Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-14T00:26:35.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implications of behaviour studies on the development of housing systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. R. Baxter
M. R. Baxter
Affiliation:
Scottish Farm Buildings Investigation Unit, Craibstone, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9TR
Get access

Abstract

Although a relatively young science, farm animal ethology has a considerable contribution to make to the development of housing systems. Two areas are highlighted in this review. First, the evaluation of existing housing systems is exemplified by studies of the effects of close confinement on sows. From such studies it has been concluded that close confinement can cause distress in sows. Secondly, the development of new housing systems is exemplified by studies on how pen design can control aggression.

Type
Research Article
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 11: Pig Housing and the Environment , January 1987 , pp. 99 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Production 1987

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

REFERENCES

Barnett, J. L., Winfield, C. G., Cronin, G. M., Hemsworth, P. H. and Dewar, A. M. 1985. The effect of individual and group housing on behavioural and physiological responses related to the welfare of pregnant pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 149–161.Google Scholar
Baxter, M. R. 1982a. The nesting behaviour of sows and its disturbance by confinement at farrowing. In Disturbed Behaviour in Farm Animals (ed. Bessai, W.), pp. 101–114. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Baxter, M. R. 1982b. Discussion of session 1. In Disturbed Behaviour in Farm Animals (ed. Bessai, W.), pp. 37–41. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Baxter, M. R. 1986a. Does Close Confinement Cause Distress in Sows? A review commissioned by the Athene Trust. Scottish Farm Buildings Investigation Unit, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Baxter, M. R. 1986b. The design of the feeding environment for the pig. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
British Standards Institute. 1981. British standard code of practice for the design of buildings and structures for agriculture. Part 2. Special considerations. Section 2.2. Livestock buildings. BS5502 Section 2.2. British Standards Institute, London.Google Scholar
Cronin, G. M. 1985. The development and significance of abnormal stereotyped behaviours in tethered sows. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wageningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Cronin, G. M. and Wiepkema, P. R. 1984. An analysis of stereotyped behaviour in tethered sows. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 15: 263–270.Google ScholarPubMed
Dantzer, R. and Mormede, P. 1983. De-arousal properties of stereotyped behaviour: evidence from pituitary-adrenal correlates in pigs. Applied Animal Ethology 10: 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H. P. 1937. Suckling and suckling preferences in pigs. Empire Journal of Experimental Agriculture 5:(20), 361–368.Google Scholar
Ewbank, R. and Bryant, M. J. 1972. Aggressive behaviour amongst groups of domestic pigs kept at various stocking rates. Animal Behaviour 20: 21–28.Google Scholar
Ewbank, R. and Meese, G. B. 1971. Aggressive behaviour in groups of domesticated pigs on removal and return of individuals. Animal Production 13: 685–693.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. 1973. The nursing and suckling behaviour of pigs. I. The importance of stimulation of the anterior teats. British Veterinary Journal 129: 324–336.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. 1975. The ‘teat order’ of suckling pigs. II. Fighting during suckling and the effects of clipping the eye teeth. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 84: 393–399.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. and Jones, R. M. 1975. The ‘teat order’ of suckling pigs. I. Relation to birth weight and subsequent growth. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 84: 387–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hediger, H. 1950. Wild Animals in Captivity. Butter-worths, London.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. 1980. An ethogram of social interaction patterns in group-housed dry sows. Applied Animal Ethology 6: 341–350.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. 1982. An analysis of agonistic interaction patterns in group-housed dry sows — aggression regulation through an ‘avoidance order’. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcglone, J. J. and Curtis, S. E. 1981. A behaviour/performance study to evaluate an alternative nursery pen for swine. Journal of Animal Science 51: 129–130.Google Scholar
Meese, G. B. and Ewbank, R. 1973. The establishment and nature of the dominance heirarchy in the domesticated pig. Animal Behaviour 21: 326–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, D. 1964. The response of animals to a restricted environment. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 13: 99–118.Google Scholar
Signoret, J. P. 1970. Reproductive behaviour of pigs. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility Suppl. 11, pp. 105–107.Google ScholarPubMed
Stolba, A., Baker, N. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1983. The characterisation of stereotyped behaviour in stalled sows by informational redundancy. Behaviour 87: 157–182.Google Scholar