Abstract #T70

# T70
Single nose ringed swine behavior in free-range production system.
Patrícia M. Gomes*1, Amanda R. R. Cabral1, Jacqueline N. Paiva1, Karoline M. Silva1, Frederico L. Silva1, Felipe H. Soares1, Carlos A. Silva Júnior1, Julia E. G. N. Perini2, Jessica M. Araujo1, Angela P. Santana1, Luci S. Murata1, 1University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Federal District, Brazil, 2Brasilia Federal Institute, Brasilia, Federal District, Brazil.

Single nose ring is commonly used in free-range swine production to control pasture and soil degradation. To evaluate the behavior frequency in multiparous non-pregnant sows, a trial was carried out with 2 treatments, ringed and control, with 4 sows each. The trial was divided based on cicatrization process: inflammation, proliferation and remodeling, during 23 d. The chosen method to evaluate the behavior after nose ring insertion was scan, consisting in observation every 10 min, 6 h a day (morning and evening). Twelve categories of behavior were used in scan sampling: rooting, tree rubbing, tree bark chewing, digging, wallowing, grazing, alert, resting, positive social interaction, negative social interaction, drinking and sniffing. Each group of sows were allocated in a 1000-m2 paddock, limited with solar electric fences, in exotic B. decumbens pasture and with push-lever bowl drinker. Sows were fed with commercial regular mash diet twice a day. Results showed that ringed sows spend 60.65% of the time resting, while control group spend 47.46% (P < 0.01). Rooting behavior was not observed in the ringed group, whereas control group demonstrated it for 0.63% of the time. Digging was seen in ringed group, in a frequency of 0.24%, and was not observed in control sows. Sniffing in ringed group was seen in 3.52% of the time and 13.17% in the control group (P < 0.01). During inflammation phase, rooting, tree rubbing and tree bark chewing were seen in control group (0.57%, 0.43%, 0.14% respectively) and were not observed in ringed group. In proliferation phase the ringed group already showed tree bark chewing and tree rubbing (both with 0.33%) whereas for the control group the frequencies were 0.55% and 0.22% (ns). In remodeling phase control group showed 0.88% for rooting, 0.88% for tree rubbing and 1.1% for tree bark chewing, while ringed sows were not observed with the first 2 behaviors and with 0.22% (ns) of the last. The trial showed that the ring insertion changed the behavior of the sows, resulting in more time resting. Rooting behavior was absent in ringed group during observations and signals of adaptations were seen, because digging was a behavior not seen in control group and present in ring inserted sows.

Key Words: sustainability, rooting, welfare