Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:59:45.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. M. Broom ,
M. T. Mendl  and
A. J. Zanella
D. M. Broom
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES
M. T. Mendl
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES
A. J. Zanella
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES
Get access

Abstract

Twelve sows in good quality unstrawed stalls, three groups of five sows in strawed pens with individual feeding stalls and sows in a 38-sow group in a strawed yard with an electronic sow feeder were compared during the first four parities. They originated from the same source, were about 9 months of age and in the 7th week of their first pregnancy at the start of the experiment and were kept in adjacent rooms in a building, cared for by the same staff and given the same diets at a rate of 2·2 kg/day per animal. No new animals were added to the groups or stalls during the study and animals returned to the same condition after periods in farrowing and service accommodation. Using a wide range of welfare indicators, it was clear that stall-housed sows had more problems than group-housed sows and that tliese problems were worse in the fourth than in the first pregnancy. By the fourth pregnancy, stall-housed sows spent proportionately 0·14 of time showing activities which were clearly stereotypies and much time on activities which were sometimes stereotyped, i.e. ‘drinking’ and rooting or chewing at pen fittings making a total of proportionately 0·50 of time. Comparable figures for group-housed sows were much lower (0·037 and 0·081 in total). Stall-housed sows were also more aggressive than group-housed by the fourth pregnancy and their body weights were lower. There were no differences using physiological or immunological tests or measures of reproductive output. When the two group-housing systems were compared, sows in the electronic feeder system showed more fighting, especially soon after initial mixing, but fewer total agonistic interactions than sows in groups of five during the first pregnancy. Oral stereotypies were slightly higher in small groups, perhaps because of smaller pen space, than in larger groups but much lower than in stalls. By the fourth pregnancy there were few differences between sows in small and large groups and all seemed to have adapted well to the conditions. Evaluation of welfare in different housing systems requires use of a wide range of measures and of long-term studies.

Keywords

behaviourhousingsowswelfare
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , October 1995 , pp. 369 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

Arrelano, P. E., Pijoan, C., Jacobson, L. D. and Algers, B. 1992. Stereotyped behaviour, social interactions and suckling pattern of pigs housed in groups or single crates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 35: 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, J. L., Cronin, G. M., Winfield, C. G. and Dewar, A. M. 1984. The welfare of adult pigs: the effects of five housing treatments on behaviour, plasma corticosteroids and injuries. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12: 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, J. L. and Hemsworth, P. M. 1990. The validity of physiological and behavioural measures of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25: 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, J. L., Hemsworth, P. H., Winfield, C. G. and Fahy, V. A. 1987a. The effects of pregnancy and parity number on behavioural and physiological responses related to the welfare of individual and group-housed pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17: 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, J. L., Hemsworth, P. H. and Winfield, C. G. 1987b. The effects of design of individual stalls on the social behaviour and physiological responses related to the welfare of pregnant pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, J. L., Winfield, C. G., Cronin, G. M., Hemsworth, P. H. and Dewar, A. M. 1985. The effect of individual and group housing and behaviour and physiological responses related to the welfare of pregnant pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borell, E. von and Ladewig, J. 1989. Altered adrenocortical response to acute stressors or ACTH (1-24) in intensively housed pigs. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 6: 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D. M. 1987. Applications of neurobiological studies to farm animal welfare. In Biology of stress in farm animals: an integrated approach (ed. Wiepkema, P. R. and Adrichem, P. W. M. van), pp. 101–110. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D. M. 1988. The scientific assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D. M. 1989. The assessment of sow welfare. Pig Veterinary Journal 22: 100–111.Google Scholar
Broom, D. M. 1991. Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, D. M. and Johnson, K. G. 1993. Stress and animal welfare. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D. M. and Potter, M. J. 1984. Factors affecting the occurrence of stereotypies in stall-housed dry sows. Proceedings of international congress on applied ethology in farm animals (ed. Unshelm, J., Putten, G. van and Zeeb, K.), pp. 229–231. KTBL, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Brouns, F., Edwards, S. A. and English, P. R. 1994. Effects of dietary fibre and feeding system on activity and oral behaviour of group-housed gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, T. R., Trunkfield, H. R., Zanella, A. J. and Booth, W. D. 1989. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for cortisol in the saliva of man and domestic farm animals. journal of Endocrinology 123: R13–R16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronin, G. 1985. The development and significance of abnormal stereotyped behaviour in tethered sows. Ph.D. thesis, University ofWageningen.Google Scholar
Cronin, G. M. and Wiepkema, P. R. 1984. An analysis of stereotyped behaviour in tethered sows. Annales de Recherche Vètèrinaire 15: 263–270.Google ScholarPubMed
Dantzer, R., Morméde, P. and Henry, J. P. 1983. Physiological assessment of adaptation in farm animals. In Farm animal housing and welfare (ed. Baxter, S. H., Baxter, M. R. and MacCormack, J. A. C.), pp. 8–19. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Dawkins, M. S. 1990. From an animal's point of view-motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 13: 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I. J. H. and Petherick, J. C. 1991. The implications of cognitive preocesses for animal welfare. Journal of Animal Science 69: 5017–5022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, S. A. and Riley, J. E. 1986. The application of the electronic identification and computerized feed dispensing system in dry sow housing. Pig News and Information 7: 295–298.Google Scholar
Fraser, A. F. and Broom, D. M. 1990. Farm animal behaviour and welfare. Bailliére Tindall, London.Google Scholar
Haracz, J., Minor, T. R., Wilkins, J. N. and Zimmermann, E. G. 1988. Learned helplessness: an experimental model of the DST in rats. Biological Psychiatry 23: 388–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, R. 1964. Animal machines. Stuart, London.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Barnett, J. L., Coleman, C. J. and Hansen, C. 1989. A study of the relationship between the attitudinal and behavioural profiles of stockpersons and the level of fear of humans and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, E. J., Broom, D. M., Edwards, S. A. and Sibly, R. M. 1988. Social hierarchy and feeder access in a group of 20 sows using a computer-controlled feeder. Animal Production 47: 139–148.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. B. and Terlouw, E. M. C. 1993. A review of behavioural factors involved in the development and continued performance of stereotypic behaviour in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 71: 2815–2825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, P. and Bateson, P. 1993. Measuring behaviour. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G. J. 1991. Stereotypies and suffering. Behavioural Processes 25: 103–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, G. and Mendl, M. 1993. Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal Welfare 2: 301–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendl, M. 1991. Some problems with the concept of a cut off point for determining when an animal's welfare is at risk. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31: 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendl, M., Broom, D. M. and Zanella, A. J. 1993a. A long-term study of the effects of housing conditions on the welfare of domestic pigs. Animal Production 56: 440 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Mendl, M. T., Broom, D. M. and Zanella, A. J. 1993b. The effect of three types of dry sow housing on welfare. In Livestock environment IV (ed. Collins, E. and Boon, C.), pp. 461–467. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph Mich.Google Scholar
Mendl, M., Zanella, A. J. and Broom, D. M. 1992a. The dexamethasone suppression test: an indicator of depression and poor welfare in sows. Journal of Animal Science 70: Suppl. 1, p. 155.Google Scholar
Mendl, M., Zanella, A. J. and Broom, D. M. 1992b. Physiological and reproductive correlates of behavioural strategies in female domestic pigs. Animal Behaviour 44: 1107–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier-Salaun, M. C., Vantrimponte, M. N., Raab, A. and Dantzer, R. 1987. Effect of floor area restriction upon performance, behaviour and physiology of growing finishing pigs. journal of Animal Science 64: 1371–1377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okimura, T., Ogawa, M., Yamauchi, T. and Sasaki, Y. 1986. Stress and immune responses. 4. Adrenal involvement in the alternation of antibody responses to restraint-stressed mice. Japanese Journal of Pharmacology 41: 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rampacek, G. B., Kraeling, R. R., Fonda, E. S. and Barb, C. R. 1984. Comparison of physiological indicators of chronic stress in confined and non-confined gilts. Journal of Animal Science 58: 401–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roitt, I. M., Brostoff, J. and Male, D. K. 1989. Immunology, pp. 25.5–25.6. Gower Medical Publishing, London.Google Scholar
Rushen, J. 1991. Problems associated with the interpretations of physiological data in the assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 381–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J. and Passillè, A. M. B. de. 1992. The scientific assessment of the impact of housing on animal welfare. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72: 721–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J., Passillè, A. M. B. de and Schouten, W. 1990. Stereotypic behaviour, endogenoous opioids, and post-feeding hypoalgesia in pigs. Physiology and Behaviour 48: 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Stolba, A., Baker, N. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1983. A characterization of stereotyped behaviour in stalled sows by informational redundancy. Behaviour 87: 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, E. M. C., Lawrence, A. B. and Illius, A. W. 1991. Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behaviour 42: 981–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard, K. and Hansen, L. L. 1984. Tethered versus loose sows: ethological observations and measures of productivity. I. Ethological observations during pregnancy and farrowing. Annales de Recherche Veterinaire 15: 245–256.Google ScholarPubMed
Wemelsfelder, F. 1993. Animal boredom: towards an empirical approach of animal subjectivity. Ph.D. thesis. University of Leiden, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Zanella, A. J., Broom, D. M. and Hunter, J. C. 1991. Changes in opioid receptors of sows in relation to housing, inactivity and stereotypies. In Applied animal behaviour: past, present and future (ed. Appleby, M. C., Horrell, R. I., Petherick, J. C. and Rutter, S. M.), pp. 140–141. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, Potters Bar.Google Scholar
Zanella, A. J. and Mendl, M. 1992. A fast and simple technique for jugular catheterization in adult sows. Laboratory Animals 26: 211–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed