Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:01:18.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of chronic environmental stressors on growing pigs, Sus scrofa (Part 2): social behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2010

M. O. Parker ,
E. A. O’Connor ,
M. A. McLeman ,
T. G. M. Demmers ,
J. C. Lowe ,
R. C. Owen ,
E. L. Davey ,
C. M. Wathes  and
S. M. Abeyesinghe
M. O. Parker*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Centre for Animal Welfare, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL7 9TA, UK
E. A. O’Connor
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Centre for Animal Welfare, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL7 9TA, UK
M. A. McLeman
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Centre for Animal Welfare, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL7 9TA, UK
T. G. M. Demmers
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Centre for Animal Welfare, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL7 9TA, UK
J. C. Lowe
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Centre for Animal Welfare, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL7 9TA, UK
R. C. Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Centre for Animal Welfare, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL7 9TA, UK
E. L. Davey
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Centre for Animal Welfare, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL7 9TA, UK
C. M. Wathes
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Centre for Animal Welfare, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL7 9TA, UK
S. M. Abeyesinghe
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Centre for Animal Welfare, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL7 9TA, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The effects of common and concurrent environmental stressors on the social behaviour of farm animals are poorly understood. Here, we report the results of a multifactorial experiment designed specifically to examine the individual, additive or interactive effects of elevated ammonia, noise and low light (LL) levels on the social behaviour of growing pigs. Social behaviour was measured in terms of the nature, frequency and duration of both initiated and response behaviours for 4 weeks following mixing of the groups. General activity patterns, group cohesion and social discrimination were also examined as a function of the environmental treatments. Elevated concentrations of atmospheric ammonia (∼20 v. <5 ppm) and LL intensity (∼40 v. 200 lux) had the most pronounced effects, particularly on the nature of social interactions, with pigs under these conditions showing more aggression in the early stages of the experiment. In addition, pigs exposed to a high level of mechanical noise representative of artificial ventilation (∼80 v. 40 dB [A]) were less submissive to aggressive acts, while pigs in ∼20 ppm ammonia showed more reciprocated aggression when in coincident LL (<40 lux). The results indicate that atmospheric ammonia at commonly experienced concentrations may undermine social stability, particularly in the presence of low lighting, though the mechanisms are currently unknown. These findings have implications for the welfare of growing pigs and hence policy makers and farmers alike, with respect to the improvement of welfare in intensive pig farming.

Keywords

pigsocial behaviourammonianoiselight intensity
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 11 , November 2010 , pp. 1910 - 1921
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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

Algers, B 1984. Acoustic communication during suckling in the pig. Influence of continuous noise. In Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology in Farm Animals (ed. G van Putten and K Zeeb), pp. 105–107. Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar
Algers, B, Jensen, P 1985. Communication during suckling in the domestic pig. Effects of continuous noise. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Algers, B, Eskebo, I, Stromberg, S 1978. Noise measurements in farm animal environments. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavia 68, 1–19.Google Scholar
Andersen, IL, Naevdal, E, Bakken, M, Boe, KE 2004. Aggression and group size in domesticated pigs, Sus scrofa: “when the winner takes it all and the loser is standing small”. Animal Behaviour 68, 965–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, J 1981. Some behavioural deviations in weaned domestic pigs: persistent inguinal nose thrust, and tail and ear biting. Animal Production 33, 325–332.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, JK, Jones, DN, Thomas, FJ 1996. Vocal individuality during suckling in the intensively housed domestic pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50, 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolker, BM, Brooks, ME, Clark, CJ, Geange, SW, Poulsen, JR, Stevens, MHH, White, J-SS 2009. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
defra 2007. Welfare of farmed animals (England) regulations (SI 2007 No 2078) Section 8: Code of recommendation for the welfare of livestock: Pigs.Google Scholar
Done, S, Gresham, A, Chennels, D, Williamson, S, Wathes, CM, Demmers, T, Taylor, L, Armstrong, D 2002a. Responses of weaner pigs after chronic exposure to airborne dust and ammonia: 1. Clinical findings, 17th International Pig Veterinary Society, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
Done, S, Gresham, A, Chennels, D, Williamson, S, Wathes, C, Demmers, T, Taylor, L, Armstrong, D, Hicks, D, Terry, L 2002b. Responses of weaner pigs after chronic exposure to airborne dust and ammonia: 2. Pathology, 17th International Pig Veterinary Society, Ames, Iowa, USA.Google Scholar
Done, S, Gresham, A, Chennels, D, Williamson, S, Wathes, C, Demmers, T, Taylor, L, Armstrong, D, Hunt, B 2002c. Responses of weaner pigs after chronic exposure to airborne dust and ammonia: 3. Microbiology, 17th International Pig Veterinary Society, Ames, Iowa, USA.Google Scholar
Drickamer, LC, Arthur, RD, Rosenthal, TL 1999. Predictors of social dominance and aggression in gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63, 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drummond, JG, Curtis, SE, Simon, J, Norton, HW 1980. Effects of aerial ammonia on growth and health of young pigs. Journal of Animal Science 50, 1085–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhardt, JL 1988. The influence of road traffic noise on sleep. Journal of Sound and Vibration 127, 449–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewbank, R, Messe, GB, Cox, JE 1974. Individual recognition and the dominance hierarchy in the domesticated pig. The role of sight. Animal Behavior 22, 473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giersing, M, Andersson, A 1998. How does former acquaintance affect aggressive behaviour in repeatedly mixed male and female pigs? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59, 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groot Koerkamp, PWG, Metz, JHM, Uenk, GH, Phillips, VR, Holden, MR, Sneath, RW et al. . 1998. Concentrations and emissions of ammonia in livestock buildings in Northern Europe. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 70, 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, TDC, Roe, JM, Webster, AJF 1996. Synergistic role of gaseous ammonia in etiology of Pasteurella multocida-induced atrophic rhinitis in swine. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 34, 2185–2190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heffner, RS, Heffner, HE 1989. Sound localization, use of binaural cues and the superior olivary complex in pigs. Brain Behavior and Evolution 33, 248–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsia, LC, Wood-Gush, DGM 1983. A note on social facilitation and competition in the feeding behaviour of pigs. Animal Production 37, 149–152.Google Scholar
Jensen, P 1980. An ethogram of social interaction patterns in group-housed dry sows. Applied Animal Ethology 6, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P 1982. An analysis of agonistic interaction patterns in group-housed dry sows – aggression regulation through an avoidance order. Applied Animal Ethology 9, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, JB, Wathes, CM, Webster, AJF 1998. Operant responses of pigs to atmospheric ammonia. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58, 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, JB, Burgess, LR, Webster, AJF, Wathes, CM 1996. Behavioural responses of pigs to atmospheric ammonia in a chronic choice test. Animal Science 63, 437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, JB, Wathes, CM, Persaud, KC, White, RP, Jones, RB 2001. Acute and chronic exposure to ammonia and olfactory acuity for n-butanol in the pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71, 13–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keeling, LJ, Hurnik, JF 1996. Social facilitation and synchronization of eating between familiar and unfamiliar newly weaned piglets. Acta Agricultura Scandinavia. Section A: Animal Science 46, 54–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenward, MG, Roger, JH 1997. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53, 983–997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koba, Y, Tanida, H 2001. How do miniature pigs discriminate between people? Discrimination between people wearing coveralls of the same colour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73, 45–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristensen, HH, Jones, RB, Schofield, CP, White, RP, Wathes, CM 2001. The use of olfactory and other cues for social recognitionby juvenile pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72, 321–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Littell, RC, Milliken, GA, Stroup, WW, Wolfinger, RD, Schabenberger, O 2006. SAS for mixed models. SAS Institue Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
McAdie, TM, Foster, TM, Temple, W 1996. Concurrent schedules: quantifying the aversiveness of noise. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 65, 37–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGlone, JJ 1985. Olfactory cues and pig agonistic behaviour: evidence for a submissive pheromone. Physiology & Behavior 34, 195–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLeman, MA, Mendl, MT, Jones, RB, Wathes, CM 2008. Social discrimination of familiar conspecifics by juvenile pigs, Sus scrofa: development of a non-invasive method to study the transmission of unimodal and bimodal cues between live stimuli. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 115, 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, EA, Parker, MO, McLeman, MA, Demmers, TG, Lowe, JC, Cui, L, Davey, EL, Owen, RC, Wathes, CM, Abeyesinghe, SM 2010. The impact of chronic environmental stressors on growing pigs, Sus scrofa (Part 1): stress physiology, production and play behaviour. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731110001072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagel, M, Dawkins, MS 1997. Peck orders and group size in laying hens: ‘future contracts’ for non-aggression. Behavioral Processes 40, 13–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pitts, AD, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA, Fraser, D 2000. Mixing at young ages reduces fighting in unacquainted domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68, 191–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spensley, JC, Wathes, CM, Waran, NK, Lines, JA 1995. Behavioural and physiological responses of piglets to naturally occuring sounds. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44, 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, dB, Bailey, KJ, Sharman, DF, Ingram, DL 1985. An analysis of some behavioural effects of the vibration and noise components of transport in pigs. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Physiology 70, 211–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Talling, JC 1996. Porcine perception of auditory stimuli. PhD, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Talling, JC, Lines, JA, Wathes, CM, Waran, NK 1998a. The acoustic environment of the domestic pig. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 71, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talling, JC, Waran, NK, Wathes, CM, Lines, JA 1998b. Sound avoidance by domestic pigs depends upon characteristics of the signal. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58, 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, N, Prescott, N, Perry, G, Potter, M, Le Sueur, C, Wathes, CM 2006. Preference of growing pigs for illunimance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, SP, Edwards, SA 2004. Housing immature domestic pigs in large social groups: implications for social organisation in a hierarchical society. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, SP, Horgan, GW, Edwards, SA 2001. Effect of social group size on aggressive behaviour between unacquainted domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74, 203–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Putten, G 1969. An investigation into tail-biting among fattening pigs. British Veterinary Journal 125, 511–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wathes, CM 1997. Engineering choices into animal environment (ed. JM Forbes, TLJ Lawrence, RG Rodway and MA Varley). British Society of Animal Science , Occasional Publication No. 20, pp. 67–73.Google Scholar
Wathes, CM, Jones, JB, Kristensen, HH, Jones, EKM, Webster, AJF 2002. Aversion of pigs and domestic fowl to atmospheric ammonia. Transactions of the Asabe 45, 1605–1610.Google Scholar
Wathes, CM, Demmers, TGM, Teer, N, White, RP, Taylor, LL, Bland, V, Jones, P, Armstrong, D, Gresham, ACJ, Hartung, J, Chennells, DJ, Done, SH 2004. Production responses of weaned pigs after chronic exposure to airborne dust and ammonia. Animal Science 78, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeates, JW, Main, DC 2007. Assessment of positive welfare: a review. Veterinary Journal 175, 293–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zonderland, JJ, Cornelissen, L, Wolthuis-Fillerup, M, Spoolder, HAM 2008. Visual acuity of pigs at different light intensities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 111, 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar