Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:12:37.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring hunger in the pig using operant conditioning: the effect of dietary bulk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. B. Lawrence ,
M. C. Appleby ,
A. W. Illius  and
H. A. MacLeod
A. B. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
M. C. Appleby
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
A. W. Illius
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
H. A. MacLeod
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ
Get access

Abstract

Operant conditioning was used to measure the effect on the feeding motivation (hunger) of pigs of diluting nutrient restricted food allowances with straw. Twelve Large White × Landrace boars were maintained in individual pens where they received their daily food allowance. Prior to the experiment, the boars were conditioned in separate rooms to press a panel so as to receive small rewards of food. The effect of diluting meal with straw on panel pressing was investigated in two trials. In trial 1, the boars were allocated to the following treatments: high (H) (3·5 of maintenance (A/)), low (L) (1·5 M) and low/straw (LS) (1·5 M + 0·15 times the dry weight of meal as chopped straw). This dilution increased the food volume by proportionately 0·29. Operant response rates were measured in six 1-h tests in each of two periods at the start (days 3 to 10, period 1) and at the end (days 20 to 28, period 2) of the 28-day experiment. In trial 2, nine of the above boars were allocated to the following treatments: high (H) (3·0 A/), low (L) (1·5 M) and low/straw (LS) (1·5 M + 0·30 the dry weight of meal as ground straw). This dilution increased the food volume by proportionately 0·75. Operant response rates were measured as above between days 10 to 17, following a 9-day adjustment period to the new regimes.

In both trials, operant response rate was strongly affected by treatment. Overall in trial 1, animals on the H treatment made few responses (mean 60 responses per session), animals on the L treatment made significantly more responses (mean 825, P < 0·001) and animals on the LS teatment significantly more responses yet again (1263, P < 0·05). This last difference was associated with the difficulty of the LS animals consuming all of the diluted diet during period 1. In trial 2, response rates were again higher on the L than on the H treatments. There was, however, no difference between the L and LS treatments (means: 60 v. 1035 v. 1200). Proportionately only 0·04 of the diet was refused during the period of testing.

The present results show that short-term satiety arising from gut distension does not reduce the feeding motivation of animals on chronic nutrient restriction. This suggests that hunger will remain high i n pigs on restricted food allowances, even when they have access to high fibre foods. This hunger will be a potential source of stress, particularly in housing systems involving physical restraint such as tether stalls.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , February 1989 , pp. 213 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1989

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

REFERENCES

Appleby, M. C. and Lawrence, A. B. 1987. Food restriction as a cause of stereotypic behaviour in tethered gilts. Animal Production 45: 103–110.Google Scholar
Broom, D. M. and Potter, M. J. 1984. Factors affecting the occurrence of stereotypies in stall-housed dry sows. Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology in Farm Animals (ed. Unshelm, J., Putten, G. van and Zieb, K.), pp. 229–231. FRG, Kiel.Google Scholar
Close, W. H. 1987. Some conclusions of the AFRC working party on the energy requirements of sows and boars. Animal Production 44: 464 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Deutsch, J. A., Gonzalez, M. F. and Young, W. G. 1980. Two factors control meal size. Brain Research Bulletin 5: 55–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehle, F. R., Ieract, J. L., Robertson, J. B. and VAN SOEST, P. J. 1982. The influence of dietary fiber on digestibility, rate of passage and gastrointestinal fermentation in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 55: 1071–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, J. A. and Jørgensen, J. N. 1986. Digestibility and absorption of nutrients as affected by fibre content in the diet of the pig. Livestock Production Science 15: 53–71.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. 1975. The effect of straw on the behaviour of sows in tether stalls. Animal Production 21: 59–68.Google Scholar
Geliebter, A., Westreich, S., Gage, D. and Hashim, J. A. 1986. Intragastric balloon reduces food intake and body weight in rats. American Journal of Physiology 251: R794–R797.Google Scholar
Gregory, P. C., McFayden, M. and Rayner, D. V. 1987. The influence of gastrointestinal infusions of glucose on regulation of food intake in pigs. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Physiology 72: 525–535.Google Scholar
Houpt, K. A. 1982. Gastrointestinal factors in hunger and satiety. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews. 6: 145–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houpt, K. A., Houpt, T. R. and Pond, W. G. 1977. Food intake controls in the suckling pig: glucodeprivation and gastrointestinal factors. American Journal of Physiology 232: E510–E514.Google Scholar
Inglis, I. R. 1983. Towards a cognitive theory of exploratory behaviour. In Exploration in Animals and Humans (ed. Archer, J. and Birke, L.), pp. 72–116. Van Nostrand Reinhold, Wokingham.Google Scholar
Janowitz, H. D. and Grossman, M. I. 1949. Some factors affecting the food intake of normal dogs and dogs with esophagostomy and gastric fistula. American Journal of Physiology 159: 143–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Just, A., Fernández, J. A. and Jørgensen, H. 1983. The net energy value of diets for growth in pigs in relation to the fermentative processes in the digestive tract and the site of absorption of the nutrients. Livestock Production Science 10: 171–186.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. and Whittemore, C. T. 1987. Single and choice-feeding of pigs as methods of investigating their ability to control protein intake. Animal Production 44: 462 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. B., Appleby, M. C. and MacLeod, H. A. 1988. Measuring hunger in the pig using operant conditioning: the effect of food restriction. Animal Production 47: 131–137.Google Scholar
Le magnen, J. 1985. Hunger. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Low, A. G. 1985. Role of dietary fibre in pig diets. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 87–112. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mroz, Z., Partridge, I. G., Mitchell, G. and Keal, H. D. 1986. The effect of oat hulls, added to the basal ration for pregnant sows, on reproductive performance, apparent digestibility, rate of passage and plasma parameters. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 37: 239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, J. B. and Ridgman, W. J. 1968. Further studies of the effect of dietary energy content on the voluntary intake of pigs. Animal Production 10: 85–91.Google Scholar
Pekas, J. C. 1983. A method for direct gastric feeding and the effect on voluntary ingestion in young swine. Appetite 4: 22–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J. P. 1984. Stereotyped behaviour, adjunctive drinking and the feeding periods of tethered sows. Animal Behaviour 32: 1059–1067.Google Scholar
Savory, C. J. 1980. Meal occurrence in Japanese quail i n relation to particle size and nutrient density. Animal Behaviour 28: 160–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savory, C. J. and Gentle, M. J. 1976. Effects of dietary dilution with fibre on the food intake and gut dimensions of Japanese quail. British Poultry Science 17: 561–570.Google Scholar
Smith, M. and Duffy, M. 1955. The effects of intragastric injection of various substances on subsequent bar-pressing. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 48: 387–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, M., Pool, R. and Weinberg, H. 1962. The role of bulk in the control of eating. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 55: 115–120.Google Scholar
Treit, D., Spetch, M. L. and Deutsch, J. A. 1983. Variety in the flavour of food enhances eating in the rat: a controlled demonstration. Physiology and Behaviour 30: 207–212.Google Scholar
Weingarten, H. P. 1986. The role of learning in the control of food intake. Appetite 7: 309.Google Scholar
Zoiopoulos, P. E., English, P. R. and Topps, J. H. 1982. High-fibre diets for ad libitum feeding of sows during lactation. Animal Production 35: 25–33.Google Scholar