Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:21:29.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of environmental enrichment on welfare-related behavioural and physiological parameters in growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

V. E. Beattie ,
N. E. O’Connell ,
D. J. Kilpatrick  and
B. W. Moss
V. E. Beattie
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR
N. E. O’Connell
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR
D. J. Kilpatrick
Affiliation:
Biometrics Division, Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX
B. W. Moss
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science, The Queen's University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX
Get access

Abstract

Three hundred and twenty pigs were reared from birth to slaughter at 21 weeks in either barren or enriched environments. The barren environments were defined as intensive housing (slatted floors and minimum recommended space allowances) and the enriched environments incorporated extra space including an area which contained peat and straw in a rack. Behavioural observations showed that environmental enrichment reduced time spent inactive and time spent involved in harmful social and aggressive behaviour (P < 0·001). Each pig was individually exposed to a novel object during a novel pen test at 18 weeks of age and behavioural, heart rate and plasma cortisol responses were recorded. At slaughter plasma cortisol levels were measured, adrenal glands were weighed and hearts were examined for endothelial haemorrhages. Pigs from enriched environments appeared less fearful during the novel pen test by showing a shorter latency to contact the novel object (P < 0·001) and spending more time in contact with it (P < 0·05). Plasma cortisol responses to the novel pen test tended to be higher in pigs from enriched environments (P > 0·05) and pigs from enriched environments had significantly higher cortisol levels at slaughter (P < 0·05). Adrenal weights were greater in pigs from barren environments (P < 0·05) and it is suggested that chronic activation of the pituitary-adrenal axis in barren environments led to a suppression of cortisol responses to acute stress. The higher cortisol responses to the novel pen test in pigs from enriched environments may also have resulted from greater levels of behavioural activity. This could also explain the higher maximum heart rates in pigs from enriched environments during the 1st min of the test (P < 0-05) and during the period prior to the test when they were being driven towards the test arena (P < 0-05). However, the fact that enriched pigs also showed a greater number of lesions to the endothelium of the heart (P < 0-05) may mean they had a more reactive sympathetic nervous system.

Keywords

behaviourenrichmentpigsphysiologystress response
Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 70 , Issue 3 , June 2000 , pp. 443 - 450
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

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

Arey, D. S. 1993. The effect of bedding on the behaviour and welfare of pigs. Animal Welfare 2: 235–246.Google Scholar
Beattie, V. E. 1994. The effects of environmental enrichment on the domestic pig. Ph.D. thesis, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Northern Ireland.Google Scholar
Beattie, V. E., Walker, N. and Sneddon, I. A. 1995a. Effects of environmental enrichment on behaviour and productivity of growing pigs. Animal Welfare 4: 207–220.Google Scholar
Beattie, V. E., Walker, N. and Sneddon, I. A. 1995b. Effect of rearing environment and change of environment on the behaviour of gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 57–65.Google Scholar
Boissy, A. and Bouissou, M.-E 1995. Assessment of individual differences in behavioural reactions of heifers exposed to various fear-eliciting situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 17–31.Google Scholar
Broom, D. M. 1988. The scientific assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 5–19.Google Scholar
Broom, D. M. and Johnson, K. G. 1993. Stress and animal welfare. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Dellmeier, G., Friend, T. and Gbur, E. 1990. Effects of changing housing on open-field behaviour of calves. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 215–230.Google Scholar
D’Souza, D. N., Dunshea, F. R., Warner, R. D. and Leury, B.J. 1998. The effect of handling pre-slaughter and carcass processing rate post-slaughter on pork quality. Meat Science 50: 429–437.Google Scholar
Fraser, D., Phillips, P. A., Thompson, B. K. and Tennessen, T. 1991. Effect of straw on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geverink, N. A. 1998. Preslaughter treatment of pigs: consequences for welfare and meat quality. Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Price, E. O. and Borgwardt, R. 1996. Behavioural responses of domestic pigs and cattle to humans and novel stimuli. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50: 43–56.Google Scholar
Hessing, M. J. C., Hagelsø, A. M., Schouten, W. G. P., Wiepkema, P. R. and Beek, J. A. M. van. 1994. Individual behavioural and physiological strategies in pigs. Physiology and Behavior 55: 39–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, M. B., Vestergaard, K. S., Krohn, C.C. and Munksgaard, L. 1997. Effect of single versus group housing and space allowance on responses of calves during open-field tests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 109–121.Google Scholar
Jones, R. B. 1982. Effects of early environmental enrichment upon open-field behaviour and timidity in the domestic chick. Developmental Psychobiology 15: 105–111.Google Scholar
Jones, R. B. and Waddington, D. 1992. Modification of fear in domestic chicks, Gallus gallus domesticas, via regular handling and early environmental enrichment. Animal Behaviour 43: 1021–1033.Google Scholar
Ladewig, J., Schlichting, M.C., Beneke, B., Borell, E. von, Stuhec, I. and Smidt, D. 1985. Physiological aspects of social space in heifers and pigs. In Social space for domestic animal. (ed. R., Zayan), pp. 151–159. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladewig, J. and Smidt, D. 1989. Behaviour, episodic secretion of cortisol, and adrenocortical reactivity in bulls subjected to tethering. Hormones and Behaviour 23: 344–360.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1989. GENSTAT 5 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Passillé, A. M. de, Rushen, J. and Martin, F. 1995. Interpreting the behaviour of calves in an open-field test: a factor analysis. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45: 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, G. P. and Paterson, A. M. 1993. The effect of space restriction and provision of toys during rearing on the behaviour, productivity and physiology of male pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36: 11–28.Google Scholar
Pearce, G. P., Paterson, A. M. and Pearce, A. N. 1989. The influence of pleasant and unpleasant handling and the provision of toys on the growth and behaviour of male pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piggins, D. and Phillips, C. J. C. 1998. Awareness in domesticated animals — concepts and definitions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 57: 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiterkamp, W. A. 1987. The behaviour of grower pigs in-relation to housing systems. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 35: 67–70.Google Scholar
Stedman, R. C. and Varley, M. A. 1991. The assessment of sow personality and its effects on reproduction and endocrine status. Animal Production 52: 576 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Warnier, A. and Zayan, R. 1985. Effects of confinement upon behavioural, hormonal responses and production indices in fattening pigs. In Social space for domestic animals (ed. Zayan, R.), pp. 128–150. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Wood-Gush, D. G. M. and Beilharz, R. G. 1983. The enrichment of a bare environment for animals in confined conditions. Applied Animal Ethology 10: 209–217.Google Scholar