Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

How many pigs within a group need to be sick to lead to a diagnostic change in the group's behavior?

  • Amy L. Miller
  • , Hillary A. Dalton*
  • , Theo Kanellos
  • , Ilias Kyriazakis
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Disease is a leading cause of diminished welfare and productivity in pig systems, but its spread among pigs within commercial herds can be limited through early detection. Identifying specific behavioral changes at the onset of disease can have a substantial diagnostic value by improving treatment success through timely intervention. Our study aimed to identify key behaviors that visibly change at the group level when only a few individuals are acutely sick. First, we quantified the behavioral changes seen during an acute health challenge in groups of pigs, using total pen vaccination as an artificial sickness model. Then we investigated the minimum proportion of sick pigs needed to detect group level behavioral changes using three treatments: a control (Con; 0% pigs), low (±20% pigs), or a high (±50% pigs) number of pigs vaccinated in the pens. Total pen vaccination in Trial 1 produced group level behavioral changes, including reduced feeding (P < 0.001), non-nutritive visits to the feeder (P < 0.01), drinking (P < 0.001), standing (P < 0.001), and interaction with pen enrichment (P < 0.001), accompanied by increased lying rates (P < 0.01) and elevated body temperatures (P < 0.001), confirming that vaccination is an appropriate model to study effects of acute sickness. In Trial 2, group level declines in interaction with the enrichment device (P < 0.001) and standing rates (P = 0.064), along with an increase in pen lying rates (P < 0.001), were apparent in the Low treatment when compared to the Con rates, which suggests these key behaviors could serve an important diagnostic value for early disease detection in groups. These changes lasted for up to 3 h post vaccination. In contrast, feeding rates (treatment × time of day: P < 0.01) only showed a decrease from the Con in the High treatment after vaccination, with pen drinking showing a similar trend (treatment: P = 0.07), suggesting that these behaviors would be more appropriate for confirming the spread of disease within a herd. Identifying key behaviors that alert to the presence of disease is critical to further refine automated early warning systems using pen level sensors for commercial pig operations.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1956-1966
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Animal Science
Volume97
Issue number5
Early online date15 Mar 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01 May 2019
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This study was supported by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, UK, through an Agri-tech Research grant (BB/M011364/1) in conjunction with Zoetis Inc., Harbro Nutrition Ltd., Innovent UK Ltd., and RAFT solutions Ltd.

Funding Information:
1This study was supported by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, UK, through an Agri-tech Research grant (BB/M011364/1) in conjunction with Zoetis Inc., Harbro Nutrition Ltd., Innovent UK Ltd., and RAFT solutions Ltd. 2Joint first author. 3Corresponding author: [email protected] Received October 2, 2018. Accepted March 12, 2019.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • disease detection
  • early warning system
  • pig health
  • sickness behavior
  • subclinical disease
  • swine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Food Science
  • Animal Science and Zoology
  • Genetics

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'How many pigs within a group need to be sick to lead to a diagnostic change in the group's behavior?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this