Positive human contact on the first day of life alters the piglet's behavioural response to humans and husbandry practices

Pigs in heaven: Enhancing the lives of breeding boars

The recognition of animals as sentient beings has raised societal awareness of the welfare of farmed animals. This has been instrumental in increasing the legislative pressure towards welfare-conscious farming practices and, more lately, greater consumer demand for ethically sourced products. Besides, improved animal welfare is a key driver for enhanced performance, particularly in breeding boars, as welfare conditions strongly influence reproductive outcomes. The stressors associated with confinement impact testicular physiology and semen quality and the efforts to improve the welfare of breeding boars have so far focused on mitigating the negative consequences associated with stressors. The Five Freedoms framework and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)'s 'welfare consequences' approach prioritise the alleviation of suffering. In breeding boars, key welfare negative consequences include movement restriction, isolation stress, inability to engage in exploratory behaviours, locomotory disorders, and prolonged hunger. The negative consequences, which can be mitigated by improved housing and management practices, should be tackled in any commitment to improve the welfare of breeding boars. Animal welfare science, however, has recently shifted towards cultivating positive welfare experiences and a life worth living, beyond just alleviating suffering. The Five Domain Model systematically evaluates animal welfare, considering both negative and positive aspects. Encouraging positive welfare states involves facilitating species-specific behaviours, such as exploration and play, and fostering positive human-animal interactions. In breeding boars, strategies promoting positive welfare include providing enriching environments, encouraging exploration, and cultivating positive interactions with caretakers. Thus, for an overall welfare improvement of breeding boars, not only should the absence of suffering be guaranteed, but also the promotion of positive experiences that make their lifes worth living.

Early human contact and housing for pigs - part 2: resilience to routine husbandry practices

The ability of pigs to cope with routine farming practices can affect their welfare. This paper is part of a series on early experiences and stress, and reports on the effects of early human contact and housing on the responses of pigs to routine husbandry practices. Using a 2 × 2 factorial design, 48 litters of pigs were raised in either a conventional farrowing crate (FC) or a loose farrowing pen (LP; PigSAFE pen) which was larger, more physically complex and allowed the sow to move freely. Piglets were provided with either routine contact from stockpeople (C), or routine contact plus regular opportunities for positive human contact (+HC) involving 5 min of scratching, patting and stroking imposed to the litter 5 days/week from 0 to 4 weeks of age. At 4 weeks of age, piglets were weaned and re-housed with controlled mixing of litters within treatment. At 4 days of age, after only 3 bouts of the handling treatment, +HC pigs showed less escape behaviour than C pigs after capture by a stockperson for vaccinations and tail docking, and shorter durations of vocalisations throughout the procedures. The  +HC pigs also showed less escape behaviour when captured by a stockperson at 3 weeks of age. The FC pigs showed less escape behaviour than LP pigs after capture by a stockperson at 4 days of age but not at 3 weeks of age. Serum cortisol concentrations were lower in FC pigs than LP pigs 2 h after weaning but not at 49 h after weaning, whereas serum cortisol concentrations were lower in  +HC pigs than C pigs at 49 h after weaning but not at 2 h after weaning. In the period from 0 to 1 h after weaning, C pigs from LP performed the most escape attempts, although escape attempts were rare overall. When being moved out of the home pen by a stockperson at 21 weeks of age, FC pigs showed less baulking than LP pigs, but there were no detected effects of human contact treatment. In conclusion, both housing system and human contact during lactation affected the stress responses of pigs to routine husbandry practices. The +HC and FC pigs appeared to cope better than C and LP pigs, based on lower responses indicative of stress including escape behaviour, vocalisations and cortisol concentrations. These findings are consistent with corresponding reductions in fear that were reported in Part 1 of this series of papers.

Review: Early life piglet experiences and impacts on immediate and longer-term adaptability

Pigs in production systems are routinely exposed to challenging situations including abrupt weaning, painful husbandry procedures, intense contact with stockpeople, and exposure to novel social and physical environments. The resilience of pigs to these stressors has implications for animal welfare and productivity and can be affected by early life experiences. In rodents and primates, early experiences with stressors that the animal can adequately cope with confers future stress adaptability, leading to less abnormal behaviour, lower behavioural and physiological responses to stressors, and faster recovery after stress exposure. Early experiences that can affect the ability of pigs to overcome challenge include interactions with the dam, conspecifics, humans, and the overall complexity of the environment. Farrowing crates limit the sow's ability to show maternal behaviour towards piglets, and negatively affect piglet social behaviour during lactation, with less play and more manipulation of pen mates in crates than in large pens. Rearing in pens has been proposed to improve the ability of pigs to cope with routine stressors, but the evidence for this is conflicting. The early housing environment can affect general fearfulness and fear of humans, and surprisingly, most studies have shown fear responses to be greater in pigs reared pens than in crates. Given the potential for fear to affect animal welfare and productivity, more detailed research on early housing effects is needed. While there is limited evidence that early housing influences fear in the longer term, human contact early in life appears to have a more profound and sustained effect, with regular positive human interaction early in life having an enduring effect on reducing pigs' fear of humans. The practicality of positive human-pig interaction in a commercial environment needs to be examined further, but only a small amount of positive human contact early in life can improve the resilience of pigs to routine husbandry stressors. Early social experience with non-littermates reduces stress at weaning and mixing, while early weaning before 3-4 weeks of age increases abnormal behaviours. Environmental enrichment, such as foraging substrates and increased floor space, reduces abnormal behaviour in piglets, but housing in an enriched environment early in life and subsequently in a non-enriched environment can increase abnormal behaviour if these environments are dramatically different. Although the later environment can modify the influence of the early environment, overall, early life experiences can be important in shaping how pigs cope with stress in both an immediate and longer-term capacity.

Transitioning from crates to free farrowing: A roadmap to navigate key decisions

There are animal welfare concerns about the continued use of permanent crating systems for farrowing and lactating sows, which is the most prevalent maternity system in global pig production. Greater societal attention in recent years has culminated in changes (or proposed changes) to regulations as well as market-driven initiatives to move away from crated systems. Transitioning from farrowing crates to systems that allow the sow greater freedom of movement and behavioral expression requires a number of key decisions, with various trade-offs apparent when trying to balance the needs of different stakeholders. This review discusses these decisions based on common questions asked by farmers, policy makers and other stakeholders when deciding on a new system to build/approve. Based on the latest scientific evidence and practical insight, decisions such as: whether to retrofit an existing barn or build a new one, what spatial dimensions are necessary per sow place, whether to adopt free farrowing or temporary crating, how to provide substrate/enrichment and be hygienic and environmentally friendly, and how to optimize the human inputs and transition between systems are considered. The aim of this paper is to provide a roadmap for those interested in uptake of higher welfare systems and practices, as well as to highlight areas requiring further optimization and research.

Discrepancies between farmers' perceptions and actual animal welfare conditions on commercial pig farms

Animal welfare is a multiparameteral concept that encompasses the physical and mental health of animals and includes various aspects such as physical wellbeing, absence of hunger and thirst, and ability to express motivated behavior, to which farmers usually attach different importance. The objectives of this study were to evaluate animal welfare on Slovenian commercial pig farms, to determine whether farmers' perceived importance of animal welfare differ from actual animal welfare on farms and to determine, if farmer's age, gender, their level of education and participation in vocational training have an influence. For that purpose, we created an Animal Welfare Protocol/Questionnaire for Pig Farms (AWQ/P-P) that assessed several parameters of animal welfare: (1) general status, (2) animal behavior, (3) health status, (4) living conditions, and (5) environmental conditions. Each parameter included at least five observation points and was scored on a 5-point scale. The same observation points were used to measure farmers' perceived importance of animal welfare and for observational assessment. Consequently, we were able to compare both statistically. Farmers from 14 (N = 14) large Slovenian pig farms participated in the study. Results show that farmers rate all parameters of animal welfare very highly. For them, animal health status is the most important, and environmental conditions are the least important factors for animal welfare. Observational inspections yielded significantly lower scores for animal welfare conditions than those obtained from farmer ratings. The highest correlations between farmers' perceptions and observational inspections were found for the parameters of animal behavior and environmental conditions. The results of this study also suggest that vocational training is a significant variable in increasing levels of pig welfare. Age, gender, and education level are not significant variables, however, farms led by older male farmers with lower level of education but involved in vocational training from different sources had slightly better welfare on the farm. This should be further investigated before making conclusions, due to our small sample size. The significance of the study is to identify deficiencies in pig welfare as perceived by farmers and consequently improve pig welfare.

Improving young pig welfare on-farm: The Five Domains Model

Considering welfare through the "neonatal and nursery pig perspective" is an exciting approach, and one that resonates with consumers. Overlaying this with the Five Domains Model, as we suggest in this review, points to practical on-farm improvements that provide each pig the opportunity to experience positive mental states. The Five Domains Model is broken into physical and functional states, that includes Domain 1 Nutrition, Domain 2 Physical Environment, Domain 3 Health and, Domain 4 Behavioral Interaction, and Domain 5 Mental State. The Five Domains Model can build on the breadth and depth of swine welfare science to highlight opportunities to improve welfare on-farm. In Domain 1 management of increasingly large litters is considered, with examples of sow vs. artificial rearing, colostrum quality and quantity, and creep feed management strategies. Efforts can result in positive mental states such as feeling full and content and the ability to experience pleasure of drinking and food tastes/smells. Domain 2 considers space complexity and access to key resources, along with thermal and physical amenities, to promote feelings of physical comfort. Domain 3 considers pig health in three broad, yet inter-linking categories, (a) congenital and hereditary health, (b) environmental pathogen load and, (c) colostrum quality and quantity, and its effect on the microbiome. Improvements can result in a pig that displays vitality and feels healthy. Domain 4 provides the pig opportunities to express its rich behavioral repertoire, specifically positive social interactions, play, and exploration. These efforts can result in pigs feeling calm, safe, comfortable, having companionship, engaged, interested and rewarded. In conclusion, using the Five Domains Model can highlight numerous opportunities to improve current and future housing and management through the "neonatal and nursery pig perspective" with a focus on inducing positive mental states that can result in improved quality of life and welfare state.

Review: The Five Domains model and promoting positive welfare in pigs

Public concern for the welfare of farm animals has increased over recent years. Meeting public demands for higher animal welfare products requires robust animal welfare assessment tools that enable the user to identify areas of potential welfare compromise and enhancement. The Five Domains model is a structured, systematic, and comprehensive framework for assessing welfare risks and enhancement in sentient animals. Since its inception in 1994, the model has undergone regular updates to incorporate advances in animal welfare understanding and scientific knowledge. The model consists of five areas, or domains, that focus attention on specific factors or conditions that may impact on an animal's welfare. These include four physical/functional domains: nutrition, physical environment, health, and behavioural interactions, and a fifth mental or affective state domain. The first three domains draw attention to welfare-significant internal physical/functional states within the animal, whereas the fourth deals with welfare-relevant features of the animal's external physical and social environment. Initially named "Behaviour" Domain 4 was renamed "Behavioural Interactions" in the 2020 iteration of the model and was expanded to include three categories: interactions with the environment, interactions with other animals and interactions with humans. These explicitly focus attention on environmental and social circumstances that may influence the animal's ability to exercise agency, an important determinant of welfare. Once factors in Domains 1-4 have been considered, the likely consequences, in terms of the animal's subjective experiences, are assigned to Domain 5 (affective state). The integrated outcome of all negative and positive mental experiences accumulated in Domain 5 represents the animal's current welfare state. Because the model specifically draws attention to conditions that may positively influence welfare, it provides a useful framework for identifying opportunities to promote positive welfare in intensively farmed animals. When negative affective experiences are minimised, providing animals with the opportunity to engage in species-specific rewarding behaviours may shift them into an overall positive welfare state. In domestic pigs, providing opportunities for foraging, play, and nest building, along with improving the quality of pig-human interactions, has the potential to promote positive welfare.

Positive Human Contact and Housing Systems Impact the Responses of Piglets to Various Stressors

Simple Summary

Early life experiences such as contact with humans, maternal care and the physical environment can play a substantial role in shaping behavioural and physiological responses to stress. This experiment studied the effects of lactation housing systems and human interaction on stress in young pigs. We hypothesised that piglets handled in a positive manner and reared in loose farrowing and lactation pens with increased opportunity for interaction with their dam, greater space and more complexity in their physical environment have improved stress resilience than piglets reared in traditional farrowing crates with routine contact from stockpeople. In both housing systems, providing regular opportunities for positive human interaction reduced piglets’ fear of humans and routine husbandry procedures imposed by humans, and reduced the number of injuries obtained after weaning. However, contrary to the expected findings, piglets from loose farrowing and lactation pens were more reactive to capture by a stockperson, more fearful of novel and human stimuli, had more injuries during the lactation period and were more likely to perform behaviours which may be indicative of reduced coping after weaning. Whether these effects are specific to the loose farrowing and lactation system studied in this experiment or are reflective of other loose systems requires further research.

Abstract

This experiment studied the effects of lactation housing systems and human interaction on piglets’ responses to routine stressors. Forty litters of piglets were reared in either a standard farrowing crate (FC) or a loose farrowing and lactation pen (LP; PigSAFE pen) and received either routine contact with humans (C) or regular opportunities for positive human contact (+HC; 3 min of patting, stroking and scratching 5 times/week). Behavioural and physiological responses to routine husbandry procedures, weaning, novelty and humans were studied in addition to effects on piglet growth, injuries and survival. Compared to C piglets, +HC piglets vocalised for shorter durations (p = 0.018) during husbandry procedures and showed a lower intensity of escape behaviour during iron injection (p = 0.042) and oral vaccination (p = 0.026) at 3 d of age, capture at 2 wk of age (p < 0.001), and intramuscular vaccination (p = 0.005) at 3 wk of age. +HC piglets at 2 wk of age were faster than C piglets to approach (p = 0.048) and interact (p = 0.042) with a stationary unfamiliar human. Compared to LP piglets, FC piglets showed a lower intensity of escape behaviour during capture and iron administration by a stockperson at 3 d of age (p = 0.043). FC piglets at 2 wk of age were faster than LP piglets to approach (p = 0.005) and interact (p = 0.027) with a novel object and approach (p = 0.009) and interact (p = 0.008) with an unfamiliar human. FC piglets had fewer injuries than LP piglets at 2 wk of age (p = 0.004). +HC pigs had fewer injuries than C pigs after weaning (p = 0.003). After weaning there were more pigs from LP than FC observed to be upright (both stationary, p = 0.002 and walking, p = 0.024), vocalizing (p = 0.004), nosing another pig (p = 0.035) and nosing the pen floor (p = 0.038). There were no significant effects on neutrophil:lymphocyte ratios or plasma cortisol concentrations 1.5 h after weaning. However, 25 h after weaning +HC pigs had higher haptoglobin concentrations than C pigs (p = 0.002), and C/LP pigs had higher cortisol concentrations than +HC/LP and C/FC pigs (p = 0.012). There were no significant effects on piglet growth, the number of piglets born alive or the number stillborn, however there were more piglets weaned from FC than LP (p = 0.035). The results from this experiment raise questions that require further research on the ability of pigs reared in loose pens to cope with stressors such as exposure to humans, novelty, husbandry procedures and weaning. This experiment also provides evidence that regular positive human interaction reduces pigs’ fear of humans and husbandry procedures imposed by stockpeople. More research is required to determine if any of these effects are sustained long-term.

Effects of Positive Human Contact during Gestation on the Behaviour, Physiology and Reproductive Performance of Sows

Simple Summary

Stress can compromise animal welfare and impact the productivity of farm animals. In intensive production systems where close interactions between stockpeople and animals occur regularly, human contact of a positive nature may facilitate stress resilience. This experiment studied the effects of human interaction on stress in pigs, by providing sows in their home pens with either regular positive handling by stockpeople or routine human contact. Stress resilience was studied by assessing the behaviour, physiology and productivity of pigs in these two treatments. Positive human contact was effective at reducing the fear responses of sows towards stockpeople conducting routine husbandry practices in the home pens. However, the positive handling treatment did not affect the behaviour of pigs towards other stressors imposed outside of the home pen, acute or basal physiological measures of stress or reproductive performance. Sows receiving positive handling showed reduced physical interaction with the stockpeople delivering the treatment over time, which may indicate habituation to the novel or possible rewarding elements of the human contact treatment. This work confirms that regular positive interaction with stockpeople does reduce the fear of sows to stockpeople, but does not always confer stress resilence.

Abstract

Previous positive interactions with humans may ameliorate the stress response of farm animals to aversive routine practices such as painful or stressful procedures, particularly those associated with stockpeople. We studied the effects of positive handling by providing younger (parity 1–2) and older (parity 3–8) sows housed in pens of fifteen (n = 24 pens in total) with either positive human contact (+HC) or routine human contact (control) during gestation. The +HC treatment involved a familiar stockperson patting and scratching sows and was imposed at a pen-level for 2 min daily. Measurements studied included behavioural, physiological and productivity variables. The +HC sows showed reduced avoidance of the stockperson conducting pregnancy testing and vaccination in the home pens, however the behavioural and cortisol responses of sows in a standard unfamiliar human approach test did not differ. There were no effects of +HC on aggression between sows, serum cortisol or serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor concentrations during gestation, or on the behavioural and cortisol response to being moved to farrowing crates. There were also no effects of +HC on the maternal responsiveness of sows, farrowing rate or the number of piglets born alive, stillborn or weaned. Sows in the +HC pens reduced their physical interaction with the stockpeople imposing the treatment after 2 weeks, which suggests the sows may have habituated to the novel or possible rewarding elements of the handling treatment. This experiment shows that regular positive interaction with stockpeople does reduce sows’ fear of stockpeople, but does not always confer stress resilence.

The Power of a Positive Human-Animal Relationship for Animal Welfare

Domestic animals often seek and enjoy interacting with humans. Positive human-animal relationships can elicit positive emotions and other positive welfare outcomes. Nevertheless, our understanding of the underlying processes that govern the positive perception of humans by animals is incomplete. We cover the potential mechanisms involved in the development and maintenance of positive human-animal relationships from the perspective of the animal. This encompasses habituation, associative learning, and possibly attachment or bonding based on communication and social cognition. We review the indicators from the literature to assess a positive human-animal relationship. We operationally define this positive relationship as the animal showing voluntary approach and spatial proximity (seeking) and signs of anticipation, pleasure, relaxation, or other indicators of a rewarding experience from interacting with the human. For research, we recommend accounting for the baseline human-animal relationship in the animal's everyday life, and incorporating a control treatment rather than only comparing positive to negative interaction treatments. Furthermore, animal characteristics, such as previous experience, genetics, and individual predisposition, as well as contextual characteristics related to the social and physical environment, may modulate the perception of humans by animals. The human-animal relationship is also influenced by human characteristics, such as the person's familiarity to the animal, attitudes, skills, and knowledge. We highlight implications for current practices and suggest simple solutions, such as paying attention to the animal's behavioral response to humans and providing choice and control to the animal in terms of when and how to interact with humans. Practical applications to achieve a positive perception of humans could be better utilized, such as by incorporating training principles, while keeping in mind trust and safety of both partners. Overall, there is growing evidence in the scientific literature that a positive human-animal relationship can bring intrinsic rewards to the animals and thereby benefit animal welfare. Further research is needed on the underlying processes to establish an effective positive human-animal relationship, especially in regard to the type, frequency, and length of human interaction necessary. In particular, the importance of providing animals with a sense of agency over their interactions with humans remains poorly understood.

Human-directed behaviour in goats is not affected by short-term positive handling

In addition to domestication, interactions with humans or task-specific training during ontogeny have been proposed to play a key role in explaining differences in human-animal communication across species. In livestock, even short-term positive interactions with caretakers or other reference persons can influence human-animal interaction at different levels and over different periods of time. In this study, we investigated human-directed behaviour in the 'unsolvable task' paradigm in two groups of domestic goats (Capra aegagrus hircus). One group was positively handled and habituated to a plastic box by the experimenter to retrieve a food reward, while the other group only received standard husbandry care and was habituated to the box without human assistance. In the unsolvable task, the lid was fixed to the box, with the reward inaccessible to the subjects. The goats were confronted with the unsolvable task three times. We observed no difference between the two groups regarding gaze and contact alternations with the experimenter when confronted with the task they cannot solve by themselves. The goats did not differ in their expression rates of both gaze and contact alternations over three repetitions of the unsolvable task; however, they showed earlier gaze and contact alternations in later trials. The results do not support the hypothesis that short-term positive handling or task-specific training by humans facilitates human-directed behaviour in goats. In contrast, standard husbandry care might be sufficient to establish humans as reference persons for farm animals in challenging situations.