Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-13T14:03:04.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sow behaviour and welfare in voluntary cubicle pens (small static groups) and split-yard systems (large dynamic groups)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

J.L. Durrell ,
I.A. Sneddon ,
V.E. Beattie  and
D.J. Kilpatrick
J.L. Durrell*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK
I.A. Sneddon
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK
V.E. Beattie
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR, UK
D.J. Kilpatrick
Affiliation:
Biometrics Division, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
*
†E-mail:j.durrell@qub.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

The welfare of sows kept in two different group housing systems, namely voluntary cubicle pens housing small static groups and a split-yard housing system housing a large dynamic group, were examined. Each week, four newly weaned sows were introduced into either a voluntary cubicle pen or the split-yard system, with a total of eight groups of four sows introduced into each system. Behavioural and skin lesion data were recorded during the sows’ first 5 weeks in either system. Agonistic behaviours were performed more frequently during week 1 than in subsequent weeks in both housing systems (P < 0001). Sows in the voluntary cubicle pens spent more time standing inactive (P < 0001) and spent less time in exploratory (P < 005) and locomotory (P < 001) behaviours. However, sows in the split-yard system had higher skin lesion scores (P < 001) and engaged in more social (P < 005) and agonistic interactions (P < 005). These agonistic interactions included attacks (P < 005) and fleeing (P < 0001) throughout the 5-week observation period and fighting (P < 0001) during week 1 only. The split-yard system, therefore, appeared to offer sows a more stimulating social and physical environment than the voluntary cubicle pens, but also led to higher levels of aggression and skin damage. Both housing systems, therefore, appear to compromise sow welfare in different ways.

Keywords

animal housinganimal welfarebehaviourgroup sizesows
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , August 2002 , pp. 67 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

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

Altmann, J. 1974. Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnett, J. L., Hemsworth, P. H., Cronin, G. M., Newman, E. A., McCallum, T. H. 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.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
Broom, D. M. 1991. Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, D. M., Mendl, M. T. and Zanella, A. J. 1995. A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. Animal Science 61: 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouns, F. and Edwards, S. A. 1992. Future prospects for housing of non-lactating sows. Pig News and Information 13: 47n–50n.Google Scholar
Durrell, J. L. 2000. Improving the welfare of group housed sows. Ph.D. thesis, The Queen’s University of Belfast. Google Scholar
Durrell, J. L., Sneddon, I. A. and Beattie, V. E. 1997. Effects of enrichment and floor type on behaviour of cubicle loose-housed dry sows. Animal Welfare 6: 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, S. A. 1992. Scientific perspectives on loose housing systems for dry sows. Pig Veterinary Journal 28: 40–51.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. 1975. The effect of straw on the behaviour of sows in tether stalls. Animal Production 21: 59–68.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. 1984. The role of behaviour in swine production: a review of research. Applied Animal Ethology 11: 317–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gjein, H. and Larssen, R. B. 1995. Housing of pregnant sows in loose and confined systems-a field study. 1. Vulva and body lesions, culling reasons and production results. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 36: 185–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, E. J. 1988. Behaviour and welfare of dry sows in different housing conditions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Hunter, E. J., Edwards, S. A. and Simmins, P. H. 1988. Social activity and feeder use by a dynamic group of 40 sows using a sow operated feeder. Animal Production 48: 642–644.Google Scholar
Lambert, R. J., Ellis, M. and Rowlinson, P. 1986. An assessment of an electronic feeding system and ‘dynamic’ grouping in loose-housed sows. Animal Production 42: 468 (abstr.).Google 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. Animal Science 71: 2815–2825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mendl, M. 1995. The social behaviour of non-lactating sows and its implications for managing sow aggression. Pig Veterinary Journal 34: 9–20.Google Scholar
Mendl, M. T., Broom, D. M. and Zanella, A. J. 1993. The effects of three types of dry sow housing on sow welfare. Proceedings of symposium ‘Livestock environment IV’, Coventry, (ed. Collins, E. and Boon, C.), pp. 461–467.Google Scholar
Moore, A. S., Gonyou, H. W. and Ghent, A. W. 1993. Integration of newly introduced and resident sows following grouping. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38: 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, A.Ch., Andersson, M., Rantzer, D., Svendsen, J. and Hellström, T. 1986. Group housing of sows in gestation: comparison of a computer-controlled individual feeding system with a group feeding system based on biological fixation. Department Farm Buildings, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Lund, Sweden, report 51, p. 221.Google Scholar
Rantzer, D., Olsson, A., Andersson, M. and Svendsen, J. 1988. Behaviour of group-housed sows fed individually using a computer-controlled feeding system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 21: 371–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmins, P. H. 1991. Sow behaviour in group-housing systems. Proceedings of a conference of the Pig Improvement Company, pp. 15–24.Google Scholar
Svendsen, J., Andersson, M., Olsson, A.Ch., Rantzer, D. and Lundqvist, P. 1992. Group housing systems for sows: group housing of sows in gestation in insulated and uninsulated buildings. Results of a questionnaire survey and farm visits. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 22: 163–170.Google Scholar
Tsuma, V. T., Einarsson, S., Madel, A., Kingahl, H., Lundeheim, N. and Rajkittikhun, T. 1996. Endocrine changes during group housing of primiparous sows in early pregnancy. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 37: 481–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, R., Friedli, K., Troxler, J., Winterland, C., Collins, E. and Boon, C. 1993. The influence of computerised individual feeding system on the behaviour of sows. Livestock environment IV. Proceedings of a conference held in Coventry, UK, pp. 495–502. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph, Michigan.Google Scholar
Weng, R. C., Edwards, S. A. and English, P. R. 1998. Behaviour, social interaction and lesion scores of group-housed sows in relation to floor space allowance. Applied Animal Behavious Scienc 59: 307–316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar