A number of behavioural problems are associated with weaning piglets including belly nosing, ear and tail biting, and low intake of solid food. These appear to be less pronounced in piglets reared on outdoor systems, which initially consume more solid food and show less belly nosing and aggression than comparable indoor-reared piglets. The objective of this study was to investigate how these differences in post-weaning behaviour relate to the piglets’ pre-weaning behaviour in the two rearing environments. The study was carried out at a commercial pig unit, where piglets of the same genotype are born into conventional indoor or outdoor farrowing systems. In the intensive system, sows were singly housed prior to farrowing in crates and their piglets received a solid ‘creep’ food prior to weaning. On the outdoor system, sows were allowed to build straw nests in arks for farrowing and both sow and piglets had access to pasture. Indoor and outdoor piglets were weaned at 24 (±3) days of age and mixed in straw-yard housing with access to a solid food. Prior to weaning, teat-directed activity was more common in indoor piglets than outdoor piglets. Outdoor piglets performed more rooting, standing and locomotion and were seen chewing the sows’ roll-nuts. Following weaning, outdoor-reared piglets performed more feeding and rooting, and less fighting than indoor-reared piglets. This study supports previous findings that undesirable activities such as fighting are less common in piglets weaned from outdoor systems, even when mixed with indoor piglets. In addition, outdoor-reared piglets were more likely to exploit solid food even though they did not have access to creep food prior to weaning.
Simple SummaryQuantity discrimination involves distinguishing which of two quantities is greater. This discrimination between larger and smaller quantities has only been demonstrated in rats post extensive training. We tested whether domestic rats could perform quantity discrimination without explicit training. We found that rats could distinguish the greater amount in comparisons of 1 vs. 2, 2 vs. 3, 3 vs. 5, 3 vs. 8, 4 vs. 6, and 4 vs. 8. Rats could not distinguish between 3 vs. 4, 4 vs. 5 and 5 vs. 6. We also found that as the ratio between quantities became finer the choice of the larger quantity decreased. We conclude that rats can perform quantity discrimination without extensive training and that their quantity discrimination ability is influenced by the ratio between quantities.AbstractQuantity discrimination is a basic form of numerical competence where an animal distinguishes which of two amounts is greater in size. Whilst quantity discrimination in rats has been investigated via training paradigms, rats’ natural quantity discrimination abilities without explicit training for a desired response have not been explored. This study investigated domestic rats’ ability to perform quantity discrimination. Domestic rats (n = 12) were examined for their ability to distinguish the larger amount under nine quantity comparisons. One-sample t-tests identified a significant preference for the larger quantity in comparisons of 1 vs. 2, 2 vs. 3, 3 vs. 5, 3 vs. 8, 4 vs. 6, and 4 vs. 8. No preference between quantities was found for comparisons of 3 vs. 4, 4 vs. 5 and 5 vs. 6. Overall, this study drew two key conclusions. Firstly, that domestic rats are capable of performing quantity discrimination without extensive training. Secondly, as subjects adhered to Weber’s law, it was concluded that the approximate number system underpins domestic rats’ ability to perform spontaneous quantity discrimination.
Human-animal emotional relationships have a complicated interplay with public perceptions of the morality of animal use. Humans may build emotional relationships with companion species. These species are not usually intensively farmed in the United Kingdom, but they may be utilized during animal experimentation. From a relational ethical standpoint, the public may therefore perceive animal experimentation as being less acceptable than intensive farming. This study aimed to determine whether human-animal emotional relationships affect public attitudes regarding use of animals in intensive farming and research. Responding to an online questionnaire, British citizens (N = 85) rated their agreement with 20 statements relating to their acceptance of intensive farming and animal experimentation, scientific research involving a given species (e.g., an animal which either is or is not typically associated with the companion context), killing free-living animals, and consuming animals existing within companion and farming contexts. Positive correlations were found between public acceptance of intensive farming and animal experimentation, such that acceptance of animal experimentation corresponded with acceptance of intensive farming practices. This finding disproved our theory that the British public may perceive animal experimentation as less acceptable than intensive farming due to the use of companion species in scientific research. Public acceptance of animal experimentation also did not significantly differ between that involving companion or noncompanion species. However, respondents were more accepting of the consumption of a typical farmed animal raised for meat purposes than consuming an animal if it had been raised in a companion context or consuming a typical companion species raised in either a farmed or companion context. These findings illustrate that the human-animal relationship can influence (but only to a degree) public perceptions of the morality of animal use.
Early environmental experience can have significant effects on an animal's ability to adapt to challenges in later life. Prior experience of specific situations may facilitate the development of behavioural skills which can be applied in similar situations to later life. In addition, exposure to a more complex environment may enhance cognitive development (eg increased synaptic density), which can then speed the acquisition of new behavioural responses when faced with novel challenges (Grandin 1989).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.