Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T17:04:11.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of degree of adaptation to tether-housing by sows in relation to behaviour and energy metabolism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. M. Cronin ,
J. M. F. M. van Tartwijk ,
W. van der Hel  and
M. W. A. Verstegen
G. M. Cronin
Affiliation:
Ethology Section, Department of Animal Husbandry, Agricultural University of Wageningen, Zodiac, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands
J. M. F. M. van Tartwijk
Affiliation:
Ethology Section, Department of Animal Husbandry, Agricultural University of Wageningen, Zodiac, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands
W. van der Hel
Affiliation:
Ethology Section, Department of Animal Husbandry, Agricultural University of Wageningen, Zodiac, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands
M. W. A. Verstegen
Affiliation:
Ethology Section, Department of Animal Husbandry, Agricultural University of Wageningen, Zodiac, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands
Get access

Abstract

In response to tethering, many sows develop seemingly non-functional repetitive behaviour (stereotypies), which may be performed for several hours in a day.

The quality and quantity of activity performed by sows with different degrees of adaptation to tethering was studied in relation to energy expenditure. Three groups of five sows were recognized: (1) High, sows which showed a high incidence of stereotyped activity after prolonged tethering; (2) T/Low, sows with limited experience of tethers; and (3) G/Low, the same sows as in group 2 after regrouping.

High sows were about three times more active than T/Low sows: the proportions of time involved in 24 h were 0·35 and 0·13 respectively. Most of the former sows' activity was in the form of sterotypies. The activity level of the G/Low sows was between that of the two tether treatments (proportionately 0·17 of 24 h). Both tethered treatments spent proportionately about 0·05 of 24 h in using drinkers compared with proportionately less than 0·02 of the time for the G/Low sows.

High sows produced proportionately 0·36 more heat than T/Low sows during the 12-h light period in each day. During this period, proportionately 0·40 and 0·20 of heat production from High and T/Low sows was associated with activity. The diurnal activity of the G/Low sows was associated with proportionately 0·24 of heat production.

Stereotypies and excessive drinker use accounted for proportionately 0·86, 0·52 and 0·24 of the activity of High, T/Low and G/Low sows. The proportions of metabolizable energy intake required for these activities were 0·23, 0·07 and 0·04 respectively for the three treatments. The study concludes that tethering is stressful when sows develop, and then indulge in frequent coping behavioural patterns which increase metabolic rate.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , April 1986 , pp. 257 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1986

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

Agricultural Research Council. 1981. The Nutrient Requirements of Pigs. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Barnett, J. L., Cronin, G. M., Winfield, C. G. and Dewar, A. M. 1984. The welfare of adult pigs: the effects of five housing treatments on behaviour, plasma corticosteroids and injuries. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 12: 209–232.Google Scholar
Brett, L. P. and Levine, S. 1979. Schedule-induced polydipsia suppresses pituitary-adrenal activity in rats. J. comp. physiol. Psychol. 93: 946–956.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Close, W. H. and Cole, D. J. A. 1984. Principles and strategies involved in the nutrition of the sow. 35th A. Meet Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod., The Hague, Paper NP2 pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
Cronin, G. M. 1985. The development and significance of abnormal stereotyped behaviours in tethered sows. Ph.D. Thesis, Agricultural Univ. Wageningen.Google Scholar
Cronin, G. M. and Wiepkema, P. R. 1984. An analysis of stereotyped behaviour in tethered sows. Annls Rech. Vet. 15: 263–270.Google Scholar
Cronin, G. M., Wiepkema, P. R. and Hofstede, G. J. 1984. The development of stereotypies in tethered sows. Proc. int. Congr. Appl. Ethol. Farm Animals, Kiel, pp. 97–100.Google Scholar
Daelemans, J. 1984. Confinement of sows related to their productivity. Annls Rech. Vét. 15: 149–158.Google Scholar
Dantzer, R. and Mormede, P. 1983. De-arrousal properties of stereotyped behaviour: evidence from pituitary-adrenal correlates in pigs. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 10: 233–244.Google Scholar
Ewbank, R. 1978. Stereotypies in clinical veterinary practice. Proc. 1st Wld Congr. Ethology Appl. to Zootechnics, Madrid, pp. 499–502.Google Scholar
Geuyen, T. P. A., Verhagen, J. M. F. and Verstegen, M. W. A. 1984. Effect of housing and temperature on metabolic rate of pregnant sows. Anim. Prod. 38: 477–485.Google Scholar
Ludvigsen, J. B. 1980. Production hazards in technically advanced confinement systems for pigs. Anim. Regulation Stud. 3: 99–103.Google Scholar
Mcbride, G. 1980. Adaptation and welfare at the man-animal interface. In Behaviour in Relation to Reproduction, Management and Welfare of Farm Animals (ed. Wodzicka-Tomaszewska, M., Edey, T. N. and Lynch, J. J.), pp. 195–198. Reviews in Rural Science No. IV. The University of New England, Armidale, NSW.Google Scholar
Mason, W. A. 1978. Social experience and primate cognitive development. In The Development of Behaviour: Comparative and Evolutionary Aspects (ed. Burghardt, G. M. and Bekoff, M.), pp. 233–251. Garland Press, New York.Google Scholar
Odberg, F. O. 1981. Environmental and pharmacological determinants of pathological stereotypies in voles (Clethrionomys glareolus britannicus). Ph.D. Thesis, State Univ. Gent.Google Scholar
Stolba, A. 1983. The pig park family system: housing designed according to the consistent patterns of pig behaviour and social structure. In The Behaviour and Welfare of Farm Animals (ed. Hall, W. F.), Proc. Conf. Human-Animal Bond, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pp. 38–65.Google Scholar
Stolba, A., Baker, N. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1983. The characterization of stereotyped behaviour in stalled sows by information redundancy. Behaviour 87: 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svendsen, J. and Bengtsson, A. C. 1983. Housing of sows in gestation. Guelph Pork Symposium, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, pp. 118–131.Google Scholar
Verstegen, M. W. A. 1984. Energy and nutrient requirements of sows for pregnancy. 35th A. Meet. Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod., The Hague, Paper NP3, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Verstegen, M. W. A., Hel, W., Van Der Koppe, R. and Van, Es. A. J. H.. 1971. An indirect calorimeter for the measurement of heat production in large groups of animals kept together. Meded. Landb. Hogesch. Wageningen 71–76.Google Scholar
Wiepkema, P. R., Broom, D. M., Duncan, I. J. H. and Putten, G. Van. 1983. Abnormal behaviours in farm animals. A report of the Commission of European Communities, Autumn, 1983.Google Scholar