Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:04:54.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trade-off between ammonia exposure and thermal comfort in pigs and the influence of social contact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

J. B. Jones ,
A. J. F. Webster  and
C. M. Wathes
J. B. Jones
Affiliation:
Silsoe Research Institute, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedford MK45 4HS Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DU
A. J. F. Webster
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DU
C. M. Wathes
Affiliation:
Silsoe Research Institute, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedford MK45 4HS
Get access

Abstract

The trade-off made by pigs between exposure to a concentration of ammonia gas recorded in commercial piggeries and thermal comfort was observed in two chronic choice tests. In the first experiment, eight pigs which were paired and eight pigs which were held as singles, were forced to choose between compartments of a preference chamber that were polluted with an ammonia gas concentration of 40 p.p.m. and heated with a 750 W radiant heater or compartments that were unpolluted and unheated, for 8 days. The location of the choice options was switched after 4 days to eliminate positional bias. Air temperature ranged from 0·5 °C to 15·0 °C. In the second experiment, eight pigs held as pairs, were free to choose between compartments that were polluted with an ammonia gas concentration of 40 p.p.m. and heated with a 750 W radiant heater, polluted and unheated, unpolluted and heated and unpolluted and unheated, for 14 days. The location of the choice options was switched after 7 days to eliminate positional bias. Air temperature ranged from 4·0 °C to 24·0 °C. All compartments contained food and water ad libitum; wood shavings were used as bedding material. In both experiments, the location of all pigs was scan sampled every 15 min and their behaviour at this time was recorded instantaneously. Location and behaviour were compared against air temperature. In the first, forced choice experiment, the pigs preferred the heated-polluted compartments when air temperature was less than the estimated lower critical temperature (LCT) (P < 0·001). As air temperature approached the estimated LCT, the pigs occupied the unheated-unpolluted compartments more often. Overall each visit made to the heated-polluted compartments lasted significantly longer at 265 min (paired), 208 min (single) than visits to the unheated-unpolluted compartments at 29 min (paired), 31 min (single) (P < 0·001). Although they could have huddled to conserve heat, the paired pigs spent less time, overall, in the unheated-unpolluted compartments (P < 0·001). When air temperatures were lower than the estimated LCT, the pigs huddled together but as air temperature increased, the pigs spent more time resting apart (P < 0·001) in the heated-polluted compartments. It is suggested that the paired pigs were motivated to remain in the heated-polluted compartments for companionship rather than thermal comfort. In the second, free choice experiment, the pigs preferred to remain in the unpolluted compartments, adjusting their occupancy of the heated and unheated compartments as ambient air temperature decreased or increased above the estimated LCT (P < 0·001). The pigs made fewer visits to the polluted compartments and each visit was shorter, at 44 min (P < 0·001). Visits to the unpolluted compartments lasted for 291 min. It is suggested that the delayed aversion shown to ammonia in both experiments was due to a progressive sense of malaise. However, both experiments indicated that this delayed ammonia aversion was weaker than preference for thermal comfort.

Keywords

air pollutionammoniabehaviourenvironmental temperaturepigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , April 1999 , pp. 387 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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

Baldwin, B. A. and Ingram, D. L. 1967. Behavioural thermorégulation in pigs. Physiology and Behaviour 2: 15–21.Google Scholar
Baldwin, B. A. and Meese, G. B. 1977. Sensory reinforcement and illumination preference in the domesticated pig. Animal Behaviour 25: 497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom, H. J. M., Baumans, V., Vorstenbösch, C. J. A. H. V.van, Zutphen, L.F.M, van and Beynen, A. C. 1993. Preference tests with rodents to assess housing conditions. Animal Welfare 2: 81–87.Google Scholar
Blom, H. J. M., Vorstenbösch, C. J. A. H. V.van, Baumans, V., Hoogervorst, M. J.C, Beynen, A. C. and Zutphen, L. F. M.van. 1992. Description and validation of a preference test system to evaluate housing conditions for laboratory mice. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 35: 67–82.Google Scholar
Bokina, A.I., Eksler, N. D., Semenenko, A. D. and Merkur’yeva, R. V. 1976. Investigation of action of atmospheric pollutants on the central nervous system and comparative evaluation of methods of study. Environmental Health Perspectives 13: 37–42.Google Scholar
Bongers, P., Houthuijs, D., Remijn, B., Brouwer, R. and Biersteker, K. 1987. Lung function and respiratory symptoms in pig farmers. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 44: 819–823.Google ScholarPubMed
Boon, C. R. 1981. The effect of departures from lower critical temperature on the group postural behaviour of pigs. Animal Production 33: 71–79.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, R. H., Parrott, R. F., Forsling, M. L., Goode, J. A., Lloyd, D. M., Rodway, R. G. and Broom, D. M. 1996. Stress and travel sickness in pigs: effects of road transport on plasma concentrations of cortisol, beta-endorphin and lysine vasopressin. Animal Science 63: 506–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, J. M. 1980. Ventilation and temperature control criteria for pigs. In Environmental aspects of housing for animal production (ed. Clark, J. A.), pp. 197–216. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. M. and Clark, J. J. 1979. Models of heat production and critical temperature for growing pigs. Animal Production 28: 353–369.Google Scholar
Christiaens, J. P. A. 1987. Gas concentrations and thermal features of the animal environment with respect to respiratory diseases in pigs and poultry. In Agriculture — environmental aspects of respiratory disease in intensive pig and poultry houses, including implications for human health (ed. Bruce, J. M. and Sommer, M.), pp. 29–33. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
Curtis, S. E. 1972. Air environment and animal performance. Journal of Animal Science 35: 628–634.Google Scholar
Doig, P. A. and Willoughby, R. A. 1971. Responses of swine to atmospheric ammonia and organic dust. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 159: 1353–1361.Google Scholar
Donham, K. J., Haglind, P., Peterson, Y., Rylander, R. and Bělin, L. 1989. Environmental and health studies of farm workers in Swedish swine confinement buildings. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 46: 31–37.Google Scholar
Donham, K. J., Rubino, M., Thedell, T. D. and Kammermeyer, J. 1977. Potential health hazards to agricultural workers in swine confinement buildings. Journal of Occupational Medicine 19: 383–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drummond, J. G., Curtis, S. E., Meyer, R.C, Simon, J. and Norton, H. W. 1981. Effects of atmospheric ammonia on young pigs experimentally infected with Bordetella bronchiseptica. American Journal of Veterinary Research 42: 963–968.Google Scholar
Drummond, J. G., Curtis, S. E., Simon, J. and Norton, H. W. 1980. Effects of aerial ammonia on growth and health of young pigs. Journal of Animal Science 50: 1085–1091.Google Scholar
Duncan, I. J. H. 1977. Behavioural wisdom lost? Applied Animal Ethology 3: 193–194.Google Scholar
Duncan, I. J. H. 1978. The interpretation of preference tests in animal behaviour. Applied Animal Ethology 4: 197–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I. J. H. 1980. Animal rights — animal welfare. A scientist’s assessment. Invited lecture to the 69th Poultry Science Association, Purdue University, Canada, 4th - 8th August. Poultry Science 60: 489–499.Google Scholar
Ferguson, W. S., Koch, W. C, Webster, L. B. and Gould, J. R. 1977. Human physiological response and adaptation to ammonia. Journal of Occupational Medicine 19: 319–326.Google ScholarPubMed
Garcia, J., Ervin, F. R. and Koelling, R. A. 1966. Learning with prolonged delay of reinforcement. Psychoneurotic Science 5: 121–122.Google Scholar
Garcia, J. and Koelling, R. A. 1966. Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychoneurotic Science 4: 123–124.Google Scholar
Gustin, P., Urbain, B., Prouvost, J. F. and Ansay, M. 1994. Effects of atmospheric ammonia on pulmonary hemodynamics and vascular permeability in pigs: interaction with endotoxins. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 125: 17–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, T. D.C, Roe, J. M. and Webster, A. J. F. 1996. The synergistic role of gaseous ammonia in the aetiology of Pasteurella multocida — induced atrophie rhinitis in swine. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 34: 2185–2190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, T.D.C., 1977. Behavioural wisdom and preference tests. Applied Animal Ethology 3: 391–392.Google Scholar
Jones, J.B, Burgess, L. R., Webster, A. J. F. and Wathes, A.J.F. 1996. Behavioural responses of pigs to atmospheric ammonia in a chronic choice test. Animal Science 63: 437–445.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1990. Genstat 5 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Meneses, J. F. 1985. Ventilacao Natural Controlada Automaticamente em Instalacoes para Suinos. Tese de Doutoramento, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universedade Tecnica de Lisboa Google Scholar
Mount, L.E. 1960. The influence of huddling and body size on the metabolic rate of the young pig. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 55:101–105.Google Scholar
Mount, L. E. and Ingram, D. L. 1965. Effects of ambient temperature and air movement on localized sensible heat loss from the pig. Research in Veterinary Science 6: 84–91.Google Scholar
Mullan, B.P. 1991. The responses of the breeding sow to the climatic environment. In Manipulating pig production III, (ed. Batterham, E. S.), pp. 167–177. Australian Pig Science Association, Attwood, Australia.Google Scholar
Nicol, C. J. 1986. Non-exclusive spatial preference in the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordström, G. A. and McQuitty, J. B. 1976. Manure gases in the animal environment. A literature review. Research bulletin 76-1, Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Alberta, Canada. Google Scholar
Pouteaux, V. A., Christison, G. I. and Stricklin, W. R. 1983. Perforated-floor preference of weanling pigs. Applied Animal Ethology 11:19–23.Google Scholar
Stombaugh, D. P., Teague, H. S. and Roller, W. L. 1969. Effects of atmospheric ammonia on the pig. Animal Science 28: 844–847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valentine, H. 1964. A study of the effect of different ventilation rates on the ammonia concentrations in the atmosphere of broiler houses. British Poultry Science 5: 149–159.Google Scholar
Verstegen, M. W. A. and Hel, W.van der. 1974. The effects of temperature and type of floor on metabolic rate and effective critical temperature in groups of growing pigs. Animal Production 18:1–11.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. 1995. Animal welfare: a cool eye towards Eden. Blackwell Science, Oxford.Google Scholar