Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T08:08:20.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental design for pig welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

V Beattie
V Beattie*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co Down BT26 6DR, UK
Get access

Abstract

Any system of pig production affects the welfare of the pig. Most systems meet some of the requirements of the pig. For example, well managed intensive systems provide shelter, regulated temperature and ventilation, clean lying areas and adequate nutrition. However other aspects of the pig's requirements may be neglected such as provision of space to explore and for play behaviour, the desire to be in family social groups, and material to forage or root in. Pig production cannot exist if it is not economically viable hence commercial reality means pigs cannot be offered everything considered necessary for optimum welfare.

The role of research is to identify which aspects of the environment are most important to the pig and identify how these be incorporated into existing systems. This can only be achieved by understanding the behaviour of the pig. By knowing why an animal behaves in a certain way aspects of the environment can be prioritised and predictions can be made in relation to the welfare of the animal in novel systems. For example if space, fresh air and rooting are the most important elements to the pig then an outdoor extensive system should promote good welfare, however one small change, such as nose ringing the pigs, negates one of the main advantages of the outdoor system.

This paper describes a series of experiments which were devised to help understand growing pig behaviour and identify what is important to the pig. The aim of this research was to use the knowledge gained to develop a practical system which met the pigs' requirements and so would improve welfare.

In the initial studies pigs had various enriching stimuli and extra space. Pigs in enriched housing spent more time exploring and less time in harmful social and aggressive behaviour than pigs in pens with fully slatted floors and stocked at recommended space allowances. It was concluded that pigs in the absence of substrate to root, in redirect their rooting behaviour to penmates leading to harmful social and aggressive behaviour. However these pigs had four times the recommended space allowance, therefore the next experiment examined the effect of space allowance versus enriching the environment. Extra space did not improve welfare in commercial housing but enriching the environment improved welfare irrespective of space allowance.

The next question to be addressed was what substrate do pigs prefer to root in. A preference test was set up which offered pigs a choice of pairs of substrates. The pigs' choice was determined by the time spent using the substrate and showed that pigs prefer substances with a moisture content and texture similar to earth (eg peat and spent mushroom compost). Contrary to the popularly held view, pigs when given a choice do not prefer straw. The knowledge gained from this research was: pigs want to explore substrate, recommended space allowances are adequate and pigs prefer earth-like materials to root in.

The final part of this research programme was to incorporate this knowledge into commercial housing. The approach adopted was to suspend the enriching substrate (spent mushroom compost) on wire racks over the pigs. This meant the pigs could still be kept on slatted floors and no extra space was required to house the enriching substrate. The amount of harmful social behaviour performed by pigs was reduced by 25% in pens with the substrate and no pigs were tailbitten compared with 10% of pigs in the control treatment.

The inclusion of elements within any system can be prioritised to improve welfare by understanding what is important to the animal. This allows welfare to be improved while retaining systems which are economically viable in terms of animal production.

Type
Offered Papers
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 28: Integrated management systems for livestock , 2001 , pp. 97 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

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

Aalund, O. 1978. Tail biting - an indication of stress. Dansk Veterinærtidsskrift 61: 431–435.Google Scholar
Arey, D.S. 1993. The effect of bedding on the behaviour and welfare of pigs. Animal Welfare 2: 235–246.Google Scholar
Barnard, C.J. 1983. Animal Behaviour : Ecology and Evolution. Croom Helm, London and Sydney.Google Scholar
Baxter, M.R. 1983. Ethology in environmental design for animal production. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, V.E., Sneddon, I.A., Walker, N. and Weatherup, R.N. 2001. Environmental enrichment of intensive pig housing using spent mushroom compost. Animal Science 72: 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, V.E., Walker, N. and Sneddon, I.A. 1995. Effects of environmental enrichment on behaviour and productivity of growing pigs. Animal Welfare 4: 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, V.E., Walker, N. and Sneddon, I.A. 1996. An investigation of the effect of environmental enrichment and space allowance on the behaviour and production of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48: 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, V.E., Walker, N. and Sneddon, I.A. 1998. Preference testing of substrates by growing pigs. Animal Welfare 7: 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom, H.J.M., Baumans, V., Van Vorstenbosch, C.J.A.H.V., Van Zutphen, L.F.M. and Beynen, A.C. 1993. Preference tests with rodents to assess housing conditions. Animal Welfare 2: 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bure, R.G., Kerk, P. van de Koomans, P. 1983. The supply of straw, compost and garden mould to fattening pigs. Publikatie, Instituiet voor Mechanisatie, Arbeid en Gebouven No. 190, p. 23.Google Scholar
Dawkins, M. 1987. Consumer demand theory and the assessment of animal welfare : a reply to Lawrence. Animal Behaviour 35: 295.Google Scholar
Dawkins, M.S. 1980. Animal Suffering : The Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall: London, UK.Google Scholar
Duncan, I.J.H. 1983. Assessing the effect of housing on welfare. In: Baxter, S.H., Baxter, M.R. and MacCormack, J.A.C. (Eds.) Farm Animal Housing and Welfare, pp. 27–35. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, Germany.Google Scholar
Durrell, J.L. 2000. Improving the welfare of group housed sows. PhD Thesis, The Queen's University of Belfast.Google Scholar
Ekesbo, I. 1973. Animal health, behaviour and disease prevention in different environments in modern Swedish animal husbandry. Veterinary Record 93: 36–39.Google Scholar
Ewbank, R. and Bryant, M.J. 1972. Aggressive behaviour amongst groups of domesticated pigs kept at various stocking rates. Animal Behaviour 20: 21–28.Google Scholar
Fraser, D., Phillips, P.A., Thompson, B.K. and Tennessen, T. 1991. Effect of straw on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 307–318.Google Scholar
Gonyou, H.W. 1994. Why the study of animal behaviour is associated with the animal welfare issue. Journal of Animal Science 72: 2171–2177.Google Scholar
Guise, H.J. and Penny, R.H.C. 1998. Tail-biting and tail docking in pigs. Veterinary Record 142: 46.Google Scholar
Horrell, I. 1992. Effects of environmental enrichment on growing pigs. Animal Production 54: 483.Google Scholar
Huey, R.J. 1996. Incidence, location and interrelationships between the sites of abscesses recorded in pigs at a bacon factory in Northern Ireland. Veterinary Record 138: 511–514.Google Scholar
Hurnik, J.F. and Lewis, N.J. 1991. Use of body surface area to set minimum space allowances for confined pigs and cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 71: 577–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, A.H. 1971. Biological implications of intensive swine rearing systems. Journal of Animal Science 31: 560–565.Google Scholar
Kerr, S.G.C., Wood-Gush, D.G.M., Moser, H. and Whittemore, C.T. 1988. Enrichment of the production environment and the enhancement of welfare through the use of the Edinburgh Family Pen System of pig production. Research and Development in Agriculture 5: 171–186.Google Scholar
Markowitz, H. 1982. Behavioural Enrichment in the Zoo. Van Nostrand, Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
McGlone, J.J., Stansbury, W.F. and Tribble, L.F. 1987. Effects of heat and social stressors and within-pen weight variation on young pig performance and agonistic behaviour. Journal of Animal Science 65: 456–462.Google Scholar
Meese, G.B. and Ewbank, R. 1973. The establishment and nature of the dominance hierarchy in the domesticated pig. Animal Behaviour 21: 326–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier-Salaun, M.C., Vantrimpunte, M.N., Raab, A. and Dantzer, R. 1987. Effect of floor area restriction upon performance behaviour and physiology of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 64: 1371–1377.Google Scholar
O'Connell, N.E. and Beattie, V.E. 1999. Influence of environmental enrichment on aggressive behaviour and dominance relationships in growing pigs. Animal Welfare 8: 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, V., Simonsen, H.B. and Lawson, L.G. 1995. The effect of environmental stimulation on the development of behaviour in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45: 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randolph, J.H., Cromwell, G.L., Stahly, T.S. and Kratzer, D.D. 1981. Effects of group size and space allowance on performance and behaviour of swine. Journal of Animal Science 53: 922–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J.A. 1989. Environmental enrichment, providing psychological well-being and primates. American Journal of Primatology, Supplement 1, 25–30.Google Scholar
Schaefer, A.L., Salomons, M.O., Tong, A.K.W., Sather, A.P. and Lepage, P. 1990. The effect of environment enrichment on aggression in newly weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 41–52.Google Scholar
Scheel, D.E., Graves, H.B. and Sterritt, G.W. 1977. Nursing order, social dominance and growth in swine. Journal of Animal Science 45: 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schouten, W.G.P. 1986. Rearing Conditions and Behaviour in Pigs. PhD Thesis, University of Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Signoret, J.P. 1983. General Conclusions. In: Smidt, D. (Ed.) Indicators Relevant to Farm Animal Welfare. pp. 245–247, Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht, Germany.Google 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 de Recherches Vétérinoires 15: 287–298.Google Scholar
Tudge, C. 1991. A wild time at the zoo. New Scientist 129: 26–30.Google Scholar
Van Putten, G. 1979. Ever been close to a nosey pig? Applied Animal Ethology 5: 298.Google Scholar
Van Putten, G. 1981. Restriction of induced behaviour. Applied Animal Ethology 7: 387–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Putten, G. and Dammers, J. 1976. A comparative study of the well-being of piglets reared conventionally and in cages. Applied Animal Ethology 2: 339–356.Google Scholar
Van Rooijen, J. 1983. Operant preference tests with pigs. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 87–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolverton, W.L., Ator, N.A., Beardsley, D.M. and Carroll, M.E. 1989. Effects of environmental conditions on the psychological well-being of primates. A review of the literature. Life Sciences 44: 901–917.Google Scholar