Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-6bbg5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-04T11:54:03.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of straw on farrowing site choice and nest building behaviour in sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. S. Arey ,
A. M. Petchey  and
V. R. Fowler
D. S. Arey
Affiliation:
Centre for Rural Building, Craibstone, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9TR
A. M. Petchey
Affiliation:
Centre for Rural Building, Craibstone, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9TR
V. R. Fowler
Affiliation:
North of Scotland College of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 1UD
Get access

Abstract

Farrowing site choice was examined in 40 sows. In group 1, the preference of 16 sows was tested for pre-formed lying areas which incorporated the characteristics of previously observed farrowing nests: a hollow (H), a mattress (M), a nest box (B) and a flat control (C). None of the sows farrowed on C which indicated that choice was based on some evaluation of the lying surface. However, there was no significant preference for the three nest features: H6, M6, B 4. In group 2, C was replaced by a straw area (S). Four different amounts of straw were offered: 18, 9, 4·5 and 2·25 kg with four, four, eight, eight sows on trial at each amount respectively. All the sows farrowed on S at the 18, 9 and 4·5 levels; at 2·25 kg, three farrowed on S and five moved the straw to other lying areas on which they farrowed. The results indicated that the location of nest material has an important influence on farrowing site choice because it allows the performance of nesting behaviour. Although performance of the behaviour was not affected by the amount of straw available, 2·25 kg appeared to be inadequate for a satisfactory nest.

Keywords

behaviourfarrowingnestingsowsstraw

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , February 1992 , pp. 129 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1992

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arey, D. S., Petchey, A. M. and Fowler, V. R. 1991. The behaviour of prepartal sows in enriched pens and the effect of pre-formed nests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. In press.Google Scholar
Baxter, M. R. 1982a. The nesting behaviour of sows and its disturbance by confinement at farrowing. In Disturbed behaviour in farm animals (ed. Bessai, W.), seminar in the EEC Program of Co-ordination of Research on Animal Welfare, University of Hohenheim, 1981, pp. 101–114.Google Scholar
Baxter, M. R. 1982b. Ethology in environmental design for animal production. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dellmeier, G. R. 1989. Motivation in relation to the welfare of enclosed livestock. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 129–138.Google Scholar
English, P. R., Smith, W. J. and MacLean, A. 1979. The sow — improving her efficiency. Farming Press, Ipswich.Google Scholar
Friend, T. 1989. Recognizing behavioural needs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22:151–158.Google Scholar
Gravas, L. 1982. Production and behaviour of free moving and locked sows. In Livestock environment II. Proceedings of the 2nd international livestock environment symposium, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, pp. 411–419.Google Scholar
Gundlach, H. 1968. [Litter care, behaviour ontogenesis and diurnal rhythm in the European wild pig.] Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 25: 955–995.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, B. 1982. Effects of sow housing systems in practical pig production. In Livestock environment II. Proceedings of the 2nd international livestock environment symposium, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, pp. 380–391.Google Scholar
Hansen, L. L. and Vestergaard, K. 1984. Tethered versus loose sows: ethological observations and measures of productivity. II. Production results. Annales de Recherches Veterinaires 15: 185–191.Google Scholar
Hughes, B. O., Duncan, I. J. H. and Brown, M. F. 1989. The performance of nest-building by domestic hens: is it more important than the construction of a nest? Animal Behaviour 37: 210–214.Google Scholar
Hunt, K. and Petchey, A. M. 1989. Degree of enclosure preferred by sows around farrowing. Animal Production 48: 643 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Hutson, G. D. 1988. Do sows need straw for nest-building? Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 28: 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P. 1986. Observations on the maternal behaviour of free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16:131–142.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. 1989. Nest site choice and nest building of free- ranging domestic pigs due to farrow. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22:13–21.Google Scholar
Lammers, G. J. and Lange, A. de. 1986. Pre- and post- farrowing behaviour in primiparous domesticated pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 31–43.CrossRefGoogle 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 Veterinaires 15: 287–299.Google ScholarPubMed