GLM analysis indicated significance, pairwise comparison of the treatment means was made using the method of least significant difference.
3. Results
3.1. Weaner period There were no significant differences between treatments in the percentage of
observations spent standing, kneeling, lying or in pen-fittings-directed or maintenance behaviours. Pigs with access to straw spent a significantly greater percentage of
Ž . Ž
observations in straw-directed behaviours than those pigs without straw flatdecks see
. Table 2 . Pigs in the deep-straw pen spent a significantly greater percentage of all
recorded observations in straw-directed behaviour than the pigs in the Straw-Flow pen Ž
. P - 0.05 , but even a small amount of straw occupied a significant proportion of
daytime observations. The percentage of observations spent in pen-directed behaviour was significantly
greater by pigs in both flatdecks than those in the straw pens, as was the amount of pig-directed behaviour. In the latter case, there was a tendency for pigs in the large
flatdeck to spend a greater percentage of observations in social behaviour than those in Ž
. either of the straw pens see Table 2 . There were also significant differences between
the treatments with regard to nonsocial behaviour. Belly-rooting was not recorded in any treatment during the first week after weaning, but overall tended to be observed more in
the large flatdeck than deep straw.
Table 2 Summary of behaviour, over the whole weaner period, of early-weaned pigs reared in different housing types
Percentage of recorded observations spent in each behaviour. Where data analysed following square root transformation, value in parenthesis calculated as square of derived mean. Within rows, means with the same
superscript letter differ significantly.
Behaviour Weaner housing type
Large Small
Straw- Deep
s.e.d. p
flatdeck flatdeck
Flow straw
a,b c,d
a,c,e b,d,e
Ž .
Ž .
Straw-directed behaviour 0.00 0.00
4.15 17.22 5.30 28.13
0.37 - 0.001
a,b c,d
a,c b,d
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Pen-directed behaviour 3.59 12.87
3.78 14.27 1.69 2.86
1.32 1.75 0.35
0.001
a,b c,d
a,c b,d
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Ž .
Pig-directed behaviour 3.51 12.29
3.42 11.71 2.58 6.63
2.76 7.61 0.194
0.006
a,b a
b
Social behaviour 3.52
2.67 1.52
2.00 0.573
0.057
a,b c,d
a,c b,d
Nonsocial behaviour 5.72
6.06 3.20
1.85 0.587
0.001
x x
Belly-rooting 3.23
2.68 1.89
1.21 0.669
0.089
a,b c,d
a,c b,d
Nosing any substrate 13.67
12.24 8.26
6.96 0.593 -0.001
a b
a,b
Rooting any substrate 8.65
8.53 13.19
19.56 2.780
0.022
a,b c
a,d b,c,d
Chew any substrate 3.43
4.05 5.31
8.73 0.628
0.001 Sitting
3.92 3.27
1.47 3.80
1.053 0.177
Inactivity 59.11
55.92 57.36
47.19 4.391
0.123
a c
a,c,e c
Sit inactive 1.79
1.77 0.34
1.13 0.285
0.007
a b
c a,c,e
Total playing 0.70
0.39 0.52
2.01 0.426
0.029
Nosing behaviour was more frequent in the flatdecks than in the straw pens. This was not fully accounted for by the higher level of social pig-directed behaviour, indicating
that nosing the pen and fittings were important behaviours in these groups. Rooting was observed more frequently in straw pens than in flatdecks. The percentage of observa-
tions spent in chewing was greater by pigs in the straw pens than those in the flatdecks, and greater by pigs in deep-straw than those in Straw-Flow. This was a similar pattern to
Ž straw-directed behaviour. He total amount of substrate directed behaviour pen, pen-fit-
. ting and pig-directed was higher for the deep straw treatment than for the other three
Ž treatments 25, 26, 27 and 37 of observations for large flatdeck, small flatdeck,
. Straw-Flow and deep straw respectively . Pigs in deep-straw spent a smaller percentage
of observations inactive than those in other treatments, but the difference was not significant. There was less sitting inactive in Straw-Flow than in any other treatment.
There was no significant difference between the flatdecks and Straw-Flow with regard to play-behaviour, but there was significantly more play by pigs in the deep-straw pen.
Table 3 Behaviour during the growing period of pigs in Straw-Flow pens, previously reared in different types of
weaner housing Percentage of observations in which certain behaviours were recorded at different times after moving to
Ž .
grower pens. Total ssum of observations made during weeks 1, 2, 5 and 8 see text for more details . Within rows, means with the same superscript letter differ significantly.
Time after moving Weaner housing type
Large flatdeck Small flatdeck
Straw-Flow Deep straw
s.e.d. p
Feeding
a b
ab
Total 6.76
7.06 7.16
5.89 0.487
0.071
ab a
Week 1 6.18
7.96 6.38
4.68 0.698
0.090 Week 2
7.01 7.20
7.10 5.23
0.937 0.271
Drinking
a ab
b
Total 2.32
1.89 2.02
2.34 0.147
0.005 Week 1
1.51 2.19
1.65 1.69
0.825 0.521
Week 2 2.08
1.25 1.51
2.15 0.659
0.614 Sitting inactiÕe
Total 0.71
0.77 0.59
0.89
a b
c abc
Week 1 0.40
0.31 0.19
1.15 0.285
0.072 Week 2
0.49 0.61
0.30 0.39
Rooting
a b
c abc
Total 13.72
13.9 12.84
10.50 0.668
0.008
a b
ab
Week 1 12.02
14.36 16.03
9.45 1.995
0.054
a b
ab
Week 2 20.83
19.64 16.37
13.75 2.005
0.052 Chewing
a b
a b
Total 13.62
10.02 11.62
13.39 0.867
0.079 Week 1
14.44 10.43
10.98 11.98
1.612 0.229
Week 2 11.67
8.20 9.37
12.65 1.927
0.234
3.2. Grower period Few behaviour categories showed significant differences during the grower period, as
shown in Table 3. The percentage of observations spent drinking over the total growingrfinishing period was different between treatments. Pigs from the flatdecks
spent a greater percentage of observations rooting in total than those from straw pens, but there was no difference between treatments with regard to straw-directed behaviour
Ž
. P s 0.441 . Pigs from deep-straw pens initially showed a tendency to spend more time
sitting inactive, but this did not persist.
4. Discussion
