Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T08:54:54.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of fattening boars in mixed or single sex groups and split marketing on pig welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

LA Boyle  and
L Björklund
LA Boyle*
Affiliation:
Pig Development Unit, Teagasc, Moorepark Research Centre, Fermoy, County Cork, Ireland
L Björklund
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, IFM, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: laura.boyle@teagasc.ie
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Our aim was to evaluate the effects of single or mixed sex fattening of boars and split marketing (SM) on pig welfare. Female (n = 10), male (n = 10) and mixed sex (n = 10) groups were fattened to 105 kg. Two focal pigs per pen were selected for continuous behaviour observations and skin lesion inspections. Aggressive and sexual behaviours were recorded during feeding. One week prior to slaughter the three heaviest pigs in half of the pens were marketed. There was more sexual behaviour in mixed and male groups. However, there was less agonistic behaviour in mixed and female compared to male groups. SM male groups tended to have higher lesion scores than non-SM male groups. There was more mounting in non-SM mixed groups than in both SM and non-SM female groups. The welfare of boars was improved in mixed sex groups but females fared better in single sex groups. Split marketing reduced the welfare of pigs in male groups but improved pig welfare in mixed groups.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourboarshousingpigssplit-marketing
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , May 2007 , pp. 259 - 262
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Beattie, VE, Walker, N and Sneddon, IA 1995 Effects of environmental enrichment on behaviour and productivity of growing pigs. Animal Welfare 4: 207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, VE, O'Connell, NE, Kilpatrick, DJ and Moss, BW 2000 Influence of environmental enrichment on welfare-related behavioural and physiological parameters in growing pigs. Animal Science 70: 443–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, IC, Lambooij, E, Korte, SM, Blokhuis, HJ and Koolhaas, JM 1999 Mixing induces long term hyperthermia in growing pigs. Animal Science 69: 601–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunshea, FR, Colantoni, C, Howard, K, McCauley, I, Jackson, P, Long, KA, Lopaticki, S, Nugent, EA, Simons, JA, Walker, J and Hennessy, DP 2001 Vaccination of boars with a GnRH vaccine (Improvac) eliminates boar taint and increases growth performance. Journal of Animal Science 79: 2524–2535Google ScholarPubMed
Fraser, AF and Broom, DM 1997 Farm animal behaviour and welfare 3rd edition. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Giersing, M, Lundström, K and Andersson, A 2000 Social effects and boar taint: Significance for production of slaughter boars (Sus scrofa). Journal of Animal Science 78: 296–305CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonyou, HW 2001 The social behaviour of pigs. In: Keeling, LJ and Gonyou, HW (eds) Social behaviour in farm animals. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P 1993 Djurens beteende och orsakerna till det. Natur och Kultur, LTs förlag: Stockholm, Sweden. [Title translation: Animal behaviour and its causes]Google Scholar
Jensen, P 1994 Fighting between unacquainted pigs: effects of age and of individual reaction pattern. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41: 37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1993 Measuring behaviour. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Noldus Information Technology 1994 The Observer, Support Package for Psion Organiser. User's manual, Version 3.0. Noldus Information Technology: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Olsson, IAS, de Jonge, FH, Schuurman, T and Helmond, FA 1999 Poor rearing conditions and social stress in pigs: repeated social challenge and the effect on behavioural and physiological responses to stressors. Behavioural Processes 46: 201–215Google ScholarPubMed
Rydhmer, L, Zamaratskaia, G, Andersson, HK, Algers, B and Lundström, K 2004 Problems with aggressive and sexual behaviour when rearing entire males. The 55th Annual meeting of the European association for Animal Production (EAAP) 5-9 September 2004. Bled, SloveniaGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems 1989 SAS/STAT Users Guide. Version 6, 4th edition, Volume 1. SAS Institute Inc: Cary, USAGoogle Scholar