Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T21:45:07.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nose-rings influence feeding efficiency in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

I. Horrell ,
P. A’Ness ,
S. A. Edwards  and
I. Riddoch
I. Horrell
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK
P. A’Ness
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Aberdeen, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB24 5UA, UK
I. Riddoch
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Aldroughty Farm, Elgin, Morayshir, UK
Get access

Abstract

Nose-rings are often fitted to outdoor commercial pigs to inhibit rooting and reduce consequent pasture damage. During ethological observations of the behaviour of ringed pigs at pasture, subjective impressions suggested that pigs with nose-rings picked up their normal feed, in the form of large nuts (‘roll nuts’), more tentatively than unringed pigs. The observed pigs were gestating sows under one of three treatments: unringed controls (UR), multiple wire ‘clip-rings’ through the upper rim of the snout (CR), or rigid ‘bull-rings’ through the nasal septum (BR). For formal assessment of feeding efficiency eight randomly selected pigs from each condition were timed and video-recorded, in individual feeder stalls, as they ate 20 3-cm long roll-nuts laid out in a standard rectilinear array in a steel-sided tray under each of five conditions: on a hard surface, on the surface of soil, on the surface of turf, embedded in soil, or embedded in turf. All groups took longer to eat up their test meal from the plain surface than from the surfaces of either soil or turf and longer still when the nuts were embedded. In all conditions, ringed pigs took longer to eat their 20 nuts than did controls, with BR > CR > UR (overall mean times, pooling data from the different feeding conditions: 118·6, 69·9 and 56·7 s respectively: P < 0·001). The difference between groups was greatest when nuts were embedded. Also, when nuts were embedded, ringed pigs were more reluctant to root: the latency to their first rooting action was delayed (mean latency across both embedded’ conditions: 29·6, 87·9 and 106·8 s for UR, CR and BR pigs, respectively: P < 0·01 with soil and turf conditions combined) and, even after starting, a smaller proportion of the residual trial time was spent rooting (0·11, 0·27 and 0·62 of the total time by BR, CR and UR pigs respectively; P < 0·001). It is concluded that nose-ringing depresses the efficiency with which pigs feed on solid food, especially if they have to root for it. The threat to welfare inherent in this will be greatest when ringed pigs are in direct competition with unringed pigs.

Keywords

feeding behaviournose-ringspigsrooting behaviour
Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , October 2000 , pp. 259 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

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.)

References

Algers, B. 1984. Early weaning and cage rearing of piglets: influence on behaviour. Zentralblatte Veterinaermedecin Reihe A 31: 14–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
A’Ness, P. J., Horrell, R. I., Edwards, S. A. and Eddison, J. 1997. The consequences of nose-ringing for the behaviour and welfare of pigs maintained on pasture. In Proceedings of the 30th international congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology (ed. Duncan, I. J. H., Widowski, T. M. and Haley, D. B.), p. 65 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Appleby, M. C. and Lawrence, A. B. 1987. Food restriction as a cause of stereotypic behaviour in tethered gilts. Animal Production 45: 103–110.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. A., Anssems, E., Horrell, R. I., A’Ness, P. and Eddison, J. 1996. The effect of nose-ringing of outdoor sows on foraging behaviour and pasture damage. Animal Science 62: 674 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council. 1996. Report on the welfare of pigs kept outdoors. Farm Animal Welfare Council, Tolworth, UK.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. 1975. The effect of straw on the behaviour of sows in tether stalls. Animal Production 21: 51–68.Google Scholar
Horrell, I. 1992. Effects of environmental enrichment on growing pigs. Animal Production 54: 183 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Horrell, I. and A’Ness, P. J. 1995. Enrichment that satisfies specific behavioural needs in early weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrell, R. I., A’Ness, P. J., Edwards, S. A. and Eddison, J. C. 2000. The use of nose-rings in pigs: consequences for rooting, other functional activities and welfare. Animal Welfare In press.Google Scholar
Hughes, B. O. and Duncan, I. J. H. 1988. The notion of ethological ‘need’, models of motivation and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 36: 1696–1707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, A. B. and Terlouw, E. M. C. 1993. A review of behavioral factors involved in the development and continued performance of stereotypic behaviors in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 71: 2815–2825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J. 1984. Stereotyped behaviour, adjunctive drinking and the feeding patterns of tethered sows. Animal Behaviour 32: 1059–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J., Lawrence, B. and Terlouw, E. M. C. 1993. The motivational bases of stereotypies. In Stereotypic animal behaviour: fundamentals and applications to welfare (ed. Lawrence, A. B. and Rushen, J.), pp. 41–64. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Rushen, J. P. 1985. Stereotypies, aggression and the feeding schedules of tethered sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolba, A. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1980. Arousal and exploration in growing pigs in different environments. Applied Animal Ethology 6: 382–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolba, A. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1989. The behaviour of pigs in a semi-natural environment. Animal Production 48: 419–425.Google Scholar
Terlouw, E. M. C., Lawrence, A. B. and Illius, A. W. 1991. Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on the development of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behaviour 42: 981–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, E. M. C., Wiersma, A., Lawrence, A. B. and Macleod, H. A. 1993. Ingestion of food facilitates the performance of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behaviour 46: 939–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, X., Spoolder, H. A. M., Edwards, S. A., Lawrence, A. B. and Corning, S. 1998. The influence of dietary fibre and the provision of straw on the development of stereotypic behaviour in food restricted pregnant sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61: 89–102.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar