Behaviour of sheep transferred from pasture to an animal house

Done-Currie, J.Rosemary; Hecker, J. F.; Wodzicka-Tomaszewska, Manika

doi:10.1016/0168-1591(84)90102-3

Cited by 46 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, the free-392 ly moving ewes were seen exploring their enclosure and thus could 393 have had greater access to straw than the single-pen housed ewes. No 394 abnormal behaviors such as chewing bars of the pen were observed, 395 suggesting that the single-pen housed ewes did not develop stereoty-396 pies as described by Done-Currie et al [22]. The behavioral observations 397 therefore suggest that even if the single-pen housing condition 398 prevented some behaviors such as exploration or interaction with con-399 specifics, the single-pen housed animals did not appear to be highly scribed increased plasma prolactin after swimming in mice [49] and rats 443 [50], or after running on a treadmill in rats [51], and after excessive ex-444 ercise considered as a strong stressor (for review, [52]).…”

mentioning

confidence: 58%

Behavioral and endocrine evaluation of the stressfulness of single-pen housing compared to group-housing and social isolation conditions

Guesdon

Meurisse

Chesneau

et al. 2015

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 58%

Behavioral and endocrine evaluation of the stressfulness of single-pen housing compared to group-housing and social isolation conditions

Guesdon

Meurisse

Chesneau

et al. 2015

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The behaviour of Merino ewes newly moved into intensive housing showed a number of differences over a 36-day period compared with animals which had already spent much longer periods there: the newcomers' food intake was depressed, they were less attentive to environmental stimuli and spent longer lying and resting (Done-Currie et al, 1984).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Behavioural comparison of transgenic and control sheep: movement order, behaviour on pasture and in covered pens

Hughes

Waddington

et al. 1996

Anim. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because of the evidence that growth hormone gene transfer in pigs and mice can result in widespread pathological changes and more general concerns that transgenesis techniques themselves may have deleterious effects, a study was undertaken to compare the behaviour of two populations of immature female sheep, one of transgenic and one of control animals. The gene transferred was that for human alpha-1 antitrypsin factor. In the first part of the study the behaviour of 25 transgenic (T) and 25 control (C) sheep was compared in three separate situations: competition for a limited quantity of supplementary concentrate, six categories of normal behaviour on pasture and movement order when driven through a crush. With two minor exceptions (idling and 'other' behaviour in focally sampled animals), none of the differences observed between the two populations was significant and in most cases the mean values observed for T and C sheep were very similar. In the second part 25 T and 25 C sheep (different individuals from those in part 1) were compared in straw-littered covered pens for both normal behaviour and competition for a complete diet provided in a trough. The only significant differences in the seven categories of normal behaviour were a lower incidence of idling and 'other' behaviour in T sheep. There was a difference between T and C sheep in their social interaction under very competitive conditions (the T sheep reached food less quickly). The behavioural differences found in this study were all slight. Overall, the findings suggest that the gene transferred had no detectable deleterious effects on the normal behaviour of immature animals.

show abstract

“…The presence of dominant individuals, particularly when stocking density is high or housing facilities are inadequate, may further curtail the movement of subordinate animals. Agonistic interactions increase in sheep because of overcrowding and limited availability of resources (McBride et al, 1967), and when moved from pastures to houses (Done-Currie et al, 1984). Subordinate animals may also be frequently displaced from shelter and shade during conditions of thermal extremes if space is limited, leading to chronic stress (Sherwin and Johnson, 1987).…”

Section: Good Housing and Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This may be because of the lower frequency with which sheep are kept in the type of housing that appears to elicit stereotypy. However, individually housed sheep, for experimental purposes, have been shown to demonstrate stereotypical oral behaviours, such as mouthing bars, chewing slats or chains, rattling or chewing buckets, biting and chewing pen fixtures, mandibulation (licking lips and mouthing air), and repetitive licking (Lynch and Alexander, 1973;Done-Currie et al, 1984;Marsden and Wood-Gush, 1986;Fordham et al, 1991;Cooper and Jackson 1996;Cooper et al, 1996;Yurtman et al, 2002). Ewes housed indoors in groups have also been reported to show stereotypic licking, star-gazing (arching the head and neck over the back) and floor kicking (Averós et al, 2014a) although not apparently related to stocking density.…”

Section: Appropriate Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the welfare risks related to the farming of sheep for wool, meat and milk production

2014

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This scientific opinion is the outcome of a scoping exercise aimed to identify the main welfare consequences and associated risk factors for sheep across, and within, categories of management systems and production types. The exercise included the construction of a risk (conceptual) model, a literature review and an expert knowledge elicitation, involving an online survey and a technical hearing, in order to rank the welfare consequences on the basis of the amount of suffering and prevalence. Sheep farmed for wool, meat and milk production were the target population, focusing on ewes and lambs. Based on the degree of human contact, use of housing, nature of pasture management and provision of supplementary feeding, sheep management systems were characterised as: shepherding, intensive, semi-intensive, semi-extensive, extensive, very extensive and mixed. The conceptual model proposed seventeen welfare consequences. In ewes, the importance of the welfare consequences was rated differently in different management systems; however, across all systems, the most important welfare consequences were: thermal stress, lameness and mastitis. Prolonged hunger was rated to be more frequent in extensive and very extensive management systems, and mastitis in ewes reared for milk production. For lambs, there were few differences among management systems with thermal stress, pain due to management procedures, gastro-enteric disorders and neonatal disorders rated as main welfare consequences. Respiratory disorders were more frequent in intensive management systems. The technical hearing of experts facilitated consensus on the major risk factors for ewes and lambs. Animal-based measures exist for most welfare consequences in ewes and lambs, but many require further validation. The identified currently available validated ABMs for assessing the main welfare consequences in ewes are: body condition score, locomotion score, udder consistency and somatic cell count in milk; and in lambs: shivering, evidence of painful husbandry procedures and dag score (score of breech soiling). for the support provided to this scientific opinion. The welfare of sheep EFSA Journal 2014;12(12):3933 2 SUMMARYFollowing a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) Panel was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the main welfare risks related to the farming of sheep for wool, meat and milk production. The request consisted of the identification of the main welfare consequences and risk factors for which a risk assessment should be performed, as well as on the identification of the animal-based measures (ABMs) to evaluate the welfare consequences. Consequences and factors should be identified for sheep (ewes and lambs) farmed for the three production purposes (meat, wool and milk) and depending on the management systems used and the sheep breed typologies.This scientific opinion on sheep welfare is the outcome of a scoping exercise for the identification of the main welfare consequences and associated risk factors acro...

show abstract

Behaviour of sheep transferred from pasture to an animal house

Cited by 46 publications

References 5 publications

Behavioral and endocrine evaluation of the stressfulness of single-pen housing compared to group-housing and social isolation conditions

Behavioral and endocrine evaluation of the stressfulness of single-pen housing compared to group-housing and social isolation conditions

Behavioural comparison of transgenic and control sheep: movement order, behaviour on pasture and in covered pens

Scientific Opinion on the welfare risks related to the farming of sheep for wool, meat and milk production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About