Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T15:15:10.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growing pigs’ drinking behaviour: number of visits, duration, water intake and diurnal variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2014

H. M.-L. Andersen ,
L. Dybkjær  and
M. S. Herskin
H. M.-L. Andersen*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
L. Dybkjær
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
M. S. Herskin
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Individual drinking patterns are a potential tool for disease monitoring in pigs. However, to date, individual pig drinking behaviour has not been described, and effects of external factors have not been examined. The aim of this study was to perform detailed quantification of drinking behaviour of growing pigs and to examine effects of period of day and effects of competition for access to the drinking nipple on the drinking behaviour, amount of water used and water wastage. In all, 52 cross-bred castrated male pigs (live weight 20.5±1.7 kg; mean±s.d.) maintained as either 3 (N3) or 10 (N10) pigs per pen and water nipple (four groups/treatment) were used. All pigs were fitted with a transponder ear tag. A radio frequency identification reader recorded and time stamped visits at the nipple. In each pen, water flow was logged every second. The drinking behaviour was recorded for 4 consecutive days and analysed using a linear mixed model. Overall, the pigs spent 594 s at the nipple during 24 h distributed among 44 visits. During this period, 5 l of water were used, of which >30% was wasted. Social competition did not affect the drinking behaviour over 24 h, except for the proportion of interrupted visits where pigs, kept with recommended nipple availability (N10), showed an increased proportion of interrupted drinking bouts compared with pigs kept at very low level of competition (N3) (0.18±0.01 v. 0.11±0.01; P<0.01). However, splitting data into 8-h periods (P1, P2, P3) starting from 0600 h revealed differences between treatments, showing that in N3, water use per visit was lower in P1 than P2 and P3 (110±10 v. 126±7 and 132±7 ml; P<0.05), whereas in N10, the water used per visit was higher during P3 than during the other periods (P1: 107±14 ml, P2: 112±10 ml v. P3: 151±10 ml; P<0.001). A similar pattern was found for visit duration. In N3, fewer nipple visits were observed in P2 than P1 (15.6±1.2 v. 22.0±1.2; P<0.001), whereas no difference was found between P1 and P2 in N10. The results demonstrate that growing pigs at the two levels of competition maintained a comparable level of 24 h water intake by changing behavioural variables involved in drinking. This dynamic characteristic of drinking behaviour means that if individual drinking patterns are to be used as disease monitoring tools, it is important to consider effects of external factors and include data on period level to allow rapid detection of behavioural changes.

Keywords

drinking behaviourdiurnal variationpigswatergroup size
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 11 , November 2014 , pp. 1881 - 1888
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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, HM, Jørgensen, E, Dybkjær, L and Jørgensen, B 2008. The ear skin temperature as an indicator of the thermal comfort of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigelow, JB and Houpt, TR 1988. Feeding and drinking patterns in young pigs. Physiology & Behavior 43, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawley, MJ 2013. Analysis of variance. In The R book (ed. Crawley, MJ), 2nd edition, pp. 498–536. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
De Haer, LCM and De Vries, AG 1992. Feed intake patterns of and feed digestibility in growing pigs housed individually or in groups. Livestock Production Science 33, 277–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyun, Y and Ellis, M 2002. Effect of group size and feeder type on growth performance and feeding patterns in finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 80, 568–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, CJ, Karriker, LA, Stalder, KJ and Johnson, AK 2009. Number of visits and length of each visit to a nipple cup drinker by 7-week-old pigs after a water deprivation period or ad libitum access to water. Journal of Swine Health and Production 17, 76–80.Google Scholar
Landbrugets Rådgivningscenter 1993. Tildeling af drikkevand. In Indretning af stalde til svin. Tværfaglig rapport, pp. 73–78. Landbrugets Rådgivningscenter, Aarhus, Denmark.Google Scholar
Larsson, K 1997. Evaluation of watering systems with bite valves for pigs, JTI-report, Agriculture & Industry No. 239. Swedish Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Uppsala. 28pp.Google Scholar
Li, YZ, Chénard, L, Lemay, SP and Gonyou, HW 2005. Water intake and wastage at nipple drinkers by growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 83, 1413–1422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madsen, TN and Kristensen, AR 2005. A model for monitoring the condition of young pigs by their drinking behaviour. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 48, 138–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, TN, Andersen, S and Kristensen, AR 2005. Modelling the drinking patterns of young pigs using a state space model. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 48, 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, LM, Crane, J, Stewart, AH, Edwards, SA and English, PR 1996. The effect of drinking trough space on the performance and behaviour of growing pigs in large groups on deep-bedded straw. Animal Science 62, 677–678.Google Scholar
Meiszberg, AM, Johnson, AK, Sadler, LJ, Carroll, JA, Dailey, JW and Krebs, N 2009. Drinking behaviour in nursery pigs: determining the accuracy between an automatic water meter versus human observers. Journal of Animal Science 87, 4173–4180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrow, ATS and Walker, N 1994. Effects of number and sitting of single-space feeders on performance and feeding behaviour of growing pigs. The Journal of Agricultural Science 122, 465–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mroz, Z, Jongbloed, AW, Lenis, NP and Vreman, K 1995. Water in pig nutrition: physiology, allowances and environmental implications. Nutrition Research Reviews 8, 137–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, BL 1999. On the interpretation of feeding behaviour measures and the use of feeding rate as an indicator of social constraint. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, BL, Lawrence, AB and Whittemore, CT 1995. Effect of group size on feeding behaviour, social behaviour, and performance of growing pigs using single-space feeders. Livestock Production Science 44, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pijpers, A, Schoevers, EJ, van Gogh, H, van Leengoed, LA, Visser, IJ, van Miertet, AS and Verheijden, JH 1991. The influence of disease on feed and water consumption and on pharmacokinetics of orally administered oxytetracycline in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 69, 2947–2954.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinheiro, J, Bates, D, DebRoy, S, Sarkar, D and R Core Team 2009. Nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package, version 3.1-96, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme Google Scholar
Quiniou, N, Renaudeau, D, Dubois, S and Noblet, J 2000. Influence of high ambient temperatures on food intake and feeding behaviour of multiparous lactating sows. Animal Science 70, 471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team 2011. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.r-project.org/ Google Scholar
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 2012. RSPCA welfare standards for pigs. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, West Sussex, UK. 80pp.Google Scholar
Seddon, YM, Farrow, M, Guy, JH and Edwards, SA 2011. Can monitoring water consumption at pen level detect changes in health and welfare in small groups of pigs? Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. Ontario, Canada, 8–11 August, p. 13.Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Edwards, SA and Bland, CV 1999. The influence of drinker allocation and group size on the drinking behaviour, welfare and production of growing pigs. Animal Science 68, 617–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, HM, Kuijken, N and Spoolder, HAM 2009. Motivation for additional water use of growing-finishing pigs. Livestock Production Science 124, 112–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villagra, A, Althaus, RL, Lainez, M, Martinez, AB and Torres, AG 2007. Modelling of daily rhythms of behavioural patterns in growing pigs on two commercial farms. Biological Rhythm Research 38, 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Andersen Supplementary Material

Figure S1

Download Andersen Supplementary Material(File)
File 180.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Andersen Supplementary Material

Figure S2

Download Andersen Supplementary Material(File)
File 296.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Andersen Supplementary Material

Figure S3

Download Andersen Supplementary Material(File)
File 166.4 KB