Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T16:17:13.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The flexibility of feeding patterns in individually housed pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

H. L. I. Bornett ,
C. A. Morgan ,
A. B. Lawrence  and
J. Mann
H. L. I. Bornett
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
C. A. Morgan
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
A. B. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
J. Mann
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Abstract

Group-housed pigs may be prevented from expressing their desired feeding pattern by more dominant individuals in the group. Indeed, when compared with individually housed pigs, group housed pigs eat less frequent, but larger meals. Therefore, it would be advantageous for pigs to have flexible feeding patterns in order to decrease the impact of group housing. The aim of this study was to assess the flexibility of feeding patterns by restricting the time of access to food of pigs previously given food ad libitum and then returning them to 24-h access. Thirty-two Large White x Landrace pigs were used in an experiment of two blocks (16 pigs per block) each comprising three, 2-week periods. In each block; during period 1, all pigs were allowed 24-h access to food after which, in period 2, eight of the pigs had access to the feeder restricted between 11:00 and 13:00 h of each day. The remaining eight pigs continued on 24-h access to food and acted as controls. In period 3, all pigs were again returned to 24-h access to food. Daily feeding pattern and food intake were recorded throughout. Behavioural observations in the form of scan samples were made and pigs were weighed twice a week. In period 2 the restricted pigs had fewer visits to the feeder per day, 34·0 v. 70·1 (P < 0·001); of a longer duration, 98·3 v. 64·5 s (P < 0·01); with a higher food intake per visit, 64·9 v. 33·3 g (P < 0·001) than the control pigs. Daily food intake and live-weight gain were lower (P < 0·001) for the restricted pigs in period 2 than for the control pigs. Restricted pigs spent more time rooting (P < 0·05), and less time sleeping (P < 0·05) than the control pigs in period 2. In addition, there was a trend for pigs to spend more time alert in the observation session prior to access to food in the second period when they were restricted and they made attempts to gain access to the feeders in this session. An indication of flexibility was gained by comparing feeding behaviour and time budgets between periods 1 and 3. The pigs that experienced a period of restricted feeding either resumed their previous behaviour or showed the same trend as the controls. In periods 1 and 3 daily feeder visits were 66·2 and 68·1 for control pigs, and 65·6 and 67·1 for restricted pigs. Mean durations of visits were 79·3 and 47·5 s, and 74·4 and 61·7 s respectively. It was concluded that feeding behaviour was flexible and time budgets were resilient across periods.

Keywords

feeding behaviourpigstime
Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 70 , Issue 3 , June 2000 , pp. 457 - 469
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

Appleby, M. C. and Lawrence, A. B. 1987. Food restriction as a cause of stereotypie behaviour in tethered gilts. Animal Production 45: 103–110.Google Scholar
Feddes, J. J. R., Young, B.A. and Deshazer, J.A. 1989. Influence of temperature and light on feeding behaviour of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haer, L. C. M. de and Vries, A. G. de. 1993. Feed intake patterns of and feed digestibility in growing pigs housed individually or in groups. Livestock Production Science 33: 277–292.Google Scholar
Horgan, G. W. and Sword, A. M. 1995. Statistical methods for repeated measures. Scottish Agricultural Statistics Service.Google Scholar
Kostal, L., Savory, C. J. and Hughes, B. O. 1992. Diurnal and individual variation in behaviour of restricted-fed broiler breeders. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 361–374.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1995. The voluntary feed intake of pigs given feeds based on wheat bran, dried citrus pulp and grass meal, in relation to measurements of feed bulk. British Journal of Nutrition 73: 191–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Labroue, E., Gueblez, R., Sellier, P. and Meunier-Salaun, M.C. 1994. Feeding behaviour of group-housed Large White and Landrace pigs in French central test stations. Livestock Production Science 40: 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1990. GENSTAT release 3–2. Harpenden, Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. B. and Illius, A. W. 1989. Methodology for measuring hunger and food needs using opérant conditioning in the pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24: 273–285.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. B. and Terlouw, E. M. C. 1993. A review of behavioural factors involved in the development and continued performance of stereotypie behaviours in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 71: 2815–2825.Google Scholar
Lewis, N. J. 1998. Effects of frustration of feeding behaviour on swine. Proceedings of the 32nd congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, 21-25 July 1998, Clermont-Ferrand, France, p. 108.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. A., Deans, L. A., Lawrence, A. B. and Nielsen, B.L. 1998. The effects of straw bedding on the feeding and social behaviour of growing pigs fed by means of single-space feeders. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, C. A., Tolkamp, B., Emmans, G. C., Kyriazakis, I. and Lawrence, A. B. 2000. Do pigs eat meals according to the rules of satiety? Physiology and Behavior> In press.Google Scholar
Nielsen, B. L., Lawrence, A. B. and Whittemore, C. T. 1995. Effect of group size on feeding behaviour, social behaviour and performance of growing pigs using single-space feeders. Livestock Production Science 44: 73–85.Google Scholar
Nielsen, B. L., Lawrence, A. B. and Whittemore, C.T. 1996. Effect of individual housing on the feeding behaviour of group housed growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 47: 149–161.Google Scholar
Nienaber, J. A., McDonald, T. P., Hahn, G. L. and Chen, Y.R. 1990. Eating dynamics of growing-finishing swine. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 33: 2011–2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, D.V. and Gregory, P. C. 1989. The role of the gastrointestinal tract in the control of voluntary food intake. In The voluntary food intake of pigs (ed. Forbes, J. M., Varley, M. A. and Lawrence, T. L. J.), British Society of Animal Production occasional publication no. 13, pp. 27–39.Google Scholar
Robert, S. and Dallaire, A. 1986. An exploratory study of behavioural differences between young pigs susceptible and non-susceptible to stress syndrome. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 335–343.Google Scholar
Rushen, J. P. 1985. Stereotypies, aggression and the feeding schedule of tethered sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 137–147.Google Scholar
Savory, C. J. and Maros, K. 1993. Influence of degree of food restriction, age and time of day on behaviour of broiler breeder chickens. Behavioural Processes 29: 179–190.Google Scholar
Terlouw, E. M. C., Lawrence, A. B. and Illius, A. W. 1991. Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behaviour 42: 981–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, E. M. C., Lawrence, A. B. and Koolhaas, J. 1993a. Relationships between feeding, glucose and stereotypies. Physiology and Behavior 54: 189–193.Google Scholar
Terlouw, E. M. C., Wiersma, A., Lawrence, A. B. and Macleods, H. A. 1993b. Ingestion of food facilitates the performance of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behaviour 46: 939–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolkamp, B. J., Allcroft, D. J., Austin, E. J., Nielsen, B. L. and Kyriazakis, I. 1998. Satiety splits feeding behaviour into bouts. Journal of Theoretical Biology 194: 235–250.Google Scholar
Wiepkema, P. R. 1971. Positive feedbacks at work during feeding. Behaviour 39: 2–4.Google Scholar
Wittaker, X., Spoolder, H. A. M., Edwards, S. A., Lawrence, A. B. and Corning, S. 1998. The influence of dietary fibre and the provision of straw on the development of stereotypie behaviour in food restricted pregnant sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61: 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar