Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:43:30.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diet selection by groups of pigs: effect of a trained individual on the rate of learning about novel foods differing in protein content

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

C.A. Morgan ,
I. Kyriazakis ,
A.B. Lawrence ,
J. Chirnside  and
H. Fullam
I. Kyriazakis
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
A.B. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
J. Chirnside
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
H. Fullam
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
Get access

Abstract

Choice feeding could be more widely applied with pigs if the initial variability between individuals in diet selection was overcome and there was a better understanding of the factors affecting the learning process in groups. In six replicates, two groups of four pigs (live weight 35·5±0·95 kg) were formed containing either an individual trained to select between two foods or an untrained control animal. The groups were offered food L (130 g crude protein (CP) and 5·6 g lysine per kg) and food H (260 g CP and 15·5 g lysine per kg) in two troughs as a choice for a period of 14 days. Food intake was measured twice daily for the first 3 days and then daily. The pigs were weighed three times per week and feeding behaviour was video recorded on the 1st and 3rd days of grouping. There was no effect of the trained pig on the performance of the group over the 2-week period (daily live-weight gain: 1·19 kg and 1·21 kg for the pigs in control or trained groups; s.e.d. 0·057). Within the first 8-h period of food recording pigs in groups with a trained pig selected a diet similar to that of the trained pig, whereas those with a control pig showed initial variation in selection before adopting a pattern in favour of one food, usually after about 3 days. In the first 24 h the pattern of visits to the troughs by the naïve pigs followed that of the trained pig whereas the pigs in the control groups initially visited the troughs at random. After 3 days the difference between the groups was small and largely non-significant. In five of the six replicates the groups selected a diet comprising 0·65H: 0·35L, which was similar to that expected from their lysine requirements. The two groups in the other replicate selected more of food L and this and the other findings are discussed in relation to the influence of social learning, previous nutritional experience and food composition on diet selection by pigs.

Keywords

food intakefood preferenceslearningpigssocial behaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , February 2003 , pp. 101 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2003

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

Agricultural Research Council. 1981. The nutrient requirements of pigs. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Appleby, M.C., Pajor, E.A. and Fraser, D. 1991. Effects of management options on creep feeding by piglets. Animal Production 53: 361–366.Google Scholar
Bradford, M.M.V. and Gous, R.M. 1991a. The response of growing pigs to a choice of diets differing in protein content. Animal Production 52: 185–192.Google Scholar
Bradford, M.M.V. and Gous, R.M. 1991b. A comparison of phase feeding and choice feeding as methods of meeting the amino acid requirements of growing pigs. Animal Production 52: 323–330.Google Scholar
Bradford, M.M.V. and Gous, R.M. 1992. The response of weaner pigs to a choice of foods differing in protein content. Animal Production 55: 227–232.Google Scholar
Close, W.H. 1994. Feeding new genotypes: establishing amino acid/energy requirements. In Principles of pig science (ed. Cole, D.J.A., Wiseman, J. and Varley, M.A.), pp. 123–140. Nottingham University Press, Loughborough.Google Scholar
Dalby, J.A. 1998. Behaviour and choice feeding. In Progress in pig science (ed Wiseman, J., Varley, M.A. and Chadwick, J.P.), pp. 183–207. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Dalby, J.A., Varley, M.A., Forbes, J.M. and Jagger, S. 1997. A comparison of choice, phase and single feeding systems in pigs from weaning to slaughter. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 1997, p. 14.Google Scholar
Forbes, J.M. and Kyriazakis, I. 1995. Food preferences in farm animals: why don’t they always choose wisely? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 54: 429–440.Google Scholar
Galef, B.G. 1994. Olfactory communications about foods among rats: a review of recent findings. In Behavioral aspects of feeding (ed. Galef, B.G., Mainardi, M. and Valsecchi, P.), pp. 83–101. Harwood Academic Publishers, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Galef, B.G., Beck, M. and Whiskin, E.E. 1991. Protein deficiency magnifies social influence on the food choices of Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus). Journal of Comparative Psychology 105: 55–59.Google Scholar
Galef, B.G. and Whiskin, E.E. 2001. Interaction of social and individual learning in food preferences of Norway rats. Animal Behaviour 62: 41–46.Google Scholar
Gill, B.P., Onibi, G.E. and English, P.R. 1995. Food ingredient selection by growing and finishing pigs: effects on performance and carcass quality. Animal Science 60: 133–141.Google Scholar
Gill, B.P., Sanchez-Serrano, A.P, English, P.R., Robledo, M. and Roden, J. 1994. Evaluation of the choice feeding system for growing and finishing pig production. Animal Production 58: 435A (abstr. ).Google Scholar
Gonyou, H.W., Chapple, R.P. and Frank, J.R. 1992. Productivity, time budgets and social aspects of eating in pigs penned in groups of five or individually. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34: 291–301.Google Scholar
Gonyou, H.W., Peterson, C. and Getson, K. 1999. Effects of feeder and penning design on social facilitation of eating in pigs in adjoining pens. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 1999, p. 182.Google Scholar
Hsia, L.C. and Wood-Gush, D.G.M. 1983. A note on social facilitation and competition in the feeding behaviour of pigs. Animal Production 37: 149–152.Google Scholar
Kutlu, H.R. and Forbes, J.M. 1993. Self-selection of ascorbic acid in coloured foods by heat-stressed broiler chicks. Physiology and Behavior 53: 103–110.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. 1995. Choice-feeding of farm animals: attractions and limitations. Feed Mix 3: 24–29.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G.C. 1991. Diet selection in pigs: dietary choices made by growing pigs following a period of underfeeding with protein. Animal Production 52: 337–346.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G.C. 1992. Selection of a diet by growing pigs given choices between foods differing in contents of protein and rapeseed meal. Appetite 19: 121–132.Google Scholar
Kyrizakis, I., Emmans, G.C. and Whittemore, C.T. 1990. Diet selection in pigs: choices made by growing pigs given foods of different protein concentrations. Animal Production 51: 189–199.Google Scholar
Kyrizakis, I., Emmans, G.C. and Whittemore, C.T. 1991. The ability of pigs to control their protein intake when fed in three different ways. Physiology and Behavior 50: 1197–1203.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Oldham, J.D. 1993. Diet selection in sheep: the ability of growing lambs to select a diet that meets their crude protein (nitrogen x 6·25) requirements. British Journal of Nutrition 69: 617–629.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1998. Nutrient requirements of swine, 10th edition. National Academy Press, Washington.Google Scholar
Nicol, C.J. 1995. The social transmission of information and behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 79–98.Google Scholar
Nicol, C.J. and Pope, S.J. 1994. Social learning in sibling pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40: 31–43.Google Scholar
Nielsen, B.N., Lawrence, A.B. and Whittemore, C.T. 1996. Feeding behaviour of growing pigs using single or multi-space feeders. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 47: 235–246.Google Scholar
Provenza, F.D. and Balph, D.F. 1987. Diet learning by domestic ruminants: theory, evidence and practical implications. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 211–232.Google Scholar
Rose, S.P. and Kyriazakis, I. 1991. Diet selection of pigs and poultry. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 50: 87–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stranks, M.H., Cooke, B.C., Fairbairn, C.B., Fowler, N.G., Kirby, P.S., McCracken, K.J., Morgan, C.A., Palmer, F.G. and Peers, D.G. 1988. Nutrient allowances for growing pigs. Research and Development in Agriculture 5: 71–88.Google Scholar
Tolkamp, B.J., Dewhurst, R.J., Friggens, N.C., Kyriazakis, I., Veerkamp, R.F. and Oldham, J.D. 1998. Diet choice by dairy cows. 1. Selection of feed protein content during the first half of lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 81: 2657–2669.Google Scholar