A total of 3,120 sows, in 4 time replicates, were used to determine the effects of group size and floor space on sow welfare using behavioral, physiological, health, and fitness variables. Within 1 to 7 d postinsemination, sows were assigned randomly to treatments of a 3 by 6 factorial arrangement, with 3 group sizes (10, 30, or 80 sows/pen) and 6 floor space allowances (1.4, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, or 3.0 m(2)/sow). Sows were housed on partially slatted concrete floors, and overhead feeders delivered 4 times/day to provide a total of 2.5 kg of feed/sow. As pen space increased from 1.4 to 3.0 m(2)/sow, aggression at feeding decreased from about 9 to 7 bouts/sow (linear, P = 0.029) and plasma cortisol concentrations decreased from about 28 to 21 ng/mL (linear, P = 0.0089) at 2 d. Although the results are in accord with a linear decline from 1.4 to 3 m(2)/sow, the results are also in accord with a decline in these measurements from 1.4 to 1.8 m(2)/sow and no further decline greater than 1.8 m(2)/sow. Farrowing rate (percentage of inseminated sows that farrowed) also increased from about 60 to 75% as space increased from 1.4 to 3.0 m(2)/sow (linear, P = 0.012). Group size was related to skin injuries on d 9 (P = 0.0017), 23 (P = 0.0046), and 51 (P = 0.0006), with groups of 10 consistently having the lowest number of total injuries over this period. Based on the aggression and cortisol results, it is credible to judge that, within the range of floor space allowances studied, sow welfare improves with increased space. However, from a sow welfare perspective, the experiment had insufficient precision to determine what is an adequate space allowance for sows. Thus, although the results definitely support a space allowance of 1.4 m(2)/sow being too small, it is not possible to give guidance on an actual space allowance at mixing that is adequate.
Simple SummaryConcern has been raised in Australia about the welfare of individually penned sheep housed indoors. This study examined the prevalence and incidence of abnormal behaviours in 96 individually housed sheep. Almost three quarters of the sheep displayed one or more of the behaviours of pacing, and chewing and nosing pen fixtures for more than 10% of the day. The prevalence and incidence of these ‘abnormal’ behaviours appears high, but without a comprehensive appreciation of other aspects of the animal’s biology, such as stress physiology and fitness characteristics, it’s difficult to understand the welfare implications of these behaviours. AbstractThis study examined the prevalence and incidence of abnormal behaviour in sheep housed individually indoors. Ninety-six castrated Merino sheep were observed using 15-min instantaneous sampling between 08:15 and 18:15 h for two consecutive days over a 3-week period. Sheep on average spent 62% of their time idle, 17% feeding, 1% drinking, 5% pacing, 10% chewing pen fixtures and 4% nosing pen fixtures. Pacing behaviour was predominantly seen in the morning with sheep on average spending 14% of their time pacing. Sheep on average spent 4% of their time in the morning and 13% of their time in the afternoon chewing pen fixtures. In the afternoon, the predominant behaviour was idle with sheep on average spending 71% of their time idle. Seventy-one percent of the sheep displayed one or more of the behaviours of pacing, and chewing and nosing pen fixtures for more than 10% of the day and 47% displayed one or more of these behaviours for more than 20% of the day. The prevalence and incidence of these ‘abnormal’ behaviours appears high, especially in relation to that of sheep grazed outdoors on pasture, and raises the question of the welfare risk to these animals. However, without a more comprehensive appreciation of other aspects of the animal’s biology, such as stress physiology and fitness characteristics, it is difficult to understand the welfare implications of these behaviours.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.