Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:57:36.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domestica) able to use complex humangiven cues to find a hidden reward?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

C Nawroth ,
M Ebersbach  and
E von Borell
C Nawroth*
Affiliation:
Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK Department of Animal Husbandry & Ecology, Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Martin-Luther-University, Halle, Germany
M Ebersbach
Affiliation:
Department of Developmental Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany
E von Borell
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry & Ecology, Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Martin-Luther-University, Halle, Germany
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: nawroth.christian@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Understanding human-animal interactions in livestock production systems is crucial for improving animal welfare. It is therefore of general interest to investigate how livestock animals obtain information from humans. By using an object-choice paradigm, we investigated whether domestic pigs (Sus scrofa) (n = 4) were able to use a variety of human-given cues, such as different pointing gestures, to find a hidden food reward. In Experiment 1, an experimenter pointed towards a baited location in front of the pig while the extent of the protrusion of his hand from the upper body was varied. Pigs had problems using pointing gestures that did not protrude from the upper body of the experimenter, but were able to successfully use a long cross pointing administered with the contralateral hand of an experimenter to find a hidden reward. In Experiment 2, an experimenter indicated a baited location that was behind the pig using either a pointing gesture, his body or his head orientation. All four individuals used the pointing gesture and one pig was able to use the head orientation to find the hidden reward. The results provide additional evidence of pigs’ ability to use novel human-given cues as well as on the limits of their abilities, and will contribute to a better understanding of pigs’ perception of their stockpersons and handlers.

Keywords

animal welfaredomestic pigshuman-animal interactionhuman-given cuesobject choice paradigmpointing gesture
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 185 - 190
Copyright
© 2016 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Boissy, A and Bouissou, M-F 1988 Effects of early handling on heifers’ subsequent reactivity to humans and to unfamiliar situati-ons. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20(3-4): 259–273. http://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(88)90051-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brajon, S, Laforest, J-P, Schmitt, O and Devillers, N 2015 The way humans behave modulates the emotional state of piglets. Plos One 10(8): e0133408. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133408CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hare, B, Brown, M, Williamson, C and Tomasello, M 2002 The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298(5598): 1634–1636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1072702CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, P 2003 Human-animal interactions in livestock pro-duction. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81(3): 185–198. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00280-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Gonyou, HW and Dziuk, PJ 1986 Human communication with pigs: the behavioural response of pigs to spe-cific human signals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 45–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(86)90021-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jago, J, Krohn, C and Matthews, L 1999 The influence of fee-ding and handling on the development of the human-animal inter-actions in young cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62(2-3): 137–151. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00219-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaminski, J, Riedel, J, Call, J and Tomasello, M 2005 Domestic goats, Capra hircus, follow gaze direction and use social cues in an object choice task. Animal Behaviour 69(1): 11–18. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.05.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos G, Soproni K, Dóka A and Miklósi Á 2009 A compa-rative approach to dogs’ (Canis familiaris) and human infants’ com-prehension of various forms of pointing gestures. Animal Cognition 12(4): 621–631. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-009-0221-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maros K, Gácsi M and Miklósi Á 2008 Comprehension of human pointing gestures in horses (Equus caballus). Animal Cognition 11(3): 457–466. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-008-0136-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miklósi, A and Soproni, K 2006 A comparative analysis of ani-mals’ understanding of the human pointing gesture. Animal Cognition 9(2): 81–93. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miura, A, Tanida, H, Tanaka, T and Yoshimoto, T 1996 The influence of human posture and movement on the approach and escape behaviour of weanling pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 247–256. http://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)00658-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muns, R, Rault, JL and Hemsworth, P 2015 Positive human contact on the first day of life alters the piglet's behavioural response to humans and husbandry practices. Physiology & Behavior 151: 162–167. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.phys-beh.2015.06.030CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nawroth, C, Ebersbach, M and von Borell, E 2013 Are juvenile domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domestica) sensitive to the attentive states of humans? The impact of impulsivity on choice behaviour. Behavioural Processes 96: 53–58. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2013.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nawroth, C, Ebersbach, M and von Borell, E 2014 Juvenile domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domestica) use human-given cues in an object choice task. Animal Cognition 17(3): 701–713. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-013-0702-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Probst, JK, Spengler Neff, A, Leiber, F, Kreuzer, M and Hillmann, E 2012 Gentle touching in early life reduces avoidan-ce distance and slaughter stress in beef cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 139(1-2): 42–49. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appla-nim.2012.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proops, L, Walton, M and McComb, K 2010 The use of human-given cues by domestic horses, Equus caballus, during an object choice task. Animal Behaviour 79(6): 1205-1209. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.02.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedel, J, Schumann, K, Kaminski, J, Call, J and Tomasello, M 2008 The early ontogeny of human-dog communication. Animal Behaviour 75(3): 1003–1014. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbe-hav.2007.08.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soproni, K, Miklósi, Á, Topál, J and Csányi, V 2002 Dogs’ (Canis familaris) responsiveness to human pointing gestures. Journal of Comparative Psychology 116(1): 27–34. http://doi.org/10.1037//0735-7036.116.1.27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, M, Shepherd, HM, Webster, JR, Waas, JR, McLeay, LM and Schütz, KE 2013 Effect of previous handling experiences on responses of dairy calves to routine husbandry procedures. Animal 7(5): 828–833. http://doi.org/10.1017/S175173111200225XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tallet, C, Sy, K, Prunier, A, Nowak, R, Boissy, A and Boivin, X 2014 Behavioural and physiological reactions of piglets to gentle tactile interactions vary according to their previous expe-rience with humans. Livestock Science 167: 331–341. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.06.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udell, MR, Dorey, NR and Wynne, CDL 2008 Wolves outper-form dogs in following human social cues. Animal Behaviour 76(6): 1767–1773. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Boivin, X, Pedersen, V, Tosi, M-V, Janczak, AM, Visser, EK and Jones, RB 2006 Assessing the human-ani-mal relationship in farmed species: A critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101(3-4): 185–242. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Nawroth et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 172.3 KB