Alternatives to nose-ringing in outdoor sows: 1. The provision of a sacrificial rooting area

The nose-ringing of outdoor pigs ( Sus scrofa) is commonly practised in many countries as a means to inhibit rooting and reduce pasture damage and soil erosion. This practice has been questioned on ethical grounds and alternatives are being sought. Sixteen multiparous pregnant sows were housed in gr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Applied animal behaviour science 2003-10, Vol.83 (4), p.267-276
Main Authors: Bornett, H.L.I, Edge, H.L, Edwards, S.A
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animal welfare
Nose-ringing
Pasture damage
Pig
Rooting behaviour
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 276
container_issue 4
container_start_page 267
container_title Applied animal behaviour science
container_volume 83
creator Bornett, H.L.I
Edge, H.L
Edwards, S.A
description The nose-ringing of outdoor pigs ( Sus scrofa) is commonly practised in many countries as a means to inhibit rooting and reduce pasture damage and soil erosion. This practice has been questioned on ethical grounds and alternatives are being sought. Sixteen multiparous pregnant sows were housed in groups of four and randomly allocated to one of the four treatments in a 4×4 Latin square design. Treatment A had no rooting area whilst Treatments B–D were provided with a rooting area consisting of a 15 m×2 m strip of ploughed land supplemented with 200 kg of spent mushroom compost. Sows on Treatments A and B received their entire daily feed ration on the ground at the front of the paddock, Treatment C received half of their ration on the ground and half buried in the rooting area, whilst Treatment D received all of their ration buried in the rooting area. Sows who received their entire daily ration buried in the rooting area (Treatment D) spent more time using the rooting area than those sows on Treatment C, who in turn spent more time using the rooting area than sows on Treatment B ( P
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00143-6
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_elsev</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_18904977</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0168159103001436</els_id><sourcerecordid>18904977</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-e240t-be4a207704d46d9d00d139080c627bc8dcc3b33084b36a1550e13f9f419c2d9a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKs_QchJ9JA62WQ_4kWk-AUFD9abELLJrEbWjSZp_ftuWxGGmcM8M7w8hJxymHHg1eXz2BrGS8XPQVwAcClYtUcmvKkLpkCW-2TyjxySo5Q-AKAUHCbk9abPGAeT_RoTzYEOISGLfngbi_qBhlV2IUSawk-6onxGl-9Iv2JY--TDuO6oocnY6DtvvelpDCFvTk1Ec0wOOtMnPPmbU_Jyd7ucP7DF0_3j_GbBsJCQWYvSFFDXIJ2snHIAjgsFDdiqqFvbOGtFKwQ0shWV4WUJyEWnOsmVLZwyYkrOdn_HXN8rTFl_-mSx782AYZU0b0YLqq5H8HoH4phm7THqZD0OFp2PaLN2wWsOemNVb63qjTINQm-t6kr8Ag5CayI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>18904977</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Alternatives to nose-ringing in outdoor sows: 1. The provision of a sacrificial rooting area</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Bornett, H.L.I ; Edge, H.L ; Edwards, S.A</creator><creatorcontrib>Bornett, H.L.I ; Edge, H.L ; Edwards, S.A</creatorcontrib><description>The nose-ringing of outdoor pigs ( Sus scrofa) is commonly practised in many countries as a means to inhibit rooting and reduce pasture damage and soil erosion. This practice has been questioned on ethical grounds and alternatives are being sought. Sixteen multiparous pregnant sows were housed in groups of four and randomly allocated to one of the four treatments in a 4×4 Latin square design. Treatment A had no rooting area whilst Treatments B–D were provided with a rooting area consisting of a 15 m×2 m strip of ploughed land supplemented with 200 kg of spent mushroom compost. Sows on Treatments A and B received their entire daily feed ration on the ground at the front of the paddock, Treatment C received half of their ration on the ground and half buried in the rooting area, whilst Treatment D received all of their ration buried in the rooting area. Sows who received their entire daily ration buried in the rooting area (Treatment D) spent more time using the rooting area than those sows on Treatment C, who in turn spent more time using the rooting area than sows on Treatment B ( P&lt;0.001). Paddock damage was significantly affected by treatment with vegetation cover at the end of the experimental period increasing from Treatments A (0%) to D (30.4%, P&lt;0.001). Although the provision of a sacrificial rooting area where food was provided reduced paddock damage, this reduction was not sufficiently great to recommend this approach as a sole commercial alternative to nose-ringing.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0168-1591</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-9045</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00143-6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Animal welfare ; Nose-ringing ; Pasture damage ; Pig ; Rooting behaviour</subject><ispartof>Applied animal behaviour science, 2003-10, Vol.83 (4), p.267-276</ispartof><rights>2003 Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bornett, H.L.I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edge, H.L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edwards, S.A</creatorcontrib><title>Alternatives to nose-ringing in outdoor sows: 1. The provision of a sacrificial rooting area</title><title>Applied animal behaviour science</title><description>The nose-ringing of outdoor pigs ( Sus scrofa) is commonly practised in many countries as a means to inhibit rooting and reduce pasture damage and soil erosion. This practice has been questioned on ethical grounds and alternatives are being sought. Sixteen multiparous pregnant sows were housed in groups of four and randomly allocated to one of the four treatments in a 4×4 Latin square design. Treatment A had no rooting area whilst Treatments B–D were provided with a rooting area consisting of a 15 m×2 m strip of ploughed land supplemented with 200 kg of spent mushroom compost. Sows on Treatments A and B received their entire daily feed ration on the ground at the front of the paddock, Treatment C received half of their ration on the ground and half buried in the rooting area, whilst Treatment D received all of their ration buried in the rooting area. Sows who received their entire daily ration buried in the rooting area (Treatment D) spent more time using the rooting area than those sows on Treatment C, who in turn spent more time using the rooting area than sows on Treatment B ( P&lt;0.001). Paddock damage was significantly affected by treatment with vegetation cover at the end of the experimental period increasing from Treatments A (0%) to D (30.4%, P&lt;0.001). Although the provision of a sacrificial rooting area where food was provided reduced paddock damage, this reduction was not sufficiently great to recommend this approach as a sole commercial alternative to nose-ringing.</description><subject>Animal welfare</subject><subject>Nose-ringing</subject><subject>Pasture damage</subject><subject>Pig</subject><subject>Rooting behaviour</subject><issn>0168-1591</issn><issn>1872-9045</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKs_QchJ9JA62WQ_4kWk-AUFD9abELLJrEbWjSZp_ftuWxGGmcM8M7w8hJxymHHg1eXz2BrGS8XPQVwAcClYtUcmvKkLpkCW-2TyjxySo5Q-AKAUHCbk9abPGAeT_RoTzYEOISGLfngbi_qBhlV2IUSawk-6onxGl-9Iv2JY--TDuO6oocnY6DtvvelpDCFvTk1Ec0wOOtMnPPmbU_Jyd7ucP7DF0_3j_GbBsJCQWYvSFFDXIJ2snHIAjgsFDdiqqFvbOGtFKwQ0shWV4WUJyEWnOsmVLZwyYkrOdn_HXN8rTFl_-mSx782AYZU0b0YLqq5H8HoH4phm7THqZD0OFp2PaLN2wWsOemNVb63qjTINQm-t6kr8Ag5CayI</recordid><startdate>20031020</startdate><enddate>20031020</enddate><creator>Bornett, H.L.I</creator><creator>Edge, H.L</creator><creator>Edwards, S.A</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>7QG</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20031020</creationdate><title>Alternatives to nose-ringing in outdoor sows: 1. The provision of a sacrificial rooting area</title><author>Bornett, H.L.I ; Edge, H.L ; Edwards, S.A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-e240t-be4a207704d46d9d00d139080c627bc8dcc3b33084b36a1550e13f9f419c2d9a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Animal welfare</topic><topic>Nose-ringing</topic><topic>Pasture damage</topic><topic>Pig</topic><topic>Rooting behaviour</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bornett, H.L.I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edge, H.L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edwards, S.A</creatorcontrib><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Applied animal behaviour science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bornett, H.L.I</au><au>Edge, H.L</au><au>Edwards, S.A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Alternatives to nose-ringing in outdoor sows: 1. The provision of a sacrificial rooting area</atitle><jtitle>Applied animal behaviour science</jtitle><date>2003-10-20</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>83</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>267</spage><epage>276</epage><pages>267-276</pages><issn>0168-1591</issn><eissn>1872-9045</eissn><abstract>The nose-ringing of outdoor pigs ( Sus scrofa) is commonly practised in many countries as a means to inhibit rooting and reduce pasture damage and soil erosion. This practice has been questioned on ethical grounds and alternatives are being sought. Sixteen multiparous pregnant sows were housed in groups of four and randomly allocated to one of the four treatments in a 4×4 Latin square design. Treatment A had no rooting area whilst Treatments B–D were provided with a rooting area consisting of a 15 m×2 m strip of ploughed land supplemented with 200 kg of spent mushroom compost. Sows on Treatments A and B received their entire daily feed ration on the ground at the front of the paddock, Treatment C received half of their ration on the ground and half buried in the rooting area, whilst Treatment D received all of their ration buried in the rooting area. Sows who received their entire daily ration buried in the rooting area (Treatment D) spent more time using the rooting area than those sows on Treatment C, who in turn spent more time using the rooting area than sows on Treatment B ( P&lt;0.001). Paddock damage was significantly affected by treatment with vegetation cover at the end of the experimental period increasing from Treatments A (0%) to D (30.4%, P&lt;0.001). Although the provision of a sacrificial rooting area where food was provided reduced paddock damage, this reduction was not sufficiently great to recommend this approach as a sole commercial alternative to nose-ringing.</abstract><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00143-6</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0168-1591
ispartof Applied animal behaviour science, 2003-10, Vol.83 (4), p.267-276
issn 0168-1591
1872-9045
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_18904977
source ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Animal welfare
Nose-ringing
Pasture damage
Pig
Rooting behaviour
title Alternatives to nose-ringing in outdoor sows: 1. The provision of a sacrificial rooting area
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T13%3A22%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_elsev&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Alternatives%20to%20nose-ringing%20in%20outdoor%20sows:%201.%20The%20provision%20of%20a%20sacrificial%20rooting%20area&rft.jtitle=Applied%20animal%20behaviour%20science&rft.au=Bornett,%20H.L.I&rft.date=2003-10-20&rft.volume=83&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=267&rft.epage=276&rft.pages=267-276&rft.issn=0168-1591&rft.eissn=1872-9045&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00143-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_elsev%3E18904977%3C/proquest_elsev%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-e240t-be4a207704d46d9d00d139080c627bc8dcc3b33084b36a1550e13f9f419c2d9a3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=18904977&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true