A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Evaluation of Behavior and Affective State of Different-Parity Sows with Strong/Weak Pupil Light Reflex. | LitMetric

The stall-housing system is commonly used in the modern swine industry in many countries; however, long-term space restrictions can cause affective and physiological abnormalities in sows. The pupil light reflex (PLR) can reflect the psychological and neurological changes in animals, and confined sows show higher pupillary rigidity. However, the PLR differs between same-parity sows, suggesting differences in behaviors and affective states between parity groups. We subjected confined Yorkshire × Landrace sows of parity 0, 2, and 5 to a PLR test and accordingly assigned them to the weak PLR (WR) group (n = 20) or the strong PLR (SR) group (n = 22). We then observed the sows’ behaviors and performed a sucrose/quinine response test and novel object test (NOT) to assess the differences in their affective states. The standing and lateral lying behaviors of the sows were less frequent in WR than in SR (p < 0.05), whereas ventral lying and sitting behaviors was more frequent in WR than in SR (p < 0.05). No changes in chewing behaviors and sucrose/quinine responses were observed (p > 0.05); however, the numbers and duration of novel object contact were lower and the novel object response latency time was longer in WR than in SR (p < 0.05). Regarding parity, standing and lateral lying behaviors were less frequent and ventral lying and sitting behaviors were more frequent at parity 5 than at parity 0 (p < 0.05). Bar-biting, rooting, trough-biting, and sucrose response score were lower at parity 5 than at parity 0 (p < 0.05), and vacuum chewing behavior and quinine response score were higher in sows of parity 5 than in those of parity 0 (p < 0.05). NOT showed that the number of contacts and contact duration in sows decreased with increasing parity (p < 0.05), and the response latency time was longer in sows of parity 5 than in those of lower parity (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the behavioral expression and responses of confined sows to novel objects differed between PLRs. The evaluation of the affective state of sows also revealed marked differences with increasing parity. Thus, confined sows with WR and high parity apparently suffer from more severe psychological problems, and PLR may be a potent indicator for evaluating the affective state of confined sows.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9105324PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani12091184DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

parity 005
20
confined sows
16
parity
14
sows
13
affective state
12
sows parity
12
novel object
12
behaviors frequent
12
parity parity
12
005
9

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!