Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:09:20.585Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scratch that itch: Farrowing crate scratching enrichment for sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

RK Pritchett ,
BN Gaskill ,
MA Erasmus ,
JS Radcliffe  and
DC Lay Jr
RK Pritchett*
Affiliation:
270 South Russell Street, West Lafayette, IN 47906, USA USDA ARS, Livestock Behavior Research Unit, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
BN Gaskill
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
MA Erasmus
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
JS Radcliffe
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
DC Lay Jr
Affiliation:
USDA ARS, Livestock Behavior Research Unit, West Lafayette, IN 47907, 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.

Developing effective enrichments is important for improving pig (Sus scrofa) welfare as it increases species-specific behaviours, decreases abnormal behaviours, and increases time active. However, few enrichments are available for sows in farrowing crates. Pigs are often observed to scratch, or rub against objects, however enrichments designed to provide a scratching outlet have never been tested in sows. We examined the behaviour and welfare of sows in farrowing crates when they were presented with one of two types of scratchpad enrichment. Sows (n = 18) of parities two (P2) and three (P3) were housed for 25 days and assigned no enrichment (Control) or a scratch-pad made of plastic mats (Plastic) or coir fibre mats (Fibre). Parity two Plastic sows scratched for a longer total duration than P2 and P3 Fibre sows, P3 Plastic sows, and P2 Control sows. Parity two Plastic sows also displayed scratching bouts more frequently than all except P3 Control sows. There were no body lesion differences between treatments. Abnormal behaviour and proportion of time spent in different postures also did not differ between treatments. Plastic scratch-pads may be a suitable enrichment for farrowing crates as they increased the natural behaviour of scratching. More research is needed to refine the scratch-pad design and measure motivation before it can be concluded that scratch-pads are a successful enrichment that should be implemented on-farm.

Keywords

animal behaviouranimal welfareenvironmental enrichmentfarrowing cratescratchingswine
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , May 2022 , pp. 243 - 255
Copyright
© 2022 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Jongman, EC and Hutson, GD 2001 A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52: 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1071/ar00057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bautista, DM, Wilson, SR and Hoon, MA 2014 Why we scratch an itch: the molecules, cells and circuits of itch. Nature Neuroscience 17: 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3619CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blokuis, H, Dalmau, A, Velarde, A, Scott, K, Edwards, S, Veissier, I, Keeling, L and Butterworth, A 2009 Assessment protocol for pigs. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Chidgey, KL, Morel, PCH, Stafford, KJ and Barugh, IW 2016 Observations of sows and piglets housed in farrowing pens with temporary crating or farrowing crates on a commercial farm. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 176: 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dellmeier, GR and Friend, TH 1991 Behavior and extensive management of domestic sows (Sus scrofa) and litters. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 29: 327–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(91)90258-YCrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVries, TJ, Vankova, M, Veira, DM and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2007 Short communication: Usage of mechanical brushes by lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 2241–2245. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-648CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, AK and Marchant-Forde, JN 2009 Welfare of pigs in the farrowing environment. In: Marchant-Forde, JN (ed) The Welfare of Pigs pp 141–188. Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8909-1_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, M, Ludin, A and Schuh, M 2006 Comparison of scratching behaviour of growing pigs with sarcoptic mange before and after treatment, employing two distinct approaches. Veterinary Parasitology 140: 334–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2006.04.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandel, R, Whay, HR, Nicol, CJ and Klement, E 2013 The effect of food location, heat load, and intrusive medical procedures on brushing activity in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 96: 6506–6513. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-6941CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, G and Rushen, J 2006 Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare, Second Edition. CABI: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851990040.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHugh, ML 2012 Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica 22: 276–282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mead, R 1990 The Design of Experiments: Statistical Principles for Practical Applications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Mench, J, Newberry, R, Millman, S, Tucker, C and Katz, L 2010 Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching, Third Edition. Federation of Animal Science Societies: Champaign, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
Mkwanazi, MV, Ncobela, CN, Kanengoni, AT and Chimonyo, M 2019 Effects of environmental enrichment on behaviour, physiol-ogy and performance of pigs — A review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 32: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0138CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newberry, RC 1995 Environmental enrichment: Increasing the biological relevance of captive environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)00616-ZCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parois, SP, Cabezón, FA, Schinckel, AP, Johnson, JS, Stwalley, RM and Marchant-Forde, JN 2018 Effect of floor cooling on behavior and heart rate of late lactation sows under acute heat stress. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pork Checkoff 2016 Shoulder lesions in sows: Identification, treat-ment and prevention. National Pork Board: Des Moines, IA, USAGoogle Scholar
Rioja-Lang, FC, Seddon, YM and Brown, JA 2018 Shoulder lesions in sows: A review of their causes, prevention, and treat-ment. Journal of Swine Health and Production 26: 7Google Scholar
Rolandsdotter, E, Westin, R and Algers, B 2009 Maximum lying bout duration affects the occurrence of shoulder lesions in sows. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 51: 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-51-44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosvold, EM, Newberry, RC, Framstad, T and Andersen, I-L 2018 Nest-building behaviour and activity budgets of sows provid-ed with different materials. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 200: 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, JP 1985 Stereotypies, aggression and the feeding sched-ules of tethered sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(85)90025-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, RK, Rault, J-L, Gates, RS and Lay, DC 2018 A two-step process of nitrous oxide before carbon dioxide for humanely euthanizing piglets: On-farm trials. Animals 8: 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8040052CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stolba, A and Wood-Gush, DGM 1989 The behaviour of pigs in a semi-natural environment. Animal Science 48: 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100040411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Y and Koketsu, Y 2007 A field study of the associations between behaviors and reproductive performance in lactating sows. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 69: 1229–1233. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.69.1229CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thodberg, K, Jensen, KH and Herskin, MS 2002 Nest building and farrowing in sows: relation to the reaction pattern during stress, farrowing environment and experience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77: 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00026-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, J 2011 Managment and Welfare of Farm Animals: The UFAW Farm Handbook, Managment and Welfare of Farm Animals: The UFAW Farm Handbook, Wiley-Blackwell: London, UKGoogle Scholar
van de Weerd, HA and Day, JEL 2009 A review of environmen-tal 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
Westin, R and Rydberg, A 2010 Thermal imaging for early detection of shoulder lesion development in sows. International Conference on Agricultural Engineering - AgEng 2010: Towards Environmental Technologies. 6-8 September 2010, Clermont-Ferrand, FranceGoogle Scholar
Young, R 2003 Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals, First Edition. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470751046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zurbrigg, K 2006 Sow shoulder lesions: risk factors and treat-ment effects on an Ontario farm. Journal of Animal Science 84: 2509–2514. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2005-713CrossRefGoogle Scholar