You are here: Home / Journal Articles / Persistency of the piglet's reactivity to the handler following a previous positive or negative experience / About

Persistency of the piglet's reactivity to the handler following a previous positive or negative experience

By S. Brajon, J. P. Laforest, R. Bergeron, C. Tallet, M. J. Hotzel, N. Devillers

View Resource (HTM)

Licensed under

Category Journal Articles

A central question in the stockman-animal relationship is how animals perceive humans depending on previous interactions with them. This study aimed at measuring the influence of a previous experience with humans on subsequent reactivity to humans of weaned piglets. Treatments differing in type (intrinsic vs extrinsic to the human) and valence (positive vs negative) of the reinforcements used over a 5-day standardised treatment period with a handler were delivered to 48 groups of three piglets following weaning: (1) gentle handling (GENHD), (2) food reward (FOOD), (3) gentle handling and food reward (FOODHD), (4) rough handling (ROUHD), (5) ball gun (e.g., plastic ball fired by a spring gun) without movement (GUN), (6) ball gun with movement (GUNHD), (7) passive human (PASSIVE, no reinforcement) and, (8) control (CONTROL, absence of additional experience with humans). The approach behaviour during a motionless handler phase was recorded weekly for 5 weeks after the treatment period. Thereafter, reactivity was scored (i.e., 0=no escape to 4=piglet escapes before handler makes any contact) during a handler approach phase. Following the treatment period, whereas piglets from all positive treatments approached the motionless handler, only those that received a gentle handling and were habituated to human contact accepted to be touched (average scores: 0.4, 0.3, 2.4 and 2.0 for FOODHD, GENHD, FOOD and PASSIVE, respectively, P3.8 for all negative treatments, P>0.05). Unfamiliarity with the handler induced a natural vigilance and fear response since CONTROL piglets spent less time in contact with the handler than piglets from positive treatments until 2 weeks after the treatment period with the handler (28% vs 84%, 87%, 86% and 72% for CONTROL vs GENHD, FOODHD, FOOD and PASSIVE, respectively, P0.05). The perception of the handler was strongly modulated by the previous experience with her as behavioural differences between positive and negative treatments persisted for at least 5 weeks. For instance, during the last reactivity test, it is particularly noteworthy that all piglets from positive treatments touched the handler within 22 s, whereas 20% of piglets from negative treatments did not make contact ( P

Publication Title Applied Animal Behaviour Science
Volume 162
Pages 9-19
ISBN/ISSN 0168-1591
Publisher Elsevier
DOI 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.11.009
Language English
Author Address Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Dairy and Swine Research and Development Centre, 2000 College Street, Sherbrooke, Quebec J1M 0C8,
Cite this work

Researchers should cite this work as follows:

  1. Animal behavior
  2. Animal nutrition
  3. Animals
  4. Cleaning
  5. Conditioning
  6. Handling
  7. Human behavior
  8. Humans
  9. Interactions
  10. Mammals
  11. Meat animals
  12. Men
  13. peer-reviewed
  14. Pigs
  15. Primates
  16. ratings
  17. Relationships
  18. Science
  19. Social psychology and social anthropology
  20. Storage and Transport Equipment
  21. Suiformes
  22. ungulates
  23. vertebrates
  24. weaning
  1. peer-reviewed