Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-pnlb5 Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-10-30T23:54:09.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental enrichment of intensive pig housing using spent mushroom compost

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

V. E. Beattie ,
I. A. Sneddon ,
N. Walker  and
R. N. Weatherup
V. E. Beattie
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR, UK
I. A. Sneddon
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, The Queen’s University of Belfast BT7 1NN, UK
N. Walker
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR, UK
R. N. Weatherup
Affiliation:
Greenmount College of Agriculture and Horticulture, 22 Greenmount Road, Antrim, Co. Antrim BT41 4PU, UK
Get access

Abstract

In a comparative study which examined the effect of having access to mushroom compost in an otherwise barren environment there were three treatments and six replicates. The three treatments were (T1) control barren pen providing 0·7 m2 per pig with fully slatted floor, (T2) empty horizontal rack suspended above the pigs’ heads and (T3) mushroom compost on rack as in treatment 2. Pigs released particles of compost from the rack by nosing the metal grid from below. Almost twice as many pigs with access to mushroom compost (T3) nosed the rack (P < 0·001) and the ground below the rack (P < 0·001) as pigs which had a rack with no mushroom compost (T2). Fewer pigs with mushroom compost were involved in behaviours directed at penmates such as nosing, biting and chewing penmates than pigs in treatments 1 and 2 (P < 0·001). In addition fewer pigs in T3 were involved in feeding behaviour than in T1 and T2 (P < 0·05). Percentages of tail-bitten animals which had to be removed were 11 and 24 for T1 and T2 respectively while T3 had < 1% removed because of tail biting (P < 0·05). Apparent food intake was higher (P < 0·05) and food conversion ratio tended to be poorer in T1 (P = 0·1). It is suggested that pigs will redirect rooting behaviour towards penmates and the feeder in the absence of any rooting substrate. Adding substrate to commercial finishing pens reduces this redirection of behaviour and improves welfare by minimizing injury through tail biting.

Keywords

enrichmentpigstail biting

Information

Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 35 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

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

Aalund, O. 1978. Tail biting-an indication of stress. Dansk Veterinærtidsskrift 61: 431–435.Google Scholar
Appleby, M. C. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1988. Effect of earth as an additional stimulus on the behaviour of confined piglets. Behavioural Processes 17: 83–91.Google Scholar
Arey, D. S. 1993. The effect of bedding on the behaviour and welfare of pigs. Animal Welfare 2: 235–246.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Beattie, V. E. 1994. The effects of environmental enrichment on the domestic pig. Ph.D. thesis, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Northern Ireland.Google Scholar
Beattie, V. E., Walker, N. and Sneddon, I. A. 1995. Effects of environmental enrichment on behaviour and productivity of growing pigs. Animal Welfare 4: 207–220.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: 151–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, V. E., Walker, N. and Sneddon, I. A. 1998. Preference testing of substrates by growing pigs. Animal Welfare 7: 27–34.Google Scholar
Boe, K. 1993. The effect of age at weaning and post-weaning environment on the behaviour of pigs. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 43: 173–180.Google Scholar
Broom, D. M. 1988. The scientific assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 5–19.Google Scholar
Broom, D. M. 1991. Animal welfare: concepts and measurements. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175.Google Scholar
Bure, R. G., Kerk, P. van de and Koomans, P. 1983. The supply of straw, compost and garden mould to fattening pigs. Publikatie, Instituiet voor Mechanisatie, Arbeid en Gebouven no. 190, p. 23.Google Scholar
Dawkins, M. 1987. Consumer demand theory and the assessment of animal welfare: a reply to Lawrence. Animal Behaviour 35: 295.Google Scholar
Ekesbo, I. 1973. Animal health, behaviour and disease prevention in different environments in modern Swedish animal husbandry. Veterinary Record 93: 36–39.Google Scholar
Feddes, J. J. R. and Fraser, D. 1993. Non-nutritive chewing by pigs: implications for tail-biting and behavioural enrichment. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 37: 947–950.Google Scholar
Fragasky, D. M., Boinski, S. and Whipple, J. 1992. Behavioural sampling in the field: comparison of individual and group sampling methods. American Journal of Primatology 26: 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D. 1987a. Attraction to blood as a factor in tail-biting in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17: 61–68.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. 1987b. Mineral-deficient diets and the pig’s attraction to blood: implications for tail biting. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67: 909–918.Google Scholar
Fraser, D., Bernon, D. E. and Ball, R. O. 1991. Enhanced attraction to blood by pigs with inadequate dietary protein supplementation. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 71: 611–619.Google Scholar
GENSTAT 5 Committee. 1993. GENSTAT 5 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Guise, H. J. and Penny, R. H. C. 1998. Tail-biting and tail docking in pigs. Veterinary Record 142: 46.Google Scholar
Haske-Cornelius, H., Bogner, H. and Peschke, W. 1979. Investigations on the behaviour of fattening pigs in different stall-housing systems in relation to tail and ear biting. Bayerisches Landwirtschaftliches Jahrbuch 56: 161–200.Google Scholar
Horrell, I. 1992. Effects of environmental enrichment on growing pigs. Animal Production 54: 483 (abstr. ).Google Scholar
Huey, R. J. 1996. Incidence, location and interrelationships between the sites of abscesses recorded in pigs at a bacon factory in Northern Ireland. Veterinary Record 138: 511–514.Google Scholar
McFarland, D. J. 1989. Problems of animal behaviour. Longman Scientific and Technical/John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York.Google Scholar
Markowitz, H. 1982. Behavioural enrichment in the zoo. Van Nostrand, Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1983. Codes of recommendations for the welfare of livestock — pigs. MAFF leaflet 702.Google Scholar
Olsson, A. C. and Hederstrom, K. 1989. Some observations about tail biting among slaughter pigs. Specialmeddelande Institutionen for Lantbrukets Byggnadsteknik, Svinges Landbruksuniversitat 168: 16.Google Scholar
Penny, R. H. C., Hill, F. W. G., Field, J. E. and Plush, J. T. 1972. Tail-biting in pigs: a possible sex incidence. Veterinary Record 91: 482–483.Google Scholar
Petersen, V., Simonsen, H. B. and Lawson, L. G. 1995. The effect of environmental stimulation on the development of behaviour in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45: 215–224.Google Scholar
Schouten, W. G. P. 1991. Effect of rearing on subsequent performance of pigs. Pig News and Information 12: 245–247.Google Scholar
Robson, C. 1981. Experiment, design and statistics in Psychology. Penguin Books, Middlesex.Google Scholar
Signoret, J. P. 1983. General conclusions. In Indicators relevant to farm animal welfare (ed. Smidt, D.), pp. 245–247. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Simonsen, H. B. 1995. Effect of early rearing environment and tail docking on later behaviour and production in fattening pigs. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 45: 139–144.Google Scholar
Stolba, A. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1981. The assessment of behavioural needs of pigs under free-range and confined conditions. Applied Animal Ethology 7: 387–388.Google Scholar
Stolba, A. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1984. The identification of behavioural key features and their incorporation into a housing design for pigs. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 15: 287–298.Google Scholar
Tudge, C. 1991. A wild time at the zoo. New Scientist 129: 26–30.Google Scholar
Van Putten, G. 1979. Ever been close to a nosey pig? Applied Animal Ethology 5: 298.Google Scholar
Van Putten, G. 1981. Restriction of induced behaviour. Applied Animal Ethology 7: 387–388.Google 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: 339–356.Google Scholar
Wood-Gush, D. G. M. and Beilharz, R. G. 1983. The enrichment of a bare environment for animals in confined conditions. Applied Animal Ethology 10: 209–217.Google Scholar
Zhou, J. Z. and Stricklin, W. R. 1992. The influence of pen shape and group size on crowding when density is constant. Journal of Animal Science 70: (suppl. 1) 174 (abstr. ).Google Scholar