Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T08:41:14.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behavioural responses of pigs to atmospheric ammonia in a chronic choice test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. B. Jones ,
L. R. Burgess ,
A. J. F. Webster  and
C. M. Wathes
J. B. Jones
Affiliation:
Bio-Engineering Division, Silsoe Research Institute, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedfordshire MK45 4HS Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DU
L. R. Burgess
Affiliation:
Bio-Engineering Division, Silsoe Research Institute, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedfordshire MK45 4HS
A. J. F. Webster
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DU
C. M. Wathes
Affiliation:
Bio-Engineering Division, Silsoe Research Institute, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedfordshire MK45 4HS
Get access

Abstract

The behaviour of two groups offour pigs in concentrations of ammonia gas that are frequently recorded in piggeries (0, 10, 20 and 40 p.p.m.), was continuously observed for 14 days each in a choice test. An octagonally shaped (annular), eight compartment preference chamber was built to house the pigs. Each compartment supplied the pigs with ample food, water and bedding material but differed in the level of atmospheric contamination. Adjacent compartments were separated by plastic curtains, allowing the pigs free access to neighbouring compartments while reducing cross-contamination of the pollutant. The position of the contamination was changed weekly to eliminate positional preferences. The location of the pigs was scan sampled every 15 min and their behaviour at this time was instantaneously recorded. A significantly greater proportion of their time was spent in the unpolluted compartments (53·4%) than in the 10 p.p.m. (26·9%), 20 p.p.m. (7·1%) or 40 p.p.m. (5·1%) compartments (P < 0·001). This avoidance was maintained for the 14 days that each group inhabited the chamber (P > 0·05). The occupancy pattern was resumed following the rotation of the ammonia concentrations and/or following cleaning (P > 0·05). Higher concentrations of ammonia were visited less often (P = 0·005) and once there, the pigs stayed for a comparatively shorter time (P = 0·003) for approximately 35 min. As the aversion was not immediate, it is suggested that aversion was not due to the odour of ammonia initially experienced on entry. Instead the insidious aversion may be due to a sense of malaise that may develop while a pig is in a polluted atmosphere. The pigs chose to rest (P = 0·002), sit (P = 0·007), feed (P = 0·007) and forage (P = 0·013) more in the unpolluted compartments. Overall more feeding behaviour was observed in the fresh air and more food was consumed in these compartments of the chamber (P = 0·002).

Keywords

air pollutionammoniabehaviourpig welfare
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , December 1996 , pp. 437 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1996

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

Bayne, K. A. L., Strange, G. M. and Dexter, S. L. 1994. Influence of food enrichment on cage side preference. Laboratory Animal Science 44: 624–629.Google ScholarPubMed
Blom, H. J. M., Baumans, V., Vorstenbosch, C. J. A. H. v. van, Zutphen, I. F. M. van and Beynen, A. C. 1993. Preference tests with rodents to assess housing conditions. Animal Welfare 2: 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bongers, P., Houthuijs, D., Remijn, B., Brouwer, R. and Biersteker, K. 1987. Lung function and respiratory symptoms in pig farmers. British journal of Industrial Medicine. 44: 819–823.Google ScholarPubMed
Boyd, E. M., MacLachlan, M. L. and Perry, W. E. 1944. Experimental ammonia gas poisoning in rabbits and cats. Journal ofIndustrial Hygiene and Toxicology 26: 29.Google Scholar
Commission Internationale du Genie Rural. 1984. Climatization of animal houses. Report from working group Scottish Farm Buildings Investigation Unit, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Coon, R. A., Jones, R. A., Jenkins, L. J. and Siegel, J. 1970. Animal inhalation studies on ammonia, ethylene, glycol, formaldehyde, dimethylamine and ethanol. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 16: 646–655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curtis, S. E. 1972. Air environment and animal performance, journal ofAnimal Science. 35: 628–634.Google ScholarPubMed
Curtis, S. E., Anderson, C. R., Simon, J., Jensen, A. H., Day, D. L. and Kelley, K. W. 1975. Effects of aerial ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and swine house dust on rate of gain and respiratory tract structure in swine. Journal of Animal Science. 41: 735–739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalhamn, T. and Reid, L. 1966. Ciliary activity and histologic observations in the trachea after exposure to ammonia and carbon particles. In Inhaled particles and vapours, second edition (ed. Davies, C. N.). Pergamon Press, New York.Google Scholar
Dalhamn, T. and Rhodin, J. 1956. Mucous flow and ciliary activity in the trachea of rats expose d to pulmonary irritant gas. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 13: 110.Google Scholar
Dawkins, M. 1977. Or hidden? Applied Animal Ethology 3: 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M. 1978. Welfare and structure of the battery cage: size and cage floor p References in domestic hens. British Veterinary Journal 134: 469–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M. 1983. Battery hens name their price: consume r demand theory and the measurement of animal needs. Animal Behaviour 31: 1195–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M. S. 1980. Animal suffering: the science of animal welfare. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doig, P. A. and Willoughby, R. A. 1971. Responses of swine to atmospheric ammoni a an d organic dust. Journal of American Veterinary Medicine Association. 159: 1353–1361.Google Scholar
Donham, K. J., Rubino, M., Thedell, T. D. and Kammermeyer, J. 1977. Potential health hazards to agricultural workers in swine confinement buildings. Journal of Occupational Medicine 19: 383–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donham, K. J., Haglind, P., Peterson, Y., Rylander, R. and Belin, L. 1989. Environmental and health studies of farm workers in Swedish swine confinement buildings. British Journal of Industrial Medicine. 46: 31–37.Google ScholarPubMed
Drummond, J. G., Curtis, S. E., Meyer, R. C., Simon, J. and Norton, H. W. 1981. Effects of atmospheric ammonia on young pigs experimentally infected with Bordetella bronchiseptica. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 42: 963–968.Google Scholar
Drummond, J. G., Curtis, S. E., Simon, J. and Norton, H. W. 1980. Effects of aerial ammonia on growth and healt h of young pigs. Animal Science. 50: 1085–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I. J. H. 1977. Behavioural wisdom lost? Applied Animal Ethology. 3: 193–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I. J. H. 1978. The interpretation of preference tests n i animal behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour. 20: 413–420.Google Scholar
Ferguson, W. S., Koch, W. C., Webster, L. B. and Gould, J. R. 1977. Human physiological response and adaptation to ammonia. Journal of Occupational Medicine. 19: 319–326.Google ScholarPubMed
Garcia, J., Ervin, F. R. and Koelling, R. A. 1966. Learning with prolonge d delay of reinforcement. Psychoneurotic Science. 5: 121–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, J. and Koelling, R. A. 1966. Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychoneurotic Science. 4: 123–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustin, P., Urbain, B., Prouvost, J. F. and Ansay, M. 1994. Effects of atmospheric ammonia on pulmonar y hemodynamics and vascular permeabilit y in pigs: interaction with endotoxins. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 125: 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, T. D. C., Roe, J. M., Taylor, F. G. R., Pearson, G. and Webster, A. J. F. 1993. Aerial pollution: an exacerbating factor in atrophic rhinitis in pigs. Proceedings of livestock environment IV, Coventry, pp. 895–903.Google Scholar
Hughes, B. O. 1975. Spatial preference in the domestic hen. British Veterinary Journal 131: 560–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, B. O. 1976. Preference decisions of the domestic hen for wire or litter floors. Applied Animal Ethology 2: 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B. O. 1977. Behavioural wisdom and preference tests. Applied Animal Ethology. 3: 391–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jericho, K. W. F. 1968. Pathogenesis of pneumonia in pigs. Veterinary Record 82: 507.Google Scholar
Kovács, F., Nagy, A. and Sallai, J. 1967. [Effect of environmental factors on the healt h and productivity of pigs. II. Dust, micro-organisms and chemical pollution of the air in piggeries.] Magyar-Allatorvosok Lapja 22: 496–505 (abstr. Veterinary Bulletin 1968. 38: 727).Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1990. Genstat 5 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
McCaw, M. B. 1994. Management techniques for atrophic rhinitis control. Compendium on continuing education for the practising veterinarian. 16: 1615–1618.Google Scholar
McFarland, D. 1988. Animal behaviour—psychobiology, ethology and evolution. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow.Google Scholar
Milliam, J. R. 1987. Preference of turkey hens for nest-boxes of different levels of interior illumination. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 18: 341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C. J. 1986. Non-exclusive spatial preference in the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 15: 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordström, G. A. and McQuitty, J. B. 1976. Manure gases in the animal environment. A literature review. Research bulletin 76–1, Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Parkinson, K. J. and Day, W. 1979. The use of orifices to control the flow rate of gases. Journal of Applied Ecology. 16: 623–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petherick, J. C., Duncan, I. J. H. and Waddington, D. 1990. Previous experience with different floors influences choice of peat in a Y-maze by domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 27: 177–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooijen, J. van. 1985. Ontogen y and preference tests with pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 14: 388–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stombaugh, D. P., Teague, H. S. and Roller, W. L. 1969. Effects of atmospheric ammonia on the pig. Animal Science. 28: 844–847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Urbain, B., Gustin, P., Prouvost, J. F. and Ansay, M. 1994. Quantitative assessment of aerial ammonia toxicity to the nasal mucosa by use of the nasal lavage method in pigs. American Journal of Veterinary Research 55: 1335–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. 1995. Animal welfare: a cool eye towards Eden. Blackwell Science, Oxford.Google Scholar