Not eating like a pig: European wild boar wash their food

Sommer, Volker; Lowe, Adriana; Dietrich, Tanja

doi:10.1007/s10071-015-0903-z

Cited by 18 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…), skunks (Mephitis mephitis) and banded mongoose (Mungos mungo) roll millipedes on the ground with their paws to wipe off toxic secretions before eating them [46][47][48]. Ungulates such as boars (Sus scrofa) and babirusa (Babyrousa celebensis) use their mouths and snouts to carry soiled food items to nearby water sources and wash them [49,50]. In comparison, most primates possess an obvious anatomical advantage with fully or pseudo-opposable thumbs, which facilitates rubbing, rolling and/or washing food contaminated with soil, sand, faeces or food eliminating toxins as observed in macaques, capuchins, great apes and vervet monkeys [18,[26][27][28][29]39].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Divergent strategies in faeces avoidance between two cercopithecoid primates

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parasites constitute a major selective pressure which has shaped animal behaviour through evolutionary time. One adaption to parasites consists of recognizing and avoiding substrates or cues that indicate their presence. Among substrates harbouring infectious agents, faeces are known to elicit avoidance behaviour in numerous animal species. However, the function and mechanisms of faeces avoidance in non-human primates has been largely overlooked by scientists. In this study, we used an experimental approach to investigate whether aversion to faeces in a foraging context is mediated by visual and olfactory cues in two cercopithecoid primates: mandrills ( Mandrillus sphinx ) and long-tailed macaques ( Macaca fascicularis ). Visual and olfactory cues of faeces elicited lower food consumption rates in mandrills and higher food manipulation rates in long-tailed macaques. Both results support the infection-avoidance hypothesis and confirm similar tendencies observed in other primate species. More studies are now needed to investigate the divergence of avoidance strategies observed in non-human primates regarding food contamination.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Divergent strategies in faeces avoidance between two cercopithecoid primates

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, no studies exist that directly investigate the impulse control capacity of wild boar or other wild pig species, especially in terms of economic decision making. Only one study describes a coincidental but locally restricted observation of wild boar washing soiled food in a zoo (Sommer et al, 2016 ). The authors argued that the capacity of delaying gratification could have facilitated this behavior.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Better, Not Just More—Contrast in Qualitative Aspects of Reward Facilitates Impulse Control in Pigs

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delay-of-gratification paradigms, such as the famous “Marshmallow Test,” are designed to investigate the complex cognitive concepts of self-control and impulse control in humans and animals. Such tests determine whether a subject will demonstrate impulse control by choosing a large, delayed reward over an immediate, but smaller reward. Documented relationships between impulsive behavior and aggression in humans and animals suggest important implications for farm animal husbandry and welfare, especially in terms of inadequate social behavior, tail biting and maternal behavior. In a preliminary study, we investigated whether the extent of impulse control would differ between quantitatively and qualitatively different aspects of reward in pigs. Twenty female piglets were randomly divided into two groups, with 10 piglets each. After a preference test to determine individual reward preference among six different food items, a discrimination test was conducted to train for successful discrimination between different amounts of reward (one piece vs. four pieces) and different qualitative aspects of reward (highly preferred vs. least preferred food item). Then, an increasing delay (2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32 s) was introduced for the larger/highly preferred reward. Each piglet could choose to get the smaller/least preferred reward immediately or to wait for the larger/highly preferred reward. Piglets showed clear differences in their preference for food items. Moreover, the “quality group” displayed faster learning in the discrimination test (number of sessions until 90% of the animals completed the discrimination test: “quality group”−3 days vs. “quantity group”−5 days) and reached a higher level of impulse control in the delay-of-gratification test compared to the “quantity group” (maximum delay that was mastered: “quality group”−24 s vs. “quantity group”−8 s). These results demonstrate that impulse control is present in piglets but that the opportunity to get a highly preferred reward is more valued than the opportunity to get more of a given reward. This outcome also underlines the crucial role of motivation in cognitive test paradigms. Further investigations will examine whether impulse control is related to traits that are relevant to animal husbandry and welfare.

show abstract

“…Wild boar, however, due to their intelligence and adaptability, can learn new attitudes due to training and imitation (Schneider, 1980;Broom, Sena & Moynihan, 2009;Sommer, Lowe & Dietrich, 2016). Studies show that the behaviour of wild boar differs depending on the region (habitat), population, and individual (Schneider, 1980).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioural patterns of free roaming wild boar in a spatiotemporal context

Erdtmann

Keuling

2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the almost worldwide distributed wild boar Sus scrofa is a well-studied species, little is known about the behaviour of autochthonous, free living wild boar in a spatiotemporal context which can help to better understand wild boar in conflict terms with humans and to find solutions. The use of camera traps is a favourable and non-invasive method to study them. To observe natural behaviour, 60 camera traps were placed for three months in a state forest of 17.8 km2 in the region of the Luneburg Heath in northern Germany. In this area wild boar, roe deer, red deer, wolves and humans are common. The cameras recorded 20 s length video clips when animals passed the detection zone and could be triggered again immediately afterwards. In total 38 distinct behavioural elements were observed, which were assigned to one of seven behavioural categories. The occurrence of the behavioural categories per day was evaluated to compare their frequencies and see which are more essential than others. Generalised Additive Models were used to analyse the occurrence of each behaviour in relation to habitat and activity time. The results show that essential behavioural categories like foraging behaviour, locomotion and vigilance behaviour occurred more frequently than behaviour that “just” served for the well-being of wild boar. These three behavioural categories could be observed together mostly in the night in broad-leaved forests with a herb layer of 50–100%, comfort behaviour occurred mostly at the ponds in coniferous forest. It is also observable that the behavioural categories foraging and comfort behaviour alternated several times during the night which offers the hypothesis that foraging is mostly followed by comfort behaviour. These findings pave the way towards implementing effective control strategies in the wild and animal welfare in captivity.

show abstract

Not eating like a pig: European wild boar wash their food

Cited by 18 publications

References 18 publications

Divergent strategies in faeces avoidance between two cercopithecoid primates

Divergent strategies in faeces avoidance between two cercopithecoid primates

Better, Not Just More—Contrast in Qualitative Aspects of Reward Facilitates Impulse Control in Pigs

Behavioural patterns of free roaming wild boar in a spatiotemporal context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About