A quantitative and qualitative approach to the assessment of behaviour of sows upon mixing into group pens with or without a partition
Taya Clarke A , John R. Pluske A , Teresa Collins A , David W. Miller A and Patricia A. Fleming A B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A School of Veterinary and Life Science, Murdoch University, WA 6150, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: t.fleming@murdoch.edu.au
Animal Production Science 57(9) 1916-1923 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15132
Submitted: 11 March 2015 Accepted: 16 May 2016 Published: 30 August 2016
Abstract
The behaviour of intensively managed sows is influenced by the design of their housing, with the physical structure of the pen affecting how sows spend their time. The first hour after unfamiliar sows are mixed into group housing is considered important in terms of their welfare due to high levels of aggression as they develop a hierarchy and investigate their new surroundings and pen-mates. This study compared the behaviour of sows on a commercial piggery at the point of mixing into 20 group pens (n = 15–18 sows each group), where half the group pens had a concrete partition (a short wall, 2 m long and 1.6 m high) running through the middle of the pen, and half did not have the partition. We predicted that the partition would improve the expression of behaviours during the first hour after mixing. Sows were filmed for 70 min post-mixing and the footage was analysed using quantitative behavioural profile for eight behavioural categories (i.e. time budgets). We found no significant differences in the incidence of aggression, but found less investigative behaviour for sows in pens with the partition; these sows also lay down sooner compared with sows in no-partition pens, and stopped eating/searching for food sooner. The difference between pen designs was most evident at 50–60 min post-mixing, and therefore we compared the behavioural expression of the sows using qualitative behavioural assessment for this time point. There was significant inter-observer reliability among the 17 observers, with 60.02% (P < 0.001) of the variation in their scoring using the Free Choice Profiling methodology explained by the consensus profile. Sows in partition pens were scored as more ‘calm/relaxed’ compared with sows in no-partition pens, which were scored as more ‘aggressive/tense’. There were also significant correlations between the time budgets and behavioural expression scores, with groups of animals described as more ‘aggressive/tense’ also showing more walking, aggression, and avoidance, but less lying. The sows described as more ‘sleepy/bored’ showed more lying and sitting. This study shows that even a subtle difference in housing design (in this case, retention of a concrete partition) can make a significant positive difference to the demeanour and activity patterns of sows. Identifying housing designs that have positive welfare outcomes can inform pen design and construction, and is particularly relevant where housing is being converted (e.g. from single pens to group housing) and decisions must be made around whether or not to keep existing structures.
Additional keywords: behaviour, generalised procrustes analysis (GPA), group housing, qualitative behavioural assessment (QBA), sow housing, welfare.
References
Appleby MC, Lawrence AB (1987) Food restriction as a cause of stereotypic behaviour in tethered gilts. Animal Production 45, 103–110.| Food restriction as a cause of stereotypic behaviour in tethered gilts.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Arey DS, Edwards SA (1998) Factors influencing aggression between sows after mixing and the consequences for welfare and production. Livestock Production Science 56, 61–70.
| Factors influencing aggression between sows after mixing and the consequences for welfare and production.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Australian Pork Limited (2015) Industry focus: housing. Available at http://australianpork.com.au/industry-focus/animal-welfare/housing/ [Verified 11 March 2015]
Barnett JL, Hemsworth PH, Cronin GM, Newman EA, McCallum TH, Chilton D (1992) Effects of pen size, partial stalls and method of feeding on welfare-related behavioural and physiological responses of group-housed pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34, 207–220.
| Effects of pen size, partial stalls and method of feeding on welfare-related behavioural and physiological responses of group-housed pigs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Barnett JL, Hemsworth PH, Cronin GM, Jongman EC, Hutson GD (2001) A review of the animal welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 1–28.
| A review of the animal welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Beilharz RG, Cox DF (1967) Social dominance in swine. Animal Behaviour 15, 117–122.
| Social dominance in swine.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaF2s3gsVagtg%3D%3D&md5=3cf6db53af06994513ea90af124d7ac3CAS | 6031097PubMed |
Broom DM, Mendl MT, Zanella AJ (1995) A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. Animal Science 61, 369–385.
| A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chapinal N, Ruiz-de-la-Torre JL, Cerisuelo A, Gasa J, Baucells MD, Coma J, Vidal A, Manteca X (2010a) Evaluation of welfare and productivity in pregnant sows kept in stalls or in 2 different group housing systems. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 5, 82–93.
| Evaluation of welfare and productivity in pregnant sows kept in stalls or in 2 different group housing systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chapinal N, Ruiz-de-la-Torre JL, Cerisuelo A, Gasa J, Baucells MD, Manteca X (2010b) Aggressive behavior in two different group-housing systems for pregnant sows. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 13, 137–153.
| Aggressive behavior in two different group-housing systems for pregnant sows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXjvFCmsb8%3D&md5=46199cb1cf9448061ce5d16f8d230409CAS | 20349379PubMed |
Clarke T, Pluske JR, Fleming PA (2016) Are observer ratings influenced by prescription? A comparison of free choice profiling and fixed list methods of qualitative behavioural assessment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 177, 77–83.
| Are observer ratings influenced by prescription? A comparison of free choice profiling and fixed list methods of qualitative behavioural assessment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fleming PA, Clarke T, Wickham SL, Stockman CA, Barnes AL, Collins T, Miller DW (2016) The contribution of qualitative behavioural assessment to appraisal of livestock welfare. Animal Production Science 56, 1569–1578.
| The contribution of qualitative behavioural assessment to appraisal of livestock welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gonyou HW (2001) The social behaviour of pigs. In ‘Social behavior in farm animals’. (Eds LJ Keeling, HW Gonyou) pp. 147–176. (CABI International: Wallingford, UK)
Jensen P (1982) An analysis of agonistic interaction patterns in group-housed dry sow - aggression regulation through an ‘avoidance order’. Applied Animal Ethology 9, 47–61.
| An analysis of agonistic interaction patterns in group-housed dry sow - aggression regulation through an ‘avoidance order’.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Keeling L, Evans A, Forkman B, Kjaernes U (2013) ‘Welfare Quality® principles and criteria.’ (Wageningen Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands)
Krauss V, Hoy S (2011) Dry sows in dynamic groups: an investigation of social behaviour when introducing new sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 130, 20–27.
| Dry sows in dynamic groups: an investigation of social behaviour when introducing new sows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lau YYW, Pluske JR, Fleming PA (2015) Does environmental background (intensive vs. outdoor systems) influence the behaviour of piglets at weaning? Animal 9, 1361–1372.
| Does environmental background (intensive vs. outdoor systems) influence the behaviour of piglets at weaning?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC2Mjmslegug%3D%3D&md5=3db4b23bcea1391539b7059a0f3e1a9fCAS |
Luescher UA, Friendship RM, McKeown DB (1990) Evaluation of methods to reduce fighting among regrouped gilts. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 70, 363–370.
| Evaluation of methods to reduce fighting among regrouped gilts.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Marchant JN, Broom DM (1996) Factors affecting posture-changing in loose-housed and confined gestating sows. Animal Science 63, 477–485.
| Factors affecting posture-changing in loose-housed and confined gestating sows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Marchant-Forde JN, Marchant-Forde RM (2005) Minimizing inter-pig aggression during mixing. Pig News and Information 26, 63N–71N.
Mardia KV, Kent JT, Bibby JM (1979) ‘Multivariate analysis.’ (Academic Press: London)
Mellor DJ (2012) Animal emotions, behaviour and the promotion of positive welfare states. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 60, 1–8.
| Animal emotions, behaviour and the promotion of positive welfare states.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC38%2Fot1Wgug%3D%3D&md5=6d3e5ab1a7ee2c1b3e94fc2d747422e6CAS | 22175422PubMed |
Morgan T, Pluske JR, Miller DW, Collins T, Barnes AL, Wemelsfelder F, Fleming PA (2014) Socialising piglets in lactation positively affects their post-weaning behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 158, 23–33.
| Socialising piglets in lactation positively affects their post-weaning behaviour.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mount NC, Seabrook MF (1993) A study of aggression when group housed sows are mixed. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36, 377–383.
| A study of aggression when group housed sows are mixed.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Olesen LS, Nygaard CM, Friend TH, Bushong D, Knabe DA, Vestergaard KS, Vaughan RK (1996) Effect of partitioning pens on aggressive behavior of pigs regrouped at weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46, 167–174.
| Effect of partitioning pens on aggressive behavior of pigs regrouped at weaning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Petherick JC, Blackshaw JK (1987) A review of the factors influencing the aggressive and agonistic behaviour of the domestic pig. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 27, 605–611.
| A review of the factors influencing the aggressive and agonistic behaviour of the domestic pig.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rhodes RT, Appleby MC, Chinn K, Douglas L, Firkins LD, Houpt KA, Irwin C, McGlone JJ, Sundburg P, Tokach L, Wills R (2005) Task Force: a comprehensive review of housing for pregnant sows. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 227, 1580–1590.
| Task Force: a comprehensive review of housing for pregnant sows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16313035PubMed |
Rousing T, Wemelsfelder F (2006) Qualitative assessment of social behaviour of dairy cows housed in loose housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 40–53.
| Qualitative assessment of social behaviour of dairy cows housed in loose housing systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Salak-Johnson JL, Niekamp SR, Rodriguez-Zas SL, Ellis M, Curtis SE (2007) Space allowance for dry, pregnant sows in pens: body condition, skin lesions, and performance. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1758–1769.
| Space allowance for dry, pregnant sows in pens: body condition, skin lesions, and performance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXntV2msb8%3D&md5=a91a187846966356ce558e97dca951dbCAS | 17371790PubMed |
Schenck EL, McMunn KA, Rosenstein DS, Stroshine RL, Nielsen BD, Richert BT, Marchant-Forde JN, Lay DC (2008) Exercising stall-housed gestating gilts: effects on lameness, the musculo-skeletal system, production, and behavior. Journal of Animal Science 86, 3166–3180.
| Exercising stall-housed gestating gilts: effects on lameness, the musculo-skeletal system, production, and behavior.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXhtlCnsbzE&md5=3cf7e71ecb59ca95293c84bb881d15f0CAS | 18567722PubMed |
Séguin MJ, Barney D, Widowski TM (2006) Assessment of a group-housing system for gestating sows: Effects of space allowance and pen size on the incidence of superficial skin lesions, changes in body condition, and farrowing performance. Journal of Swine Health and Production 14, 89–96.
Spoolder HAM, Geudeke MJ, Van der Peet-Schwering CMC, Soede NM (2009) Group housing of sows in early pregnancy: a review of success and risk factors. Livestock Science 125, 1–14.
| Group housing of sows in early pregnancy: a review of success and risk factors.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Symoens J, Van Den Brande M (1969) Prevention and cure of aggressiveness in pigs using the sedative azaperone. The Veterinary Record 85, 64–67.
| Prevention and cure of aggressiveness in pigs using the sedative azaperone.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaF1M3mtVCqug%3D%3D&md5=869fd1f072b1c28d5252069f8eda6c2bCAS | 5816617PubMed |
Temple D, Dalmau A, Ruiz de la Torre JL, Manteca X, Velarde A (2011a) Application of the Welfare Quality® protocol to assess growing pigs kept under intensive conditions in Spain. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 6, 138–149.
| Application of the Welfare Quality® protocol to assess growing pigs kept under intensive conditions in Spain.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Temple D, Manteca X, Velarde A, Dalmau A (2011b) Assessment of animal welfare through behavioural parameters in Iberian pigs in intensive and extensive conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 131, 29–39.
| Assessment of animal welfare through behavioural parameters in Iberian pigs in intensive and extensive conditions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wemelsfelder F, Hunter EA, Mendl MT, Lawrence AB (2000) The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67, 193–215.
| The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 10736529PubMed |
Wemelsfelder F, Hunter TEA, Mendl MT, Lawrence AB (2001) Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a free choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62, 209–220.
| Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a free choice profiling approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wickham SL, Collins T, Barnes AL, Miller DW, Beatty DT, Stockman CA, Blache D, Wemelsfelder F, Fleming PA (2012) Qualitative behavioral assessment of transport-naïve and transport-habituated sheep. Journal of Animal Science 90, 4523–4535.
| Qualitative behavioral assessment of transport-naïve and transport-habituated sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3sXns1SrtA%3D%3D&md5=5b6ea4b4cd3f87a49a3e88f451061cc0CAS | 22829616PubMed |
Wickham SL, Collins T, Barnes AL, Miller DW, Beatty DT, Stockman CA, Blache D, Wemelsfelder F, Fleming PA (2015) Validating the use of qualitative behavioural assessment as a measure of the welfare of sheep during transport. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 18, 269–286.
| Validating the use of qualitative behavioural assessment as a measure of the welfare of sheep during transport.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC2MXjt1SjsLo%3D&md5=7edf0ba9991cadc0c935ac38a74e9239CAS | 25695526PubMed |
Yeates JW, Main DCJ (2008) Assessment of positive welfare: a review. Veterinary Journal (London, England) 175, 293–300.
| Assessment of positive welfare: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1c7ns12mtw%3D%3D&md5=3388203939ef84009e13b47253c697a4CAS |
