Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:28:53.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behaviour of liquid-fed growing pigs provided with straw in various amounts and frequencies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2014

L. C. Oxholm ,
H. V. Steinmetz ,
H. P. Lahrmann ,
M. B. F. Nielsen ,
C. Amdi  and
C. F. Hansen
L. C. Oxholm
Affiliation:
HERD – Centre for Herd-Oriented Education, Research and Development, Department of Large Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 2, DK-1870 Frederiksberg, Denmark Pig Research Centre, Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Axeltorv 3, DK-1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark
H. V. Steinmetz
Affiliation:
Pig Research Centre, Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Axeltorv 3, DK-1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark
H. P. Lahrmann
Affiliation:
Pig Research Centre, Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Axeltorv 3, DK-1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark
M. B. F. Nielsen
Affiliation:
Pig Research Centre, Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Axeltorv 3, DK-1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark
C. Amdi
Affiliation:
HERD – Centre for Herd-Oriented Education, Research and Development, Department of Large Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 2, DK-1870 Frederiksberg, Denmark
C. F. Hansen*
Affiliation:
HERD – Centre for Herd-Oriented Education, Research and Development, Department of Large Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 2, DK-1870 Frederiksberg, Denmark
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Straw possesses many characteristics that make it attractive to pigs and can therefore be effective in preventing negative penmate-directed behaviours. However, straw is difficult to handle in current vacuum slurry systems under most commercial conditions and can therefore only be used in limited amounts. To occupy pigs effectively, straw must remain attractive to pigs throughout the whole day; hence, have a certain degree of novelty. We investigated the penmate-directed behaviour of liquid-fed growing pigs in a production herd, assigned to five experimental treatments: 1×25, 1×50, 1×100, 2×50 and 4×25 g of chopped straw/pig per day, with 20 replicates of each treatment (pen was regarded as experimental unit). Behaviour was observed at two different growth stages; ~40 and 80 kg live weight of the pigs. Activity and exploratory behaviour directed at penmates, straw, pen components and the slatted floor were registered continuously for 15 min of each hour during day time (0600 to 2200 h) by use of video observation of three focal pigs per pen. The pigs were active for about one-third of the day corresponding to ~5 h/day. Of the active time, an average of 7% (35 min) was spent on penmate-directed behaviour. The pigs were more active and increased their straw-directed behaviour when provided with 100 g straw/pig per day compared with 25 and 50 g (P<0.001). However, penmate-directed behaviour was not reduced with an increased amount of straw (P>0.05), and there was no effect on pigs’ behaviour when straw provision was increased per day (P>0.05). Pigs became less active and reduced their straw-directed activities when their weight increased from 40 to 80 kg live weight (P<0.001), but the amount of penmate-directed behaviour was similar (P>0.05). Further, the residual straw results indicated that perhaps a more frequent straw provision could help establish a more even level of fresh available straw during the day. However, the frequent straw provision did not occupy pigs more than one daily allocation did. In conclusion, there was no difference in penmate-directed behaviour of the pigs when given 25 or 50 g of straw/pig per day compared with 100 g of straw/pig per day, nor were there any difference when 100 g of straw/pig per day was provided more frequently.

Keywords

behaviournoveltypigstraw
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 11 , November 2014 , pp. 1889 - 1897
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Beattie, VE and O’Connell, NE 2002. Relationship between rooting behaviour and foraging in growing pigs. Animal Welfare 11, 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, VE, O’Connell, NE and Moss, BW 2000. Influence of environmental enrichment on the behaviour, performance and meat quality of domestic pigs. Livestock Production Science 65, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, VE, Breuer, K, O’Connell, NE, Sneddon, IA, Mercer, JT, Rance, KA, Sutcliffe, MEM and Edwards, SA 2005. Factors identifying pigs predisposed to tail biting. Animal Science 80, 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boisen, S 2001. In vitro methods for analysing nutrient digestibility – and their implementation in present and future feed evaluation systems for pigs. Tjele: Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum, Denmark.Google Scholar
Brunberg, E, Wallenbeck, A and Keeling, LJ 2011. Tail biting in fattening pigs:associations between frequency of tail biting and other abnormal behaviours. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 133, 18–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerlink, I and Turner, SP 2013. The pig’s nose and its role in dominance relationships and harmful behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 145, 84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerlink, I, Bijma, P, Kemp, B and Bolhuis, JE 2012. Relationship between growth rate and oral manipulation, social nosing and aggression in finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 142, 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, JEL, Kyriazakis, I and Lawrence, AB 1995. The effect of food deprivation on the expression of foraging and exploratory behaviour in the growing pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, JEL, Kyriazakis, I and Lawrence, AB 1996. An investigation into the causation of chewing behaviour in growing pigs: the role of exploration and feeding motivation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48, 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, JEL, Burfoot, A, Docking, CM, Whittaker, X, Spoolder, HAM and Edwards, SA 2002. The effects of prior experience of straw and the level of straw provision on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Docking, CM, van de Weerd, HA, Day, JEL and Edwards, SA 2008. The influence of age on the use of potential enrichment objects and synchronisation of behaviour of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110, 244–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA 2006. Tail biting in pigs: understanding the intractable problem. Veterinary Journal 171, 198–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D, Phillips, PA, Thompson, BK and Tennessen, T 1991. Effect of straw on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30, 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, MB, Studnitz, M and Pedersen, LJ 2010. The effect of type of rooting material and space allowance on exploration and abnormal behaviour in growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moinard, C, Mendl, M, Nicol, CJ and Green, LE 2003. A case control study of on-farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2011. A pilot investigation of possible system descriptors in finishing pigs. Animal Welfare 20, 439–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, RC and Wood-Gush, DHM 1988. Development of some behaviour pattern in piglets under semi-natural conditions. Animal Production 46, 103–109.Google Scholar
Nørgaard, P 2006. Use of image analysis for measuring particle size in feed, digesta and faeces. Workshop 3. Methods in studying particle size and digesta flow. In Proceeding from X Intern. Symposium on Ruminant Physiology Copenhagen, 30 August to 4 September, 2004 (ed. K Sejrsen, T Hvelplund and MO Nielsen), pp 579–585. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Herskin, MS and Forkman, B 2013. Hvor meget hel halm udgør tilstrækkeligt beskæftigelses-og rodemateriale til svin, rapport, DCA. Aarhus University, Foulum, Denmark.Google Scholar
Ruiterkamp, WA 1985. The behaviour of grower pigs in relation to housing systems. PhD, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Schrøder-Petersen, DL and Simonsen, HB 2001. Tail biting in pigs. Veterinary Journal 162, 196–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schrøder-Petersen, DL, Heiskanen, T and Ersbøll, AK 2004. Tail-in-mouth behaviour in slaughter pigs, in relation to internal factors such as: age, size, gender, and motivational background. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica. Section A, Animal Science 54, 159–166.Google Scholar
Statham, P, Green, L and Mendl, M 2011. A longitudinal study of the effects of providing straw at different stages of life on tail-biting and other behaviour in commercially housed pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 134, 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolba, A and Wood-Gush, DGM 1980. Arousal and exploration in growing pigs in different environments. Applied Animal Ethology 6, 382–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Studnitz, M, Jensen, MB and Pedersen, LJ 2007. Why do pigs root and in what will they root? A review on the exploratory behaviour of pigs in relation to environmental enrichment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107, 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Studnitz, M, Jensen, KH, Jørgensen, E and Jensen, KK 2003. The effect of nose-ringing on exploratory behaviour in gilts. Animal Welfare 12, 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM 2005. The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: a review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 261–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Putten, G 1969. An investigation into tail-biting among fattening pigs. The British Veterinary Journal 125, 511–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van de Weerd, HA and Day, JEL 2009. A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL and Edwards, SA 2003. A systematic approach towards developing environmental enrichment for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL and Edwards, SA 2005. The development of harmful social behaviour in pigs with intact tails and different enrichment backgrounds in two housing systems. Animal Science 80, 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiepkema, PR, Broom, DM, Duncan, IJH and van Putten, G 1983. Abnormal behaviours in farm animals. Report. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Zwicker, B, Gygax, L, Wechsler, B and Weber, R 2013. Short- and long-term effects of eight enrichment materials on the behaviour of finishing pigs fed ad libitum or restrictively. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar