Pigs’ preferences for rooting materials measured in a three-choice maze-test

Jensen, Margit Bak; Studnitz, Merete; Halekoh, Ulrich; Pedersen, Lene Juul; Jørgensen, Erik

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2007.07.012

Cited by 28 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Manipulable materials which are attractive to pigs as measured by their motivation to access them (Holm et al, 2008;Jensen et al, 2008) or by the time pigs spend interacting with them over a sustained period have the characteristics 'ingestible', 'odorous', 'chewable', 'deformable' and 'destructible' ( Van de Weerd et al, 2003;Studnitz et al, 2007;Van de Weerd and Day, 2009). The opportunity to perform investigation and manipulation behaviours are in themselves important for pig welfare (Studnitz et al, 2007;Van de Weerd and Day, 2009), but here we focus on whether manipulable materials can reduce damaging tail biting apparently by providing an alternative outlet for investigatory behaviour.…”

Section: Availability Of Manipulable Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

D’Eath

Arnott

Turner

et al. 2014

Animal

152

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tail biting is a serious animal welfare and economic problem in pig production. Tail docking, which reduces but does not eliminate tail biting, remains widespread. However, in the EU tail docking may not be used routinely, and some 'alternative' forms of pig production and certain countries do not allow tail docking at all. Against this background, using a novel approach focusing on research where tail injuries were quantified, we review the measures that can be used to control tail biting in pigs without tail docking. Using this strict criterion, there was good evidence that manipulable substrates and feeder space affect damaging tail biting. Only epidemiological evidence was available for effects of temperature and season, and the effect of stocking density was unclear. Studies suggest that group size has little effect, and the effects of nutrition, disease and breed require further investigation. The review identifies a number of knowledge gaps and promising avenues for future research into prevention and mitigation. We illustrate the diversity of hypotheses concerning how different proposed risk factors might increase tail biting through their effect on each other or on the proposed underlying processes of tail biting. A quantitative comparison of the efficacy of different methods of provision of manipulable materials, and a review of current practices in countries and assurance schemes where tail docking is banned, both suggest that daily provision of small quantities of destructible, manipulable natural materials can be of considerable benefit. Further comparative research is needed into materials, such as ropes, which are compatible with slatted floors. Also, materials which double as fuel for anaerobic digesters could be utilised. As well as optimising housing and management to reduce risk, it is important to detect and treat tail biting as soon as it occurs. Early warning signs before the first bloody tails appear, such as pigs holding their tails tucked under, could in future be automatically detected using precision livestock farming methods enabling earlier reaction and prevention of tail damage. However, there is a lack of scientific studies on how best to respond to outbreaks: the effectiveness of, for example, removing biters and/or bitten pigs, increasing enrichment, or applying substances to tails should be investigated. Finally, some breeding companies are exploring options for reducing the genetic propensity to tail bite. If these various approaches to reduce tail biting are implemented we propose that the need for tail docking will be reduced.

show abstract

Section: Availability Of Manipulable Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

D’Eath

Arnott

Turner

et al. 2014

Animal

152

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alguns autores (VAN DE WEERD et al, 2003;DAY et al, 2008;JENSEN et al, 2008; citam que medidas de enriquecimento ambiental diminuem comportamentos indesejáveis, como agressividade e aumentam comportamentos naturais específicos da espécie suína, como o investigativo. Além disso, pode-se observar uma melhora na produtividade e sanidade e na qualidade do produto final, a carne suína .…”

Section: Considerações Sobre Enriqueci-mento Ambientalunclassified

“…É importante sopesar a escolha animal evitando que este perca o interesse rapidamente pelo objeto, o que pode limitar a sua funcionalidade como objeto de enriquecimento. Assim, os testes de preferência podem ser utilizados na avaliação de quais tipos de enriquecimento ou especificidade dos objetos usar a fim de obter o comportamento desejado e, também, para estabelecer alguns princípios sobre as características típicas da espécie frente aos diferentes tipos (BEATTIE et al, 1998;JENSEN et al, 2008;BENCH et al, 2013;DEBOER et al, 2013) Day et al 2002enfatizam que a eficácia e o sucesso de qualquer tipo de enriquecimento ambiental depende da sua capacidade de motivar um determinado comportamento típico da espécie.…”

Section: Considerações Sobre Enriqueci-mento Ambientalunclassified

Enriquecimento Ambiental Como Medida Para O Bem-Estar Positivo De Suínos

Maia

Sarubbi²,

Medeiros

et al. 2013

REGET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resumo competitividade da suinocultura brasileira no mercado mundial depende da sua adaptação às novas tendências e tecnologias. A questão do bem-estar animal, que é uma exigência dos mercados internacionais, tem gerado discussões e questionamentos sobre o sistema suinícola brasileiro atual. O sistema intensivo de criação apresenta diversos fatores geradores de estresse que comprometem o bem-estar dos suínos. Assim, o enriquecimento ambiental entra como uma ferramenta simples e efetiva que pode garantir o bem-estar dos animais em cativeiro. Enriquecer o ambiente consiste em fornecer artifícios aos animais que os estimulem a expressar o comportamento natural inerente à espécie, melhorando a sua saúde física e psicológica. O sistema de criação pode ser enriquecido de diversas maneiras, as quais instigam o interesse do animal de forma positiva, tais como disponibilização de brinquedos e substratos. Neste contexto, o objetivo deste artigo é revisar a relação do enriquecimento ambiental como o bem-estar de suínos, bem como as medidas que podem ser utilizadas para enriquecer o ambiente de criação.

show abstract

“…It is well known from willow breeding that some clones are much preferred by game (Åhman and Bertholdson, 2001), and the preference of voles for willow clones has been found to be negatively correlated to the content of salicylates and tannins in willow twigs (Heiska et al, 2007). Jensen et al (2008) found that pigs preferred willow as a rooting material to fir chips, but there are no studies on pig preferences for the clones of the energy crops willow (Salix sp. ), poplar (Populus sp.)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%