Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:38:01.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Nose Ringing on Exploratory Behaviour in Gilts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

M Studnitz ,
K Hjelholt Jensen ,
E Jørgensen  and
K Kjær Jensen
M Studnitz*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
K Hjelholt Jensen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
E Jørgensen
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Systems, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
K Kjær Jensen
Affiliation:
Ølgod Kommune, Vestergade 10, 6870 Ølgod, Denmark
*
* 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.

Outdoor sows with nose rings can perform most of their natural behavioural activities except rooting. The prevention of rooting through surgical intervention (nose ringing) may be detrimental to welfare, although the behavioural and welfare consequences of rooting deprivation are not well documented. The present experiment examines exploratory behaviour in unringed, ringed and deringed gilts by repeatedly exposing the gilts to a sandbox supplied with bark chips. Four months prior to the experiment, 16 gilts, eight with nose rings and eight without, were housed in four fields. Over a period of 12 days, the 16 gilts, in pairs from the same field, were walked to the sandbox; each gilt visited the sandbox six times in total. After deringing of the ringed gilts (and a control procedure for the unringed gilts), all of the gilts were exposed to the sandbox twice. During each visit, the exploratory behavioural patterns of rooting, sniffing, manipulating, and chewing were observed using 30 s scan sampling. The ringed gilts showed no rooting behaviour in the sandbox; on the other hand, their mean frequency of chewing behaviour was significantly higher than that of the unringed gilts (19.89 versus 13.54; P < 0.05). When all of the exploratory behavioural patterns were summed, no significant differences were found between ringed and unringed gilts. On the second day after deringing, the previously ringed gilts started to root, and no significant difference in the incidence of rooting behaviour between unringed gilts and newly deringed gilts was found. We discuss whether rooting behaviour can be substituted by chewing in order to explore an environment. Gilts that are prevented from rooting are found to explore as much as rooting gilts, and they achieved an adequate knowledge of the sandbox (as demonstrated by the fact that they did not show increased exploration after deringing), although rooting was the preferred exploratory behaviour. In this study, we did not find serious symptoms of chronically reduced welfare as a result of nose ringing.

Keywords

animal welfareexplorationgiltnose ringrootingbehavioural substitution
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , February 2003 , pp. 109 - 118
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

A'Ness, P, Horrell, I, Edwards, S A and Eddison, J 1996 The consequences of nose ringing for the behaviour and welfare of pigs maintained on pasture. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology p 65. Col K L Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph: Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M and Hughes, B 1997 Animal Welfare p 316. CAB International: Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Berger, F, Dagorn, J, Denmat, M Le, Quillien, J P, Vaudelet, J C and Signorét, J P 1998 Perinatal losses in outdoor pig breeding. A survey of factors influencing piglet mortality. Annales Zootechnie 46: 321–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasetti, A, Boitani, L, Riviello, M C and Visalberghi, E 1988 Activity budgets and use of enclosed space by wild boars (Sus scrofa) in captivity. Zoo Biology 7: 69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, S A, Anssems, E, Horrell, I, A'Ness, P and Eddison, J 1996 The effect of nose ringing and 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 behaviour of outdoor sows. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology p 501-503. Humboldt University: Berlin, GermanyGoogle 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: Proceedings of the 30th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology p 101. Col K L Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph: Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Horrell, I, A'Ness, P and Edwards, S A 1997 Nasal-ringing in pigs: the impact of food restriction and environmental enrichment. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology p 76. Research Institute of Animal Production, Prague-Uhrineves, Czech Republic, and Institute of Animal Biochemistry and Genetics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Ivanka pri Dunaji, SlovakiaGoogle Scholar
Horrell, I, A'Ness, P, Edwards, S A and Riddoch, I 2000 Nose-rings influence feeding efficiency in pigs. Animal Science 71: 259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littell, R C, Milliken, G A, Stroup, W W and Wolfînger, R D 1996 SAS System for Mixed Models. SAS Institute Inc: Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
Stolba, A and Wood-Gush, D G M 1984 The identification of behavioural key features and their incorporation into a housing design for pigs. Annales Recherches Veterinaire 15: 287–298Google ScholarPubMed
Studnitz, M and Jensen, K H 2002 Expression of rooting motivation in gilts following different lengths of deprivation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76: 203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, L and Friend, T H 1986 Open-field test behavior of growing swine maintained on a concrete floor and pasture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tober, O 1996 Zirkadiane Rhythmik ausgewählter Verhaltensweisen von güsten und tragenden Sauen in ganzjähriger Freilandhaltung. Tierärtztliche Umschau 51: 111–116 [Title translation: Circadian rhythms of selected behavioural activities of nonlactating sows maintained outdoors]Google Scholar
Wood-Gush, D G M and Vestergaard, K 1991 The seeking of novelty and its relation to play. Animal Behaviour 42: 599–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood-Gush, D G M and Vestergaard, K S 1989 Exploratory behaviour and the welfare of intensively kept animals. Journal of Agricultural Ethics 2: 161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar