Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:57:02.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of Nose-Rings in Pigs: Consequences for Rooting, Other Functional Activities, and Welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

RI Horrell ,
P J A'Ness ,
S A Edwards  and
J C Eddison
RI Horrell*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK
P J A'Ness
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK
S A Edwards
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Newcastle, Newcastle-on-Tyne NEI 7RU, UK
J C Eddison
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Plymouth, Newton Abbot, Devon, TQ12 6NQ, UK
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
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.

Commercial pigs kept outdoors are often given nose-rings, to inhibit rooting and minimize pasture damage. If rooting is a ‘behavioural need’ in the pig, and ringing is effective because it renders rooting painful, nose-ringing may be a threat to welfare. Thirty gestating sows were assigned to one of three conditions: unringed controls (UR); sows ringed with three, wire ‘clip’ rings through the snout rim (CR); or sows with one, rigid ‘bull’ ring (BR). They were observed on grass for 7h day−1 at intervals over 6 months. Ringing almost totally abolished penetration of the ground by rooting during the month after ringing (UR, CR and BR sows respectively spent 5.6%, 0.1% and 0.1 % of scan observations dig-rooting during this month; P < 0.001). These differences in recorded rooting were reflected in a much greater extent of pasture damage in paddocks containing UR sows. Rooting remained largely suppressed throughout the 6 months of observations in BR sows; but substantial recovery of this function occurred in CR sows by the sixth month, although much of this may be attributed to the fact that most sows lost at least some of their rings. Ringing also partially inhibited grazing (which accounted for 26.2%, 27.1% and 21.9 % of scans over the whole project in UR, CR and BR sows respectively; P < 0.05), nosing in straw, digging out wallows and stone-chewing (18.3%, 9.5% and 9.2% respectively of all scans in UR, CR and BR sows; P < 0.001). Ringed sows spent more time standing but otherwise inactive than did controls (0.8%, 1.7% and 4.0% of all scans in UR, CR and BR sows respectively; P < 0 .001), and displayed more straw-chewing, vacuum-chewing and digging at soil with the forepaw. We conclude that nose-ringing in pigs inhibited a range of functional activities, as well as rooting, and elicited more behaviours that suggest a degree of reduced welfare. BR sows displayed more of these effects than did CR ones, although these differences may be largely, but not entirely, due to a loss of clip rings over time.

Keywords

animal welfarebehavioural needsnose-ringspasture damagerooting
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 3 - 22
Copyright
© 2001 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Algers, B 1984 Early weaning and cage rearing of piglets: influence on behaviour. Zentralblatte Veterinaermedica Reihe A 31: 14–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, M C and Lawrence, A B 1987 Food restriction as a cause of stereotypic behaviour in tethered gilts. Animal Production 45: 103–111Google Scholar
Braund, J P, Edwards, S A, Riddoch, I and Buchner, L J 1998 Modification of foraging behaviour and pasture damage by dietary manipulation in outdoor pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56: 173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, G M 1985 The Development and Significance of Abnormal Stereotyped Behaviours in Tethered Sows. Unpublished PhD thesis, Agricultural University of Wageningen, Wageningen, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dantzer, R and Mormede, P 1983 Stress in farm animals: a need for reevaluation. Journal of Animal Science 57:6-18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dybkjer, L 1992 The identification of behavioural indicators of ‘stress’ in early weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 35: 135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, S A, Anssems, E, Horrell, R I, A'Ness, P and Eddison, J 1996 The effect of nose-ringing of outdoor sows on foraging behaviour and pasture damage. Animal Science 62: 674Google Scholar
Edwards, S A, Atkinson, K A and Lawrence, A B 1993 The effect of food level and type on the behaviour of outdoor sows. In: Nichelmann, M, Wierenga, H K and Braun, S (eds) Proceedings of the 27th Congress of the International Society of Applied Ethology pp 501–503. Humboldt University Press: Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Horrell, I 1992 Effects of environmental enrichment on growing pigs. Animal Production 54: 183Google Scholar
Horrell, I and A'Ness, P J 1995 Enrichment that satisfies specific behavioural needs in early weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrell, I and A'Ness, P 1999 Stonechewing in outdoor pigs. In: Boe K E Bakken M and Braastad B 0 Proceedings of the 33 rd Congress of the International Society of Applied Ethology ρ 155. Agricultural University of Norway: As, Norway.Google Scholar
Horrell, I, A'Ness, P and Edwards, S A 1996 The impact of nose-rings on the micro-actions of rooting in pigs. In: Duncan I J H, Widowski T M and Haley D B (eds) Proceedings of the 30th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology ρ 101. Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare: Guelph, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Horrell, I, A'Ness, P, Edwards, S and Riddoch, I 2000 Nose-rings influence feeding efficiency in pigs. Animal Science 71: 259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O and Duncan, I J H 1988 The notion of ethological ‘need’, models of motivation and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 36: 1696–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, A B and Terlouw, E M C 1993 A review of the behavioural factors involved in the development and continued performance of stereotypic behaviours in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 71: 2815–2825CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, G J 1991 Stereotypies: a critical review. Animal Behaviour 41: 1015–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mench, J A and Mason, G J 1997 Behaviour. In: Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 127–142. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Moberg, G P 1985 Biological response to stress: key to assessment of animal well-being? In: Moberg G P (ed) Animal Stress pp 27–49. American Physiological Society: Bethesda, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, D B and Griffiths, P H M 1985 Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress and discomfort in experimental animals and an hypothesis for assessment. Veterinary Record 116: 431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J 1985 Stereotypies, aggression and the feeding schedules of tethered sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolba, A and Wood-Gush, D G M 1989 The behaviour of pigs in a semi-natural environment. Animal Production 48: 419–425Google Scholar
Terlouw, E M C, Lawrence, A B and Illius, AW 1991 Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behaviour 42: 981–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, D M and Fraser, D 1995 Signalling need: costly signals and animal welfare assessment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood-Gush, D G and M Beilharz, R G 1983 The enrichment of a bare environment for animals in confined conditions. Applied Animal Ethology 10: 209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar