Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T10:37:18.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of pig behaviour when given a sequence of enrichment objects or a chain continuously

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

V Van de Perre,
B Driessen,
J Van Thielen,
G Verbeke and
R Geers
V Van de Perre*
Affiliation:
KU Leuven, Laboratory for Quality Care in Animal Production, Bijzondere weg 12, B-3360 Lovenjoel, Belgium
B Driessen
Affiliation:
KU Leuven, Laboratory for Quality Care in Animal Production, Bijzondere weg 12, B-3360 Lovenjoel, BelgiumKH Kempen, Kleinhoefstraat 4, B-2440 Geel, Belgium
J Van Thielen
Affiliation:
KH Kempen, Kleinhoefstraat 4, B-2440 Geel, Belgium
G Verbeke
Affiliation:
KU Leuven, Interuniversity Institute for Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics, Kapucijnenvoer 35, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
R Geers
Affiliation:
KU Leuven, Laboratory for Quality Care in Animal Production, Bijzondere weg 12, B-3360 Lovenjoel, Belgium
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Vincent.VandePerre@biw.kuleuven.be
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tail biting is a major problem in modern pig (Sus scrofa) production and results in a reduction of animal welfare and productive performance. Biting behaviour has been shown to be decreased by the use of enrichment objects. In this study, 108 pigs housed in a room with 12 pens were observed and a sequence of seven different enrichment materials was tested. Gilts and barrows were housed together and received a new enrichment object each week starting from three different points in the fattening period, ie 20, 40 or 70 kg bodyweight. Toy-contact and biting-penmate behaviour were observed during one hour at day of introduction and five days later. A continuous sequence of seven enrichment objects reduced biting-penmate behaviour and the number of wounds compared to providing only a single toy (chain). This study also confirmed that not every object was feasible as an enrichment object for growing pigs. Generally, the highest toy contact was observed together with the highest biting-penmate behaviour. Most toy-contact and biting-penmate behaviour was observed between 20 and 40 kg bodyweight and was decreasing over age. Providing a sequence of toys for the first time induced toy-contact behaviour while reducing bitingpenmate behaviour but decreased after applying the same sequence for the second or third time. The presence of a single chain or a sequence of different toys had no effect on growth and feed conversion. The ideal sequence should maintain toy-contact behaviour without competition in order to avoid biting-penmate behaviour and reduced animal welfare.

Keywords

animal welfarebiting-penmate behaviourenrichment objectsgrowthpigtoy-contact behaviour

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , November 2011, pp. 641 - 649
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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, DS 1993 The effect of bedding on the behaviour and welfare of pigs. Animal Welfare 2: 235–246Google Scholar
Beattie, VE, Walker, N and Sneddon, IA 1995 Effects of environmental enrichment on behaviour and productivity of growing pigs. Animal Welfare 4: 207–220Google Scholar
Beattie, VE, O’Connell, NE and Moss, BW 2000 Influence of environmental enrichment on the behaviour, performance and meat quality of domestic pigs. Livestock Production Science 65: 71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, JK, Thomas, FJ and Lee, J-A 1997 The effect of a fixed or free toy on the growth rate and aggressive behaviour of weaned pigs and the influence of hierarchy on initial in vestigation of the toys. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, M, Hulsegge, B, Keeling, L and Blokhuis, HJ 2004 Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs: 1. Modelling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87: 31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, C, Powel, L, Wilson, E and Green, LE 1995 A postal survey of tail biting in pigs in Southwest England. Veterinary Record 136: 147–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, JEL, Spoolder, HAM, Burfoot, A, Chamberlain, HL and Edwards, SA 2002 The separate and interactive effects of handling and environmental enrichment on the behaviour and welfare of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75: 177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Docking, CM, Van de Weerd, HA, Day, JEL and Edwards, SA 2008 The influence of age on the use of potential enrichment objects and synchronisation of behaviour in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110: 244–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1978 Observations on the behavioural development of suckling and early-weaned piglets during the first six weeks after birth. Animal Behaviour 26: 22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1987 Attraction to blood as a factor in tail biting by pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17: 61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geenen, H, Geers, R, Lammens, L, Permentier, L, Ödberg, F and Nelissen, M 2009 Werkpakket II: Experimentele studie. In: Geverink, N, Tuyttens, F, Geenen, H and Geers, R (eds) Groepshuisvesting voor zeugen en gelten: repercussie op algemeen welzijn, gezondheid en milieu pp 35–127. Zoötechnisch Centrum: Lovenjoel, Belgium. [Title translation: Group housing of sows and gilts: repercussions on animal welfare, health and environment]Google Scholar
Gifford, AK, Cloutier, S and Newberry, RC 2007 Objects as enrichment: effect of object exposure time and delay interval on object recognition memory of the domestic pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107: 206–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T, Curtis, SE and Greenoug, W 1983 Effects of rearing environment on the behaviour of young pigs. Journal of Animal Science 57(S1): 137Google Scholar
Hendriks, HJM, Pedersen, BK, Vermeer, HM and Wittmann, M 1998 Pig housing systems in Europe: current distributions and trends. Pig News and Information 19: 97N–104NGoogle Scholar
Horrell, I 1992 Effects of environmental enrichment on growing pigs. Animal Production 54: 483 (abstract)Google Scholar
Kelly, HRC, Bruce, JM, English, PR, Fowler, VR and Edwards, SA 2000 Behaviour of 3-week weaned pigs in straw-flow, deep straw and flatdeck housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 269–280CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyons, CAP, Bruce, JM, Fowler, VR and English, PR 1995 A comparison of productivity and welfare of growing pigs in four intensive systems. Livestock Production Science 43: 265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moinard, C, Mendl, M, Nicol, CJ and Green, LE 2003 A case control study on-farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 333–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, CA, Deans, LA, Lawrence, AB and Nielsen, BL 1998 The effects of straw bedding on the feeding and social behaviour of growing pigs fed by means of single-space feeders. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, AW, Vestergaard, E-M and Dybkjær, L 2000 Roughage as additional rooting substrates for pigs. Animal Science 70: 451–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, ES, Moinard, C, Green, LE and Mendl, M 2007 Farmers’ attitude to methods for controlling tail biting in pigs. Veterinary Record 160: 803–805CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearce, GP and Paterson, AM 1993 The effect of space restriction and provision of toys during rearing on the behaviour, productivity and physiology of male pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36: 11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, V, Simonsen, HB and Lawson, LG 1995 The effect of environmental stimulation on the development of behaviour in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 41–52Google Scholar
Ruiterkamp, WA 1987 The behaviour of grower pigs in relation to housing systems. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 35: 67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sambraus, HH and Kuchenhoff, R 1992 The effects of environmental objects on the resting behaviour and behavioural abnormalities of piglets. Tierarztliche Umschau 47: 233–242Google Scholar
Schaefer, AL, Salomons, MO, Tong, AKW, Sather, AP and Lepage, P 1990 The effect of environment enrichment on aggression in newly weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schr⊘der-Petersen, DL and Simonsen, HB 2001 Tail biting in pigs. The Veterinary Journal 162: 196–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K, Taylor, L, Gill, BP and Edwards, SA 2006a Influence of different types of environmental enrichment on the behaviour of finishing pigs in two different housing systems 1. Hanging toy versus rootable substrate. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99: 222–229Google Scholar
Scott, K, Chennells, DJ, Campbell, F, Hunt, B, Armstrong, D, Taylor, L, Gill, BP and Edwards, SA 2006b The welfare of finishing pigs in two contrasting housing systems: fully-slatted versus straw-based accommodation. Livestock Production Science 103: 104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K, Taylor, L, Gill, BP and Edwards, SA 2007 Influence of different types of environmental enrichment on the behaviour of finishing pigs in two different housing systems 2. Ratio of pigs to enrichment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 105: 51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolba, A and Wood-Gush, DGM 1989 The behaviour of pigs in semi-natural environment. Animal Production 48: 419–425Google Scholar
Studnitz, M, Jensen, MB and Pedersen, LJ 2007 Why do pigs root and in what will they root? A review on the exploratory behaviour of pigs in relation to environmental enrichment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107: 183–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, NR, Main, DCJ, Mendl, M and Edwards, SA 2010 Tail-biting: a new perspective. The Veterinary Journal 186: 137–147CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trickett, SL, Guy, JH and Edwards, SA 2009 The role of novelty in environmental enrichment for the weaned pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116: 45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA and Day, JEI 2009 A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116: 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, Avery, PJ and Edwards, SA 2003 A systematic approach towards developing environmental enrichment for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL and Edwards, SA 2005 The development of harmful social behaviour in pigs with intact tails and different enrichment backgrounds in two housing systems. Animal Science 80: 289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, Breuer, K and Edwards, SA 2006 Effects of species-relevant environmental enrichment on the behaviour and productivity of finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99: 230–247CrossRefGoogle 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: 339–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallgren, P and Lindahl, E 1996 The influence of tail biting on performance of fattening pigs. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 37: 453–460CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wemelsfelder, F and Birke, LIA 1997 Environmental challenge. In: Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO (eds) Animal Welfare pp 35–47. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Vermeer, HM, Vereijken, PFG and Spoolder, HAM 2001 Measuring a pig's preference for suspended toys by using an automated recording technique. Proceedings of the International Symposium of the CIGR pp 147–156. 23-25 October 2001, Szlarska Poreba, PolandGoogle Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Wolthuis-Fillerup, M, Van Reenen, CG, Bracke, MBM, Kemp, B, den Hartog, LA and Spoolder, HAM 2008 Prevention and treatment of tail biting in weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110: 269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar