Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:29:32.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of social mixing and group size on skin lesions and mounting in organic entire male pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2016

R. Thomsen ,
S. A. Edwards ,
T. Rousing ,
R. Labouriau  and
J. T. Sørensen
R. Thomsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food & Rural Development, Agriculture Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
T. Rousing
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
R. Labouriau
Affiliation:
Applied Statistics Laboratory, Department of Mathematics, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade 118, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark
J. T. Sørensen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Alternatives to surgical castration are needed, due to stress and pain caused by castration of male pigs. One alternative is production of entire male pigs. However, changed behaviour of entire males compared with castrated males might adversely affect the welfare of entire males and changes in management procedures and production system might be needed. Elements from the organic pig production system might be beneficial in this aspect. The aim of this article is to investigate the effect of grouping strategy including social mixing and group size on levels of mounting behaviour and skin lesions, hypothesising that procedures that disrupt the social stability (e.g. regrouping) will have a larger negative effect in small groups compared with large groups. Approximately 1600 organic entire male pigs of the breed (Landrace×Yorkshire)×Duroc were reared in parallel in five organic herds, distributed across four batches in a 2×2 factorial design in order to test the influence of social mixing (presence or absence of social mixing at relocation) and group size (15 and 30 animals). Animals were able to socialise with piglets from other litters during the lactation period, and were all mixed across litters at weaning. A second mixing occurred at insertion to fattening pens for pigs being regrouped. Counting of skin lesions (1348 or 1124 pigs) and registration of mounting behaviour (1434 or 1258 pigs) were done on two occasions during the experimental period. No interactive effects were found between social mixing and group size on either skin lesions or mounting frequency. Herd differences were found for both mounting frequency and number of skin lesions. No association between skin lesions and mounting were revealed. Social mixing and group size were shown as interacting effects with herds on mounting frequency (P<0.0001), but with no consistent pattern across all herds. In addition, no effect of social mixing was found on mean number of skin lesions, but more lesions were observed in large groups (P<0.036). This could indicate that keeping entire male pigs in groups of 30 animals as compared with smaller groups of 15 may marginally decrease the welfare of these animals.

Keywords

entire male pigsorganic productionwelfaremountingskin lesions
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 7 , July 2016 , pp. 1225 - 1233
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Andersen, IL, Andenæs, H, Bøe, KE, Jensen, P and Bakken, M 2000. The effects of weight asymmetry and resource distribution on aggression in groups of unacquainted pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68, 107–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersson, H, Rydhmer, L, Lundstrom, K, Wallgren, M, Andersson, K and Forsberg, M 1998. Influence of artificial light regimens on sexual maturation and boar taint in entire male pigs. Animal Reproduction Science 51, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arey, DS and Franklin, MF 1995. Effects of straw and unfamiliarity on fighting between newly mixed growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45, 23–30.Google Scholar
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Newman, EA, McCallum, TH and Chilton, D 1992. Effects of pen size, partial stalls and method of feeding on welfare-related behavioural and physiological responses of group-housed pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34, 207–220.Google Scholar
Benjamini, Y and Yekutieli, D 2001. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Annals of Statistics 29, 1165–1188.Google Scholar
Boyle, LA and Björklund, L 2007. Effects of fattening boars in mixed or single sex groups and split marketing on pig welfare. Animal Welfare 16, 259–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Physiological Measurements 20, 37–46.Google Scholar
Coutellier, L, Arnould, C, Boissy, A, Orgeur, P, Prunier, A, Veissier, I and Meunier-Salaün, MC 2007. Pig’s responses to repeated social regrouping and relocation during the growing-finishing period. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 105, 102–114.Google Scholar
Cronin, GM, Dunshea, FR, Butler, KL, McCauley, I, Barnett, JL and Hemsworth, PH 2003. The effects of immuno- and surgical-castration on the behaviour and consequently growth of group-housed, male finisher pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB 2005. Socialising piglets before weaning improves social hierarchy formation when pigs are mixed post-weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93, 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fàbrega, E, Puigvert, X, Soler, J, Tibau, J and Dalmau, A 2013. Effect of on farm mixing and slaughter strategy on behaviour, welfare and productivity in Duroc finished entire male pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 143, 31–39.Google Scholar
Fredriksen, B, Lium, BRM, Marka, CH, Mosveen, B and Nafstad, O 2008. Entire male pigs in farrow-to-finish pens – effects on animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110, 258–268.Google Scholar
Giersing, M, Lundstrom, K and Andersson, A 2000. Social effects and boar taint: significance for production of slaughter boars (Sus scrofa). Journal of Animal Science 78, 296–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagelsø Giersing, M and Studnitz, M 1996. Characterization and investigation of aggressive behaviour in the pig. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A Animal Science (Supplement) 27, 56–60.Google Scholar
Hintze, S, Desiree, S, Turner, S and Meddle, SL 2013. Mounting behaviour in finishing pigs: stable individual differences are not due to dominance or stage of sexual development. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 147, 69–80.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, B and Labouriau, R 2012. Exponential families and theoretical inference, Monografías de Matemática, vol. 52, 2nd edition. Springer, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Google Scholar
Kundel, HL and Polansky, M 2003. Measurement of observer agreement. Radiology 228, 303–308.Google Scholar
Li, Y and Wang, L 2011. Effects of previous housing system on agonistic behaviours of growing pigs at mixing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 132, 20–26.Google Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1993. Recording methods. In Measuring behaviour, an introductory guide (ed. P Martin and P Bateson), pp. 84–100. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prunier, A, Bonneau, M, von Borell, EH, Cinotti, S, Gunn, M, Fredriksen, B, Giersing, M, Morton, DB, Tuyttens, FAM and Velarde, A 2006. A review of the welfare consequences of surgical castration in piglets and the evaluation of non-surgical methods. Animal Welfare 15, 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prunier, A, Brillouët, A, Merlot, E, Meunier-Salaün, MC and Tallet, C 2013. Influence of housing and season on pubertal development and skin lesions of male pigs. Animal 7, 2035–2043.Google Scholar
R Core Team 2013. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved March 13, 2013, from http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Rydhmer, L, Hansson, M, Lundström, K, Brunius, C and Andersson, K 2013. Welfare of entire male pigs is improved by socialising piglets and keeping intact groups until slaughter. Animal 7, 1532–1541.Google Scholar
Rydhmer, L, Zamaratskaia, G, Andersson, HK, Algers, B, Guillemet, R and Lundström, K 2006. Aggressive and sexual behaviour of growing and finishing pigs reared in groups, without castration. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 56, 109–119.Google Scholar
Spoolder, HAM, Edwards, SA and Corning, S 1999. Effects of group size and feeder space allowance on welfare in finishing pigs. Animal Science 69, 481–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomsen, R, Edwards, SA, Jensen, BB, Rousing, T and Sørensen, JT 2014a. Weight and season affects androstenone and skatole occurrence in entire male pigs in organic pig production. Animal 9, 1577–1586.Google Scholar
Thomsen, R, Edwards, SA, Jensen, BB, Rousing, T and Sørensen, JT 2014b. Effect of faecal soiling on skatole and androstenone occurrence in organic entire male pigs. Animal 9, 1587–1596.Google Scholar
Turner, SP and Edwards, SA 2004. Housing immature domestic pigs in large social groups: implications for social organisation in a hierarchical society. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, SP, Farnworth, MJ, White, IMS, Brotherstone, S, Mendl, M, Knap, P, Penny, P and Lawrence, AB 2006. The accumulation of skin lesions and their use as a predictor of individual aggressiveness in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 245–259.Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Horgan, GW and Edwards, SA 2001. Effect of social group size on aggressive behaviour between unacquainted domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74, 203–215.Google Scholar
Verhoog, H, Lund, V and Alrøe, HF 2004. Animal welfare, ethics and organic farming. In Animal health and welfare in organic agriculture (ed. M Vaarst, S Roderick, V Lund and W Lockeretz), pp. 73–94. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
von Borell, E, Baumgartner, J, Giersing, M, Jäggin, N, Prunier, A, Tuyttens, FAM and Edwards, SA 2009. Animal welfare implications of surgical castration and its alternatives in pigs. Animal 11, 1488–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® Consortium 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar