Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:46:17.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Piglets’ weaning behavioural response is influenced by quality of human–animal interactions during suckling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2011

R. Sommavilla ,
M. J. Hötzel  and
O. A. Dalla Costa
R. Sommavilla
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Etologia Aplicada e Bem-estar Animal, Departamento de Zootecnia e Desenvolvimento Rural, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Rodovia Admar Gonzaga, 1346, Itacorubi, Florianópolis 88.034-001, SC, Brazil
M. J. Hötzel*
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Etologia Aplicada e Bem-estar Animal, Departamento de Zootecnia e Desenvolvimento Rural, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Rodovia Admar Gonzaga, 1346, Itacorubi, Florianópolis 88.034-001, SC, Brazil
O. A. Dalla Costa
Affiliation:
Embrapa Suínos e Aves, BR 153, km 110, 88700-000 Concórdia, SC, Brazil
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term post-weaning behaviour of piglets treated either neutrally or aversively during the suckling period. A total of 24 lactating sows and their litters were housed in different rooms according to treatment. A female experimenter (P1) was in charge of feeding and cleaning from days 10 to 27 after birth. For the aversive treatment (Aver), P1 was noisy, moved harshly and unpredictably and shouted frequently during routine cleaning of facilities and animal handling. For the neutral treatment (Neut), P1 used a soft tone of voice and was careful during the same routine. At weaning, the avoidance response of piglets to an approaching experimenter in a novel place was assessed in four piglets from each litter. Scores ranged from 1 (experimenter could touch piglet) to 4 (piglet escaped as soon as person moved). The test was repeated twice, with a 1-h interval, with P1, who wore blue trousers and white T-shirt, and a second handler unfamiliar to the piglets (P2, who wore blue coveralls). Thereafter, litters from the same treatment were mixed and housed in separate rooms, balanced for gender and live weight (n = 12 groups of 4 piglets/treatment). Behaviour time budgets were registered by scan sampling every 2-min, for 4 h per day, for 4 days. Piglets were weighed at birth, at weaning and on day 5. Effects of treatment and handler on responses to the avoidance test were analysed with non-parametric tests and effects of treatment with a mixed model for repeated measures. Avoidance score was higher for Aver than Neut piglets when tested with P1 (P = 0.04) but not with P2 (P = 0.8). When piglets’ responses to the different handlers were compared within each treatment, no significant differences were found. Frequencies of resting were lower (P < 0.001), whereas escape attempts (P < 0.03), agonistic interactions (P < 0.02) and frequency of presence at feeder (P < 0.001) were higher in the Aver than in the Neut groups. Feed and water intake and weight gain did not differ between treatments. We conclude that 4-week-old piglets can discriminate a handler according to the nature of treatment received during suckling. In addition, piglets treated aversively seem to have more difficulty adapting to weaning than those treated neutrally during the suckling period.

Keywords

distressaversivefearwelfarebehavioural time budget
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 9 , 05 August 2011 , pp. 1426 - 1431
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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

Bassett, L, Buchanan-Smith, HM 2007. Effects of predictability on the welfare of captive animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102, 223–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X, 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
Boivin, X, Lensink, BJ, Tallet, C, Veissier, I 2003. Stockmanship and farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 12, 479–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colson, V, Orgeur, P, Foury, A, Mormède, P 2006. Consequences of weaning piglets at 21 and 28 days on growth, behaviour and hormonal responses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 98, 70–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Passillé, AM, Rushen, J, Ladewig, J, Petherick, JC 1996. Dairy calves’ discrimination of people based on previous handling. Journal of Animal Science 74, 969–974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devillers, N, Farmer, C 2009. Behaviour of piglets weaned at three or six weeks of age. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A—Animal Science 59, 59–65.Google Scholar
Gonyou, HW, Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL 1986. Effects of frequent interactions with humans on growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16, 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonyou, HW, Beltranena, E, Whittington, D, Patience, J 1998. The behaviour of pigs weaned at 12 and 21 days of age from weaning to market. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 78, 517–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH 2003. Human–animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL 1992. The effects of early contact with humans on the subsequent level of fear of humans in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 35, 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ 1998. Human–livestock interactions, the stockperson and the productivity and welfare of intensively farmed animals. CAB International, London, UK.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Hansen, C 1986a. The influence of handling by humans on the behaviour, reproduction and corticosteroids of male and female pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15, 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Hansen, C, Gonyou, HW 1986b. The influence of early contact with humans on subsequent behavioural response of pigs to humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15, 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Coleman, GJ, Hansen, C 1989. A study of the relationships between the attitudinal and behavioural profiles of stockpersons and the level of fear of humans and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23, 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Cox, M, Barnett, JL 1994. Stimulus-generalization – the inability of pigs to discriminate between humans on the basis of their previous handling experience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40, 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hötzel, MJ, Machado Filho, LCP, Wolf, FM, Dalla Costa, OA 2004. Behaviour of sows and piglets reared in intensive outdoor or indoor systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hötzel, MJ, Machado Filho, LCP, Irgang, R, Alexandre Filho, L 2010. Short-term behavioural effects of weaning age in outdoor-reared piglets. Animal 4, 102–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hötzel, MJ, de Souza, GPP, Machado Filho, LC, Irgang, R, Probst, R 2007. Stress and recognition of humans in weanling piglets. Biotemas 20, 91–98.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, Moinard, C, Robson, SK, Sumner, BEH, Douglas, AJ, Seckl, JR, Russell, JA, Lawrence, AB 2008. Effects of weaning age on the behavioural and neuroendocrine development of piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110, 166–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koba, Y, Tanida, H 2001. How do miniature pigs discriminate between people? Discrimination between people wearing coveralls of the same colour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73, 45–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krohn, CC, Jago, JG, Boivin, X 2001. The effect of early handling on the socialisation of young calves to humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74, 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutzer, T, Bünger, B, Kjaer, JB, Schrader, L 2009. Effects of early contact between non-littermate piglets and of the complexity of farrowing conditions on social behaviour and weight gain. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 6–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markowitz, TM, Dally, MR, Gursky, K, Price, EO 1998. Early handling increases lamb affinity for humans. Animal Behaviour 55, 573–587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Connell, NE, Beattie, VE, Sneddon, IA, Breuer, K, Mercer, JT, Rance, KA, Sutcliffe, MEM, Edwards, SA 2005. Influence of individual predisposition, maternal experience and lactation environment on the responses of pigs to weaning at two different ages. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90, 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pajor, EA, Fraser, D, Kramer, DL 1991. Consumption of solid food by suckling pigs: individual variation and relation to weight gain. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32, 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Damm, BJ, Kongsted, AG 2003. The influence of adverse or gentle handling procedures on sexual behaviour in fearful and confident sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83, 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pluske, JR, Hampson, DJ, Williams, IH 1997. Factors influencing the structure and function of the small intestine in the weaned pig: a review. Livestock Production Science 51, 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, De Passillé, AMB, Munksgaard, L 1999a. Fear of people by cows and effects on milk yield, behavior, and heart rate at milking. Journal Dairy Science 82, 720–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J, Taylor, AA, De Passillé, AM 1999b. Domestic animals’ fear of humans and its effect on their welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoolder, H, Waiblinger, S 2009. Pigs and humans. In The welfare of pigs (ed. JM Marchant-Forde), pp. 211–236. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanida, H, Nagano, Y 1998. The ability of miniature pigs to discriminate between a stranger and their familiar handler. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56, 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanida, H, Miura, A, Tanaka, T, Yoshimoto, T 1995. Behavioral response to humans in individually handled weanling pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42, 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Meulen, J, Koopmans, SJ, Dekker, RA, Hoogendoorn, A 2010. Increasing weaning age of piglets from 4 to 7 weeks reduces stress, increases post-weaning feed intake but does not improve intestinal functionality. Animal 4, 1653–1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Appleby, M, Fraser, D 1999. Responses of piglets to early separation from the sow. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63, 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Jaspers, J, Hötzel, MJ 2008. Understanding weaning distress. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110, 24–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Pajor, EA, Bonenfant, M, Fraser, D, Kramer, DL 2002. Alternative housing for sows and litters: part 4. Effects of sow-controlled housing combined with a communal piglet area on pre- and post-weaning behaviour and performance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worobec, EK, Duncan, IJH, Widowski, TM 1999. The effects of weaning at 7, 14 and 28 days on piglet behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62, 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar