Cognitive tasks as measures of pig welfare: a systematic review

Abstract

Cognitive approaches are increasingly used to assess animal welfare, but no systematic review has been conducted on pigs despite their cognitive capacities. Our aims were two-fold: first, to assess the popularity and heterogeneity of this approach by quantifying the different cognitive tasks used and welfare interventions studied. The second was to assess how often results from cognitive tasks supported treatment effects. The search yielded 36 studies that met our criteria. Eleven different cognitive tasks were applied (three most common: judgment bias, learned approach/aversion, and holeboard). Welfare interventions investigated were also diverse: the impact of 19 other different events/conditions/states were reported (most common: housing enrichment). We defined “supportive” as the observation of a significant difference between treatment groups consistent with an author’s expectation or hypothesis. Supportive findings were reported in 44% of papers. Interventions yielded no significant difference in 33% of studies. In another 21% of reports, outcomes were mixed and a single study refuted the author’s predictions. When considering specific cognitive tasks, authors’ predictions of welfare differences were supported most often when using learned approach/aversion (55% of these studies). Similar supportive results were observed less commonly (40% each) when using judgment bias and holeboard tests. Analysis of additional concomitant measures of welfare (health, physiology or behavior) revealed that behavioral measures were most frequently supportive of author’s expectations (41%) as well as often matching the actual outcomes of these cognitive tasks (47%). This systematic review highlights the growing popularity of cognitive tasks as measures of pig welfare. However, overall rates of supportive results, i.e., changes in performance on cognitive tasks due to welfare interventions, have been limited so far, even for the most employed task, judgment bias. The numerous different combinations of experimental paradigms and welfare interventions reported in the literature creates challenges for a critical meta-analysis of the field especially in evaluating the efficiency of specific cognitive tasks in assessing animal welfare. This work also highlights important knowledge gaps in the use of cognitive tasks that will require both further validation as well as novel innovation to ensure that their potential is fully realized in the measurement of pig welfare.