Comparison Of Nursery Pig Behavior Assessed Using Human Observation And Digital-Image Evaluation Methodologies - Dr. Tom Fangman, Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc., from the 2015 Allen D. Leman Swine Conference, September 19-22, 2015, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. More presentations at http://www.swinecast.com/2015-leman-swine-conference-material

1. 20.09.2015
1
Comparison of nursery pig behavior assess using
human observation and digital‐image
evaluation methodologies
T. J. Fangman1*, S. L. Weimer2, L. A. Karriker3, H.
D. Tyler2, K. J. Stalder2, and A. K. Johnson2
1Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc., St
Joseph, MO, USA
2Department of Animal Science, Iowa State
University, IA, USA
3SMEC, VDPAM, Iowa State University, IA, USA
Objectives
Background to the human – pig relationship
Ways to measure the human – pig relationship
Comparisons of live vs digital
– JSHAP Weimer et al., 2014 May and June Pages 116 ‐ 124
Future work to come!

2. 20.09.2015
2
Background to the human – pig relationship
US background
Swine welfare assurance program® (SWAP™)
PQA Plus moved the pig‐human assessment
into bench marking (NPB, 2007)
However, welfare involves behavior
BUT a behavior measure within an on‐farm
welfare assessment must be objective,
repeatable, reliable and fast

3. 20.09.2015
3
Customers still want animal based measures!
Resource
Resource‐based measures ‐ input,
management or design‐based
measures
Examples;
– Space allowance, stocking
density
– Feed and water quantity and
quality
– Frequency of inspections
– Stockperson training
Animal
Called output‐ or outcome‐based
measures
Examples;
– Mortality
– Morbidity
– Culling rates
– Lameness
– Injuries
– Body condition
– Behavior
Stress and behavior
Stress
– Ignites the “fight or flight” or
“freeze” autonomic response
– Internal response results in
external behavior changes
Motivation
– Behavior
• Attractive stimulus – approach
• Aversive stimulus ‐ avoid

4. 20.09.2015
4
Ways to measure the human – pig
relationship
Tests assessing behavioral changes
Animal‐human interaction tests
– First, immediate animal response to a novel or unfamiliar object is most accurate
(Forkman, 2007)
– Humans in home pen can elicit these changes (Hemsworth et al., 1996; Rushen et al.,
1999)
– Many tests reported but it is unclear as to the most robust methodologies
Novel approach:
social isolation
Human approach:
social isolation
WTA: social group

5. 20.09.2015
5
So, what is WTA?
Fangman et al., (2010) coined the term “willingness to
approach” or WTA
– Fangman TJ, Johnson AK, Okones JA, Edler R. Willingness to approach behavior of weaned pigs after
injection with Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae vaccines. Journal of Swine Health and Production Feb 2011;
19(1):19‐24.
Considered a more positive alternative describing approach behavior
rather than negative terms such as fear and avoidance
Demonstrated that the WTA methodology is a tool that serves as a
sensitive parameter for practically assessing vaccine reactivity in
nursery pigs
Factors that can affect WTA
Age of animal (Hemsworth et al., 1992)
Sex of animal (Hemsworth et al., 1986)
Size of animal (Moore et al., 1994)
Group size (Samarakone et al., 2009)
Previous caretaker interactions (Hemsworth et al., 1987)

6. 20.09.2015
6
Comparison of nursery pig behavior assessed
using human observation and digital‐image
evaluation methodologies
Shawna L. Weimer, MS; Anna K. Johnson, PhD; Thomas J. Fangman, DVM, MS, Diplomate
ABVP; Locke A. Karriker, DVM, MS, Diplomate ACVPM; Howard D. Tyler, PhD; Kenneth J.
Stalder, PhD
– JSHAP. 2014. May and June. Pages 116 – 124.
Objectives
Were to design and implement a digital
photograph system to document the pig response
to a human observer in the home pen, and then
compare the results of the digital photograph
system to human observation in an approach‐
assessment paradigm.

7. 20.09.2015
7
March 2011
Commercial nursery
2 rooms
40 pens/room
22 pigs/pen
0.3 m2/ pig space
allowance
Materials and methods
Experimental design
Experimental unit was the nursery pen (n = 79)
Complete randomized design
Two treatments for method:
1. Live human observation
2. Digital image evaluation
Two treatments for anatomical location (digital image only):
1. Snout
2. Tail Base

8. 20.09.2015
8
Pig‐human interaction test
Enter the room
Start at farthest pen
Climbed over pen gate
Crouching position
(Hemsworth et al. 1986)
Extend arm
Head down 15‐s (Fangman
et al., 2010)
Look up, take image and
count behaviors
Digital‐image recording device

9. 20.09.2015
9
“TOUCH”
Any part of the pigs’ body
touching the human observer
“ORIENTATE”
Eye contact (both eyes) with the
observer
Behaviors
“NOT” Ethogram
Measure Definition
Postures
Stand
Pile
Sit
Lie
•Upright position with all four feet on the floor
•Two or more feet off of the floor with its body atop
a pen mate
•All legs relaxed with underside in contact with the
floor
•Back legs relaxed with body resting on the floor
with buttocks or thighs
Behaviors
Head in feeder
Mouth around drinker
•Head down in feeder
•Mouth on nipple of drinker

10. 20.09.2015
10
Anatomical location
Snout and Tail Base: Facing
towards the observer
Snout and Tail Base: Facing away
from the observer
Methodology
Live Digital P‐value
No. pens 79 79 .
Measure, No. (%)
Touch 1.8 ± 0.6 (8.4 ± 3.1) 2.1 ± 0.7 (10.0 ± 3.1) .11 (0.15)
Orientate 6.3 ± 0.3 (27.9 ± 1.5) 8.3 ± 0.4 (36.5 ± 1.5) < .001 (0.0001)
Not 14.5 ± 0.9 (63.4 ± 2.6) 12.1 ± 0.8 (53.5 ± 2.6) < .001 (0.0001)

11. 20.09.2015
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Stand Sit Lie Pile Head in
feeder
Mouth
around
drinker
Percent Pigs/Pen
Postures and Behaviors
“Not” Pig Postures and Behaviors
2.2%
Classification
Touch Orientate Not P-value
No. pens 79 79 79 .
Anatomical location
Snout 13.6 ± 2.1a 61.0 ± 1.1b 96.3 ± 1.2c <0.001
Tail base 71.4 ± 1.8a 95.9 ± 1.0b 103.4 ± 0.9c <0.001
abcMeans within a row with no common superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05)
Anatomical location: Using digital image

12. 20.09.2015
12
Unobservable anatomical locations
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Not Touch Look 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Not Look Touch
%
Behaviors Behaviors
Snout Tail
Total unobservable snout = 59% Total unobservable tail base = 35%
NOT Touch Orientate
Not Orientate Touch
Take home message from this work
The digital image allows for more animal‐human interaction measures
to be collected (i.e., behaviors and postures and proximity) but is more
time‐consuming than human‐observation methodology
With use of live human‐observation methodology, less time is required
to collect and analyze data, classify nursery‐pig behavior, and provide a
welfare assessment
Postures and behaviors of pigs classified as not oriented should be
further described to avoid concluding that pigs not classified in the touch
or oriented categories are fearful or experiencing a compromised state of
welfare.

13. 20.09.2015
13
Nursery pig behavior assessed using a live
human observer and a digital‐image
evaluation method pre‐ and post‐vaccine
injection.
Weimer, Fangman; Tyler, Karriker, Stalder, and Johnson.
2015. In preparation for submission to JSHAP
Materials and Methods
2 days in November 2011
Commercial nursery
4 nursery rooms (2 barns
with 2 rooms)
40 pens/room
19 pigs/pen
0.3 m2/ pig space
allowance
*Observer blinded to
treatments

14. 20.09.2015
14
Materials and Methods‐ Vaccination
Treatment No.
pens
Vaccination upon
arrival
Dose Vaccination 2 wk post
arrival
Dose
Saline 50 CircoFLEX/
MycoFLEX
2 mL /
IM
Saline
(SALINE)
2 mL /
IM
CircoFLEX/M
ycoFLEX
48 Saline 2 mL/
IM
CircoFLEX/
MycoFLEX (MCFLEX)
2 mL/ IM
Circumvent
PCV‐M
51 Circumvent PCV‐
M
2 mL/
IM
Circumvent
PCV‐M
(Circumvent)
2 mL/ IM
1. Pre-vaccination
Baseline
4:00 pm
(6 h post vaccination,
24 h from baseline)
Vaccination
4:00 pm
2. Post-vaccination
10:00 AM
DAY ONE DAY TWO
3. Difference = Pre‐vaccination – Post‐vaccination

15. 20.09.2015
15
Pig‐human interaction test
Enter the room
Start at farthest pen
Climbed over pen gate
Crouching position (Hemsworth
et al. 1986)
Extend arm
Head down 15‐s (Fangman et al.,
2010)
DIFFERENCE – second person sat
outside of the alley and took the
picture!
Methodology
Live Digital P-values
No. pens 149 149
Pre-vaccination, %
Touch 10.6 ± 0.9 10.6 ± 0.9 0.86
Orientate 34.6 ± 1.0 33.5 ± 1.0 0.12
Not 54.9 ± 1.0 55.9 ± 1.0 0.13
Post-vaccination, %
Touch 9.4 ± 0.9 9.4 ± 0.9 0.78
Orientate 27.7 ± 0.9 28.8 ± 0.9 0.10
Not 62.8 ± 1.2 61.9 ± 1.2 0.12

16. 20.09.2015
16
Take home message from this work
There was no difference between the live human‐ and
the digital image between pigs in the Touch, Orientate
and Not categories
This may have been due to the change in the way the
data was collected during the human‐pig interaction test
Future work to come!
Nursery pig behavior assessed using a digital‐
image evaluation method pre‐ and post‐
vaccine injection. Weimer, Fangman; Tyler,
Karriker, Stalder, and Johnson. 2016.

17. 20.09.2015
17
Thank you for your attention!!