Literature DB >> 30610905

Judgement bias testing in group-housed gestating sows.

K M Horback1, T D Parsons2.   

Abstract

Societal concerns about animal welfare have triggered the movement of gestating sows from individual stalls to group housing in many countries. Common methods of assessing sow welfare focus on overt physical ailments, and potentially neglect psychological stressors. A judgement bias task may allow researchers to evaluate an animal's subjective mental or affective state to provide a more comprehensive welfare assessment. Thus, group housed sows were trained to a spatial differentiation task to evaluate their ability to be assessed for individual judgement bias. A total of 45 sows were trained to the task across two replicates, with 24 successfully meeting the learning criteria required to be tested for a judgement bias. In the first replicate, 60% of sows displayed positive bias while 40% displayed negative biases. In the second replicate, 52% of sows displayed positive biases while 33% of sows displayed negative biases. A linear mixed effects model revealed that feed rank affected the latency to approach the ambiguous stimulus (χ2 (1) = 9.47, p = 0.002) with more dominant animals being more likely to exhibit a positive bias. Given that all sows in the present study were group housed, as well as fed and managed similarly, these findings highlight the complexities underlying judgement bias outcomes.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Affective state; Animal welfare; Operant conditioning; Sow; Swine

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30610905     DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2018.12.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Processes        ISSN: 0376-6357            Impact factor:   1.777


  7 in total

1.  Judgment Bias During Gestation in Domestic Pigs.

Authors:  Emily V Bushby; Sheena C Cotter; Anna Wilkinson; Mary Friel; Lisa M Collins
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2022-05-12

2.  Emotion in animal contests.

Authors:  Andrew Crump; Emily J Bethell; Ryan Earley; Victoria E Lee; Michael Mendl; Lucy Oldham; Simon P Turner; Gareth Arnott
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-11-18       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Social status and previous experience in the group as predictors of welfare of sows housed in large semi-static groups.

Authors:  Sophie Brajon; Jamie Ahloy-Dallaire; Nicolas Devillers; Frédéric Guay
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Like Mother Like Child: Do Fearful Sows Have Fearful Piglets?

Authors:  Hazel B Rooney; Oceane Schmitt; Alexandra Courty; Peadar G Lawlor; Keelin O'Driscoll
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-24       Impact factor: 2.752

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

Authors:  Kristina M Horback; Thomas D Parsons
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  A systematic review of the impact of housing on sow welfare during post-weaning and early pregnancy periods.

Authors:  Jen-Yun Chou; Thomas D Parsons
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2022-08-23

7.  Social proximity in dairy calves is affected by differences in pessimism.

Authors:  Benjamin Lecorps; Sarah Kappel; Daniel M Weary; Marina A G von Keyserlingk
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-30       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.