustration and savaging in sows, and belly nosing, ear and tail chewing and aggression in growing pigs (Scipioni et al., 2009) . Understanding abnormal behaviours assists the development of targeted enrichment plans that are meaningful and that can be monitored and measured to ensure the best outcomes for all pigs.  

Recommendations 

  • Enrichment plans must include the class/ age of pig, targeted intervention points where enrichment may reduce adverse behavioural events, type of enrichment being applied, method of application, and enrichment monitoring activities and records (Balog et al., 2023). 
  • Any update of the MCOP to Standards and Guidelines must involve experienced veterinarians as part of multistakeholder collaboration, and recognise evidence-based developments in understanding, including the use of enrichment, to enhance the health and promote positive welfare of pigs. 
  • Research on enrichment should continue and should focus on innovative solutions that promote positive welfare whilst addressing relevant risks in piggery environments, and that evolve as our ability to accurately monitor and measure positive emotional welfare state progresses. 
  • Appropriate monitoring /auditing techniques must be in place and applied to assess and assure the effectiveness of enrichment provisions.  

Other relevant policies and position statements 

  • Pig housing to enhance the health and welfare of all classes of pigs  

Resources 

 

References 

Balog, G., Plush, K. J., Hewitt, R. J. E., Zemitis, J. E., Staveley, L. M., Esquerra, R., Parkes, R., & D’Souza, D. N. (2023). 23. Strategic use of an enrichment block reduces body damage at slaughter for grower-finisher pigs. Animal-Science Proceedings, 14(7), 837–838. 

Bracke, M. (2006). Expert opinion regarding environmental enrichment materials for pigs. Animal Welfare, 15(1), 67–70. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600029973 

EFSA (AHAW), Nielsen, S. S., Alvarez, J., Bicout, D. J., Calistri, P., Canali, E., Drewe, J. A., Garin‐Bastuji, B., Gonzales Rojas, J. L., Schmidt, G., Herskin, M., Michel, V., Miranda Chueca, M. Á., Mosbach‐Schulz, O., Padalino, B., Roberts, H. C., Stahl, K., Velarde, A., Viltrop, A., … Spoolder, H. (2022). Welfare of pigs on farm. EFSA Journal, 20(8). https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7421 

Jensen, M. B., Studnitz, M., & Pedersen, L. J. (2010). The effect of type of rooting material and space allowance on exploration and abnormal behaviour in growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 123(3–4), 87–92. 

Monteiro, M. S., Muro, B. B., Carnevale, R. F., Poor, A. P., Araujo, K. M., Viana, C. H., Almond, G. W., Moreno, A. M., Garbossa, C. A., & Leal, D. F. (2023). The beneficial effects of providing prepartum sows with nesting materials on farrowing traits, piglet performance and maternal behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 259, 105795. 

Pigs: Model code of practice for the welfare of animals (3rd ed). (2008). CSIRO Publishing. 

Prairie Swine Centre. (2025). Quality-of-Life-Handbook-Web. https://www.prairieswine.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Quality-of-Life-Handbook-Web.pdf 

Scipioni, R., Martelli, G., & Antonella Volpelli, L. (2009). Assessment of welfare in pigs. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 8(sup1), 117–137. 

Scott, K., Chennells, D. J., Campbell, F. M., Hunt, B., Armstrong, D., Taylor, L., Gill, B. P., & Edwards, S. A. (2006). The welfare of finishing pigs in two contrasting housing systems: Fully-slatted versus straw-bedded accommodation. Livestock Science, 103(1–2), 104–115. 

Taylor, P. S., Schrobback, P., Verdon, M., & Lee, C. (2023). An effective environmental enrichment framework for the continual improvement of production animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 32, e14. https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2023.5 

Van de Weerd, H. A., Docking, C. M., Day, J. E., Avery, P. J., & Edwards, S. A. (2003). A systematic approach towards developing environmental enrichment for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 84(2), 101–118. 

van de Weerd, H., & Ison, S. (2019). Providing Effective Environmental Enrichment to Pigs: How Far Have We Come? Animals, 9(5), 254. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9050254 

Winfield, J. A., Macnamara, G. F., Macnamara, B. L., Hall, E. J., Ralph, C. R., O’Shea, C. J., & Cronin, G. M. (2017). Environmental enrichment for sucker and weaner pigs: The effect of enrichment block shape on the behavioural interaction by pigs with the blocks. Animals, 7(12), 91.