Scientists from nine countries have teamed up to try to unravel a peculiar question: is it possible to know what pigs feel based on their grunts alone?
There was a lot of research being carried out separately on the topic, and the scientists’ idea this time was to unify the databases, totaling 7,414 grunts produced by 411 pigs in 19 different situations, in order to have a more robust analysis. Professionals from Denmark, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, France, Norway and the USA participate in the project.
The records refer to various situations, from birth to death. The positive ones, for example, include breastfeeding and reuniting with the family after a time away. Emotionally negative situations include, for example, separation from the mother, disputes between animals and castration.
The grunts associated with positive situations are usually shorter, and sound waves have less variation in amplitude. The longer ones, common in negative situations, fluctuate a lot and are usually longer. The research was published last March in Scientific Reports.
An analysis of this size was only possible because the scientists developed a computer program capable of “listening” to the animals and automatically breaking down the information into the various parameters of interest, such as vocalization duration, frequency and sound wave shape.
It was possible, through machine learning, to correctly classify 92% of the grunts as positive or negative. More: the algorithm correctly identified 84% of the contexts in which the sounds were produced.
Building on this non-invasive way of monitoring animal welfare, scientists are now looking for partners to develop a commercial tool that can be made available to breeders around the world.
In the case of beef animals, such as chickens, cattle and pigs, there are ethical, social and economic reasons for breeders to pay attention to the animals’ well-being.
“Every day researchers discover new cognitive abilities in these animals. They are sentient beings – something that is already recognized by several countries – and if we want to use them, it is our responsibility to ensure that they have the best life possible”, he tells the Sheet Elodie Mandel-Briefer, a researcher at the University of Copenhagen and lead author of the study.
“This means not only ensuring that they are physically healthy, but also mentally healthy, so that they have far more positive emotions than negative ones, and that they enjoy as natural a life as possible.”
The emotions that animals feel, explains the scientist, are encoded by ancestral brain regions that all vertebrates, be it a fish or a chimpanzee, share, and they are essential for the life they lead in the wild, as they react when finding food. or predators, for example.
“It’s a fact that all vertebrates, at least, feel emotions. And given the brain architecture, it’s very likely that nonhuman animals are aware of their emotions, but we can’t say to what degree,” says Mandel-Briefer.
“In any case, considering the study of their cognitive abilities (long-term memory, ability of their emotions to influence other individuals, ability to understand human gestures and vocal expressions), it is clear that the distance between us and them is getting closer every day. narrow, which makes sure we have to take good care of them if we want to use them.”
Even the emotions of invertebrates such as insects, molluscs and crustaceans are already studied. In a recent analysis published in the journal Science, Frans de Wall, a primatologist at Emory University (USA) and Kristin Andrews, a scholar of the animal mind at the University of York (Canada), dissect the issue.
There is doubt about the degree of awareness that non-vertebrate animals would have about their sensations and feelings. Assuming an absence of conscience, this would exempt, from an ethical point of view, people from having to care about the welfare of these animals, explain the authors.
Another example is the relationship between cows and calves. When they see their puppies suffering, mothers have a reaction that goes beyond an interest in avoiding their own pain. This kind of interest, argue de Wall and Andrews, should be considered when making decisions about good practices in livestock and agriculture.
“While we are used to thinking about how our actions affect other humans, recognizing the breadth of animal sentience requires that we also consider our impact on other species. In this way, animal sentience will further complicate this already morally complex world,” they write. .
