Unknown

Dataset Information

0

Application of the voluntary human approach test on commercial pig fattening farms: a meaningful tool?


ABSTRACT: Background A Voluntary Human Approach Test (VHAT) was performed in pig pens, and relationships between environmental conditions and welfare indicators were investigated. Five variables were measured in 1668 pens in 214 fattening pig herds in Germany: time until the first contact (touching) between a pig and the person in the pen (TUFC), time until the observer was surrounded by pigs within a radius of approximately two meters, percentage of pigs relative to group size [%] surrounding the observer after 1 min (PPSO), percentage of pigs relative to group size [%] that completely avoided contact with the observer during the entire test period, and how the pigs contacted the observer (Score 0 [no touching] - 3 [biting]). Furthermore, variables indicative of the pigs’ environment (e.g., feeding system, ventilation system), management (e.g., number of usable drinkers, number of usable manipulatable materials), and welfare (e.g., tail lesions, ear lesions) were documented. Results Pigs engaging in more forceful means of contact (nibbling, biting) approached the observer faster than those exhibiting more gentle types of contact (touching). A lower TUFC was associated with more manipulatable materials present, a higher number of drinkers, and with the control position of the caretaker located inside the pen. Pigs kept in larger groups showed a lower TUFC than those in smaller groups (P?=?0.0191). However, PPSO was lower in pigs kept in smaller groups (1–12 pigs per pen) with more manipulatable materials available. In groups with low PPSOs, more tail lesions were observed (P?=?0.0296). No relationship between contact type and tail or ear injuries was detected. In younger pigs, PPSO was higher (49.9?±?23.2%) than for animals in the second half of the fattening period (45.1?±?19.9%). Conclusions In this on-farm study, the relationships between VHAT behavior and environmental factors revealed that external factors (e.g., management practices, housing conditions) impact animals’ responses to this behavioral test. Therefore, using the VHAT as an animal welfare indicator is valid only if these variables are studied as well.

SUBMITTER: Wegner B 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7422426 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

Similar Datasets

| S-EPMC10801985 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC3318797 | biostudies-other
| S-EPMC11341578 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8950372 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8532605 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8367078 | biostudies-literature
| PRJEB18999 | ENA
| S-EPMC6941093 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6950430 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9951511 | biostudies-literature