Author:
Ede Thomas,Ceribelli Mia,Parsons Thomas D.
Abstract
AbstractStalls or crates are a very common type of housing used on pig farms that restrict an animal’s movement. How this confinement impacts the animal’s affective states is seldom investigated. We conducted a preference test over 7 days where trios of gilts (n = 10 trios, 27.4 ± 1.5 weeks old) had free access between individual self-locking stalls (~ 1.2 m2) and a shared open area allowing 2.8 m2/animal (71% of total area). Gilts had access to ad libitum feed and water both inside the crates and in the open area. After 7 days, personality traits of the animals were assessed with open field (OF) and novel object (NO) tests. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) yielded two main components, which we defined as Passivity and Engagement. The median time spent outside the crate was 95.2% as 21/29 of the gilts exhibited a significant preference for pen over crate during the 7-day trial (p < 0.05). Passivity had no relationship with time spent in the open area, but engagement during OF/NO was associated with less use of the open area (OR = 0.39, 95CI = [0.25, 0.60]). Interestingly, gilts were likely to spend less time in the open area at nighttime compared to daytime (Odds Ratio = 0.49, 95CI = [0.40, 0.60]), as well as experimental days passed (OR = 0.70, 95CI = [0.66, 0.73]). During the first daytime and nighttime, 1/29 and 2/29 animals preferred the crate respectively, whereas by the last daytime and nighttime 5 and 9 gilts preferred the crate respectively (p < 0.05). While both intrinsic (personality) and extrinsic (time of day, experimental day) factors appear to influence the gilt’s housing preferences, most gilts significantly prefer an open area to a crate when free access is provided between the two. A smaller subpopulation of animals developed a preference for stalls but still utilize both the stall and the pen throughout the day.
Funder
Marie A. Moore Behavior and Ethics Research Fund
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference45 articles.
1. EU. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (Codified version). Official Journal of the European Union (2008).
2. Galli, M. C., Gottardo, F., Contiero, B., Scollo, A. & Boyle, L. A. The changing face and associated drivers of research on welfare of the gestating sow. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 20, 2174–2187 (2021).
3. Dawkins, M. S. From an animal’s point of view: Motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behav. Brain Sci. 13, 1–9 (1990).
4. Kirkden, R. D. & Pajor, E. A. Using preference, motivation and aversion tests to ask scientific questions about animals’ feelings. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 100, 29–47 (2006).
5. Wiechers, D.-H., Brunner, S., Herbrandt, S., Kemper, N. & Fels, M. Analysis of hair cortisol as an indicator of chronic stress in pigs in two different farrowing systems. Front. Vet. Sci. 8, 605078 (2021).