Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T11:19:39.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sanitary housing conditions modify the performance and behavioural response of weaned pigs to feed- and housing-related stressors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2012

H. Pastorelli ,
N. Le Floc'h ,
E. Merlot ,
M. C. Meunier-Salaün ,
J. van Milgen  and
L. Montagne
H. Pastorelli
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35000 Rennes, France
N. Le Floc'h
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35000 Rennes, France
E. Merlot
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35000 Rennes, France
M. C. Meunier-Salaün
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35000 Rennes, France
J. van Milgen
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35000 Rennes, France
L. Montagne*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35000 Rennes, France Université européenne de Bretagne, France
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Pigs are confronted with changes in farming practices that may affect performance and animal well-being. The sanitary conditions of the farm can have an impact on the ability of pigs to adapt to these changes. This study aimed to analyse how weaned pigs respond to common farming practices of changes in diet and housing in terms of performance, health and behaviour, and how these responses are affected by the sanitary housing conditions, qualified here as good or poor. At weaning at 4 weeks of age, 20 piglets were assigned to 10 blocks of two littermates and each pig within a litter was randomly assigned to one of two sanitary conditions. Pigs were housed individually and received a starter diet. A diet change occurred on day 12 post weaning (starter to weaner diets) and pigs were transferred to the grower unit on day 33 post weaning and continued to receive the weaner diet. From 43 days post weaning, pigs were offered a grower diet and were vaccinated against swine influenza on day 47 and 61 post weaning. On the basis of this design, three post-weaning phases were identified: phase I from day 1 to 11 (post weaning), phase II from day 12 to 32 (after the diet change) and phase III from day 33 to 42 (after the housing change). Individual BW was measured every 3 days, and feed refusals and faecal scores were recorded on a daily basis. Behavioural observations were performed during 28 days by using the instantaneous scan sampling method. Individual blood samples were collected at the end of each phase to analyse the plasma concentration of haptoglobin and on day 68 post weaning to analyse the anti-influenza immunoglobulins G (IgG). Poor sanitary conditions resulted in a decrease in daily gain, feed intake and gain to feed ratio of, respectively, 11%, 5% and 7% (P < 0.05). Pigs in poor sanitary conditions had higher faecal scores (P < 0.05), tended to have higher plasma haptoglobin concentration in phase II (P = 0.06) and had a higher anti-influenza IgG titre (P = 0.11). The diet change affected performance and behavioural responses of pigs in poor but not in good sanitary conditions. Housing change resulted in a 30% decrease in growth and an increase in behaviour oriented towards exploration and excitement. The results of this study show an effect of sanitary conditions on the responses of pigs to a diet change, whereas those to a housing change were little affected by the sanitary conditions.

Keywords

sanitary conditionsfeed intakegrowthbehaviourpig
Type
Behaviour, welfare and health
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 11 , November 2012 , pp. 1811 - 1820
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Altmann, J 1974. Observational study of behavior – sampling methods. Behaviour 49, 227–267.Google Scholar
Bareille, N 2007. Le mal-être de l'animal malade et sa gestion en élevage. INRA Productions Animales 20, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A, Arnould, C, Chaillou, E, Colson, V, Désiré, L, Duvaux-Ponter, C, Greiveldinger, L, Leterrier, C, Richard, S, Roussel, S, Saint-Dizier, H, Meunier-Salaün, MC, Valance, D 2007. Emotions et cognition : stratégie pour répondre à la question de la sensibilité des animaux. INRA Productions Animales 20, 17–22.Google Scholar
Broom, DM, Johnson, KG 1993. Stress and animal welfare. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.Google Scholar
Dantzer, R 2001. Stress, emotions and health: where do we stand? Social Science Information – Sur Les Sciences Sociales 40, 61–78.Google Scholar
Dantzer, R, Mormède, P 1983. Stress in farm animals: a need for reevaluation. Journal of Animal Science 57, 6–18.Google Scholar
Day, J, Kyriazakis, I, Rogers, P 1998. Food choice and intake: towards a unifying framework of learning and feeding motivation. Nutrition Research Reviews 11, 25–43.Google Scholar
del Barrio, A, Schrama, J, van der Hel, W, Beltman, H, Verstegen, M 1993. Energy metabolism of growing pigs after transportation, regrouping, and exposure to new housing conditions as affected by feeding level. Journal of Animal Science 71, 1754–1760.Google Scholar
Fraser, D, Phillips, PA, Thompson, BK, Tennessen, T 1991. Effect of straw on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30, 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, R 2003. The role of neophobia and neophilia in the development of innovative behaviour of birds. In Animal innovation (ed. SN Reader and KN Laland), pp. 175–196. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Guillou, D, Landeau, E 2000. Granulométrie et nutrition porcine. INRA Productions Animales 13, 137–145.Google Scholar
Hampson, DJ 1994. Postweaning Escherichia coli diarrhoea in pigs. In Escherichia coli in domestic animals and humans (ed. C Gyles), pp. 171–191. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Heetkamp, MJW, Schrama, JW, Schouten, WGP, Swinkels, JWGM 2002. Energy metabolism in young pigs as affected by establishment of new groups prior to transport. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 86, 144–152.Google Scholar
Klasing, KC, Johnstone, BJ 1991. Monokines in growth and development. Poultry Science 70, 1781–1789.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I, Houdijk, J 2007. Food intake and performance of pigs during health, disease and recovery. In 62nd Easter School in the Agricultural and Food Sciences (ed. J Wiseman, MA Varley, S McOrist and B Kemp), pp. 493–513. University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, UK.Google Scholar
Laitat, M, De Jaeger, F, Vandenheede, M, Nicks, B 2004. Facteurs influençant la consommation alimentaire et les performances zootechniques du porc sevré : perception et caractéristiques de l'aliment. Annales de Médecine Vétérinaire 148, 15–29.Google Scholar
Le Floc'h, N, Jondreville, C, Matte, JJ, Sève, B 2006. Importance of sanitary environment for growth performance and plasma nutrient homeostasis during the post-weaning period in piglets. Archives of Animal Nutrition 60, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Floc'h, N, Le Bellego, L, Matte, JJ, Melchior, D, Sève, B 2009. The effect of sanitary status degradation and dietary tryptophan content on growth rate and tryptophan metabolism in weaning pigs. Journal of Animal Science 87, 1686–1694.Google Scholar
Le Floc'h, N, Matte, JJ, Melchior, D, van Milgen, J, Sève, B 2010. A moderate inflammation caused by the deterioration of housing conditions modifies Trp metabolism but not Trp requirement for growth of post-weaned piglets. Animal 4, 1891–1898.Google Scholar
Littell, R, Henry, P, Ammerman, C 1998. Statistical analysis of repeated measures data using SAS procedures. Journal of Animal Science 76, 1216–1231.Google Scholar
Madec, F, Bridoux, N, Bounaix, S, Jestin, A 1998. Measurement of digestive disorders in the piglet at weaning and related risk factors. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 35, 53–72.Google Scholar
Mekhaiel, DNA, Daniel-Ribeiro, CT, Cooper, PJ, Pleass, RJ 2011. Do regulatory antibodies offer an alternative mechanism to explain the hygiene hypothesis? Trends in Parasitology 27, 523–529.Google Scholar
Montagne, L, Pluske, JR, Hampson, DJ 2003. A review of interactions between dietary fibre and the intestinal mucosa, and their consequences on digestive health in young non-ruminant animals. Animal Feed Science and Technology 108, 95–117.Google Scholar
Montagne, L, Arturo-Schaan, M, Le Floc'h, N, Guerra, L, Le Gall, M 2010. Effect of sanitary conditions and dietary fibre on the adaptation of gut microbiota after weaning. Livestock Science 133, 113–116.Google Scholar
Mormède, P 1995. Le stress: interaction animal-homme-environnement. Cahiers Agricultures 4, 275–286.Google Scholar
Mormède, P, Foury, A, Meunier-Salaün, MC 2006. Bien-être du porc : le point de vue de l'animal, approches biologiques et comportementales. Bulletin de l'Académie Vétérinaire de France 159, 191–204.Google Scholar
Niewold, TA 2007. The nonantibiotic anti-inflammatory effect of antimicrobial growth promoters, the real mode of action? A hypothesis. Poultry Science 86, 605–609.Google Scholar
Pastorelli, H, van Milgen, J, Lovatto, P, Montagne, L 2012. Meta-analysis of feed intake and growth responses of growing pigs after a sanitary challenge. Animal 6, 952–961.Google Scholar
Rantzer, D, Svendsen, J, Westrom, B 1996. Effects of a strategic feed restriction on pig performance and health during the post-weaning period. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 46, 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, SP, Kyriazakis, I 1991. Diet selection of pigs and poultry. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 50, 87–98.Google Scholar
Schrama, J, Parmentier, H, Noordhuizen, J 1997. Genotype × environment interactions as related to animal health impairment (with special emphasis on metabolic and immunological factors). In New antimicrobial strategies (ed. P Heidt, V Rusch and D van der Waaij), pp. 69–89. Old Herborn University Seminar Monograph, Herborn Litterae, Herborn, Germany.Google Scholar
Solà-Oriol, D, Roura, E, Torrallardona, D 2009. Feed preference in pigs: relationship with feed particle size and texture. Journal of Animal Science 87, 571–582.Google Scholar
von Borell, EH 1995. Neuroendocrine integration of stress and significance of stress for the performance of farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44, 219–227.Google Scholar
von Borell, EH 2001. The Biology of stress and its application to livestock housing and transportation assessment. Journal of Animal Science 79, 260–267.Google Scholar
Wechsler, B, Lea, SEG 2007. Adaptation by learning: its significance for farm animal husbandry. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 108, 197–214.Google Scholar
Wellock, I, Emmans, G, Kyriazakis, I 2003. Predicting the consequences of social stressors on pig food intake and performance. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2995–3007.Google Scholar
Williams, NH, Stahly, TS, Zimmerman, DR 1997. Effect of chronic immune system activation on the rate efficiency, and composition of growth and lysine needs of pigs fed from 6 to 27 kg. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2463–2471.Google Scholar
Wood-Gush, DGM, Vestergaard, K 1989. Exploratory behavior and the welfare of intensively kept animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2, 161–169.Google Scholar
Young, BA, Walker, B, Dixon, AE, Walker, VA 1989. Physiological adaptation to the environment. Journal of Animal Science 67, 2426–2432.Google Scholar