Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May 30;11(6):1619.
doi: 10.3390/ani11061619.

Positive Human Contact and Housing Systems Impact the Responses of Piglets to Various Stressors

Affiliations

Positive Human Contact and Housing Systems Impact the Responses of Piglets to Various Stressors

Megan E Hayes et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

This experiment studied the effects of lactation housing systems and human interaction on piglets' responses to routine stressors. Forty litters of piglets were reared in either a standard farrowing crate (FC) or a loose farrowing and lactation pen (LP; PigSAFE pen) and received either routine contact with humans (C) or regular opportunities for positive human contact (+HC; 3 min of patting, stroking and scratching 5 times/week). Behavioural and physiological responses to routine husbandry procedures, weaning, novelty and humans were studied in addition to effects on piglet growth, injuries and survival. Compared to C piglets, +HC piglets vocalised for shorter durations (p = 0.018) during husbandry procedures and showed a lower intensity of escape behaviour during iron injection (p = 0.042) and oral vaccination (p = 0.026) at 3 d of age, capture at 2 wk of age (p < 0.001), and intramuscular vaccination (p = 0.005) at 3 wk of age. +HC piglets at 2 wk of age were faster than C piglets to approach (p = 0.048) and interact (p = 0.042) with a stationary unfamiliar human. Compared to LP piglets, FC piglets showed a lower intensity of escape behaviour during capture and iron administration by a stockperson at 3 d of age (p = 0.043). FC piglets at 2 wk of age were faster than LP piglets to approach (p = 0.005) and interact (p = 0.027) with a novel object and approach (p = 0.009) and interact (p = 0.008) with an unfamiliar human. FC piglets had fewer injuries than LP piglets at 2 wk of age (p = 0.004). +HC pigs had fewer injuries than C pigs after weaning (p = 0.003). After weaning there were more pigs from LP than FC observed to be upright (both stationary, p = 0.002 and walking, p = 0.024), vocalizing (p = 0.004), nosing another pig (p = 0.035) and nosing the pen floor (p = 0.038). There were no significant effects on neutrophil:lymphocyte ratios or plasma cortisol concentrations 1.5 h after weaning. However, 25 h after weaning +HC pigs had higher haptoglobin concentrations than C pigs (p = 0.002), and C/LP pigs had higher cortisol concentrations than +HC/LP and C/FC pigs (p = 0.012). There were no significant effects on piglet growth, the number of piglets born alive or the number stillborn, however there were more piglets weaned from FC than LP (p = 0.035). The results from this experiment raise questions that require further research on the ability of pigs reared in loose pens to cope with stressors such as exposure to humans, novelty, husbandry procedures and weaning. This experiment also provides evidence that regular positive human interaction reduces pigs' fear of humans and husbandry procedures imposed by stockpeople. More research is required to determine if any of these effects are sustained long-term.

Keywords: early life experiences; handling; housing; pig welfare; positive human contact.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Rebecca S. Morrison is an employee of Rivalea Australia which provided financial support for this research.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Layout and dimensions of the two housing systems: (a) farrowing crate (FC); (b) loose pen (LP). X denotes the position of the experimenter during the imposition of the positive human contact treatment.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Allocation of positive human contact (+HC) and routine human contact (C) litters: (a) loose pen (LP) room; (b) farrowing crate (FC) room. Grey boxes in both housing systems represent non-experimental litters.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Iacoviella B.M., Charney D.S. Cognitive and behavioral components of resilience to stress. In: Chen A., editor. Stress Resilience: Molecular and Behavioral Aspects. Academic Press; London, UK: 2019. p. 23.
    1. Parker K.J., Maestripieri D. Identifying key features of early stressful experiences that produce stress vulnerability and resilience in primates. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2011;35:1466–1483. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.09.003. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lyons D., Parker K., Katz M., Schatzberg A. Developmental cascades linking stress inoculation, arousal regulation, and resilience. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2009;3 doi: 10.3389/neuro.08.032.2009. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lyons D.M., Parker K.J., Schatzberg A.F. Animal models of early life stress: Implications for understanding resilience. Dev. Psychobiol. 2010;52:402–410. doi: 10.1002/dev.20429. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baxter E.M., Lawrence A.B., Edwards S.A. Alternative farrowing systems: Design criteria for farrowing systems based on the biological needs of sows and piglets. Animal. 2011;5:580–600. doi: 10.1017/S1751731110002272. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources