Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:57:04.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does the environmental background (intensive v. outdoor systems) influence the behaviour of piglets at weaning?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2015

Y. Y. W. Lau ,
J. R. Pluske  and
P. A. Fleming
Y. Y. W. Lau
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, WA 6150, Australia
J. R. Pluske
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, WA 6150, Australia
P. A. Fleming*
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, WA 6150, Australia
*
†E-mail: t.fleming@murdoch.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

Under intensive pig husbandry, outdoor systems offer a more complex physical and social environment compared with indoor systems (farrowing sheds). As the rearing environment affects behavioural development, it can, therefore, influence behavioural responses of pigs to stressful environments in later stages of production. We tested how the rearing environment influenced behavioural responses to a novel arena test in piglets on the day that they were weaned and mixed into large groups. We recorded video footage and compared the behavioural responses of 30 outdoor-raised and 30 farrowing shed-raised piglets tested in an experimental arena and sequentially exposed to four challenges (each for 5 min) on the day of weaning. Quantitative and qualitative behavioural measures were recorded using time budgets and scoring demeanour or ‘qualitative behavioural expression’ (using Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA)). When held in isolation (challenge 1), both groups were scored as more ‘scared/worried’, while outdoor-raised piglets spent more time eating and jumping against the arena walls. Both groups interacted with a plastic ball (challenge 2: exposure to a novel object) during which they were scored as more ‘playful/curious’ than other challenges. When a food bowl was introduced (challenge 3), farrowing shed-raised piglets were more interested in playing with the food bowl itself, whereas outdoor-raised piglets spent more time eating the feed. Finally, there were no significant differences in social behaviour (challenge 4: introduction of another piglet) between the two groups in terms of the latency to contact each other, amount of time recorded engaged in aggressive/non-aggressive social interactions or QBA scores. Although piglets spent 30% of their time interacting with the other piglet, and half of this time (47%) was engaged in negative interactions (pushing, biting), the levels of aggression were not different between the two groups. Overall, outdoor-raised piglets ate more and were scored as more ‘calm/passive’, whereas farrowing shed-raised piglets spent more time investigating their environment and were scored as more ‘playful/inquisitive’. In conclusion, we did not find differences in behaviour between outdoor-raised and farrowing shed-raised piglets that would highlight welfare issues. The differences found in this study may reflect conflicting affective states, with responses to confinement, neophobia and motivation for exploration evident.

Keywords

assessmentbehaviourfree-rangepiggerypiglet
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 8 , August 2015 , pp. 1361 - 1372
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Apple, JK and Craig, JV 1992. The influence of pen size on toy preference of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 35, 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arey, DS and Franklin, MF 1995. Effects of straw and unfamiliarity on fighting between newly mixed growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45, 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, GM and Williams, AA 1986. The use of generalised procrustes techniques in sensory analysis. In Statistical Procedures in Food Research (ed. JR Piggott), pp. 233–253. Elsevier Applied Science, London, UK.Google Scholar
Beattie, VE, O’connell, NE and Moss, BW 2000. Influence of environmental enrichment on the behaviour, performance and meat quality of domestic pigs. Livestock Production Science 65, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blecha, F, Pollmann, DS and Nichols, DA 1983. Weaning pigs at an early age decreases cellular immunity. Journal of Animal Science 56, 396–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaloupková, H, Illmann, G, Bartos, L and Spinka, M 2007a. The effect of pre-weaning housing on the play and agonistic behaviour of domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaloupková, H, Illmann, G, Neuhauserová, K, Tománek, M and Vališ, L 2007b. Preweaning housing effects on behavior and physiological measures in pigs during the suckling and fattening periods. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1741–1749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, LN and Cooper, JJ 2001. Observations on the pre-and post-weaning behaviour of piglets reared in commercial indoor and outdoor environments. Animal Science 72, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB 2005. Socialising piglets before weaning improves social hierarchy formation when pigs are mixed post-weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93, 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M 2015. Animal welfare and the paradox of animal consciousness. Advances in the Study of Behavior 47, 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jonge, FH, Bokkers, EAM, Schouten, WGP and Helmond, FA 1996. Rearing piglets in a poor environment: developmental aspects of social stress in pigs. Physiology and Behavior 60, 389–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, IC, Prelle, IT, van de Burgwal, JA, Lambooij, E, Korte, SM, Blokhuis, HJ and Koolhaas, JM 2000. Effects of environmental enrichment on behavioral responses to novelty, learning, and memory, and the circadian rhythm in cortisol in growing pigs. Physiology & Behavior 68, 571–578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dybkjaer, L 1992. The identification of behavioural indicators of ‘stress’ in early weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 35, 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erhard, HW, Mendl, M and Ashley, DD 1997. Individual aggressiveness of pigs can be measured and used to reduce aggression after mixing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54, 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewbank, R and Bryant, MJ 1972. Aggressive behaviour amongst groups of domesticated pigs kept at various stocking rates. Animal Behaviour 20, 21–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleming, PA, Wickham, SL, Stockman, CA, Verbeek, E, Matthews, L and Wemelsfelder, F 2015. The sensitivity of QBA assessments of sheep behavioural expression to variations in visual or verbal information provided to observers. Animal, first published online 13 January 2015, doi:10.1017/S1751731114003164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forkman, B, Boissy, A, Salaun, MC, Canaki, E and Jones, RB 2007. A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiology & Behavior 92, 340–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, WB 1972. Effect of social stress on occurrence of Marek’s disease in chickens. American Journal of Veterinary Research 33, 2275–2279.Google ScholarPubMed
Gross, WB and Colmano, G 1969. The effect of social isolation on resistance to some infectious diseases. Poultry Science 48, 514–520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herskin, MS and Jensen, KH 2000. Effects of different degrees of social isolation on the behaviour of weaned piglets kept for experimental purposes. Animal Welfare 90, 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillmann, E, Von Hollen, F, Bünger, B, Todt, D and Schrader, L 2003. Farrowing conditions affect the reactions of piglets towards novel environment and social confrontation at weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hötzel, MJ, Wolf, FM and Costa, OAD 2004. Behaviour of sows and piglets reared in intensive outdoor or indoor systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P 1988. Maternal behaviour and mother-young interactions during lactation in free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20, 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, AK, Morrow-Tesch, JL and McGlone, JJ 2001. Behavior and performance of lactating sows and piglets reared indoors or outdoors. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2571–2579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanitz, E, Tuchscherer, M, Puppe, B, Tuchscherer, A and Stabenow, B 2004. Consequences of repeated early isolation in domestic piglets (Sus scrofa) on their behavioural, neuroendocrine, and immunological responses. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 18, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutzer, T, Bünger, B, Kjaer, JB and Schrader, L 2009. Effects of early contact between non-littermate piglets and of the complexity of farrowing conditions on social behaviour and weight gain. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lallès, J-P, Bosi, P, Smidt, H and Stokes, CR 2007. Nutritional management of gut health in pigs around weaning. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 66, 260–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leggio, MG, Mandolesi, L, Federico, F, Spirito, F and Ricci, B 2005. Environmental enrichment promotes improved spatial abilities and enhanced dendritic growth in the rat. Behavioural Brain Research 163, 78–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mardia, KV, Kent, JT and Bibby, JM 1979. Multivariate analysis. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Morgan, T, Pluske, JR, Miller, DW, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2014. Socialising piglets in lactation positively affects their post-weaning behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 158, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oostindjer, M, Mas Muñoz, J, Van den Brand, H, Kemp, B and Bolhuis, JE 2010. Maternal presence and environmental enrichment affect neophobia of piglets. Biology Letters 1–4, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2010.0430.Google ScholarPubMed
Pitts, AD, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Fraser, D 2000. Mixing at young ages reduces fighting in unacquainted domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68, 191–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pluske, JR and Williams, IH 1996. Reducing stress in piglets as a means of increasing production after weaning: administration of amperozide or co-mingling of piglets during lactation? Animal Science 62, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, KMD, Donald, RD, Lawrence, AB and Wemelsfelder, F 2012. Qualitative behavioural assessment of emotionality in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 139, 218–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sant’Anna, AC and Paranhos da Costa, MJR 2013. Validity and feasibility of qualitative behavior assessment for the evaluation of Nellore cattle temperament. Livestock Science 157, 254–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silerova, J, Spinka, M, Sarova, R and Algers, B 2010. Playing and fighting by piglets around weaning on farms, employing individual or group housing of lactating sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 124, 83–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockman, CA, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, D, Wickham, SL, Beatty, DT, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2011. Qualitative behavioural assessment of cattle naïve and habituated to road transport. Animal Production Science 51, 240–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockman, CA, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, DW, Wickham, SL, Beatty, DT, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2013. Flooring and driving conditions during road transport influence the behavioural expression of cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 143, 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockman, CA, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, DW, Wickham, SL, Verbeek, E, Matthews, L, Ferguson, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2014. Qualitative behavioural assessment of the motivation for feed in sheep in response to altered body condition score. Animal Production Science 54, 922–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolba, A and Wood-Gush, DGM 1984. The identification of behavioural key features and their incorporation into a housing design for pigs. Annales de Recherches Veterinaires 15, 287–299.Google ScholarPubMed
Stolba, A and Wood-Gush, DGM 1989. The behaviour of pigs in a semi-natural environment. Animal Production 48, 419–425.Google Scholar
Temple, D, Manteca, X, Velarde, A and Dalmau, A 2011. Assessment of animal welfare through behavioural parameters in Iberian pigs in intensive and extensive conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 131, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wattanakul, W, Stewart, AH, Edwards, SA and English, PR 1997. Effects of grouping piglets and changing sow location on suckling behaviour and performance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55, 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, S and Dawkins, M 2000. The post-weaning behaviour of indoor-bred and outdoor-bred pigs. Animal Science 71, 265–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Nevison, I and Lawrence, AB 2009. The effect of perceived environmental background on qualitative assessments of pig behaviour. Animal Behaviour 78, 477–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, EA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2000. The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67, 193–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, TEA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2001. Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a free choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62, 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, AE, Paul, ES and Lawrence, AB 2012. Assessing pig body language: agreement and consistency between pig farmers, veterinarians and animal activists. Journal of Animal Science 90, 3652–3665.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wickham, SL, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, DW, Beatty, DT, Stockman, CA, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2012. Qualitative behavioral assessment of transport-naïve and transport-habituated sheep. Journal of Animal Science 90, 4523–4535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wickham, SL, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, DW, Beatty, DT, Stockman, CA, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2015. Validating the use of qualitative behavioural assessment as a measure of the welfare of sheep during transport. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, first published online 19 February 2015, doi:10.1080/10888705.2015.1005302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood-Gush, DGM, Vestergaard, K and Petersen, HV 1990. The significance of motivation and environment in the development of exploration in pigs. Biology of Behaviour 15, 39–52.Google Scholar
Worobec, EK, Duncan, IJH and Widowski, TM 1999. The effects of weaning at 7, 14 and 28 days on piglet behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62, 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar