Search

Animal-based measures reflecting the welfare state of individuals are critical for ensuring the well-being of animals under human care. Anticipatory behavior is one potential animal-based measure that has gained traction in recent years, as it is theorized to relate to animals' reward sensitivity. It is of particular interest as an assessment for animals living under human care, as the predictability of the captive environment lends itself to the development of this class of behaviors. Animals are likely to exhibit anticipation in locations related to the anticipated event, often in temporally predictable time frames, and before specific contexts they experience in their day-to-day management. In this sense and under certain circumstances, anticipatory behaviors are likely to drive observed behavioral or space use patterns of animals under human care. Drawing conclusions from such data without identifying anticipation may result in misleading conclusions. Here we discuss how space, time, and context are related to patterns of anticipatory behaviors in animals under human care, how unidentified anticipation may alter conclusions regarding animal behavior or welfare under certain circumstances.

Social conflict is inevitable among group-housed sows and may contribute to poorer welfare among those sows experiencing more social stress. The degree of individual welfare is associated with social position within the group. Therefore, this study examined the effects of social status on behavior, immune, endocrine, and productivity of group-housed pregnant sows fed a diet supplemented with 30% wheat middlings and 15% soybean hulls (MID-SH) or 30% distillers dried grains with solubles and 30% corn germ meal (DDGS-GM) and in pens with individual feeding places made from short (58.4 cm) or long (203.2 cm) barriers. A 2 × 2 factorial design resulted in 4 experimental treatment groups (n = 9 sows/diet-length-block combination): (1) MID-SHshort; (2) MID-SHlong; (3) DDGS-GMshort; (4) DDGS-GMlong. Groups of sows equally representing all diet-length combinations across 4 blocks (n = 36 sows/block) were subjected to a feeding competition test to identify highest (dominant) and lowest (subordinate) ranked sows within each group resulting in 64 sows (n = 16 sows/treatment; n = 32 sows/social status). Data revealed 2- and 3-way interactive effects on aggressive behavior (P < 0.005), postural (P < 0.01), oral (P < 0.0001), and eating (P < 0.005) behaviors, sow mean body weights and gains (P < 0.05) and litter weaning weights (P < 0.05), especially among subordinates in pens with long barriers. Subordinates in pens with long barriers received 21% less aggression and were 73% less likely to be displaced than subordinates in pens with short ones (P < 0.0001). Dietary treatment also influenced some of these measures among the subordinates in pens with long barriers. For example, subordinates in DDGS-GMlong received 64 and 67% less aggression than subordinates in DDGS-GMshort and MID-SHshort (P < 0.005). Eat bouts were greatest among subordinates in MID-SHlong, and sitting and sham-chewing were less. However, those in DDGS-GMlong spent less time standing and laying, and their litters were 15.28 kg heavier (P = 0.01), but overall subordinates fed DDGS-GM diet were lightest and gained less total body weight than those fed MID-SH (P < 0.05). Other measures such as neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio were elevated among dominants in MID-SHlong (P < 0.05); whereas, cortisol (P = 0.06) was lowest and glucose (P = 0.09) highest for subordinates in DDGS-GMlong. These data imply that subordinates benefited from being housed in pens with long barriers, but the type of dietary fiber consumed differentially influenced behavioral budget and several sow- or litter-related traits among subordinates in pens with long barriers. In contrast, the subordinates in pens with short barriers had poorer welfare regardless of diet. Collectively, these data imply that social status is a crucial factor contributing to variation in individual well-being among group-housed sows and that sows of different social positions within a group may evoke different biological responses in an attempt to cope.