Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T18:06:48.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Enrichment and Floor Type on Behaviour of Cubicle Loose-Housed Dry Sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

J Durrell ,
I A Sneddon  and
V E Beattie
J Durrell
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast BT7 INN, Northern Ireland
I A Sneddon*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast BT7 INN, Northern Ireland
V E Beattie
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co Down BT26 6DR, Northern Ireland
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of enrichment and floor type on the behaviour and welfare of cubicle loose-housed dry sows were investigated in a 2x2 factorial design with four replicates. Sixty-four dry sows were housed in groups of four in pens containing a communal exercise area and four feeding stalls. Pens were either enriched (using spent mushroom compost on suspended wood and wire flat racks) or barren (containing either a solid or part-slatted floor). Enrichment reduced aggressive behaviour, injuries, nosing the ground and lying with eyes open and led to an increase in lying with eyes closed. Floor type had no overall significant effect on sow behaviour. Presentation of spent mushroom compost on suspended racks was found to be a cheap and practical form of enrichment. Incorporation of this system into the design of cubicle loose housing could reduce many of the problems associated with this type of housing and improve the welfare of the sows.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourenvironmental enrichmentpigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , November 1997 , pp. 297 - 308
Copyright
© 1997 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

Arey, D S and Franklin, M F 1995 Effect of straw and unfamiliarity on fighting between newly mixed growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45: 23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, V E, Sneddon, I A and Walker, N 1993 Effect of environmental enrichment on behaviour, growth and meat quality in the domestic pig. Animal Production 56: 477Google Scholar
Beattie, V E, Walker, N, Farmer, L J and Sneddon, I A 1995a The effects of enrichment on welfare, production and meat quality of the pig. Animal Science 60: 563–564Google Scholar
Beattie, V E, Walker, N and Sneddon, I A 1995b Effects of environmental enrichment on behaviour and productivity of growing pigs. Animal Welfare 4: 207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, V E, Walker, N and Sneddon, I A 1995c Effect of rearing environment and change of environment on the behaviour of gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, V E, Walker, N and Sneddon, I A 1996a 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, V E, Walker, N and Sneddon, I A 1996b A method of enrichment for intensively housed growing pigs. Animal Science 62: 677Google Scholar
Broom, D M, Mendl, M T and Zanella, A J 1995 A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. Animal Science 61: 369–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Koning, R 1983 Results of a methodological approach with regard to external lesions of sows as an indicator of animal well-being. In: Smidt, D (ed) Indicators Relevant to Farm Animal Welfare pp 155–163. Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht, GermanyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland 1994 Welfare of Livestock Regulations. DANI: Belfast, Northern IrelandGoogle Scholar
Dybkjaer, L 1992 The identification of behavioural indicators of ‘stress’ in early weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 35: 135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1983 The role of behaviour in swine production: a review of research. Applied Animal Ethology 11: 317–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Phillips, P A, Thompson, B K and Tennessen, T 1991 Effect of straw on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friend, T H, Taylor, L, Dellmeier, G R, Knabe, D A and Smith, LA 1988 The effect of confinement method on the physiology and production of gestating gilts. Journal of Animal Science 66: 2906–2915CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horrell, I 1992 Effects of environmental enrichment on growing pigs. Animal Production 54: 483Google Scholar
Lehner, P N 1979 Handbook of Ethological Methods. Garland STPM Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Marchant, J N and Broom, D M 1993 The effects of dry sow housing conditions on responses to farrowing. Animal Production 56: 475Google Scholar
Noldus, L P J J 1991 The Observer: a software system for collection and analysis of observational data. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 23: 415–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiterkamp, W A 1987 The behaviour of growing pigs in relation to housing systems. Netherland Journal of Agricultural Science 35: 67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sainsbury, D 1986 Farm Animal Welfare: Cattle, Pigs and Poultry. Collins: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, A L, Salomons, M O, Tong, A K W, Sather, A P and Lepage, P 1990 The effect of environment enrichment on aggression in newly weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schouten, W G P 1986 Rearing Conditions and Behaviour in Pigs. PhD Thesis, University of Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Simonsen, H B 1990 Behaviour and distribution of fattening pigs in the multi-activity pen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 311–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneddon, I A and Beattie, V E 1995 Improving the welfare of pigs. Irish Journal of Psychology 16: 419–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoolder, HAM, Burbidge, J A, Edwards, S A, Simmins, P H and Lawrence, A B 1995 Provision of straw as a foraging substrate reduces the development of excessive chain and bar manipulation in food restricted sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, SSL and Shackleton, D M 1990 Effects of mixing unfamiliar individuals and of Azaperone on the social behaviour of finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Putten, G 1979 Ever been close to a nosey pig? Applied Animal Ethology 5: 298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Putten, G 1989 The pig: a model for discussing animal behaviour and welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 115–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Putten, G and van de Burgwal, J A 1990 Vulva biting in group-housed sows: preliminary report. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, N and Kilpatrick, D J 1994 A study of spatial behaviour of pregnant sows housed in pens with various feeding and dung disposal systems. Animal Welfare 3: 97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood-Gush, D G M and Beilharz, R G 1983 The enrichment of a bare environment for animals in confined conditions. Applied Animal Ethology 10: 209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiepkema, P R 1983 On the significance of ethological criteria for the assessment of animal welfare. In: Smidt, D (ed) Indicators Relevant to Farm Animal Welfare pp 71–79. Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht, GermanyCrossRefGoogle Scholar