Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T00:42:09.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Artificial rearing affects the emotional state and reactivity of pigs post-weaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

O Schmitt ,
K O’Driscoll ,
EM Baxter  and
LA Boye
O Schmitt*
Affiliation:
Pig Development Department, Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co Cork, Republic of Ireland Department of Animal Production, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK Animal Behaviour and Welfare Team, Animal and Veterinary Sciences Research Group, SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
K O’Driscoll
Affiliation:
Pig Development Department, Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co Cork, Republic of Ireland
EM Baxter
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare Team, Animal and Veterinary Sciences Research Group, SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
LA Boye
Affiliation:
Pig Development Department, Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co Cork, Republic of Ireland
*
* Contact for correspondence: schmitt.oce@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Artificial rearing involves removing piglets from their mother at seven days of age and feeding them milk replacer until weaning. Early-life rearing conditions can influence piglets’ mental development, as reflected by their emotional state and reactivity. This study compared the post-weaning emotional state and reactivity of pigs which were either sow-reared or artificially reared pre-weaning. Behavioural tests (startle test, novel object test, human-animal relationship test and open door test) were conducted one week post-weaning (weaner 1, 34 [± 0.6] days old), one week after movement to weaner 2 (69 [±1.2] days old) and to finisher (100 [± 1.3] days old) stages. Qualitative Behavioural Assessments (QBA) were conducted on the same days in weaner 2 and finisher stages. QBA descriptors were computed by PCA and all other data were analysed using linear models. Artificially reared pigs were less fearful of human contact in weaner 1 (45.1 [± 8.43] vs 81.3 [± 7.89]%) and finisher (25.8 [± 5.19] vs 45.7 [± 6.00]%) stages; but there was no difference in the other tests. Artificially reared pigs had a higher QBA score (more positive) than sow-reared pigs in weaner 2 (54.49 [± 10.102] vs 17.88 [± 9.94]) but not in finisher (70.71 [± 8.860] vs 52.76 [± 9.735]) stage. In conclusion, artificially reared pigs appeared to have a more positive emotional state transiently post-weaning and a lower fearfulness towards humans, which are likely mediated by their pre-weaning conditions. These data emphasise the need to consider the entire life of the animals to fully evaluate the long-term impacts of a rearing system.

Keywords

affective stateanimal welfareartificial rearinghuman-animal relationshippigsQualitative Behavioural Assessment
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , November 2019 , pp. 433 - 442
Copyright
© 2019 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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

Baxter, EM, Rutherford, KMD, D’Eath, RB, Arnott, G, Turner, SP, Sandøe, P, Moustsen, VA, Thorup, F, Edwards, SA and Lawrence, AB 2013 The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig II: Management factors. Animal Welfare 22: 219–238. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.2.219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A, Arnould, C, Chaillou, E, Greiveldinger, L, Leterrier, C, Richard, S, Roussel, S, Valance, D and Veissier, I 2007 Emotions and cognition: a new approach to animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 37–43Google Scholar
Brajon, S, Ringgenberg, N, Torrey, S, Bergeron, R and Devillers, N 2017 Impact of prenatal stress and environmental enrichment prior to weaning on activity and social behaviour of piglets (Sus scrofa). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 197: 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.09.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, JA, Dewey, C, Delange, CFM, Mandell, IB, Purslow, PP, Robinson, JA, Squires, EJ and Widowski, TM 2009 Reliability of temperament tests on finishing pigs in group-housing and comparison to social tests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118: 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabrera, RA, Boyd, RD, Jungst, SB, Wilson, ER, Johnston, ME, Vignes, JL and Odle, J 2010 Impact of lactation length and piglet weaning weight on long-term growth and viability of proge-ny. Journal of Animal Science 88: 2265–2276. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2009-2121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vos, M, Huygelen, V, Willemen, S, Fransen, E, Casteleyn, C, Van Cruchten, S, Michiels, J and Van Ginneken, C 2014 Artificial rearing of piglets: Effects on small intestinal morphology and digestion capacity. Livestock Science 159: 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.11.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical con-cerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205Google Scholar
Goumon, S and Špinka, M 2016 Emotional contagion of distress in young pigs is potentiated by previous exposure to the same stressor. Animal Cognition 19(3): 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0950-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH 2014 Behavioural principles of pig handling. In: Grandin, T (ed) Livestock Handling and Transport pp 261–279. CABI: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780643212.0261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ison, SH, Wood, CM and Baxter, EM 2015 Behaviour of pre-puber-tal gilts and its relationsip to farrowing behaviour in conventional far-rowing crates and loose-housed pens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 170: 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kooij, EVEVD, Kuijpers, AH, Schrama, JW, Van Eerdenburg, FJCM, Schouten, WGP and Tielen, MJM 2002 Can we predict behaviour in pigs? Searching for consistency in behaviour over time and across situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75: 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00203-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koolhaas JM and Reenen CG Van 2016 Interaction between coping style/personality, stress, and welfare: Relevance for domestic farm animals 1. Journal of Animal Science 94: 2284–2296. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-0125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupien, SJ, McEwen, BS, Gunnar, MR and Heim, C 2009 Effects of stress throughout the lifespan on the brain, behaviour and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10: 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2639CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchant-Forde, JN, Lay, DC, McMunn, KA, Cheng, HW, Pajor, EA and Marchant-Forde, RM 2014 Postnatal piglet hus-bandry practices and well-being: The effects of alternative techniques delivered in combination. Journal of Animal Science 92:1150–1160. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melotti, L, Oostindjer, M, Bolhuis, JE, Held, S and Mendl, M 2011 Coping personality type and environmental enrichment affect aggression at weaning in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 133:144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.05.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ 1995 the social transmission of information and behav-ior. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)00607-TCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oostindjer, M, Bolhuis, JE, Mendl, M, Held, S, van den Brand, H and Kemp, B 2011 Learning how to eat like a pig: Effectiveness of mechanisms for vertical social learning in piglets. Animal Behaviour 82:503–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.05.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotsky, PM, Thrivikraman, KV, Nemeroff, CB, Caldji, C, Sharma, S and Meaney, MJ 2005 Long-term consequences of neonatal rearing on central corticotropin- releasing factor sys-tems in adult male rat offspring. Neuropsychopharmacology 30:2192–2204. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1300769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletto, R, Steibel, JP, Siegford, JM and Zanella, AJ 2006 Effects of early weaning and social isolation on the expression of glucocorticoid and mineralocorticoid receptor and 1β-hydroxys-teroid dehydrogenase 1 and 2 mRNAs in the frontal cortex and hippocampus of piglets. Brain Research 1067: 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2005.10.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reimert, I, Bolhuis, JE, Kemp, B and Rodenburg, TB 2013 Indicators of positive and negative emotions and emotional con-tagion in pigs. Physiology and Behavior 109: 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.11.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutherford, KM, Baxter, EM, Ask, B, Berg, P, D’Eath, RB, Jarvis, S, Jensen, KK, Lawrence, AB, Moustsen, VA, Robson, SK, Thorup, F, Turner, SP and Sandøe, P 2011 The ethical and welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig: challenges and solutions. Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment (CeBRA): Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Rzezniczek, M, Gygax, L, Wechsler, B and Weber, R 2015 Comparison of the behaviour of piglets raised in an arti-ficial rearing system or reared by the sow. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 165: 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2015.01.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, O, O’Driscoll, K, Boyle, LA and Baxter, EM 2019 Artificial rearing affects piglets pre-weaning behaviour, welfare and growth performance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 210:16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.10.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tallet, C, Rakotomahandry, M, Guérin, C, Lemasson, A and Hausberger, M 2016 Postnatal auditory preferences in piglets differ according to maternal emotional experience with the same sounds during gestation. Scientific Reports 6: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Beirendonck, S, Schroijen, B, Bulens, A, Van Thielenab, J and Driessena, B 2015 A solution for high production numbers in farrowing units? Improving Pig Welfare p 85. Danish Centre for Animal Welfare: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Jasper, J and Hötzel, MJ 2008 Understanding weaning distress. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110: 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.03.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Lawrence, AB 2001 Qualitative assess-ment of animal behaviour as an on-farm welfare-monitoring tool. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica A: Animal Sciences 51: 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/090647001316923018Google Scholar
Zupan, M, Rehn, T, De Oliveira, D and Keeling, LJ 2016 Promoting positive states: The effect of early human handling on play and exploratory behaviour in pigs. Animal 10: 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115001743CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed