Personality in Swine



There are approximately 977 million domestic swine (Sus scrofa domesticus) that live on farms across the world. Knowledge of individual variation in behavior, morphology and productivity has been the basis for artificial selection of this domestic species for thousands of years. Determining personality traits among group living swine may help to identify certain individuals that possess an increased ability to cope with, or a heightened sensitivity to, environmental and/or social stress. There have been approximately 48 studies that investigated behavioral variation in commercial swine. The majority of these studies have been limited to animals aged seven months or younger. Experimental trials are the predominant method of measuring behavioral differences among swine and include such methods as physical restraint, open field tests, human approach tests, novel object tests, and feeding competitions. Previous research on swine personality has reported the existence of multiple traits such as aggressive, exploratory or fearful, as well as dichotomous coping styles (e.g., proactive vs. reactive). Despite excellent work on themes such as environmental influences and trait development, scholars examining personality in swine have not yet fully explored proximate and ultimate explanations of swine personality traits. Considerable effort has gone into identifying personality traits and coping styles in swine in order to evaluate the relationship between behavior, health, and production (e.g., mothering skills, weight gain, lean meat percentage). Knowledge of individual personality traits among domestic swine may help the pork industry to adjust husbandry practices and housing conditions, which are currently under transition due to market-driven welfare concerns.


Swine Pig Personality Livestock Domestic Animal welfare 


  1. Algers, B. (1993). Nursing in pigs: Communicating needs and distributing resources. Journal of Animal Science, 71(10), 2826–2831.Google Scholar
  2. Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behaviour, 49(3), 227–266.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, I. L., Bøe, K. E., Fœrevik, G., Janczak, A. M., & Bakken, M. (2000). Behavioural evaluation of methods for assessing fear responses in weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 69, 227–240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anil, L., Anil, S., Deen, J., Baidoo, S., & Wheaton, J. (2005). Evaluation of well-being, productivity, and longevity of pregnant sows housed in groups in pens with an electronic sow feeder or separately in gestation stalls. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 66, 1630–1638.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arey, D. S. (1997). Behavioural observations of peri-parturient sows and the development of alternative farrowing accommodation: a review. Animal Welfare, 6, 217–229.Google Scholar
  6. Arey, D. S. (1999). Time course for the formation and disruption of social organization in group-housed sows. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 62, 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baxter, E. M., Lawrence, A. B., & Edwards, S. A. (2012). Alternative farrowing accommodation: welfare and economic aspects of existing farrowing and lactation systems for pigs. Animal, 6, 96–117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beattie, V. E., Walker, N., & Sneddon, I. A. (1995). Effect of rearing environment and change of environment on the behavior of gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 46, 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bench, C. J., Rioja-Lang, F. C., Hayne, S. M., & Gonyou, H. W. (2013). Group gestation sow housing with individual feeding—II: How space allowance, group size and composition, and flooring affect sow welfare. Livestock Science, 152, 218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benus, R. F., Bohus, B., Koolhaas, J. M., & Van Oortmerssen, G. A. (1991). Heritable variation for aggression as a reflection of individual coping strategies. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 47(10), 1008–1019.Google Scholar
  11. Blackshaw, J. K., Swain, A. J., Blackshaw, A. W., Thomas, F. J. M., & Gillies, K. J. (1997). The development of playful behaviour in piglets from birth to weaning in three farrowing environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 55(1), 37–49.Google Scholar
  12. Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bolhuis, J. E., Parmentier, H. K., Schouten, W. G., Schrama, J. W., & Wiegant, V. M. (2003). Effects of housing and individual coping characteristics on immune responses of pigs. Physiology & Behavior, 79, 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bolhuis, J. E., Schouten, W. G. P., de Leeuw, J. A., Schrama, J. W., & Wiegant, V. M. (2004). Individual coping characteristics, rearing conditions and behavioural flexibility in pigs. Behavioral Brain Research, 152, 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bolhuis, J. E., Schouten, W. G., Schrama, J. W., & Wiegant, V. M. (2005). Behavioural development of pigs with different coping characteristics in barren and substrate-enriched housing conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 93, 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bolhuis, J. E., Schouten, W. G., Schrama, J. W., & Wiegant, V. M. (2006). Effects of rearing and housing environment on behaviour and performance of pigs with different coping characteristics. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 101, 68–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Breuer, K., Hemsworth, P. H., Barnett, J. L., Matthews, L. R., & Coleman, G. J. (2000). Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 66, 273–288.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Broom, D. M., Mendl, M., & Zanella, A. (1995). A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. Animal Science, 61, 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brown, J. A., Dewey, C., Delange, C. F., Mandell, I. B., Purslow, P. P., Robinson, J. A., et al. (2009). Reliability of temperament tests on finishing pigs in group-housing and comparison to social tests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 118, 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bryant, F. B., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Principal components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In L. G. Grimm & R. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariale statistics (pp. 99–136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  21. Budaev, S. V., & Zworykin, D. D. (2002). Individuality in fish behavior: Ecology and comparative psychology. Journal of Ichthyology, 42, S189–S195.Google Scholar
  22. Capitanio, J. P., Mendoza, S. P., & Baroncelli, S. (1999). The relationship of personality dimensions in adult male rhesus macaques to progression of simian immunodeficiency virus disease. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 13, 138–154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Capitanio, J. P., Abel, K., Mendoza, S. P., Blozis, S. A., McChesney, M. B., Cole, S. W., et al. (2008). Personality and serotonin transporter genotype interact with social context to affect immunity and viral set-point in simian immunodeficiency virus disease. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 22, 676–689.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Carere, C., Caramaschi, D., & Fawcett, T. (2010). Covariation between personalities and individual differences in coping with stress: Converging evidence and hypotheses. Current Zoology, 56, 728–740.Google Scholar
  25. Carter, A. J., Marshall, H. H., Heinsohn, R., & Cowlishaw, G. (2012). How not to measure boldness: novel object and antipredator responses are not the same in wild baboons. Animal Behaviour, 84, 603–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cattell, R. B., & Jaspers, J. (1967). A general plasmode for factor analytic exercises and research. Multivariate Behavioral Research Monographs, 3, 1–212.Google Scholar
  28. Cooke, R. F., Arthington, J. D., Araujo, D. B., & Lamb, G. C. (2009). Effects of acclimation to human interaction on performance, temperament, physiological responses, and pregnancy rates of Brahman-crossbred cows. Journal of Animal Science, 87(12), 4125–4132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cussen, V., & Mench, J. (2015). The relationship between personality dimensions and resiliency to environmental stress in orange-winged amazon parrots, as indicated by the development of abnormal behaviors. PLoS ONE, 10, e0126170.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. D’Eath, R. B. (2002). Individual aggressiveness measured in a resident-intruder test predicts the persistence of aggressive behaviour and weight gain of young pigs after mixing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 77, 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. D’Eath, R. B., & Burn, C. C. (2002). Individual differences in behaviour: A test of’coping style’does not predict resident-intruder aggressiveness in pigs. Behaviour, 139, 1175–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. D’Eath, R. B., & Pickup, H. E. (2002). Behaviour of young growing pigs in a resident-intruder test designed to measure aggressiveness. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 401–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. D’Eath, R. B., & Lawrence, A. B. (2004). Early life predictors of the development of aggressive behaviour in the domestic pig. Animal Behaviour, 67, 501–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. D’Eath, R. B., Roehe, R., Turner, S. P., Ison, S. H., Farish, M., Jack, M. C., et al. (2009). Genetics of animal temperament: Aggressive behaviour at mixing is genetically associated with the response to handling in pigs. Animal, 3, 1544–1554.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. de Sevilla, X. F., Casellas, J., Tibau, J., & Fàbrega, E. (2009). Consistency and influence on performance of behavioural differences in Large White and Landrace purebred pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 117, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. de Winter, J. C. F., Dodou, D., & Wieringa, P. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 147–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. DiStefano, C., Zhu, M., & Mîndrilă, D. (2009). Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(20), 1–11.Google Scholar
  38. Donald, R. D., Healy, S. D., Lawrence, A. B., & Rutherford, K. (2011). Emotionality in growing pigs: Is the open field a valid test? Physiology & Behavior, 104, 906–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Douglas, C., Bateson, M., Walsh, C., Bédué, A., & Edwards, S. A. (2012). Environmental enrichment induces optimistic cognitive biases in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 139, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Edwards, S. A., & Fraser, D. (1997). Housing systems for farrowing and lactation. Pig Journal, 39, 77–89.Google Scholar
  41. Erhard, H. W., & Mendl, M. (1997). Measuring aggressiveness in growing pigs in a resident-intruder situation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 54, 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Erhard, H. W., Mendl, M., & Christiansen, S. B. (1999). Individual differences in tonic immobility may reflect behavioural strategies. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 64, 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fabrega, E., Diestre, A., Font, J., Carrion, D., Velarde, A., Ruiz-de-la-Torre, J. L., et al. (2004). Differences in open field behavior between heterozygous and homozygous negative gilts for the RYR (1) gene. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 7, 83–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fell, L. R., Colditz, I. G., Walker, K. H., & Watson, D. L. (1999). Associations between temperament, performance and immune function in cattle entering a commercial feedlot. Animal Production Science, 39, 795–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAOSTAT database (FAOSTAT, 2013).
  46. Forkman, B., Furuhang, I. L., & Jensen, P. (1995). Personality, coping patterns and aggression inpiglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 45, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Forkman, B., Boissy, A., Meunier-Salaün, M. C., Canali, E., & Jones, R. B. (2007). A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiology & Behavior, 92, 340–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Franklin, S. B., Gibson, D. J., Robertson, P. A., Pohlmann, J. T., & Fralish, J. S. (1995). Parallel analysis: A method for determining significant principal components. Journal of Vegetation Science, 6, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Fraser, D. (1974). The vocalizations and other behaviour of growing pigs in an ‘open field’ test. Applied Animal Ethology, 1, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Fraser, D., & Jones, R. M. (1975). The ‘teat order’of suckling pigs: I. Relation to birth weight and subsequent growth. Journal of Agricultural Science, 84(03), 387–391.Google Scholar
  51. Gallup, G. G. (1977). Tonic immobility: The role of fear and predation. The Psychological Record, 27, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Geverink, N. A., Kappers, A., Van de Burgwal, E., Labooij, E., Blokhuis, J., & Wiegant, V. (1998). Effects of regular moving and handling on the behavioral and physiological responses of pigs to pre-slaughter treatment and consequences for meat quality. Journal of Animal Science, 76, 2080–2085.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Geverink, N., et al. (2002). Individual differences in behavioral and physiological responses to restraint stress in pigs. Physiology & Behavior, 77, 451–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Giroux, S., Martineau, G. P., & Robert, S. (2000). Relationships between individual behavioural traits and post-weaning growth in segregated early-weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 70, 41–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. Gosling, S. D. (2001). From mice to men: What can we learn about personality from animal research? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 45–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Gosling, S. D., & John, O. P. (1999). Personality dimensions in nonhuman animals a cross-species review. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Graves, H. B. (1984). Behavior and ecology of wild and feral swine (Sus scrofa). Journal of Animal Science, 58, 482–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation to sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hartsock, T. G., Graves, H. B., & Baumgardt, B. R. (1977). Agonistic behavior and the nursing order in suckling piglets: Relationships with survival, growth and body composition. Journal of Animal Science, 44, 320–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Held, S., & Mendl, M. (2001). Behaviour of the young weaner pig (pp. 273–298). The Weaner Pig, Oxford: CAB International.Google Scholar
  63. Hellbrügge, B., Tölle, K. H., Bennewitz, J., Henze, C., Presuhn, U., & Krieter, J. (2008). Genetic aspects regarding piglet losses and the maternal behaviour of sows. Part 2. Genetic relationship between maternal behaviour in sows and piglet mortality. Animal: An International Journal of Animal Bioscience, 2, 1281–1288.Google Scholar
  64. Hessing, M. J. C., Hagelso, A. M., Van Beek, J. A. M., Wiepkema, P. R., Schouten, W. G. P., & Krukow, R. (1993). Individual behavioral and physiological strategies in pigs. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 55, 39–46.Google Scholar
  65. Hessing, M. J. C., Schouten, W. G. P., Wiepkema, P. R., & Tielen, M. J. M. (1994). Implications of individual behavioural characteristics on performance in pigs. Livestock Production Science, 40, 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hemsworth, P. H., Barnett, J. L., Coleman, G. J., & Hansen, C. (1989). A study of the relationships between the attitudinal and behavioural profiles of stockpersons and the level of fear of humans and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 23, 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hemsworth, P. H., Brand, A., & Willems, P. J. (1981). The behavioural response of sows to the presence of human beings and their productivity. Livestock Production Science, 8, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Hemsworth, P. H., & Barnett, J. L. (1991). The effects of aversively handling pigs, either individually or in groups, on their behaviour, growth and corticosteroids. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 30, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Highfill, L., Hanbury, D., Kristiansen, R., Kuczaj, S., & Watson, S. (2010). Rating vs. coding in animal personality research. Zoo Biology, 29, 509–516.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Hodgkiss, N. J., Eddison, J. C., Brooks, P. H., & Bug, P. (1998). Assessment of the injuries sustained by pregnant sows housed in groups using electronic feeders. Veterinary Record, 143, 604–607.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Horback, K. M., & Parsons, T. D. (2016). Temporal stability of personality traits in group-housed gestating sows. Animal, 10(08), 1351–1359.Google Scholar
  72. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 32, 179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Horrell, I., & Hodgson, J. (1992). The bases of sow-piglet identification. 2. Cues used by piglets to identify their dam and home pen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 33(4), 329–343.Google Scholar
  74. Ijichi, C., Collins, L., & Elwood, R. (2013). Evidence for the role of personality in stereotypy predisposition. Animal Behavior, 85, 1145–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ijichi, C., Collins, L., & Elwood, R. (2014). Pain expression is linked to personality in horses. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 152, 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ison, S. H., Wood, C. M., & Baxter, E. M. (2015). Behaviour of pre-pubertal gilts and itsrelationship to farrowing behaviour in conventional farrowing crates and loose-housed pens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 170, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Janczak, A. M., Pedersen, L. J., Rydhmer, L., & Bakken, M. (2003a). Relation between early fear- and anxiety-related behaviour and maternal ability in sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 82, 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Janczak, A. M., Pedersen, L. J., & Bakken, M. (2003b). Aggression, fearfulness and coping styles in female pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 81(1), 13–28.Google Scholar
  79. Jensen, P. (1980). An ethogram of social interaction patterns in group-housed dry sows. Applied Animal Ethology, 6, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Jensen, P., & Recén, B. (1989). When to wean—Observations from free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 23, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Jensen, P., Forkman, B., Thodberg, K., & Köster, E. (1995a). Individual variation and consistency in piglet behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 45, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Jensen, P., Rushen, J., & Forkman, B. (1995b). Behavioural strategies or just individual variation in behaviour? A lack of evidence for active and passive piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 43, 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Jensen, P., & Yngvesson, J. (1998). Aggression between unacquainted pigs—Sequential assessment and effects of familiarity and weight. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 58, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Johnson, A. K., & Marchant-Forde, J. N. (2009). Welfare of pigs in the farrowing environment. In J. N. Marchant-Forde (Ed.), The welfare of pigs (pp. 141–188). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Kaiser H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151.Google Scholar
  86. Koolhaas, J. M. (2008). Coping style and immunity in animals: Making sense of individual variation. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 22, 662–667.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Koolhaas, J. M., Korte, S., De Boer, S., Van Der Vegt, B., Van Reenen, C., Hopster, H., et al. (1999). Coping styles in animals: Current status in behavior and stress-physiology. Neuroscience Biobehavioral Review, 23, 925–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Koolhaas, J. M., & Van Reenen, C. G. (2016). Animal behavior and well-being symposium: Interaction between coping style/personality, stress, and welfare: Relevance for domestic farm animals. Journal of Animal Science, 94, 2284–2296.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Kristensen, H. H., Jones, R. B., Schofield, C. P., White, R. P., & Wathes, C. M. (2001). The use of olfactory and other cues for social recognition by juvenile pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 72, 321–333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Lawrence, A. B., Terlouw, E., & Illius, A. W. (1991). Individual differences in behavioural responses of pigs exposed to non-social and social challenges. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 30, 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Lensink, B. J., Leruste, H., Le Roux, T., & Bizeray-Filoche, D. (2009a). Relationship between the behaviour of sows at 6 months old and the behaviour and performance at farrowing. Animal, 3, 128–134.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Lensink, B. J., Leruste, H., De Bretagne, T., & Bizeray-Filoche, D. (2009b). Sow behaviour towards humans during standard management procedures and their relationship to piglet survival. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 119, 151–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Løvendahl, P., Damgaard, L. H., Nielsen, B. L., Thodberg, K., Su, G., & Rydhmer, L. (2005). Aggressive behaviour of sows at mixing and maternal behaviour are heritable and genetically correlated traits. Livestock Production Science, 93, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Marchant-Forde, J. N. (2002). Piglet-and stockperson-directed sow aggression after farrowing and the relationship with a pre-farrowing, human approach test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 75, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Marin, R. H., Satterlee, D. G., Castille, S. A., & Jones, R. B. (2003). Early T-maze behavior and broiler growth. Poultry Science, 82, 742–748.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Massen, J., & Koski, S. (2014). Chimps of a feather sit together: Chimpanzee friendships are based on homophily in personality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. McGlone, J. J., Vines, B., Rudine, A. C., & DuBois, P. (2004). The physical size of gestating sows. Journal of Animal Science, 82, 2421–2427.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Melotti, L., Oostindjer, M., Bolhuis, J. E., Held, S., & Mendl, M. (2011). Coping personality type and environmental enrichment affect aggression at weaning in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 133(3), 144–153.Google Scholar
  100. Mendl, M., Zanella, A. J., & Broom, D. M. (1992). Physiological and reproductive correlates of behavioral strategies in female domestic pigs. Animal Behaviour, 44, 1107–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Mendl, M., Randle, K., & Pope, S. (2002). Young female pigs can discriminate individual differences in odours from conspecific urine. Animal Behavior, 64, 97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Meunier-Salaun, M. C., Vantrimponte, M. N., Raab, A., & Dantzer, R. (1987). Effect of floor area restriction upon performance, behavior and physiology of growing finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science, 64, 1371–1377.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Morméde, P., Dantzer, R., Bluthe, R. M., & Caritez, J. C. (1984). Differences in adaptive abilities of three breeds of Chinese pigs. Genetique, Selection et Evolution, 16, 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. (2010). Animal welfare (pigs) code of welfare 2010. Animal welfare directorate. Wellington, New Zealand: MAF Biosecurity New Zealand.Google Scholar
  105. Newberry, R. C., & Wood-Gush, D. G. (1985). The suckling behaviour of domestic pigs in a semi-natural environment. Behaviour, 95, 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Petherick, J., Doogan, V. J., Venus, B. K., Holroyd, R. G., & Olsson, P. (2009). Quality of handling and holding yard environment, and beef cattle temperament: 2. Consequences for stress and productivity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 120, 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Primary Industries Standing Committee. (2008). Model code of practice for the welfare of animals: Pigs (3rd ed). PISC Report 92. Victoria, Australia: CSIRO Publishing.Google Scholar
  108. Price, E. O. (2002). Animal domestication and behaviour. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Reimert, I., Bolhuis, J. E., Kemp, B., & Rodenburg, T. B. (2014a). Social support in pigs with different coping styles. Physiology & Behavior, 129, 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Reimert, I., Rodenburg, T. B., Ursinus, W. W., Kemp, B., & Bolhuis, J. E. (2014b). Responses to novel situations of female and castrated male pigs with divergent social breeding values and different backtest classifications in barren and straw-enriched housing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 151, 24–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Rodenburg, T. B., Buitenhuis, A. J., Ask, B., Uitdehaag, K. A., Koene, P., Van Der Poel, J. J., et al. (2004). Genetic and phenotypic correlations between feather pecking and open-field response in laying hens at two different ages. Behavior Genetics, 34, 407–415.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Ruis, M. A., te Brake, J. H., van de Burgwal, J. A., de Jong, I. C., Blokhuis, H. J., & Koolhaas, J. M. (2000). Personalities in female domesticated pigs: Behavioural and physiological indications. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 66, 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Ruis, M. A., te Brake, J. H., Engel, B., Buist, W. G., Blokhuis, H. J., & Koolhaas, J. M. (2002). Implications of coping characteristics and social status for welfare and production of paired growing gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 75(3), 207–231.Google Scholar
  114. Rushen, J., De Passille, A. M. B., & Munksgaard, L. (1999). Fear of people by cows and effects on milk yield, behavior, and heart rate at milking. Journal of Dairy Science, 82, 720–727.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Sart, S., Bencini, R., Blache, D., & Martin, G. B. (2004). Calm ewes produce milk with more protein than nervous ewes. Animal Production in Australia, 25, 307.Google Scholar
  116. Scheffler, K., Stamer, E., Traulsen, I., & Krieter, J. (2016). Relationship between behavioural tests and agonistic interactions at different age levels in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 177, 19–24.Google Scholar
  117. Schulz, L. L., & Tonsor, G. T. (2015). The U.S. gestational stall debate. Choices, 30, 1–4.Google Scholar
  118. Shea-Moore, M. M. (1998). The effect of genotype on behavior in segregated early-weaned pigs tested in an open field. Journal of Animal Science, 76, 100.Google Scholar
  119. Sih, A., Bell, A., & Johnson, J. C. (2004). Behavioral syndromes: An ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19, 372–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Smith, B. R., & Blumstein, D. T. (2008). Fitness consequences of personality: A meta-analysis. Behavioral Ecology, 19, 448–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Spake, J. R., Gray, K. A., & Cassady, J. P. (2012). Relationship between backtest and coping styles in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 140, 146–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Spoolder, H., Burbidge, J., Edwards, S., Lawrence, A., & Simmins, P. (1996). Social recognition in gilts mixed into a dynamic group of 30 sows. Animal Science, 62, 630.Google Scholar
  123. Stookey, J. M., & Gonyou, H. W. (1998). Recognition in swine: Recognition through familiarity or genetic relatedness? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 55, 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Sundman, A. (2011). Personality in piglets: Is there a difference in personality traits between pigs from different teat order positions? (Unpublished bachelors thesis). Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.Google Scholar
  125. Studnitz, M., Jensen, M. B., & Pedersen, L. J. (2007). Why do pigs root and in what will they root? A review on the exploratory behaviour of pigs in relation to environmental enrichment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 107, 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Svennson, M. (2011). Personality types and teat order in piglets. (Unpublished bachelors thesis). Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.Google Scholar
  127. Thodberg, K., Jensen, K. H., & Herskin, M. S. (1999). A general reaction pattern across situations in prepubertal gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 63, 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Uitdehaag, K., Rodenburg, T. B., Komen, H., Kemp, B., & Van Arendonk, J. A. M. (2008). The association of response to a novel object with subsequent performance and feather damage in adult, cage-housed, pure-bred Rhode Island Red laying hens. Poultry Science, 87, 2486–2492.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Van Erp-van der Kooij, E., Kuijpers, A. H., Schrama, J. W., Ekkel, E. D., & Tielen, M. J. M. (2000). Individual behavioural characteristics in pigs and their impact on production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 66, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Van Erp-van der Kooij, E. E. V., Kuijpers, A. H., Schrama, J. W., Van Eerdenburg, F. J. C. M., Schouten, W. G. P., & Tielen, M. J. M. (2002). Can we predict behaviour in pigs?: Searching for consistency in behaviour over time and across situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 75(4), 293–305.Google Scholar
  131. Vazire, S., & Gosling, S. D. (2004). Personality and temperament: A comparative perspective. In M. Bekoff (Ed.), Encyclopedia of animal behavior (pp. 818–822). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  132. Vazire, S., Gosling, S. D., Dickey, A. S., & Schaprio, S. J. (2007). Measuring personality in nonhuman animals. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 190–206). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  133. Voisinet, B. D., Grandin, T., Tatum, J. D., O’Connor, S. F., & Struthers, J. J. (1997). Feedlot cattle with calm temperaments have higher average daily gains than cattle with excitable temperaments. Journal of Animal Science, 75, 892–896.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Von Borell, E. (2001). The biology of stress and its application to livestock housing and transportation assessment. Journal of Animal Science, 79, E260–E267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. von Borell, E., & Ladewig, J. (1992). Relationship between behaviour and adrenocortical response pattern in domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 34, 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Walsh, R. N., & Cummins, R. A. (1976). The open-field test: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 482.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Walser, E. E. S. (1986). Recognition of the sow's voice by neonatal piglets. Behaviour, 99(3), 177–188.Google Scholar
  138. Weaver, S. A., & Morris, M. C. (2004). Science, pigs, and politics: A New Zealand perspective on the phase-out of sow stalls. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 17, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Wood-Gush, D. G. M., & Vestergaard, K. S. (1989). Exploratory behavior and the welfare of intensively kept animals. Journal of Agricultural Ethics, 2, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Wood-Gush, D. G. M., Vestergaard, K., & Petersen, H. V. (1990). The significance of motivation and environment in the development of exploration in pigs. Biology of Behaviour, 15, 39–52.Google Scholar
  141. Wright, D. (2015). The genetic architecture of domestication in animals. Bioinformatics and Biology Insights, 9, 11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal ScienceUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations