Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:55:34.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preference for and behavioural response to environmental enrichment in a small population of sexually mature, commercial boars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

LV Sirovica ,
M Creamer  and
KM Horback
LV Sirovica
Affiliation:
Animal Behavior and Cognition Lab, Department of Animal Science, University of California Davis, One Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616, USA
M Creamer
Affiliation:
Animal Behavior and Cognition Lab, Department of Animal Science, University of California Davis, One Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616, USA
KM Horback*
Affiliation:
Animal Behavior and Cognition Lab, Department of Animal Science, University of California Davis, One Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616, USA
*
* Contact for correspondence: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An increasing public concern over the welfare of livestock species is motivating more producers to consider changes to production practices. Providing environmental enrichment for intensively housed animals is one such potentially welfare-enhancing change. The goal of environmental enrichment is to provide biologically relevant environmental stimuli that allows an animal to perform highly motivated, species-specific behaviours. To date, there is no research specific to the applicability of environmental enrichment for commercial boars (Sus scrofa domesticus), nor on commercial boar welfare in general. In this study, eight individually housed, mature boars were observed to prefer interacting with hanging cotton rope enrichment over hanging rubber chew sticks when given the option. There was a significantly negative correlation between the amount of time boars spent interacting with rope and the amount of time they spent performing stereotypic pen manipulation, suggesting that the rope was more effective at reducing stereotypic behaviour than the rubber. Such reductions in amount of time spent performing abnormal stereotypic behaviours could indicate that some of the animals’ behavioural needs are being met by the enrichment object. Thus, the results of this study could help provide producers with more objective, research-based suggestions concerning the efficacy of practical enrichment choices for individually housed boars.

Keywords

animal welfareboarcommercial swineenvironmental enrichmentsingle housingstereotypic behaviour
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , August 2019 , pp. 271 - 278
Copyright
© 2019 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Beattie, VE, Sneddon, IA, Walker, N and Weatherup, RN 2016 Environmental enrichment of intensive pig housing using spent mushroom compost. Animal Science 72: 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800055533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, VE, Walker, N and Sneddon, IA 1995 Effects of envi-ronmental enrichment on behaviour and productivity of growing pigs. Animal Welfare 4: 207–22010.1017/S0962728600017802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1988 Behavioural deprivation: A central problem in animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(88)90047-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feddes, J and Fraser, D 1994 Non-nutritive chewing by pigs: implications for tail-biting and behavioral enrichment. Transactions of the ASAE 37: 947–950. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.28163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, H 1984 Behavior and ecology of wild and feral swine (Sus Scrofa). Journal of Animal Science 58: 482–492. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1984.582482xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horback, KM, Pierdon, MK and Parsons, TD 2016 Behavioral preference for different enrichment objects in a commercial sow herd. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 184: 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, AB and Terlouw, E 1993 A review of behavioral fac-tors involved in the development and continued performance of stereotypic behaviors in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 71: 2815–2825. https://doi.org/10.2527/1993.71102815xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G, Clubb, R, Latham, N and Vickery, S 2007 Why and how should we use environmental enrichment to tackle stereo-typic behaviour? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102: 163–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauget, R 1981 Behavioural and reproductive strategies in wild forms of Sus scrofa (European wild boar and feral pigs). In: Sybesma, W (ed) The Welfare of Pigs pp 3–13. Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9574-4_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehan, CL and Mench, JA 2007 The challenge of challenge: Can problem solving opportunities enhance animal welfare? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102: 246–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordquist, R, van der Staay, F, van Eerdenburg, F, Velkers, F, Fijn, L and Arndt, S 2017 Mutilating procedures, management practices, and housing conditions that may affect the welfare of farm animals: implications for welfare research. Animals 7: 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7020012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spoolder, HAM, Burbidge, JA, Edwards, SA, Howard Simmins, P and Lawrence, AB 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: 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)00566-BCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stege, H, Jensen, TK, Møller, K, Baekbo, P and Jorsal, SE 2001 Risk factors for intestinal pathogens in Danish finishing pig herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 50: 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(01)00194-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuyttens, FAM 2005 The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: A review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92: 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.05.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA and Day, JEL 2009 A review of environ-mental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, Avery, PJ and Edwards, SA 2003 A systematic approach towards developing envi-ronmental enrichment for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84:101–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00150-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westin, R, Holmgren, N, Mattsson, B and Algers, B 2013 Throughput capacity of large quantities of chopped straw in partly slatted farrowing pens for loose housed sows. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science63: 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2013.780633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood-Gush, DGM and Beilharz, RG 1983 The enrichment of a bare environment for animals in confined conditions. Applied Animal Ethology 10: 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(83)90142-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, RJ, Carruthers, J and Lawrence, AB 1994 The effect of a foraging device (The ‘Edinburgh Foodball’) on the behaviour of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(94)90159-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar