Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T13:20:59.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behaviour and performance of pigs finished on deep bedding with wood shavings or rice husks in summer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

MJ Hötzel ,
EJC Lopes ,
PAV de Oliveira  and
AL Guidoni
MJ Hötzel*
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Etologia Aplicada, Departamento de Zootecnia e Desenvolvimento Rural, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Rodovia Admar Gonzaga, 1346, Itacorubi, Florianópolis 88.034-001, SC, Brazil
EJC Lopes
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Etologia Aplicada, Departamento de Zootecnia e Desenvolvimento Rural, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Rodovia Admar Gonzaga, 1346, Itacorubi, Florianópolis 88.034-001, SC, Brazil
PAV de Oliveira
Affiliation:
Embrapa Suínos e Aves, BR 153, km 110, CEP 88700-000, Concórdia, SC, Brazil
AL Guidoni
Affiliation:
Embrapa Suínos e Aves, BR 153, km 110, CEP 88700-000, Concórdia, SC, Brazil
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: mjhotzel@cca.ufsc.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Concern that excessive temperatures arising from substrate fermentation could have a deleterious effect on voluntary feed intake and weight gain, especially during the hottest times of the year, might be a barrier to the widespread adoption of deep-bedding systems for pig production in Brazil. The aim of this study was to compare the behaviour and performance of pigs reared on deep bedding with two different substrates, wood shavings and rice husks, or in barren, part-slatted, concrete-floored pens (n = 4 pens per treatment), from 60 days of age through to slaughter, during the summer months in Santa Catarina, southwest Brazil. Floor and pigs’ skin temperatures were 2.2 and 3.9% higher, respectively, in the pens with bedding than with concrete flooring; these differences resulted in modest, non-significant effects on performance and meat quality. Certain elements of the behaviour of pigs reared with bedding, such as increased play activity and substrate manipulation and less peer-directed behaviours, indicated improved welfare compared to pigs reared in concrete-floored pens. Performance and meat quality were similar in bedded pens with either wood shavings or rice husks. In both bedding substrates, the animals spent more time lying or standing on the beds than on the concrete platforms, where the feed and the water troughs were located, despite the higher temperature in the substrate compared to the concrete platform; suggesting that such temperature differences were not relevant for the thermal comfort of the animals. These results indicate that both substrates, abundant and readily available in the region, are suitable bedding materials for pigs.

Keywords

animal welfareenrichmenthousingperformanceredirected behavioursrooting material
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , February 2009 , pp. 65 - 71
Copyright
© 2009 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.)

References

ABCS 1973 Método Brasileiro de Classificação de Caraças. Estrala RS: Estrala, Brazil. [Title translation: Brazilian method for carcass classification]Google Scholar
Altmann, J 1974 Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227–265CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amaral, AL, Morés, N, Ventura, LV, Coldebella, A, Ludke, JV, Oliveira, PAV and Silva, VS 2006 Occurrence of lymphadenitis in swine created in conventional and deep-litter system at the growth-termination phase. Revista de Ciências Agroveterinárias 5: 64–72Google Scholar
Appleby, MC 2005 Sustainable agriculture is humane, humane agriculture is sustainable. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18: 293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, V, O’Connell, N, Kilpatrick, D and Moss, B 2000 Influence of environmental enrichment on welfare-related behavioural and physiological parameters in growing pigs. Animal Science 70: 443–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, J, Thomas, FJ and Lee, J 1997 The effect of fixed or free toy on the growth rate and aggressive behaviour of weaned pigs and the influence of hierarchy on initial investigation of the toys. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM and Hopster, H 2006 Assessing the importance of natural behavior for animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19: 77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaloupková, H, Illmann, G, Neuhauserova, K, Tomanek, M and Valis, L 2007 Preweaning housing effects on behavior and physiological measures in pigs during the suckling and fattening periods. Journal of Animal Science 85: 1741–1749CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collin, A, van Milgen, J, Dubois, S and Noblet, J 2001 Effect of high temperature on feeding behaviour and heat production in group-housed young pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 86: 63–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cordeiro, MB, Tinôco, IFF, Oliveira, PAV, Menegali, I, Guimarães, MCC, Baêta, FC and da Silva, JN 2007 Effect of different raising systems on the thermal environment comfort and swine productive performance under spring conditions. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 36(5): 1597–1602Google Scholar
EC 2007 Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare. Special Eurobarometer 270/Wave 66.1 – TNS Opinion & Social. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/survey/index_en.htm. (Accessed November 5 2007)Google Scholar
FAO 2008 http://faostat.fao.org/site/573/DesktopDefault.aspx? PageID=573. (Accessed March 20 2008)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: 117–126CrossRefGoogle 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: 307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, JH, Rowlinson, P, Chadwick, P and Ellis, M 2002 Behaviour of two genotypes of growing-finishing pig in three different housing systems. Livestock Production Science 75: 193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honeyman, MS 2005 Extensive bedded indoor and outdoor pig production systems in USA: current trends and effects on animal care and product quality. Livestock Production Science 94: 15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hötzel, MJ, Machado Filho, LCP, Wolf, FM and Dalla Costa, OA 2004 Behaviour of sows and piglets reared in intensive outdoor or indoor systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86: 27–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyun, Y, Aarnink, AJA, Gerrits, WJJ, Heetkamp, MJH, Canh, TT, Spoolder, HAM, Kemp, B and Verstegen, MWA 2005 Thermal behaviour of growing pigs in response to high temperature and humidity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 91: 1–16Google Scholar
IBGE 2007 Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. http://www.ibge.gov.br/ (Accessed October 29 2007)Google Scholar
Jensen, MB and Pedersen, LJ 2007 The value assigned to six different rooting materials by growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 108: 31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, H, Bruce, J, English, P, Fowler, V and Edwards, S 2000 Behaviour of 3-week weaned pigs in Straw-Flow (R), deep straw and flatdeck housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 269–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Machado Filho, LCP 2000 Pig welfare and meat quality: a Brazilian view. International Virtual Conference on Pig Meat Quality pp 7. CNPSA/EMRAPA: Concórdia, BrazilGoogle Scholar
Newberry, RC 1995 Environmental enrichment: Increasing the biological relevance of captive environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 229–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nienaber, JA, Hahn, GL, McDonald, TP and Korthals, RL 1996 Feeding patterns and swine performance in hot environments. Transactions of the American Society of Agronomic Engineers 39: 195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Holm, L, Jensen, MB and J⊘rgensen, E 2005 The strength of pigs’ preferences for different rooting materials measured using concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 94: 31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puppe, B, Tuchscherer, M and Tuchscherer, A 1997 The effect of housing conditions and social environment immediately after weaning on the agonistic behaviour, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, and plasma glucose level in pigs. Livestock Production Science 48: 157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiniou, N, Dubois, S and Noblet, J 2000 Voluntary feed intake and feeding behaviour of group-housed growing pigs are affected by ambient temperature and body weight. Livestock Production Science 63: 245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramis, G, Gómez, S, Pallarés, FJ and Muñoz, A 2005 Comparison of the severity of esophagogastric, lung and limb lesions at slaughter in pigs reared under standard and enriched conditions. Animal Welfare 14: 27–34Google Scholar
Rinaldo, J, Le Dividich, J and Noblet, J 2000 Adverse effects of tropical climate on voluntary feed intake and performance of growing pigs. Livestock Production Science 66: 223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 1993 Statistical Analysis System User's Guide: Statistics. SAS: Cary, USAGoogle 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: 222–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K, Chennells, DJ, Campbell, FM, 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-bedded accommodation. Livestock Science 103: 104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinka, M 2006 How important is natural behaviour in animal farming systems? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100: 117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, P, Castel, V, Rosales, M and de Haan, C 2006 Livestock Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. FAO: Rome, ItalyGoogle 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
Turner, SP, Farnworth, MJ, White, IMS, Brotherstone, S, Mendl, M, Knap, P, Penny, P and Lawrence, AB 2006 The accumulation of skin lesions and their use as a predictor of individual aggressiveness in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96: 245–259CrossRefGoogle 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