Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:07:28.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of straw on the behaviour of sows in tether stalls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. Fraser
D. Fraser
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Edinburgh
Get access

Summary

The behaviour of sows in tether stalls with and without straw was studied in two experiments. Sows lay down more when 1 kg of straw was provided daily, especially when it was chopped and mixed wet with the food (dietary effect). Sows without straw performed avariety of stereotyped oral and other activities which were greatly reduced by the provision of loose straw that could be chewed and manipulated throughout the day (recreational effect). Sows were frequently seen standing or sitting motionless with the head drooping, probably in a state of drowsiness. This behaviour was virtually eliminated by full straw bedding (bedding effect). Certain ‘comfort movements’, barbiting at feeding time, and biting the neighbouring sows, were not influenced by straw. It is concluded that the dietary, recreational and bedding aspects of straw are all significant, but influence different aspects of the animals' behaviour. The significance of bar-biting and other activities is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , August 1975 , pp. 59 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1975

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

REFERENCES

Højgaard-Olsen, N. J. and Nielsen, H. E. 1966. Bedding for sows. Landekon. aarbog, pp. 12–15. Nat. Res. Inst. of Animal Science, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Loew, F. M. 1972. The veterinarian and intensive livestock production: humane considerations. Can. vet. J. 13: 229–233.Google ScholarPubMed
Siegel, S. 1956. Non-parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Thorpe, W. H. 1965. The assessment of pain and distress in animals. In Report of the Technical Committee to enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems, pp. 71–79. Brambell, F. W. R., Chairman. Cmnd. 2836, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Thorpe, W. H. 1969. Welfare of domestic animals. Nature, Land. 224: 18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehouse, K., Zarow, A. and Shay, H. 1945. Rapid method for determining ‘Crude Fibre’ in distillers' dried grain. J. Ass. off. agric. Chem. 28: 147–152.Google Scholar
Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1973. Animal welfare in modern agriculture. Br. vet. J. 129: 167–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed