Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-pxp6n Total loading time: 0.204 Render date: 2021-06-19T03:45:03.252Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Article contents

The effect of long or chopped straw on pig behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2014

H. P. Lahrmann
Affiliation:
Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Pig Research Centre, Axelborg, Axeltorv 3, DK-1609 Kbh. V. Denmark
L. C. Oxholm
Affiliation:
Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Pig Research Centre, Axelborg, Axeltorv 3, DK-1609 Kbh. V. Denmark
H. Steinmetz
Affiliation:
Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Pig Research Centre, Axelborg, Axeltorv 3, DK-1609 Kbh. V. Denmark
M. B. F. Nielsen
Affiliation:
Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Pig Research Centre, Axelborg, Axeltorv 3, DK-1609 Kbh. V. Denmark
R. B. D’Eath
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Sciences, SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Get access

Abstract

In the EU, pigs must have permanent access to manipulable materials such as straw, rope, wood, etc. Long straw can fulfil this function, but can increase labour requirements for cleaning pens, and result in problems with blocked slatted floors and slurry systems. Chopped straw might be more practical, but what is the effect on pigs’ behaviour of using chopped straw instead of long straw? Commercial pigs in 1/3 slatted, 2/3 solid pens of 15 pigs were provided with either 100 g/pig per day of long straw (20 pens) or of chopped straw (19 pens). Behavioural observations were made of three focal pigs per pen (one from each of small, medium and large weight tertiles) for one full day between 0600 and 2300 h at each of ~40 and ~80 kg. The time spent rooting/investigating overall (709 s/pig per hour at 40 kg to 533 s/pig per hour at 80 kg), or directed to the straw/solid floor (497 s/pig per hour at 40 kg to 343 s/pig per hour at 80 kg), was not affected by straw length but reduced with age. Time spent investigating other pigs (83 s/pig per hour at 40 kg), the slatted floor (57 s/pig per hour) or pen fixtures (21 s/pig per hour) was not affected by age or straw length. Aggressive behaviour was infrequent, but lasted about twice as long in pens with chopped straw (2.3 s/pig per hour at 40 kg) compared with pens with long straw (1.0 s/pig per hour at 40 kg, P=0.060). There were no significant effects of straw length on tail or ear lesions, but shoulders were significantly more likely to have minor scratches with chopped straw (P=0.031), which may reflect the higher levels of aggression. Smaller pigs showed more rooting/investigatory behaviour, and in particular directed towards the straw/solid floor and the slatted floor than their larger pen-mates. Females exhibited more straw and pen fixture-directed behaviour than males. There were no effects of pig size or sex on behaviour directed towards other pigs. In summary, pigs spent similar amounts of time interacting with straw/solid floor when long and chopped straw were provided, and most aspects of pig-directed behaviour and injuries were not affected by straw length. There was an increase in pigs with minor shoulder lesions with chopped straw, perhaps because of increased aggression. The use of chopped straw as an enrichment material for pigs warrants further investigation in larger and more detailed studies.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Beattie, VE and O’Connell, NE 2002. Relationship between rooting behaviour and foraging in growing pigs. Animal Welfare 11, 295303.Google Scholar
Breuer, K, Sutcliffe, MEM, Mercer, JT, Rance, KA, O’Connell, NE, Sneddon, IA and Edwards, SA 2005. Heritability of clinical tail-biting and its relation to performance traits. Livestock Production Science 93, 8794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerlink, I and Turner, SP 2013. The pig’s nose and its role in dominance relationships and harmful behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 145, 8491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Council of The European Union 1991. Council Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal L340, pp. 33–38.Google Scholar
The Council of The European Union 2001. Commission Directive 2001/93/EC of 9 November 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal L316, pp. 36–38.Google Scholar
The Council of The European Union 2008. Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal L47, 18 February 2009, pp. 5–13.Google Scholar
Danish Government 2003. BEK nr 323 af 06/05/2003, Bekendtgørelse om beskyttelse af svin (Order on the protection of pigs). Fødevareministeriet (Danish Ministry of Food), Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Day, JEL, Kyriazakis, I and Lawrence, AB 1995. The effect of food-deprivation on the expression of foraging and exploratory-behavior in the growing pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42, 193206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, JEL, Kyrizakis, I and Lawrence, AB 1996. An investigation into the causation of chewing behaviour in growing pigs: the role of exploration and feeding motivation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48, 4759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, JEL, Van de Weerd, HA and Edwards, SA 2008. The effect of varying lengths of straw bedding on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109, 249260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, JEL, Burfoot, A, Docking, CM, Whittaker, X, Spoolder, HAM and Edwards, SA 2002. The effects of prior experience of straw and the level of straw provision on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 189202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB, Arnott, G, Turner, SP, Jensen, T, Lahrmann, HP, Busch, ME, Niemi, JK, Lawrence, AB and Sandøe, P 2014. Tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled without tail docking? Animal 8, 14791497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D’Eath, RB, Niemi, JK, Vosough Ahmadi, B, Rutherford, KMD, Ison, SH, Turner, SP, Anker, HT, Jensen, T, Busch, ME, Jensen, KK, Lawrence, AB, Sandøe, P (submitted). To dock or not to dock – economic, legal and animal welfare aspects of three scenarios for dealing with tail biting in pig production. Animal (submitted).Google ScholarPubMed
EFSA 2007. The risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems (Question No EFSA-Q-2006-013). Annex to the EFSA Journal 611, 113.Google Scholar
EFSA AHAW 2014. Scientific Opinion concerning a multifactorial approach on the use of animal and non-animal-based measures to assess the welfare of pigs (European Food Safety Authority, Panel on Animal Health and Welfare). EFSA Journal 12, 3702.Google Scholar
Jensen, MB, Studnitz, M and Pedersen, LJ 2010. The effect of type of rooting material and space allowance on exploration and abnormal behaviour in growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123, 8792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, MB, Studnitz, M, Halekoh, U, Pedersen, LJ and Jorgensen, E 2008. Pigs’ preferences for rooting materials measured in a three-choice maze-test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112, 270283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munsterhjelm, C, Peltoniemi, OAT, Heinonen, M, Halli, O, Karhapaa, M and Valros, A 2009. Experience of moderate bedding affects behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118, 4253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, L 2011. Optimizing amount of straw for growing-finishing pigs- considering time spent in manipulative behaviour. SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Oxholm, LC, Steinmetz, H, Lahrmann, HP, Nielsen, MBF, Amdi, C and Hansen, CF (in press). Behaviour of liquid-fed growing pigs provided with straw in various amounts and frequencies. Animal 8, 18891897.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pedersen, LJ, Herskin, MS and Forkman, B 2013. Hvor meget hel halm udgør tilstrækkeligt beskæftigelses- og rodemateriale til svin (How much whole straw is sufficient employment and rooting material for pigs). Aarhus Universitet, Tjele, Denmark.Google Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Holm, L, Jensen, MB and Jorgensen, E 2005. The strength of pigs’ preferences for different rooting materials measured using concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 94, 3148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RSPCA 2012. Welfare Standards for Pigs. Freedom Food. Retrieved June 4, 2014, from http://www.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/farmanimals/standards/pigs.Google Scholar
Schrøder-Petersen, DL, Heiskanen, T and Ersboll, AK 2004. Tail-in-mouth behaviour in slaughter pigs, in relation to internal factors such as: age, size, gender, and motivational background. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A-Animal Science 54, 159166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K, Taylor, L, Gill, BP and Edwards, SA 2009. Influence of different types of environmental enrichment on the behaviour of finishing pigs in two different housing systems 3. Hanging toy versus rootable toy of the same material. Applied Animal Behavioiur Science 116, 186190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinmetz, HV and Pedersen, ML 2009. Kønsvis opstaldnings betydning for forekomsten af halebid (Single sex housing – its importance for tail biting). Report Meddelelse nr. 845 Videncenter for Svineproduktion, Danish Pig Research Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Studnitz, M, Jensen, KH and Jorgensen, E 2003a. The effect of nose rings on the exploratory behaviour of outdoor gilts exposed to different tests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84, 4157.CrossRefGoogle 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, 183197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Studnitz, M, Jensen, KH, Jorgensen, E and Jensen, KK 2003b. The effect of nose ringing on exploratory behaviour in gilts. Animal Welfare 12, 109118.Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Roehe, R, D’Eath, RB, Ison, SH, Farish, M, Jack, MC, Lundeheim, N, Rydhmer, L and Lawrence, AB 2009. Genetic validation of postmixing skin injuries in pigs as an indicator of aggressiveness and the relationship with injuries under more stable social conditions. Journal of Animal Science 87, 30763082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuyttens, FAM 2005. The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: a review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 261282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA and Day, JEL 2009. A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 120.CrossRefGoogle 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, 289298.CrossRefGoogle 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, 101118.CrossRefGoogle 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, 230247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Bracke, MBM, den Hartog, LA, Kemp, B and Spoolder, HAM 2010. Gender effects on tail damage development in single- or mixed-sex groups of weaned piglets. Livestock Science 129, 151158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Schepers, F, Bracke, MBM, den Hartog, LA, Kemp, B and Spoolder, HAM 2011. Characteristics of biter and victim piglets apparent before a tail-biting outbreak. Animal 5, 767775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 269281.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, 3138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The effect of long or chopped straw on pig behaviour
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The effect of long or chopped straw on pig behaviour
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The effect of long or chopped straw on pig behaviour
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *