Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T09:25:38.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of social status on the welfare of growing pigs housed in barren and enriched environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

NE O'Connell ,
VE Beattie  and
BW Moss
NE O'Connell*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Large Park, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR, UK
VE Beattie
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Large Park, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR, UK Present address: Devenish Nutrition, 96 Duncrue Street, Belfast, Co. Antrim BT3 9AR, UK
BW Moss
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science, Queen's University Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: niamh.o'[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One hundred and twenty-eight pigs were reared in barren or enriched environments from birth to slaughter at 21 weeks of age. Pigs remained as litter-mate groups until 8 weeks of age when they were mixed into groups of eight animals. These groups were balanced for gender and weight and contained two pigs from each of four different litters. Each pig was assigned high or low social status on the basis of relative success in aggressive interactions at mixing. Injury levels were assessed on a weekly basis from 8 to 21 weeks of age. Pigs were exposed to two group food competition tests after a period of food restriction at 10 weeks of age, and to an individual novel pen test at 11 weeks of age. Behavioural and plasma cortisol responses to both types of test were recorded. Low social status was associated with increased injuries to the head, neck and ears, and therefore reduced welfare. Pigs with low social status showed reduced resource-holding ability in the food competition test, and greater avoidance of a novel object during the novel pen test It is suggested that avoidance of the novel object reflected ‘learned’ fearfulness in these individuals. Environmental enrichment did not negate the effect of low social status on injury levels, but did appear to reduce the negative influence of low social status on stress during food restriction, and led to a reduction in fearfulness in response to the novel pen test. These results suggest that environmental enrichment may improve the welfare of growing pigs with low social status.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourphysiologypigsrearing environmentsocial status
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , November 2004 , pp. 425 - 431
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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

Beattie, VE, O'Connell, NE, Kilpatrick, DJ and Moss, BW 2000 Influence of environmental enrichment on welfare-related behavioural and physiological parameters in growing pigs. Animal Science 70: 443–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, VE, Walker, N and Sneddon, IA 1995 Effects of environmental enrichment on behaviour and productivity of growing pigs. Animal Welfare 4: 207–220Google Scholar
Boissy, A and Bouissou, M-F 1995 Assessment of individual differences in behavioural reactions of heifers exposed to various fear-eliciting situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM and Johnson, KG 1993 Stress and Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Buré, RG 1991 The influence on vulva biting of supplying additional roughage in an electronic sow feeder. In: Commission on Animal Management and Health, Berlin (eds) Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production pp 1–5. KTBL: Darmstadt, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, DL, van Tienhoven, A and Gvaryahu, G 1988 Population size, cage area, and dominance rank effects on productivity and well-being of laying hens. Poultry Science 67: 399–406CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Jong, IC, Sgoifo, A, Lambooij, E, Korte, SM, Blokhuis, HJ and Koolhaas, JM 2000 Effects of social stress on heart rate and heart rate variability in growing pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 80: 273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jonge, FH, Bokkers, EAM, Schouten, WGP and Helmond, FA 1996 Rearing piglets in a poor environment: developmental aspects of social stress in pigs. Physiology and Behaviour 60: 389–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonyou, HW, Rohde Parfet, KA, Anderson, DB and Olson, RD 1988 Effects of amperozide and azaperone on aggression and productivity of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 66: 2856–2864CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hicks, TA, McGlone, JJ, Whisnant, CS, Kattesh, HG and Norman, RL 1998 Behavioral, endocrine, immune, and performance measures for pigs exposed to acute stress. Journal of Animal Science 76: 474–483CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, EJ, Broom, DM, Edwards, SA and Sibly, RM 1988 Social hierarchy and feeder access in a group of 20 sows using a computer-controlled feeder. Animal Production 47: 139–148Google Scholar
Jensen, P and Yngvesson, J 1998 Aggression between unacquainted pigs — sequential assessment and effects of familiarity and weight. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB and Waddington, D 1992 Modification of fear in domestic chicks, Gallus gallus domesticus, via regular handling and early environmental enrichment. Animal Behaviour 43: 1021–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust 1989 GENSTAT 5 Reference Manual. Clarendon Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
McGlone, JJ, Salak, JL, Lumpkin, EA, Nicholson, RI, Gibson, M and Norman, RL 1993 Shipping stress and social status effects on pig performance, plasma cortisol, natural killer cell activity, and leukocyte numbers. Journal of Animal Science 71: 888–896CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meese, GB and Ewbank, R 1973 The establishment and nature of the dominance hierarchy in the domesticated pig. Animal Behaviour 21: 326–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, RC and Wood-Gush, DGM 1986 Social relationships of piglets in a semi-natural environment. Animal Behaviour 34: 1311–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connell, NE and Beattie, VE 1999 Influence of environmental enrichment on aggressive behaviour and dominance relationships in growing pigs. Animal Welfare 8: 269–279Google Scholar
O'Connell, NE, Beattie, VE and Moss, BM 2003 Influence of social status on the welfare of sows in static and dynamic groups. Animal Welfare 12: 239–249Google Scholar
O'Connell, NE, Beattie, VE, Kilpatrick, DJ and Walker, N 2002 Effect of weaning age, mixing strategy and group size on the welfare and productivity of weaned pigs. In: Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science Annual Conference, York p 37. British Society of Animal Science: Penicuik, ScotlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, IAS, de Jonge, FH, Schuurman, T and Helmond, FA 1999 Poor rearing conditions and social stress in pigs: repeated social challenge and the effect on behavioural and physiological responses to stressors. Behavioural Processes 46: 201–215CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruis, MAW, te Brake, JHA, Engel, B, Buist, WG, Blokhuis, HJ and Koolhaas, JM 2002 Implications of coping characteristics and social status for welfare and production of paired growing gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75: 207–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J 1987 A difference in weight reduces fighting when unacquainted newly weaned pigs first meet. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67: 951–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, AL, Salomons, MO, Tong, AKW, Sather, AP and Lepage, P 1990 The effect of environmental enrichment on aggression in newly weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheel, DE, Graves, HB and Sherritt, GW 1977 Nursing order, social dominance and growth in swine. Journal of Animal Science 45: 219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Signoret, JP 1983 General conclusions. In: Smidt, D (ed) Indicators Relevant to Farm Animal Welfare pp 245–247. Martinus Nijhoff: The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinscow, TDV 1996 Statistics at Square One, 9th Edition. BMJ Publishing Group: London, UKGoogle Scholar