Literature DB >> 15956474

Repeated handling of pigs during rearing. I. Refusal of contact by the handler and reactivity to familiar and unfamiliar humans.

E M C Terlouw1, J Porcher.   

Abstract

Pigs housed in groups received different handling treatments for 40 d until slaughter age. Pigs of the human interaction (HI) and refusal of contact (RC) groups were individually introduced into a pen each day, where they remained for 3 min in the presence of a squatted handler. The handler tried to increase progressively physical reciprocal interactions with the HI pigs using eye and body contact and voice. The handler remained immobile and avoided eye contact and use of voice with RC pigs. These pigs were pushed away when they touched the handler. Control pigs remained in their home pens. Over sessions, HI pigs progressively increased physical interactions with the handler, up to 35% of their time. The RC pigs were motivated to interact with the handler as they tried to establish physical contact with the handler throughout the experiment. They increased levels of locomotion, rubbing, immobility, and snout contact with the wall, suggesting that they were frustrated by the refusal of contact. At the end of the experimental period, all pigs were subjected to three human exposure tests, where pigs were exposed to the handler and two other persons, one of which was unfamiliar, in a Latin square design. During this test, behavior of the humans was the same as for the RC treatment. The HI pigs discriminated between the handler and the other persons as indicated by their increased approach behavior towards the handler. Part of the prior handling experience was generalized to other humans as indicated by higher levels of proximity of HI and RC pigs with the different persons compared with controls. Physical contact with the human was associated with increased heart rates. Two possibilities are that these two characteristics are part of a general behavioral/physiological reactive profile, or that contact with humans provokes an arousal or emotional response. Despite this, behavioral data show that pigs are motivated to be in physical contact with a handler, even when the handler consistently refuses contact.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15956474     DOI: 10.2527/2005.8371653x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  5 in total

1.  Relationship between Environmental Enrichment and the Response to Novelty in Laboratory-housed Pigs.

Authors:  Brittany L Backus; Mhairi A Sutherland; Tiffanie A Brooks
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 1.232

2.  Influence of Municipal Abattoir Conditions and Animal-related Factors on Avoidance-related Behaviour, Bleeding Times at Slaughter and the Quality of Lamb Meat.

Authors:  Yonela Z Njisane; Voster Muchenje
Journal:  Asian-Australas J Anim Sci       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 2.509

3.  Farm to abattoir conditions, animal factors and their subsequent effects on cattle behavioural responses and beef quality - A review.

Authors:  Yonela Zifikile Njisane; Voster Muchenje
Journal:  Asian-Australas J Anim Sci       Date:  2016-09-09       Impact factor: 2.509

4.  Human proximity seeking in family pigs and dogs.

Authors:  Paula Pérez Fraga; Linda Gerencsér; Attila Andics
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Koi (Cyprinus rubrofuscus) Seek Out Tactile Interaction with Humans: General Patterns and Individual Differences.

Authors:  Isabel Fife-Cook; Becca Franks
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 2.752

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.