Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:25:44.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationship Between Rooting Behaviour and Foraging in Growing Pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

V E Beattie  and
N E O'Connell
V E Beattie
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Large Park, Hillsborough, County Down BT26 6DR, Northern Ireland
N E O'Connell*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Large Park, Hillsborough, County Down BT26 6DR, Northern Ireland
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: niamh.o'connell@dardni.gov.uk
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 objective of the present study was to investigate the relationship between rooting behaviour and foraging in growing pigs. In study 1, forty-eight 11-week-old pigs were housed in eight groups of six with access to a rooting substrate in the form of spent mushroom compost. In half of the groups the rooting substrate contained food rewards, and in the other half of the groups it did not. All pigs had ad libitum access to feed. In study 2, one hundred and ninety-two 11-week-old pigs were housed in thirty-two groups of six, all with access to spent mushroom compost, and eight groups were each fed to 70, 80, 90 or 100% appetite. Treatments were applied over a two-week period in both studies. The number of pigs involved in active rooting (rooting in substrate while standing), inactive rooting (rooting in substrate while sitting or lying) or non-rooting activity (standing in substrate area and involved in any activity except rooting) was recorded by scan sampling. These behaviours tended to reach a peak in the morning and again in the afternoon. Inactive rooting was not significantly affected by treatments in study 1 or study 2. Food rewards in the rooting substrate led to a significant reduction in active rooting behaviour and in non-rooting activity during peak periods of the day (P < 0.05). It is suggested that learned associations between rooting behaviour and acquisition of food caused the pigs to stop rooting when all the food rewards had been consumed. The fact that rooting was performed in the absence of nutritive feedback suggests that this behaviour is performed independently of its appetitive foraging function. Restricting feed levels to 70 or 80% of appetite led to a significant increase in active rooting and in non-rooting activity during peak periods (P < 0.05). The relationship between feed restriction and active rooting behaviour tended to be linear (P < 0.08). This suggests that levels of rooting behaviour are flexible in response to nutritional needs.

Keywords

animal welfarefeed restrictionfood rewardspigsrooting behaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , August 2002 , pp. 295 - 303
Copyright
© 2002 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Footnotes

*

Present address: Devenish Nutrition, 96 Duncrue Street, Belfast, County Antrim BT3 9AR, Northern Ireland

References

Beattie, V E 1994 The effects of environmental enrichment on the domestic pig. PhD Thesis, Queen's University Belfast, Northern IrelandGoogle Scholar
Beattie, V E, Sneddon, I A, Walker, N and Weatherup, R N 2001 Environmental enrichment of intensive pig housing using spent mushroom compost. Animal Science 72: 35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, JEL, Kyriazakis, I and Lawrence, A B 1995 The effect of food deprivation on the expression of foraging and exploratory behaviour in the growing pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42: 193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Phillips, P A, Thompson, B K and Tennessen, T 1991 Effect of straw on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, R 1996 Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. Hodder & Stoughton: Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Haskell, M J, Terlouw, EMC, Lawrence, A B and Erhard, H W 1996 The relationship between food consumption and persistence of post-feeding foraging behaviour in sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48: 249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O and Duncan, I J H 1988 The notion of ethological ‘need’, models of motivation and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 36: 1696–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutson, G D 1989 Operant tests of access to earth as a reinforcement for weaner piglets. Animal Production 48: 561–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M B, Kyriazakis, I and Lawrence, A B 1993 The activity and straw directed behaviour of pigs offered foods with different crude protein content. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust 1989 Genstat 5 Reference Manual. Clarendon: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
McFarland, D 1989 Problems of Animal Behaviour. Longman Scientific & Technical/John Wiley & Sons Inc: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Newberry, R C and Wood-Gush, D G M 1988 Development of some behaviour patterns in piglets under semi-natural conditions. Animal Production 46: 103–109Google Scholar
Olsen, A W, Vestergaard, E-M and Dybkjær, L 2000 Roughage as additional rooting substrates for pigs. Animal Science 70: 451–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlov, I P 1927 Conditioned Reflexes. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, Lawrence, A B and Terlouw, EMC 1993 The motivational basis of stereotypies. In: Lawrence, A B and Rushen, J (eds) Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare. CAB International: Wallingford, Oxon UKGoogle Scholar
Sheffield, F D and Campbell, B A 1954 The role of experience in the “spontaneous” activity of hungry rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 43: 471–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolba, A and Wood-Gush, D G M 1989 The behaviour of pigs in a semi-natural environment. Animal Production 48: 419–425Google Scholar