Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:37:46.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Promoting positive states: the effect of early human handling on play and exploratory behaviour in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2015

M. Zupan ,
T. Rehn ,
D. de Oliveira  and
L. J. Keeling
M. Zupan*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7068, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
T. Rehn
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7068, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
D. de Oliveira
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7068, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden Animal Science Department, São Paulo State University – Unesp, Via de Acesso Prof. Paulo Donato Castellane s/n, 14884900 Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil
L. J. Keeling
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7068, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

It is known that tactile stimulation (TS) during ontogeny modifies brain plasticity and enhances the motor and cognitive skills. Our hypothesis was that early handling including TS would increase play and exploratory behaviour in commercial pigs under standardized test conditions. Piglets from 13 litters were subjected to three handling treatments from 5 to 35 days of age: all the piglets were handled (H), none of the piglets were handled (NH) or half of the piglets in the litter were handled (50/50). At 42 days of age, the pigs’ behaviour was observed in pairs in a novel pen with a ‘toy’ (tug rope). The main results were that more locomotor play was performed by pigs from litters where all or half of them had been handled, whereas social exploratory behaviour was more pronounced in pigs from litters where half of them had been handled. Although behaviour was affected by the interaction of treatment with sex or with weight category, we propose that the handling procedure does seem to have acted to increase locomotor skills and that handling half of the piglets in the litter may have triggered a series of socio-emotional interactions that were beneficial for the whole group.

Keywords

pigwelfarepositive psychologystressorsocial behaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 135 - 141
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Boissy, A, Manteuffel, G, Jens, MB, Moe, RO, Spruijt, B, Keeling, LJ, Winckler, C, Forkman, B, Dimitrov, I, Langbein, J, Bakken, M, Veissier, I and Aubert, A 2007. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology & Behavior 92, 375–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boivin, X and Braastad, BO 1996. Effects of handling during temporary isolation after early weaning on goat kids’ later response to humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48, 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caroprese, M, Napolitano, F, Albenzio, M, Annicchiarico, G, Musto, M and Sevi, A 2006. Influence of gentling on lamb immune response and human–lamb interactions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 118–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champagne, FA 2008. Epigenetic mechanisms and the transgenerational effects of maternal care. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 29, 386–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coulon, M, Nowak, R, Peyrat, J, Chandèze, H, Boissy, A and Boivin, X 2015. Do lambs perceive regular human stroking as pleasant? Behavior and heart rate variability analyses. PLoS One 10 (2), e0118617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denenberg, VH and Whimbey, AE 1963. Behavior of adult rats is modified by the experiences the mother had as infants. Science 142, 1192–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, M 2001. Response of the brain to enrichment. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 73, 211–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunbar, RIM 2010. The social role of touch in humans and primates: behavioural function and neurobiological mechanisms. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 34, 260–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, IJH 1993. Welfare is to do with what animals feel. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6, 8–14.Google Scholar
Edelmann, MN, Demers, CH and Auger, AP 2013. Maternal touch moderates sex differences in juvenile social play behavior. PLoS One 8 (2), e57396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, T 2010. Touch for socioemotional and physical well-being: a review. Developmental Review 30, 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, T, Hernandez-Reif, M and Freedman, J 2004. Stimulation programs for preterm infants. Social Policy Report 18, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, SDE and Špinka, M 2011. Animal play and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 81, 891–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolb, B, Gribb, R and Borny, TE 2003a. Brain plasticity and behavior. American Psychological Society 12, 1–5.Google Scholar
Kolb, B, Gibb, R and Gorny, G 2003b. Experience-dependent changes in dendritic arbor and spine density in neocortex vary qualitatively with age and sex. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 79, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, S 1957. Infantile experience and resistance to physiological stress. Science 126, 405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, S 2005. Developmental determinants of sensitivity and resistance to stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology 30, 939–946.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ligout, S, Bouissou, MF and Boivin, X 2008. Comparison of the effects of two different handling methods on the subsequent behaviour of Anglo-Arabian foals toward humans and handling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 2007. Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide, 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mateo, JM, Estep, DQ and McCann, JS 1991. Effects of differential handling on the behaviour of domestic ewes (Ovis aries). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMillan, FD 1999. Effects of human contact on animal health and well-being. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 215, 1592–1598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Napolitano, F, Marino, R, Musto, M, Caternolo, G and Sevi, A 2005. Effects of gentling on behavior and meat quality of lambs. Italian Journal of Animal Science 4, 357–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, RC 1995. Environmental enrichment: increasing the biological relevance of captive environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44, 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, D, Paranhos da Costa, MJR, Zupan, M, Rehn, T and Keeling, LJ 2015. Early human handling in non-weaned piglets: effects on behaviour and body weight. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 164, 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute. Statistical analysis systems. Version 9.2. Inc.; 2008. Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Schmied, C, Waiblinger, S, Scharl, T, Leisch, F and Boivin, X 2008. Stroking of different body regions by a human: effects on behaviour and heart rate of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Špinka, M, Newberry, RC and Bekoff, M 2001. Mammalian play: training for the unexpected. Quarterly Review of Biology 76, 141–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tallet, C, Sy, K, Prunier, A, Nowak, R, Boissy, A and Boivin, X 2014. Behavioural and physiological reactions of piglets to gentle tactile interactions vary according to their previous experience with humans. Livestock Science 167, 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanida, H, Miura, A, Tanaka, T and Yoshimoto, T 1995. Behavioural response to humans in individually handled weanling pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42, 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Perre, V, Driessen, B, Van Thielen, J, Verbeke, G and Geers, R 2011. Comparison of pig behaviour when given a sequence of enrichment objects or a chain continuously. Animal Welfare 20, 641–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verwer, CM, van Amerongen, G, van den Bos, R and Hendriksen, CFM 2009. Handling effects on body weight and behaviour of group-housed male rabbits in a laboratory setting. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117, 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar