Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T00:30:58.154Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roughage as additional rooting substrates for pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

A. W. Olsen ,
E.-M. Vestergaard  and
L. Dybkjær
A. W. Olsen
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Research Centre Foulum, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
E.-M. Vestergaard
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Research Centre Foulum, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
L. Dybkjær
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Research Centre Foulum, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
Get access

Abstract

Straw is frequently supplied as a rooting material to improve the welfare of pigs. In Denmark, organically raised slaughter pigs must have access to both straw and roughage. In order to evaluate whether roughage can he used as an appropriate rooting substrate for pigs, the effects of six different roughage types on pigs’ behaviour was examined. Pairs of 11-week-old pigs were placed in specially designed 4 m2 pens. Each pen contained a self-feeder for cereal, a water bowl, a box for roughage, a straw- bedded area and a dunging area. Four replicates were carried out, each consisting of seven pairs of pigs. In each replicate, each pair of pigs was supplied with either whole-crop silage of oats, vetch and lupin (Avena sativa, Vicia sativa, and Lupinus luteus (OVL), whole-crop silage of barley and peas (Hordeum vulgare and Pisum sativum ssp. arvense) (BP), whole-crop silage of clover and grass (Trifolium repens and Lolium perenne (CG), green grass meal (Poa ssp.) (GM), hay of clover and grass (Trifolium repens and Lolium perenne (H), fodder beets (Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris) (B), or no roughage (the control treatment) (CON). The pigs manipulated OVL for longer than the other roughage products (P < 0·01). When OVL was omitted from the analysis, B was manipulated for longer than CON (P < 0·05). The pigs that were offered CON manipulated equipment for a longer time than pigs offered B (P < 0·05) and tended to manipulate equipment for longer than pigs offered OVL (P = 0·065). Interestingly, OVL and B were the two products with the lowest dry-matter content. It may suggest that the amount of time spent manipulating roughage will depend considerably on the specific characteristics of the roughage offered, for instance dry matter content and complexity but probably also texture, smell and taste. In addition, the time spent manipulating other elements in the pen will depend on the type of roughage offered. In conclusion, the present study shows that some, but not all, types of roughage are suited as an enrichment of the pig’s environment.

Keywords

behaviourpigsrooting substrateroughage

Information

Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 70 , Issue 3 , June 2000 , pp. 451 - 456
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

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

Anonymous. 1971. Second commission directive of 18 November 1971 establishing Community methods for the official control of feeding stuffs. Official Journal of the European Communities L279/7: 987.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1978. Tecator method. Determination of crude fibre in some feed and food samples by using the fibertec system and Weende method. Application note 01, Tecator AB, Höganäs, Sweden.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1984. AOAC-method. Official methods of analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Inc., USA.Google Scholar
Aumaitre, A., Melcion, J. P., Vaissade, P. and Seve, B. 1978. Use of glucose, fructose rich glucose syrup (H.F.C.S. ) or sucrose in diets of early weaned piglets: influence on pelleting and palatability Annales de Zootechnie 27: 409–421.Google 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.Google Scholar
Beattie, V. E., Walker, N. and Sneddon, I. A. 1998. Preference testing of substrates bv growing pigs. Animal Welfare 7: 27–34.Google Scholar
Briedermann, L. 1971. Ermittlungen zur Aktivitatsperiodik des Mitteleuropäischen Wild-schweines (Sus scrofa L). Zoologische Garten, Leipzig 40: 302–327.Google Scholar
Feddes, J. J. R. and Fraser, D. 1994. Non-nutritive chewing by pigs: implications for tail-biting and behavioural enrichment. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 37: 947–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, R. 1968. The reward value of saccharin solution prior to eating experience. Psychonomie Science 10: 83–88.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. 1985. Selection of bedded and unbedded areas by pigs in relation to environmental temperature and behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 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
Glander, K. E. 1981. Feeding patterns in mantled howling monkeys. In Foraging behaviour: ecological ethological and psychological approaches (ed. Kamil, A. C. and Sargent, T. D.). Garland Press, New York.Google Scholar
Gundlach, H. 1968. Brutforsorge, Brutpflege, Verhaltensontogenese und Tagesperiodik beim Europaischen Wildschweinen (Sus scrofa L.). Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 25: 955–995.Google Scholar
Kare, M. R., Pond, W. G. and Campbell, J. 1965. Observations on the taste reactions in pigs. Animal Behaviour 13: 265–269.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. M. and Baldwin, B. A. 1972. Taste preference in pigs for nutritive and non-nutritive sweet solutions. Animal Behaviour 20: 706–718.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. and Whittemore, C. T. 1990. Diet selection in pigs: choices made by growing pigs given foods of different protein contents. Animal Production 51: 189–199.Google Scholar
Ladewig, J. and Matthews, L. R. 1996. The role of opérant conditioning in animal welfare research. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica. Section A, Animal Science 27: 64–68.Google Scholar
Newberry, R.C. 1995. Environmental enrichment: increasing the biological relevance of captive environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 229–243.Google Scholar
Rolls, B. J., Rowe, E. A., Rolls, E. T., Kingston, B., Megson, A. and Gunary, R. 1981. Variety in a meal enhances food intake in man. Physiology and Behaviour 26: 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolls, E. T. and Rolls, J. H. 1997. Olfactory sensory-specific satiety in humans. Physiology and Behavior 63: 3, 461-473.Google Scholar
Simonsen, H. B. 1990. Behaviour and distribution of fattening pigs in the multi-activity pen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 311–324.Google Scholar
Spoolder, A. M., Burbidge, J. A., Edwards, S. A., Simmins, P. H. and Lawrence, A. B. 1995. Provision of straw as a foraging substrate reduces the development of excessive chain and bar manipulation in food restricted sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1995. SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 6, 11th edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Stolba, A. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1989. The behaviour of pigs in a semi-natural environment. Animal Production 48: 419–425.Google Scholar
Stoldt, W. 1952. Vorschlag zur Vereinheitlichung der Fettbestimmung in Lebensmitteln. Fette und Seifen 54: 206–207.Google Scholar
Wood-Gush, D. G. M. and Vestergaard, K. 1991. The seeking of novelty and its relation to play Animal Behaviour 42: 599–606.Google Scholar