Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:02:48.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alternatives to nose-ringing in outdoor sows: 2. The provision of edible or inedible overground enrichment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

HL Edge ,
HLI Bornett ,
E Newton  and
SA Edwards
HL Edge*
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle, Department of Agriculture, King George VI Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NEI 7RU, UK
HLI Bornett
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle, Department of Agriculture, King George VI Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NEI 7RU, UK
E Newton
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle, Department of Agriculture, King George VI Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NEI 7RU, UK
SA Edwards
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle, Department of Agriculture, King George VI Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NEI 7RU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [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.

The nose-ringing of outdoor pigs (Sus scrofa), although commonly practiced as a means to inhibit rooting behaviour and therefore reduce pasture damage and soil erosion, has been questioned on ethical grounds and alternatives are being sought. In this experiment, the effect of overground environmental enrichment was assessed as a possible alternative. 12 multiparous sows were housed in groups of four and randomly allocated to one of three treatments in a 3 × 3 Latin square design. Treatments were: 1) no environmental enrichment, 2) edible overground enrichment in the form of grass silage, and 3) inedible overground enrichment in the form of branches and tyres. Sows that received silage as overground enrichment spent significantly less time rooting the paddock (P < 0.01) than did sows on the other two treatments. The absence of a significant difference between treatments in overall foraging time budgets suggests that the manipulation of edible substrates may substitute for rooting behaviour in outdoor sows.

Keywords

animal welfareenvironmental enrichmentforagingnose-ringingpigrooting behaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , May 2004 , pp. 233 - 237
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bornett, H L I, Edge, H L and Edwards, S A 2003 Alternatives to nose-ringing in outdoor sows: the provision of a sacrificial rooting area. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83: 267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braund, J P, Edwards, S A, Riddoch, I and Buckner, L J 1998 Modification of foraging behaviour and pasture damage by dietary manipulation in outdoor sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56: 173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouns, F, Edwards, S A and English, P R 1994 Effect of dietary fibre and feeding system on activity and oral behaviour of group-housed gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckner, L J, Edwards, S A and Bruce, J M 1998 Behaviour and shelter use by outdoor sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 57: 69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, S A, Atkinson, K A and Lawrence, A B 1993 The effect of food level and type on behaviour of outdoor sows. In: Nichelmann, M, Wierenga, H K and Braun, S (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd Joint Meeting of the International Congress on Applied Ethology pp 501–503. Humboldt University Press: Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Edwards, S A, Jamieson, W, Riddoch, I and Watson, C A 1998 Effect of nose ringing and dietary modification in outdoor pig production on temporal changes in soil nitrogen status. Proceedings of the 1998 British Society of Animal Science Meeting p 42. British Society of Animal Science: Edinburgh, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, S A, Weddell, J, Fordyce, C, Cadenhead, A and Rooke, J 1994 Intake and digestibility of silage by pregnant sows and effects of silage treatment with Maxgrass additive. Animal Production. 58: 466 (Abstract)Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1996 Report on the Welfare of Pigs Kept Outdoors. Farm Animal Welfare Council: Tolworth, UKGoogle Scholar
Horrell, R I 1992 Effects of environmental enrichment on growing pigs. Animal Production 54: 183 (Abstract)Google Scholar
Horrell, R I, A'Ness, P J, Edwards, S A and Eddison, J C 2001 The use of nose-rings in pigs: consequences for rooting, other functional activities and welfare. Animal Welfare 10: 3–22Google Scholar
Lawrence, A B and Terlouw, E M C 1993 A review of behavioural factors involved in the development and continued performance of stereotypic behaviours in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 71: 2815–2825CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meunier-Salaun, M C, Edwards, S A and Robert, S 2001 Effect of dietary fibre on the behaviour and health of the restricted-fed sow. Animal Feed Science and Technology 90: 53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, S, Matte, J J, Farmer, C, Girard, C L and Martineau, G P 1993 High-fibre diets for sows: effects on stereotypies and adjunctive drinking. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 297–309CrossRefGoogle 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
Whittaker, X, Edwards, S A, Spoolder, H A M, Lawrence, A B and Corning, S 1999 Effects of straw bedding and high fibre diets on the behaviour of floor fed group-housed sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63: 25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, X, Spoolder, H A M, Edwards, S A, Corning, S and Lawrence, A B 1998 The influence of dietary fibre and the provision of straw on the development of stereotypic behaviour in food restricted pregnant sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61: 89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar