Animal Science Abstract
Environmental enrichment of intensive pig housing using spent mushroom compost
V. E. Beattie1, I. A. Sneddon2, N. Walker1 and R. N. Weatherup3
1Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR, UK2School of Psychology, The Queen's University of Belfast BT7 1NN, UK
3Greenmount College of Agriculture and Horticulture, 22 Greenmount Road, Antrim, Co. Antrim BT41 4PU, UK
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: enrichment, pigs, tail biting
| Search for papers on a specific subject | |
|---|---|
 |
|