Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:55:58.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preference Testing of Substrates by Growing Pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

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

Extract

The preferences of growing pigs for substrates were investigated by giving small groups of pigs a choice between two substrates in each test. The seven substrates examined were concrete, mushroom compost (spent), peat, sand, sawdust, straw and woodbark. Thirteen comparisons of pairs of substrates were tested with four replicates of each comparison. Eleven-week-old pigs (in groups of six) were placed in specially designed choice pens where they had access to two different substrates. The pigs were allowed to habituate to the pen for 1 week and at the end of week 2 the substrates were swapped. In weeks 2 and 3 the time spent by the pigs in each substrate was recorded. Peat, mushroom compost and sawdust were preferred most, with sand next and woodbark and straw being preferred only to concrete. It is suggested that growing pigs may be attracted to substrates which are similar in texture to earth.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourpigspreferencesubstrates
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 1998 , pp. 27 - 34
Copyright
© 1998 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 1993 The effect of bedding on the behaviour and welfare of pigs. Animal Welfare 2: 235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, M R 1983 Ethology in environmental design for animal production. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, V E, Sneddon, I A 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, V E, Walker, N and Sneddon, I A 1995 Effects of environmental enrichment on behaviour and productivity of growing pigs. Animal Welfare 4: 207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom, H J M, Baumans, V, Van Vorstenbosch, C J A H V, Van Zutphen, L F M and Beynen, A C 1993 Preference tests with rodents to assess housing conditions. Animal Welfare 2: 81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M 1991 Animal welfare: Concepts and measurements. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1977 Do hens suffer in battery cages? Environmental preferences and welfare. Animal Behaviour 25: 1034–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1980 Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1988 Behavioural deprivation, a central problem in animal welfare. Behaviour and Brain Sciences 13: 1–9Google Scholar
Duncan, I J H 1978 The interpretation of preference tests in animal behaviour. Applied Animal Ethology 4: 197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fragasky, D M, Boinski, S and Whipple, J 1992 Behavioural sampling in the field: Comparison of individual and group sampling methods. American Journal of Primatology 26: 259–275Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1975 The effect of straw on the behaviour of sows in tetherstalls. Animal Production 21: 59–68Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1985 Selection of bedded and unbedded areas by pigs in relation to environmental temperature and behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 117–126CrossRefGoogle 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
Gonyou, H W 1994 Why the study of animal behaviour is associated with the animal welfare issue. Journal of Animal Science 72: 2171–2177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O 1977 Behavioural wisdom and preference tests. Applied Animal Ethology 3: 391–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mawanjali, S, Smidt, D and Ellendorff, F 1983 A multiple free choice for pigs. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mench, J A and Stricklin, W R 1990 Consumer demand theory and social behaviour. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 13: 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanotra, G S, Vestergaard, K S, Agger, J F and Lawson, L G 1995 The relative preferences for feathers, straw, wood-shavings and sand for dustbathing, pecking and scratching in domestic chicks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 263–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Signoret, J P 1983 General conclusions. In: D Smidt (ed) Indicators Relevant to Farm Animal Welfare pp 245–247. Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht, GermanyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolba, A and Wood-Gush, D G M 1984 The identification of behavioural key features and their incorporation into a housing design for pigs. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 15: 287–298Google ScholarPubMed
Van Rooijen, J 1983 Operant preference tests with pigs. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 87–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, N 1991 The effects on performance and behaviour of number of growing pigs per mono-place feeder. Animal Food Science and Technology 35: 3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar