Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T06:21:42.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Operant tests of access to earth as a reinforcement for weaner piglets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. D. Hutson
G. D. Hutson
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, 3052
Get access

Abstract

Operant methods were used to measure the responsiveness to earth of five groups of seven weaner piglets held in a flat-deck cage. Lifts on a lever produced access to an earth trough, an empty trough, or had no effect. Group lever lifting performance was unaffected by earth in the trough, but at least one individual, the ‘worker piglet’, operated the lever more than the others to gain access to earth. Once the lid of the trough was opened other piglets were attracted to the earth and spent more time using the earth trough than the empty trough. Previous experience of earth appeared to modify lever lifting behaviour. In one group, a worker piglet did not emerge, and in another the worker operated the lever for earth at a reduced rate. The number of piglets using the earth trough and the amount of time spent utilizing it was reduced by prior exposure to earth. It is concluded that earth is a mild reinforcer to weaner piglets, that it will sustain a low rate of responding on an operant schedule, and that a component of its reinforcement value is its novelty.

Type
Papers
Information
Animal Production , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , June 1989 , pp. 561 - 569
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1989

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

REFERENCES

Baldwin, B. A. and Ingram, D. L. 1967. Behavioural thermoregulation in pigs. Physiology and Behaviour 2: 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, B. A. and Meese, G. B. 1977. Sensory reinforcement and illumination preference in the domesticated pig. Animal Behaviour 25: 497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, B. A. and Start, I. B. 1985. Illumination preferences of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M. S. 1977. Do hens suffer in battery cages? Environmental preferences and welfare. Animal Behaviour 25: 1034–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M. S. and Beardsley, T. 1986. Reinforcing properties of access to litter in hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faure, J.-M. 1986. Operant determination of the cage and feeder size preferences of the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldfield-box, H. 1970. The behaviour of laboratory rats in a social learning situation. Ada Psychologica 32: 48–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putten, G. van and Dammers, J. 1976. A comparative study of the well-being of piglets reared conventionally and in cages. Applied Animal Ethology 2: 339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry. 2nd ed. Freeman, San Francisco.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar