Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:50:06.850Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Motivation for group housing in gestating sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

RD Kirkden  and
A Pajor
RD Kirkden*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, Poultry Science Building, 125 South Russell Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907–2042, USA Present address: Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
A Pajor
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, Poultry Science Building, 125 South Russell Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907–2042, USA
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
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.

It has been argued that the welfare of gestating sows is higher in groups than singly in stalls, in part because group housing offers them more space and social contact. This study set out to ascertain how important access to a group pen was to dominant sows housed in stalls, using a measure of motivation. Subjects were trained to perform a panel-pressing task, then housed in a stall and permitted each day to work for a day's access to a fully slatted group pen containing two familiar, subordinate sows at a stocking density of 2.7m2 per pig. Social ranking was determined by observations at mixing and from feed competition tests. The fixed-ratio schedule was increased daily and the highest schedule reached (the reservation price) was used as a measure of motivational strength. To interpret this measure, it was compared with the highest schedule that subjects reached when working for access to the last 1/16th of their estimated ad libitum daily food intake after having consumed the first 15/16ths free. Sixteen subjects were tested, eight working for access to the group pen first and eight for access to the food first. Seven subjects yielded useable data: four reached a higher schedule working for food and three reached a higher schedule working for the group pen. Overall, subjects attached no more importance to a day's access to the group pen than to the last 1/16th of their estimated ad libitum food intake. It is likely that the subjects were close to satiation when working for food because consumption frequently fell substantially short of the ‘ad libitum‘ allowance. These results suggest that dominant, stall-housed sows are only weakly motivated to gain access to a fully slatted group pen, although motivation might be higher when deprived of access to the group pen for longer than one day, if tested at a different time of day or if the quality of the group space was improved; these three possibilities still need to be tested.

Keywords

animal welfarehousingmotivationsocial contactsowsspace
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , May 2006 , pp. 119 - 130
Copyright
© 2006 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Andersen, IL, Bøe, KE and Kristiansen, AL 1999 The influence of different feeding arrangements and food type on competition at feeding in pregnant sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 91–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arey, DS 1999 Time course for the formation and disruption of social organisation in group-housed sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62: 199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäckström, L 1973 Environment and animal health in piglet production: a field study of incidences and correlations. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica Suppl 41: 1–240Google Scholar
Barnett, JL 1997 Modifying the design of group pens with individual feeding places affects the welfare of pigs. In: Bottcher, RW and Hoff, SJ (eds) Livestock Environment V, Volume II pp 613–618. ASAE: St Joseph, MI, USAGoogle Scholar
Barnett, JL, Cronin, GM and Winfield, CG 1981 The effects of individual and group penning of pigs on total and free plasma corticosteroids and the maximum corticosteroid binding capacity. General and Comparative Endocrinology 44: 219–225CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Jongman, EC and Hutson, GD 2001 A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52: 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Newman, EA and McCallum, TH 1991 Effects of design of individual cage-stalls on the behavioural and physiological responses related to the welfare of pregnant pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Newman, EA, McCallum, TH and Winfield, CG 1989 The effect of design of tether and stall housing on some behavioural and physiological responses related to the welfare of pregnant pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24: 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, JL, Winfield, CG, Cronin, GM, Hemsworth, PH and Dewar, AM 1985 The effect of individual and group housing on behavioural and physiological responses related to the welfare of pregnant pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 149–161Google Scholar
Baxter, MR and Schwaller, CE 1983 Space requirements for sows in confinement. In: Baxter, SH, Baxter, MR and MacCormack, JAC (eds) Farm Animal Housing and Welfare pp 181–199. Martinus Nijhoff: Boston, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
Bean, D, Mason, GJ and Bateson, M 1999 Contrafreeloading in starlings: testing the information hypothesis. Behaviour 136: 1267–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergeron, R, Bolduc, J, Ramonet, Y, Meunier-Salaün, MC and Robert, S 2000 Feeding motivation and stereotypies in pregnant sows fed increasing levels of fibre and/or food. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70: 27–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blackshaw, JK and McVeigh, JF 1986 The behaviour of tethered sows when given the opportunity to exercise. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 16: 147–150Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Metz, JHM, Spruijt, BM and Dijkhuizen, AA 1999 Overall welfare assessment of pregnant sow housing systems based on interviews with experts. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47: 93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Metz, JHM, Spruijt, BM and Schouten, WGP 2002 Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows B: validation by expert opinion. Journal of Animal Science 80: 1835–1845CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, DM, Mendl, MT and Zanella, AJ 1995 A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing systems. Animal Science 61: 369–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, JJ and Appleby, MC 2003 The value of environmental resources to domestic hens: a comparison of the work-rate for food and for nests as a function of time. Animal Welfare 12: 39–52Google Scholar
Cowan, PE 1977 Systematic patrolling and orderly behaviour of rats during recovery from deprivation. Animal Behaviour 25: 171–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM and Barnett, JL 1987 An association between plasma corticosteroids and performance of stereotypic behaviour in tethered sows. In: Barnett JL, Batterham ES, Cronin GM, Hansen C, Hemsworth PH, Hennessy DP, Hughes PE, Johnston NE and King RH (eds) Manipulating Pig Production p 26. Australasian Pig Science Association: Werribee, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Csermely, D and Wood-Gush, DGM 1986 Agonistic behaviour in grouped sows. 1. The influence of feeding. Biology of Behaviour 11: 244–252Google Scholar
Curtis, SE, Hurst, RJ, Gonyou, HW, Jensen, AH and Muehling, AJ 1989 The physical space requirement of the sow. Journal of Animal Science 67: 1242–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czachowski, CL and Samson, HH 1999 Breakpoint determination and ethanol self-administration using an across-session progressive ratio procedure in the rat. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 23: 1580–1586CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Czachowski, CL, Legg, BH and Samson, HH 2003 Assessment of sucrose and ethanol reinforcement: the across-session breakpoint procedure. Physiology & Behavior 78: 51–59CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, MS 1983 Battery hens name their price: consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological ‘needs’. Animal Behaviour 31: 1195–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1990 From an animal's point of view: motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 1–61Google Scholar
Dolf, C 1986 Agonistic behaviour of dry sows in single stalls and group housing with special reference to the risk of resulting lesions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 193–194 (Abstract)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domjan, M and Burkhard, B 1986 The Principles of Learning and Behavior, 2nd Edition. Brooks/Cole: Pacific Grove, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH and Kite, VG 1987 Some investigations into motivation in the domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 387–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA 1992 Scientific perspectives on loose housing systems for dry sows. Pig Veterinary Journal 28: 40–51Google Scholar
Edwards, SA, Brouns, F and Stewart, AH 1993 Influence of feeding system on the welfare and production of group housed sows. In: Collins, E and Boon, C (eds) Livestock Environment IV pp 166–172. ASAE: St Joseph, MI, USAGoogle Scholar
Freedberg, IM, Eisen, AZ, Wolff, K, Austen, KF, Goldsmith, LA and Katz, SI (eds) 2003 Fitzpatrick's Dermatology in General Medicine, Volume I, 6th Edition. McGraw-Hill: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Friend, TH, Knabe, DA and Tanksley, TD 1983 Behavior and performance of pigs grouped by three different methods at weaning. Journal of Animal Science 57: 1406–1411CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friend, TH, Taylor, L, Dellmeier, GR, Knabe, DA and Smith, LA 1988 Effect of confinement method on physiology and production of gestating gilts. Journal of Animal Science 66: 2906–2915CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gjein, H and Larssen, RB 1995 Housing of pregnant sows in loose and confined systems — a field study. 1. Vulva and body lesions, culling reasons and production results. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 36: 185–200CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haskell, MJ, Terlouw, EMC, Lawrence, AB and Erhard, HW 1996 The relationship between food consumption and persistence of post-feeding foraging behaviour in sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48: 249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, A and Sumida, B 1985 A positive feedback model for switching between two activities. Animal Behaviour 33: 315–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglis, IR, Forkman, B and Lazarus, J 1997 Free food or earned food? A review and fuzzy model of contrafreeloading. Animal Behaviour 53: 1171–1191CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inglis, IR, Langton, S, Forkman, B and Lazarus, J 2001 An information primacy model of exploratory and foraging behaviour. Animal Behaviour 62: 543–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, MB, Pedersen, LJ and Ladewig, J 2004 The use of demand functions to assess behavioural priorities in farm animals. Animal Welfare 13, Suppl: S27-S32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P 1984 Effects of confinement on social interaction patterns in dry sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12: 93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P 1988 Diurnal rhythm of bar-biting in relation to other behaviour in pregnant sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 21: 337–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, B and Kenward, MG 2003 Design and Analysis of Cross-Over Trials, 2nd Edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USAGoogle Scholar
Kirkden, RD, Edwards, JSS and Broom, DM 2003 A theoretical comparison of the consumer surplus and the elasticities of demand as measures of motivational strength. Animal Behaviour 65: 157–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kongsted, AG 2004 Stress and fear as possible mediators of reproduction problems in group housed sows: a review. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 54: 58–66Google Scholar
Lawrence, AB and Illius, AW 1989 Methodology for measuring hunger and food needs using operant conditioning in the pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24: 273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, AB and Terlouw, EMC 1993 A review of behavioral factors involved in the development and continued performance of stereotypic behaviors in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 71: 2815–2825CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, AB, Appleby, MC, Illius, AW and MacLeod, HA 1989 Measuring hunger in the pig using operant conditioning: the effect of dietary bulk. Animal Production 48: 213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Magnen, J 1971 Advances in studies on the physiological control and regulation of food intake. Progress in Physiological Psychology 4: 203–261Google Scholar
Li, N, He, S, Parrish, C, Delich, J and Grasing, K 2003 Differences in morphine and cocaine reinforcement under fixed and progressive ratio schedules; effects of extinction, reacquisition and schedule design. Behavioural Pharmacology 14: 619–630CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luescher, UA, Friendship, RM and McKeown, DB 1990 Evaluation of methods to reduce fighting among regrouped gilts. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 70: 363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, JN and Broom, DM 1996 Effects of dry sow housing conditions on muscle weight and bone strength. Animal Science 62: 105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant Forde, JN 2002 Piglet- and stockperson-directed sow aggression after farrowing and the relationship with a pre-farrowing, human approach test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75: 115–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, JE and Edwards, SA 1994 Feeding behaviour of outdoor sows: the effects of diet quantity and type. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41: 63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, GJ 1991 Stereotypies: a critical review. Animal Behaviour 41: 1015–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, GJ, McFarland, D and Garner, J 1998 A demanding task: using economic techniques to assess animal priorities. Animal Behaviour 55: 1071–1075CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthews, LR and Ladewig, J 1994 Environmental requirements of pigs measured by behavioural demand functions. Animal Behaviour 47: 713–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, JJ 1986 Influence of resources on pig aggression and dominance. Behavioural Processes 12: 135–144CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meese, GB and Ewbank, R 1973 The establishment and nature of the dominance hierarchy in the domesticated pig. Animal Behaviour 21: 326–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, JR, Hurnik, JF, Friendship, RM, Buhr, MM and Allen, OB 1993 The behavior of gestating swine housed in the Hurnik-Morris system. Journal of Animal Science 71: 3280–3284CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, JR, Hurnik, JF, Friendship, RM, Buhr, MM, Evans, NM and Allen, OB 1997 The effect of the Hurnik-Morris system on sow locomotion, skin integrity and litter health. Journal of Animal Science 75: 308–310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Research Council 1998 Nutrient Requirements of Swine, 10th Edition. National Academy Press: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, RI, McGlone, JJ and Norman, RL 1993 Quantification of stress in sows: comparison of individual housing versus social penning. Journal of Animal Science 71, Suppl 1: 112 (Abstract)Google Scholar
O'Connell, NE, Beattie, VE and Moss, BW 2003 Influence of social status on the welfare of sows in static and dynamic groups. Animal Welfare 12: 239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, IAS and Keeling, LJ 2002 The push-door for measuring motivation in hens: laying hens are motivated to perch at night. Animal Welfare 11: 11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, IAS, Keeling, LJ and McAdie, TM 2002 The push-door for measuring motivation in hens: an adaptation and a critical discussion of the method. Animal Welfare 11: 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pol, F, Courboulay, V, Cotte, J-P, Martrenchar, A, Hay, M and Mormède, P 2002 Urinary cortisol as an additional tool to assess the welfare of pregnant sows kept in two types of housing. Veterinary Research 33: 13–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, DCS, Loh, EA and Vickers, G 1989 Self-administration of cocaine on a progressive ratio schedule in rats: dose-response relationship and effect of haloperidol pretreatment. Psychopharmacology 97: 535–538CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J 1991 Problems associated with the interpretation of physiological data in the assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 381–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sambrook, TD and Buchanan-Smith, HM 1997 Control and complexity in novel object enrichment. Animal Welfare 6: 207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scientific Veterinary Committee 1997 The Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs. Report to the Directorate General XXIV of the European Commission. Adopted 30th September 1997. Doc XXIV/ScVc/0005/97. Scientific Veterinary Committee, Animal Welfare Section: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, Lawrence, AB, Ladewig, J, De Passillé, AM, Rushen, J and Schouten, WGP 1991 Relationship between plasma cortisol and stereotypic activities in pigs. Behavioural Processes 25: 133–153CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vieuille-Thomas, C, Le Pape, G and Signoret, JP 1995 Stereotypies in pregnant sows: indications of influence of the housing system on the patterns expressed by the animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Borell, E and Hurnik, JF 1991 Stereotypic behavior, adrenocortical function, and open-field behavior of individually confined gestating sows. Physiology & Behavior 49: 709–713CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Von Borell, E, Morris, JR, Hurnik, JF, Mallard, BA and Buhr, MM 1992 The performance of gilts in a new group housing system: endocrinological and immunological functions. Journal of Animal Science 70: 2714–2721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warburton, HJ and Mason, GJ 2003 Is out of sight, out of mind? The effects of resource cues on motivation in the mink (Mustela vison). Animal Behaviour 65: 755–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, AS, Li, DH, Luedtke, RR and Emmett-Oglesby, MW 1996 Variations in cocaine self-administration by inbred rat strains under a progressive-ratio schedule. Psychopharmacology 127: 204–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, CT 1998 The Science and Practice of Pig Production, 2nd Edition. Blackwell Science: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Widowski, TM and Duncan, IJH 2000 Working for a dustbath: are hens increasing pleasure rather than relieving suffering? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiepkema, PR 1971 Positive feedbacks at work during feeding. Behaviour 39: 266–273CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkie, DM, Mumby, DG, Needham, G and Smeele, M 1992 Sustained arm visiting by nondeprived, nonrewarded rats in a radial maze. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 30: 314–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar