Search

The behaviour of intensively managed sows is influenced by the design of their housing, with the physical structure of the pen affecting how sows spend their time. The first hour after unfamiliar sows are mixed into group housing is considered important in terms of their welfare due to high levels of aggression as they develop a hierarchy and investigate their new surroundings and pen-mates. This study compared the behaviour of sows on a commercial piggery at the point of mixing into 20 group pens (n = 15–18 sows each group), where half the group pens had a concrete partition (a short wall, 2 m long and 1.6 m high) running through the middle of the pen, and half did not have the partition. We predicted that the partition would improve the expression of behaviours during the first hour after mixing. Sows were filmed for 70 min post-mixing and the footage was analysed using quantitative behavioural profile for eight behavioural categories (i.e. time budgets). We found no significant differences in the incidence of aggression, but found less investigative behaviour for sows in pens with the partition; these sows also lay down sooner compared with sows in no-partition pens, and stopped eating/searching for food sooner. The difference between pen designs was most evident at 50–60 min post-mixing, and therefore we compared the behavioural expression of the sows using qualitative behavioural assessment for this time point. There was significant inter-observer reliability among the 17 observers, with 60.02% (P < 0.001) of the variation in their scoring using the Free Choice Profiling methodology explained by the consensus profile. Sows in partition pens were scored as more ‘calm/relaxed’ compared with sows in no-partition pens, which were scored as more ‘aggressive/tense’. There were also significant correlations between the time budgets and behavioural expression scores, with groups of animals described as more ‘aggressive/tense’ also showing more walking, aggression, and avoidance, but less lying. The sows described as more ‘sleepy/bored’ showed more lying and sitting. This study shows that even a subtle difference in housing design (in this case, retention of a concrete partition) can make a significant positive difference to the demeanour and activity patterns of sows. Identifying housing designs that have positive welfare outcomes can inform pen design and construction, and is particularly relevant where housing is being converted (e.g. from single pens to group housing) and decisions must be made around whether or not to keep existing structures.

Qualitative behavioural assessment (QBA) has been used to quantify the expressive behaviour of animals, and operant tests have been used to quantify measures of behavioural need. In this study we compared measures of behavioural expression and behaviour in operant tests. We examined the behavioural expression of pregnant ewes of body condition score (BCS) 2 and 3. The ewes were exposed to a feed motivation test in which they received a food reward. Pregnant ewes (48–70 days gestation) were assessed during a food motivation test after they had been maintained at BCS 3 (n = 7) or given a decreasing plane of nutrition that resulted in slow loss of 1 BCS unit (over 10–12 weeks; n = 7) or a fast loss of 1 BCS unit (over 4–6 weeks; n = 7). The feed motivation test involved ewes having the opportunity to approach a food reward and then being moved a given distance away from the reward by an automatic gate; they could then subsequently return to the feeder. Continuous video footage of each ewe during one cycle of the gate (approaching and returning from the food reward) was shown in random order to 11 observers who used their own descriptive terms (free-choice profiling methodology; FCP) to score the animals using QBA. Data of the assessment were analysed with generalised Procrustes analysis (GPA), a multivariate statistical technique associated with FCP. The research group also quantified the feeding behaviour of sheep in the same clips. These behaviours included how sheep approached the feeder, behaviours exhibited at the feeder, and how sheep returned from the feeder. There was consensus amongst observers in terms of their assessment of behavioural expression of the sheep (P < 0.001). The GPA found three main dimensions of assessed behavioural expression in the sheep, which together explained 44% of the variation observed. GPA dimension 1 differed between the three treatment groups (P < 0.05): ewes maintained at BCS 3 scored low on GPA dimension 1 (i.e. were described as more calm/bored/comfortable) compared with ewes that had a slow declining BCS (described as more interested/anxious/excited). GPA dimension 2 scores were not significantly different between treatment groups. However, quantitative behaviours exhibited by sheep during the clips were correlated with qualitative behavioural assessments made by the observers. Animals that spent more time ‘sniffing and looking for more feed’ were attributed lower GPA 2 scores (described as more hungry/searching/excited) (P < 0.05), and animals that ‘did not walk directly to the food reward (but stopped along the way)’ were attributed significantly higher GPA 2 scores (more curious/intimidated/uneasy) (P < 0.01). GPA dimension 3 scores also did not differ between the treatment groups; however, sheep that had a higher number of feeding events during the entire 23-h feed motivation test were attributed lower GPA dimension 3 scores (they were described as more hungry/bold/interested) (P < 0.05), and sheep that consumed a larger amount of the feed reward were attributed higher GPA dimension 3 scores (more curious/concerned/reserved) (P < 0.05). We conclude that QBA is a valuable method of assessing sheep behavioural expression under the conditions tested, in that it provided an integrative characterisation of sheep behavioural expression that was in agreement with quantitative behavioural measures of feeding.