Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T02:43:59.656Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Environmental Enrichment on Learning in Pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

I A Sneddon ,
V E Beattie ,
L Dunne  and
W Neil
I A Sneddon*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, The Queen's University of Belfast, BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland
V E Beattie
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co Down, BT26 6DR, Northern Ireland
L Dunne
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, The Queen's University of Belfast, BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland
W Neil
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, The Queen's University of Belfast, BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland
*
† Contact for correspondence and reprints
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study examined the effects of enriching the environment on the learning abilities of growing pigs. Eighty-four pigs were housed in either barren or enriched environments from birth to 14 weeks. The barren environments were defined as intensive housing and the enriched environments incorporated extra space, including areas which contained peat and straw in a rack. The learning abilities of pigs from both environments were tested at 15-17 weeks using an operant task which involved pigs learning to push a panel for a reward and a maze test which involved spatial learning. Pigs from enriched environments learned both the operant task and the maze task more rapidly than their counterparts from barren environments. These results suggest that the cognitive development of pigs may be impaired in intensive housing systems.

Keywords

animal welfareenvironmental enrichmentlearningpigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , November 2000 , pp. 373 - 383
Copyright
© 2000 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Allen, C 1998 Assessing animal cognition: ethological and philosophical perspectives. Journal of Animal Science 76: 42–47CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beattie, V E, Walker, N and Sneddon, I A 1995 a Effects of environmental enrichment on behaviour and productivity of growing pigs. Animal Welfare 4: 207–220CrossRefGoogle 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: 57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekoff, M 1994 Cognitive ethology and the treatment of non-human animals: how matters of mind inform matters of welfare. Animal Welfare 3: 75–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, E L, Diamond, M C, Krech, D and Rosenzweig, M R 1996 Chemical and anatomical plasticity of the brain. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 8: 459–470Google Scholar
Biegler, R and Morris, R G 1993 Landmark stability is a prerequisite for spatial but not discrimination learning. Nature 361: 631–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bøe, K 1993 The effect of age at weaning and post-weaning environment on the behaviour of pigs. Acta Agriculture Scandinavia. Section A, Animal Science 43: 173–180Google Scholar
Boissy, A and Le Neindre, P 1990 Social influences on the reactivity of heifers: implications for learning abilities in operant conditioning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25: 149–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coussikorbel, S and Fragaszy, D M 1995 On the relation between social dynamics and social learning. Animal Behaviour 50: 1441–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jonge, F H, Bokkers, E A M, Schouten, W G P, Raun, W M and Helmond, F A 1995 Rearing piglets in a poor environment: development aspects of social stress and coping strategies in pigs. In: Rutter, S M, Rushen, J, Randle, H D and Eddison, J C (eds) Proceedings of the 29th International Congress of the International Society of Applied Ethology pp 185–186. UFAW: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Diamond, M C 1993 An optimistic view of the ageing brain. Generations 17: 31–33Google Scholar
Diamond, MCD, Chui, D, Hohnson, R E, Chelgren, M, Greer, E R and Gibsons, J 1984 Increased cortical thickness in male progeny from enriched parents before and during gestation. Society for Neuroscience 10: 977Google Scholar
Escorihuela, R M, Fernandez-Teruel, A, Tobena, A, Vivas, N M, Marmol, F, Badia, A and Dierssen, M 1995 Early environmental stimulation produces long-lasting changes on beta-adrenoceptor transduction system. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 64: 49–57CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Escorihuela, R M, Tobena, A and Fernandez-Teruel, A 1994 Environmental enrichment reverses the detrimental action of early inconsistent stimulation and increases the beneficial effects of postaatal handling on shuttlebox learning in adult rats. Behavioural Brain Research 61: 169–173CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krech, D, Rosenzweig, M R and Bennett, E L 1960 Effects of environmental complexity and training on brain chemistry. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 53: 509–519CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawes Agricultural Trust 1989 Genstat 5 Reference Manual. Clarendon Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Mal, M E, McCall, C A, Cummins, K A and Newland, M C 1994 Influence of preweaning handling methods on post-weaning learning ability and manageability of foals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40: 187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, R G M 1981 Spatial localization does not require the presence of a local cue. Learning and Motivation 12: 239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, L, Mohammed, A K H, Henriksson, B G, Folkesson, R, Winblad, B and Bergstrom, L 1993 Environmental influences on somatostatin levels and gene expression in the rat brain. Brain Research 628: 93–98CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Connell, N E and Beattie, V E 1999 Influence of environmental enrichment on aggressive behaviour and dominance relationships in growing pigs. Animal Welfare 8: 269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olton, D S, Collison, C and Werz, M 1977 Spatial memory and radical arm maze performance of rats. Learning and Motivation 8: 289–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paylor, R, Morrison, S K, Rudy, J W, Waltrip, L T and Wehner, J M 1992 Brief exposure to an enriched environment improves performance on the Morris water task and increases hippocampal cytosolic protein kinase C activity in young rats. Behavioural Brain Research 52: 49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, M H 1998 Enriching the lives of zoo animals, and their welfare: where research can be fundamental. Animal Welfare 7: 151–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, F D, Davey, M J, Al-Khamees, K and Attree, E A 1992 General adaptive capacity and recovery of function following cortical damage in the rat. Medical Science Research 20: 359–360Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, M R 1984 Experience, memory and the brain. American Psychologist 39: 365–376CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenzweig, M R, Bennett, E L and Diamond, M C 1972 Brain changes in response to experience. Scientific American 226: 22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenzweig, M R, Krech, D, Bennett, E L and Diamond, M C 1962 Effects of environmental complexity and training on brain chemistry and anatomy: a replication and extension. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 55: 429–437CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaefer, A L, Salomons, M O, Tong, A K W, Sather, A P and Lepage, P 1990 The effect of environment enrichment on aggression in newly weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schouten, W G P 1991 Effects of rearing on subsequent performance in pigs. Pig News and Information 12: 245–247Google Scholar
Simonsen, H B 1990 Behaviour and distribution of fattening pigs in the multi-activity pen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 311–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Putten, G 1979 Ever been close to a nosey pig? Applied Animal Ethology 5: 298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, J B 1924 Behaviorism. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Wells, D L and Hepper, P G 1992 The behaviour of dogs in a rescue shelter. Animal Welfare 1: 171–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar