Judgement bias of group housed gestating sows predicted by behavioral traits, but not physical measures of welfare

Abstract

Judgement bias testing has emerged as a potential tool for assessing affective states in animals. Researchers infer an animal’s affective state based on an animal’s response to an ambiguous stimulus that is intermediate to both the rewarded and punished conditioned stimuli. Animals can be classified as “optimistic” or having a positive affective state if the animal displays behaviors that suggest an increased expectation of reward in the face of ambiguous stimuli. Alternatively, animals can be classified “pessimistic” or having a negative affective state if the animal displays behaviors that suggest an increased expectation of punishment in the face of ambiguous stimuli. Recent reports in multiple species question what factors influence performance in judgement bias testing, and which may allow for erroneous conclusions regarding individual affective state. In order to better understand this concern, 25 female swine were subjected to behavioral assessments at critical rearing stages to determine response variability. These same individuals were then assessed for physical measures of welfare and judgement bias using the “go/no-go” task as breeding adults. Sows which were more aggressive approached the ambiguous, but not the positive, stimulus significantly faster than others. Both optimistic and pessimistic biases were observed despite all sows living in enriched housing, and, sows with more positive physical welfare measures (fewer skin lesions and healthy body condition) did not exhibit more optimistic judgement biases. Our data demonstrate that behavior traits, such as aggressiveness, can affect a sow’s performance in a judgement bias test, while measures of physical health did not. We suggest that individual differences in behavior (e.g., bold-aggressive behavioral syndrome, or, proactive coping style) generate different emotional responses and can contribute to the animal’s overall affective state more so than physical ailment. Our findings highlight the complexity of how different factors impact an animal’s overall affective state and support the need for complementary measures in future JBT studies, including personality assessment.