Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:12:07.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sickness behaviour and its relevance to animal welfare assessment at the group level

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

ST Millman
ST Millman*
Affiliation:
Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
*
email: smillman@uoguelph.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The inflammatory response evokes changes in behaviour including increased thermoregulatory activities and sleep, reduced social exploration and appetite, and altered food preferences. This sickness response also includes feelings of lethargy, depression, and pain, collectively referred to as ‘malaise’. Recent experiments involving laboratory rodents reveal information about proximate mechanisms of sickness behaviour, but scant information exists about how sickness behaviour is expressed by farmed species or within social environments. The behavioural needs of ill individuals differ from those of conspecifics, and failure to accommodate the needs of ill individuals may exacerbate suffering. Policy makers, industry and animal welfare certification programs recommend hospital pens to address the housing and handling needs of ill livestock and to reduce risks of disease transmission. However, a survey of swine farms in Ontario, Canada revealed deficiencies in the use of hospital pens and gaps in knowledge about best management practices for this vulnerable population. There is considerable scope to improve the welfare and husbandry of ill and at risk animals through effective use of hospital pens and supportive therapies.

Keywords

animal welfarehealth managementhospital pensmotivationpainsickness behaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , May 2007 , pp. 123 - 125
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Algers, B 2004 Injury and disease. Global Conference on Animal Welfare: an OIE Initiative. 23-25 February 2004, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
Aubert, A 1999 Sickness and behaviour in animals: a motivational perspective. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 23: 1029–1036CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bednarek, D, Zdzisinsk, B, Kondracki, M and Kandefer-Szerszen, M 2003 Effect of steroidal and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in combination with long-acting oxytetracycline on non-specific immunity of calves suffering from enzootic bronchopneumonia. Veterinary Microbiology 96: 53–67CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, DM and Johnson, KG 1993 Stress and Animal Welfare. Chapman & Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
BVAAWF 1991 Guidelines for the Care of Sick and Injured Animals. British Veterinary Association Animal Welfare Foundation: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Cleveland-Nielsen, A, Baekbo, P and Ersboll, AK 2004 Herd-related risk factors for decubital ulcers present at postmortem meat inspection of Danish sows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 64: 113–122CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dantzer, R 2003 Innate immunity at the forefront of psychoneuroimmunology. Brain, Behavior & Immunity 178: 1–6Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2004 Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Animal Welfare 13: S3–S7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deak, T, Bellamy, C and Bordner, KA 2005 Protracted increases in core body temperature and interleukin-1 following acute administration of lipopolysaccharide: implications for the stress response. Physiology & Behavior 85: 296–307CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, IJH 1970 Frustration in the fowl. In: Freeman BM & Gordon KF (eds) Aspects of Poultry Behaviour pp 15-31. British Poultry Science, Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Flecknell, PA 2000 Animal pain-an introduction. In: Flecknell, P & Waterman-Pearson, A (eds) Pain Management in Animals. WB Saunders: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Gray, JT, Fedorka-Cray, PJ, Stabel, TJ and Kramer, TT 1996 Natural transmission of Salmonella choleraesuis in swine. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 62: 141–146CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hart, BL 1988 Biological basis of the behavior of sick animals. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 12: 123–137CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kluger, MJ, Ringler, DH and Anver, MR 1975 Fever and survival. Science 188: 166–168CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madec, F, Eveno, E, Morvan, P, Hamon, L, Blanchard, P, Cariolet, R, Amenna, N, Morvan, H, Truong, C, Mahé, D, Albina, E and Jestin, A 2000 Post-weaning multisystemic wasting syndrome (PMWS) in pigs in France: Clinical observations from follow-up studies on affected farms. Livestock Production Science 63: 22–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, SF and Watkins, LR 2003 Immune-to-central nervous system communication and its role in modulating pain and cognition: Implications for cancer and cancer treatment. Brain Behavior & Immunity 17: S25–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meddis, R 1975 On the function of sleep. Animal Behaviour 23: 676–691CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Millman, ST 2005 Behavior of the sick pig: how to enhance recovery rates. 36th Annual Meeting, American Association of Swine Veterinarians,5-8 March 2005. Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Toth, LA, Tolley, EA and Krueger, JM 1993 Sleep as a prognostic indicator during infectious disease in rabbits. Proceedings of the Society of Experimental Biology and Medicine 203: 179–192CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yirmiya, R, Avitsur, R, Donchin, O and Cohen, E 1995 Interleukin-1 inhibits sexual behaviour in female but not in male rats. Brain, Behavior & Immunity 9: 220–233CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed