Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-8v9h9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T23:57:51.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An investigation into the effectiveness of compressed straw blocks in reducing abnormal behaviour in growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2019

A. Haigh Open the ORCID record for A. Haigh [Opens in a new window] ,
J. Yun-Chou  and
K. O’Driscoll
A. Haigh*
Affiliation:
Pig Development Department, Centre for Grassland Research and Innovation, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
J. Yun-Chou
Affiliation:
Pig Development Department, Centre for Grassland Research and Innovation, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, UK Animal & Veterinary Sciences Research Group, SRUC, Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush, Midlothian, UK
K. O’Driscoll
Affiliation:
Pig Development Department, Centre for Grassland Research and Innovation, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
†E-mail: amyjohaigh@yahoo.com
Get access

Abstract

The provision of manipulable material to pigs is a legal requirement to ensure their good welfare. Loose straw is edible, chewable, investigable and manipulable, and has been proven to be effective in reducing abnormal behaviour. However, it is incompatible with slatted systems and therefore not a viable option for many intensive units. Thus, there is a need to identify enrichment materials that are as effective as loose straw and compatible with slatted floors. This study investigated the viability of using compressed straw blocks on a commercial farm in terms of cost and effectiveness in reducing biting relative to plastic hanging toys. A total of 880 slaughter pigs were used, among which half (n = 440, 8 groups) were provided with commercial pig toys (TOY) and the other half (n = 440, 8 groups) were provided compressed straw blocks (STRAW BLOCK). Animals were separated according to sex to investigate whether there was a higher propensity to tail and ear bite depending on sex. Pigs were monitored from weaning to slaughter, with tails being examined post scalding and any condemnations recorded at the abattoir. Throughout their life, the tails and ears of all pigs were examined individually, and behavioural observations of each pig group were conducted fortnightly. Salivary cortisol was also obtained from a subsample of pigs from each group every fortnight to monitor stress levels. The highest straw usage was recorded in the second weaner stage (39 to 67 days after weaning). Enrichment type or sex had no effect on tail lesion scores or cold carcass weight recorded at the abattoir. There was also no effect of enrichment type or sex on body, tail, or ear lesion scores during either the weaner (0 to 39 days after weaning) or finisher stage (67 to145 days after weaning). Female pigs showed more biting behaviour than males, and female pigs that were provided STRAW BLOCK performed better than those provided TOY. In both the weaner and finisher accommodation, more instances of interaction were recorded with TOY pens as enrichment than with STRAW BLOCK, but the interaction duration was not recorded. There was no effect of sex on either stage. More instances of aggression were observed with the TOY than with STRAW BLOCK in the weaner stage (P < 0.05). Enrichment type or sex had no effect on cortisol levels. Thus, relative to plastic hanging toys, compressed straw blocks provided in this manner did not benefit pig welfare.

Keywords

earenrichmentharmful behaviourslatted systemstail

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 11 , November 2019 , pp. 2576 - 2585
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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

Footnotes

a

Present address: School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University College Dublin, Ireland.

References

Amdi, C, Lahrmann, HP, Oxholm, LC, Schild, SA, Nelsen, MBF, Steinmetz, HV and Hansen, CF 2015. Pen-mate directed behaviour in ad libitum fed pigs given different quantities and frequencies of straw. Livestock Science 171, 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, VE and O’Connell, NE 2002. Relationship between rooting behaviour and foraging in growing pigs. Animal Welfare 11, 295–303.Google Scholar
Berckmans, D, Viazzi, S, Vranken, E, Hartung, J, Fels, M and Guarino, M 2013. Automated monitoring and controlling of undesired livestock behaviour. Assignee: University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Germany and the University of Milan, Italy. Patent no.: Pct/nl2013/050096.Google Scholar
Bulens, A,Renders, L, Van Beirendonck, S, Van Thielen, J and Driessen, B 2014. An exploratory study on the effects of a straw dispenser in farrowing crates. Journal of Veterinary Behaviour 9, 83–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burfoot, A, Kay, RM and Corning, S 1995. A scoring method to assess damage caused by aggression between sows after mixing. In The Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, Winter Meeting, UK, pp. 196–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerlink, I, Bijma, P, Kemp, B and Bolhuis, JE 2012. Relationship between growth rate and oral manipulation, social nosing, and aggression in finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 142, 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerlink, I, Bolhuis, JE, Duijvesteijn, N, Van Arendonk, JAM and Bijma, P 2014. Growth performance and carcass traits in pigs selected for indirect genetic effects on growth rate in two environments. Journal of Animal Science 92, 2612–2619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 2016. The application of Council Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs as regards measures to reduce the need for tail-docking. Retrieved on August 2018 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016H0336.Google Scholar
Diana, A, Manzanilla, E, Calderón Díaz, J, Leonard, F and Boyle, L 2017. Do weaner pigs need in-feed antibiotics to ensure good health and welfare?. PLOS ONE 12, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, M, Newberry, RC, Špinka, M and Cloutier, S 2002. Effects of early play experience on play behaviour of piglets after weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79, 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Phillips, PA, Thompson, BK and Tennessen, T 1991. Effect of straw on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30, 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haigh, A and O’Driscoll, K in prep. An investigation into pig farmer’s perceptions and experiences of tail biting.Google Scholar
Harley, S, Boyle, L, O’Connell, N, More, S, Teixeira, D and Hanlon, A 2014. Docking the value of pigmeat? Prevalence and financial implications of welfare lesions in Irish slaughter pigs. Animal Welfare 23, 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, S, More, S, Boyle, L, O’Connell, N and Hanlon, A 2012. Good animal welfare makes economic sense: potential of pig abattoir meat inspection as a welfare surveillance tool. Irish Veterinary Journal 65, 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, E, Jones, T, Guise, H, Penny, R and Hoste, S 1999. Tail biting in pigs 1: the prevalence at six UK abattoirs and the relationship of tail biting with docking, sex and other carcass damage. Pig Journal (United Kingdom) 43, 18–32.Google Scholar
Kritas, SK and Morrison, RB 2004. An observational study on tail biting in commercial grower-finisher barns. Journal of Swine Health Production 12, 17–22.Google Scholar
Lemos Teixeira, D, Harley, S, Hanlon, A, O’Connell, NE, More, SJ, Manzanilla, EG and Boyle, LA 2016. Study on the association between tail lesion score, cold carcass weight, and viscera condemnations in slaughter pigs. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 3, 24.Google Scholar
Moinard, C, Mendl, M, Nicol, CJ and Green, LE 2003. A case control study of on-farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, R, Wood-Gush, D and Hall, J 1988. Playful behaviour of piglets. Behavioural Processes 17, 205–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Driscoll, K, O’Gorman, DM, Taylor, S and Boyle, LA 2013. The influence of a magnesium-rich marine extract on behaviour, salivary cortisol levels and skin lesions in growing pigs. Animal 7, 1017–1027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Driscoll, K 2015. Effect on enrichment design and amount on durability and use. In International Conference on Pig Welfare Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Presto, M, Rundgren, M and Wallenbeck, A 2013. Inclusion of grass/clover silage in the diet of growing/finishing pigs–influence on pig time budgets and social behaviour. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, A–Animal Science 63, 84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrøder-Petersen, DL and Simonsen, H 2001. Tail biting in pigs. Veterinary Journal 162, 196–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scollo, A, Di Martino, G, Bonfanti, L, Stefani, AL, Schiavon, E, Marangon, S and Gottardo, F 2013. Tail docking and the rearing of heavy pigs: the role played by gender and the presence of straw in the control of tail biting blood parameters, behaviour and skin lesions. Research in Veterinary Science 95, 825–830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smulders, D, Verbeke, G, Mormède, P and Geers, R 2006. Validation of a behavioral observation tool to assess pig welfare. Physiology Behaviour 89, 438–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sonoda, LT, Fels, M, Oczak, M, Vranken, E, Ismayilova, G, Guarino, M, Viazzi, S, Bahr, C, Berckmans, D and Hartung, J 2013. Tail Biting in pigs–causes and management intervention strategies to reduce the behavioural disorder. A review. Berliner und Münchener Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 126, 104–112.Google ScholarPubMed
Speijers, M 2014. Environmental enrichment for fully slatted systems. In Proceedings of the 41st Symposium of the Irish Pig Health Society, pp. 20–27.Google Scholar
Stubbe, A, Beck, J and Jungbluth, T 1999. Improving the animal welfare of intensive pig farming systems through employment technology. Current aspects of the production of pork. Agricultural Research Völkenrode special issue 193, 167–168. Google Scholar
Taylor, NR, Main, DC, Mendl, M and Edwards, SA 2010. Tail-biting: a new perspective. The Veterinary Journal 186, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Telkänranta, H, Bracke, MB and Valros, A 2014. Fresh wood reduces tail and ear biting and increases exploratory behaviour in finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 161, 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM 2005. The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: a review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 261–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valros, A, Munsterhjelm, C, Puolanne, E, Ruusunen, M, Heinonen, M, Peltoniemi, OA and Pösö, AR 2013. Physiological indicators of stress and meat and carcass characteristics in tail bitten slaughter pigs. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 55, 75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valros, A, Palander, P, Heinonen, M, Munsterhjelm, C, Brunberg, E, Keeling, L and Piepponen, P 2015. Evidence for a link between tail biting and central monoamine metabolism in pigs (Sus scrofa domestica). Physiology Behaviour 143, 151–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Putten, G 1979. Ever been close to a nosey pig? Applied Animal Ethology 5, 298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, H, Docking, C, Day, J and Edwards, S 2005. The development of harmful social behaviour in pigs with intact tails and different enrichment backgrounds in two housing systems. Animal Science 80, 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, H, Docking, C, Day, J, Breuer, K and Edwards, S 2006. Effects of species-relevant environmental enrichment on the behaviour and productivity of finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 230–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA and Day, JE 2009. A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Bracke, MB, den Hartog, LA, Kemp, B and Spoolder, HA 2010. Gender effects on tail damage development in single-or mixed-sex groups of weaned piglets. Livestock Science 129, 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonderland, J 2011. Talking tails-quantifying the development of tail biting in pigs. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Zonderland, J, Wolthuis-Fillerup, M, Van Reenen, CG, Bracke, MB, Kemp, B, Den Hartog, LA and Spoolder, HA 2008. Prevention and treatment of tail biting in weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110, 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicker, B, Gygax, L, Wechsler, B and Weber, R 2013. Short-and long-term effects of eight enrichment materials on the behaviour of finishing pigs fed ad libitum or restrictively. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Haigh et al. supplementary material

Haigh et al. supplementary material 1

Download Haigh et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.7 MB