Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T09:19:16.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of varying duration of water restriction on drinking behaviour, welfare and production of lactating sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2015

M. B. Jensen ,
S.-L. A. Schild ,
P. K. Theil ,
H. M.-L. Andersen  and
L. J. Pedersen
M. B. Jensen*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
S.-L. A. Schild
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
P. K. Theil
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
H. M.-L. Andersen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
L. J. Pedersen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Access to drinking water is essential for animal welfare, but it is unclear if temporary water restriction during the night represents a welfare problem. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of various durations of nightly restriction of water on thirst in loose housed lactating sows from day 10 to 28 of lactation. A total of 48 sows were deprived of water for either 0 h (n=12; control), 3 h (n=12; 0500 to 0800 h), 6 h (n=12; 0200 to 0800 h) or 12 h (n=12; 2000 to 0800 h). Control sows consumed 22% of their water intake during the night (2000 to 0800 h), whereas water consumption during this time was reduced to 13%, 7% and 0% in sows restricted for 3, 6 and 12 h. With increased duration of nightly water restriction a reduced latency to drink (26.8, 18.0, 5.3 and 6.7 min for 0, 3, 6 and 12 h sows; P<0.001) and an increased water intake during the 1st hour after water became accessible (2.1, 3.4, 4.7 and 5.6 l for 0, 3, 6 and 12 h sows; P<0.001) was seen. During the last 30 min before water became accessible more sows deprived of water investigated (0%, 50%, 75%,and 50% of 0, 3, 6 and 12 h sows; P<0.01) or forcefully manipulated (0%, 17%, 50% and 33% of 0, 3, 6 and 12 h sows; P<0.05) the water trough, suggesting frustration and a negative experience of thirst. When all signs of imminent water access were provided, but access was delayed by 25 min, a tendency for more of the sows deprived of water for 6 and 12 h to interact forcefully with the water trough was seen (22%, 18%, 42% and 67% of 0, 3, 6 and 12 h sows; P=0.09). Duration of water restriction did not affect water consumption on a 24-h basis, nursing behaviour or performance. In conclusion, behavioural indicators of thirst increased with increasing duration of nightly water restriction in lactating sows.

Keywords

behaviourlactating sowthirstwelfarewater intake
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 6 , June 2016 , pp. 961 - 969
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

Andersen, HML, Dybkjær, L and Herskin, MS 2014. Growing pigs’ drinking behaviour: number of visits, duration, water intake and diurnal variation. Animal 8, 1881–1888.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersen, HML and Pedersen, LJ 2014. Drinking behaviour in sows kept outdoors during the winter months. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 161, 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AOAC 2000. Official methods of analysis, 17th edition. AOAC Int., Gaithersburg, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Appleby, MC and Lawrence, AB 1987. Food restriction as a cause of stereotyped behaviour in tethered gilts. Animal Production 45, 103–110.Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, LJ 2007. Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16, 225–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouwer, E 1965. Report of sub-committee on constants and factors. EAAP publ. no 11. Proceedings of 3rd energy symposium. Academic Press, London. pp. 441–443.Google Scholar
De Jong, IC, Fillerup, M and Blokhuis, H 2005. Effect of scattered feeding and feeding twice a day during rearing on indicators of hunger and frustration in broiler breeders. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flummer, C and Theil, PK. 2012. Effect of β-hydroxy β-methyl butyrate supplementation of sows in late gestation and lactation on sow production of colostrum and milk and piglet performance. Journal of Animal Science 90 (suppl. 4), 372–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D and Duncan, IJH 1998. Pleasures, ‘pains’ and animal welfare: toward a natural history of affect. Animal Welfare 7, 383–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, AV, Strathe, AB, Kebreab, E, France, J and Theil, PK 2012. Predicting milk yield and composition in lactating sows: a Bayesian approach. Journal of Animal Science 90, 2285–2298.Google ScholarPubMed
Holmes, CV and Mount, LE 1967. Heat loss from groups of growing pigs under various conditions of environmental temperature and air movement. Animal Production 9, 435–452.Google Scholar
Kruse, S, Traulsen, I and Krieter, J 2011. Analysis of water, feed intake and performance of lactating sows. Livestock Science 135, 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriazakis, I and Tolkamp, B 2011. Hunger and thirst. In Animal welfare. ed. MC Appleby, JA Mench, IA Olsson and BO Hughes), pp. 44–63. CAB International Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 2007. Measuring behaviour. An introductory guide, 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier-Salaün, MC, Edwards, SA and Roberts, S 2001. Effects of dietary fibre on the behaviour and health of the restricted fed sow. Animal Feed Science and Technology 90, 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, BL, Thodberg, K, Malmkvist, J and Steenfeldt, S 2011. Proportion of insoluble fibre in the diet affects behaviour and hunger in broiler breeders growing at similar rates. Animal 5, 1247–1258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patience, JF 2012. The importance of water in pork production. Animal Frontiers 2, 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, J, Burn, CC, Barr, ARS and Whay, HR 2008. Validity of indicators of dehydration in working horses: a longitudinal study of changes in skin tent duration, mucous membrane dryness and drinking behavior. Equine Veterinary Journal 40, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolls, BJ and Rolls, ET 1982. Thirst. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Siegel, S and Castellan, NJ 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Sprenger, M, Vangestel, C and Tuyttens, FAM 2009. Measuring thirst in broiler chickens. Animal Welfare 18, 553–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theil, PK, Jorgensen, H and Jakobsen, K 2004. Energy and protein metabolism in lactating sows fed two levels of dietary fat. Livestock Production Science 89, 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theil, PK, Jørgensen, H, Serena, A, Hendrickson, J and Bach Knudsen, KE 2011. Products deriving from microbial fermentation are linked to insulinaemic response in pigs fed breads prepared from whole grain wheat and wheat and rye ingredients. British Journal of Nutrition 105, 373–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, SP, Sinclair, AG and Edwards, SA 2000. The interaction of liveweight and the degree of competition on drinking behaviour in growing pigs at different group sizes. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67, 321–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Viola, TH, Ribeiro, AML and Penz, AM 2005. Compensatory water consumption of broilers submitted to water restriction from 1 to 21 days of age. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 7, 243–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Keyserlingk, M, Nielsen, BL, Patience, JF and Phillips, CJC 2015. Water and the welfare of farm animals. In Nutrition and the welfare of farm animals. Chapter 9, ed. CJC Phillips and HPS Makkar), pp. 117–126. FAO Publication, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Jensen supplementary material

Figures S1-S2

Download Jensen supplementary material(File)
File 209.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Jensen supplementary material

Jensen supplementary material 1

Download Jensen supplementary material(File)
File 17.3 KB