pig experiment 1952

Christopher Polge and Lionel Edward Aston Rowson’s Experiments on the Freezing of Bull Spermatozoa (1950–1952)

In 1952, researchers Christopher Polge and Lionel Edward Aston Rowson, who worked at the Animal Research Center in Cambridge, England, detailed several experiments on protocols for freezing bull semen for use in the artificial insemination of cows. Freezing sperm extends the life of a viable sperm sample and allows it to be used at later times, such as in artificial insemination. The researchers examined the effects of freezing conditions on bull sperm and how well they produce fertilized embryos once thawed. Polge and Rowson concluded that bull sperm can retain its fertility throughout the freezing process and that frozen bull sperm can yield pregnancy rates of up to seventy-nine percent. Polge and Rowson provided the first conclusive evidence that frozen mammalian sperm, once thawed, can produce viable pregnancies.

In the early 1900s cryobiology, or the study of freezing living cells and tissues, was an emerging field of science. Freezing cells allows them to be stored at low temperatures for extended periods, well beyond the normal lifespan of cells in a human body or culture. Those cells can then be thawed and used at a desired time. However, the freezing process can damage cells beyond repair through the formation of ice crystals in the interior of cells, or by trapping high concentrations of salt in the cells when water is drawn out of them. By 1950, researchers had not successfully frozen animal cells or tissues without killing them during the process.

Polge was one of the earliest researches in the field of cryobiology, and he worked at the University of Cambridge in Cambridge, London, within the National Institute for Medical Research in London, England. He and two of his colleagues initially discovered the potential use of glycerol as a cryoprotectant, or a chemical medium that helps preserve the function of live cells under freezing conditions. Rowson worked at Animal Research Center in Cambridge, England and was one of the first veterinarians to practice artificial insemination and embryo transplants in livestock. Rowson collaborated with Polge on several experiments that involved the reproductive practices of livestock throughout the mid 1900s.

In 1949, Polge and a small team of researchers determined that glycerol, when mixed with cultures of live sperm cells, preserved the function of sperm under freezing conditions for a variety of vertebrate animals. Glycerol is a sugar-based alcohol that is naturally found in cells. After several subsequent experiments, researchers found that fowl, or bird, sperm retained the greatest motility after being thawed from a frozen state and could produce viable embryos when used in fertilization afterwards. Motility of sperm refers to the physical movement of a sperm cell in its environment, as sperm need to move through their environment in order to find and fertilize eggs. Higher motility typically improves the chances of the sperm cell finding and penetrating an egg. Thus, motility is a factor in determining the potency, or effectiveness, of a sperm sample. However, according to Polge and Rowson, mammalian sperm reacted differently than fowl sperm under the same conditions. Researchers tested rabbit, guinea pig, goat, horse, and bull sperm with similar freezing protocol as those used with fowl sperm. All mammalian samples showed lower rates of sperm cell revival upon thawing. According to Polge and Rowson had been unsuccessful in using frozen mammalian sperm for later fertilization efforts.

In 1950, Polge and Rowson began a series of two experiments in which they attempted to freeze mammalian sperm that can be used to successfully fertilize eggs. In their first experiment, the researchers examined the effect of adding glycerol into bull semen samples. Polge and Rowson divided a sample of bull semen into three separate parts. They exposed the three parts to different conditions, and then tested the potency of each sample. Polge and Rowson diluted the first of the samples with an equal volume of a standard material known as Wellcome citrate buffer containing fifty percent egg yolk at a temperature of 30 degrees Celsius. The researchers stored that sample for twenty-four hours in a refrigerator at 5 degrees Celsius. The first sample served as a control in the experiment, to show whether or not the sperm sample was viable after twenty-four hours without the addition of glycerol. The researchers then diluted the second of the samples with an equal volume of the same yolk-buffer mixture, but they added thirty percent glycerol to the buffer. They stored that sample for twenty-four hours in a refrigerator at 5 degrees Celsius. That sample would demonstrate the effect of adding glycerol to a sperm sample, while maintained in the same environment as the untreated sperm sample. Polge and Rowson then diluted the third of the semen samples using the same yolk-buffer-glycerol mixture as the second sample. That third sample, however, was slowly cooled from 30 degrees Celsius to -79 degrees Celsius. The researchers then thawed the third sample to 40 degrees Celsius, or roughly the body temperature of a healthy cow. That sample would demonstrate the effect of adding glycerol into a sperm sample, and then subjecting that mixture to freezing conditions temporarily.

After a twenty-four-hour incubation period, Polge and Rowson used sperm from each of the three samples to artificially inseminate a total of sixty cows that the researchers checked for signs of pregnancy six weeks later. According to the researchers, the first sample of sperm successfully fertilized ten cows out of twenty inseminated for a fertilization rate of fifty percent. Those results indicated that the untreated sperm sample kept at cool temperatures produced a pregnancy in nearly half of the insemination attempts it was used in. The second sample yielded a fertilization rate of seventy-six percent, which indicated that sperm mixed with glycerol and stored at cool temperatures resulted in pregnancies in over three quarters of the insemination attempts it was used in. The third sample, however, failed to fertilize any cows. That indicated that sperm mixed with glycerol and then frozen did not result in any pregnancies when used in an insemination attempt.

In their first experiment, Polge and Rowson observed that the addition of glycerol did not impair the function of sperm when added to a semen sample. The researchers observed that the bull sperm frozen with glycerol resulted in no pregnancies and noted that the bull sperm chilled with glycerol not only yielded viable embryos, but actually produced more pregnancies than the untreated sperm sample did. Polge and Roswon concluded that the addition of glycerol was not responsible for inhibiting fertilization by the bull sperm. Some other factor had damaged the frozen sperm. The researchers theorized that the presence of glycerol could potentially improve the fertilization rates of bull sperm, but the limited sample size of the experiment prevented the authors from definitively concluding anything in that regard. However, Polge and Rowson proved that glycerol, already known as an effective cryoprotectant for fowl sperm cells, could be safely added to samples of bull semen while still preserving sperm function.

In their second experiment, which occurred in 1951, Polge and Rowson determined the best method for adding glycerol into the bull sperm in a way that yields sperm that can successfully fertilize an egg, even after the sperm had been exposed to freezing conditions. The authors claimed that the premise of their second experiment was inspired by something they had observed during their earlier work. Polge and Rowson noted that they had previously concluded that equilibrating the glycerol with the sperm samples for several hours prior to freezing improved revival rates of the sperm post-thaw. Equilibration refers to the process of allowing two components of a mixture to combine evenly within it.

Employing those methods, Polge and Rowson conducted a second experiment in which they developed a new freezing technique for the bull semen. The researchers attempted to reproduce the boosted sperm revival rate through the equilibration of the glycerol with the sperm prior to freezing. Immediately after collecting the semen samples, the authors diluted them with an equal volume of citrate buffer at 28 degrees Celsius. The dilution was performed immediately after collection, according to the authors, in order to prevent any degradation to the sperm between the time of collection and the time of experimental treatment. Polge and Rowson then cooled those samples to 5 degrees Celsius over a four-hour period in order to chill the sperm for short-term storage. Once cooled, they then diluted the samples again with an equal volume of the citrate buffer, containing twenty percent glycerol, and left the samples to sit overnight at 5 degrees Celsius. That gradually introduced the glycerol into the mixture of the sperm cells, and allowed the glycerol to thoroughly mix with the sperm cells during the longer incubation period.

The next day, the researchers gradually cooled the samples from 5 degrees Celsius, a chilled storage temperature, to -79 degrees Celsius, a freezing temperature. They then stored those frozen samples in sealed containers for various periods of time, ranging from two hours to eight days. Upon thawing each of those samples, the researchers immediately artificially inseminated cows with the previously frozen semen. The researchers performed the procedure on thirty-eight cows in total. After six weeks, Polge and Rowson observed that thirty of those cows yielded viable pregnancies, resulting in a fertilization rate of seventy-nine percent. That showed an improvement when compared to the results of using the frozen glycerol-sperm sample in the first experiment, which had yielded a zero percent fertilization rate when used to inseminate cows without equilibrating first. Polge and Rowson concluded that bull sperm can retain its capacity for fertilization throughout the freezing process when following the protocol they detailed in the experiment. The researchers noted that treating bull sperm with a glycerol medium could improve fertilization rates when used in insemination, as was first seen in their 1950 experiment. However, they also noted that their current data was insufficient to conclusively prove it.

After conducting those two experiments, Polge and Rowson discussed the impacts of their findings. They argued that their work offered insight into the permeability of cells, or the natural tendency of cells to take in the chemicals of their cellular environment, as well as the behavior of cells at extremely low temperatures. The researchers also noted that their proposed technique for freezing bull semen could allow those samples to be stored for longer periods of time than contemporary practices allowed. Those sperm cells, once thawed, could retain and even have an improved capacity to fertilize cows. Lastly, Polge and Rowson conceded that more work was needed to further increase the length of time that the samples could be stored for under freezing conditions.

Polge and Rowson’s experiments developed a method for freezing bull semen in a way that yielded viable pregnancies in cows after artificial insemination. As of 2017, freezing semen of desirable studs is a common practice in modern day agriculture. It is also prominently used in the context of animal breeding. Polge and Rowson’s experiments also contributed to the research and development for freezing and storage protocol of other mammalian sex cells, including humans.

• Hunter, Ronald H. F. “Ernest John Christopher Polge. 16 August 1926–17 August 2006.” Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 54 (2008): 275–96.
• Lovelock, James E. and Christopher Polge. “The Immobilization of Spermatozoa by Freezing and Thawing and the Protective Action of Glycerol.” Biochemical Journal 58 (1954): 618–22. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1269950/pdf/biochemj01078-0108.pdf (Accessed July 13, 2017).
• Polge, Christopher. “Lionel Edward Aston Rowson, O. B. E. 28 May 1914-26 July 1989.” Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 46 (2000): 484¬–97. http://rsbm.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roybiogmem/46/483.full.pdf (Accessed July 13, 2017).
• Polge, Christopher, Audrey Ursuka Smith, and Alan Sterling Parkes. “Revival of Spermatozoa after Vitrification and Dehydration at Low Temperatures.” Nature 164 (1949): 666¬–670.
• Polge, Christopher and Lionel Edward Aston Rowson. “Fertilizing Capacity of Bull Spermatozoa after Freezing at -79°C.” Nature 169 (1952): 626–7.

How to cite

Articles rights and graphics.

Copyright Arizona Board of Regents Licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)  

Last modified

Share this page.

Fact Check: NO Evidence Peppa Pig Is Based On Unconfirmed Story About Girl Injected With Pig DNA

• Jun 29, 2023
• by: Marlo Lee

Was the children's show Peppa Pig based on a science experiment where a couple injected pig DNA into their daughter? No, that's not true: There is no evidence that this is a real story or that Peppa Pig originated from it. This claim was first posted on TikTok in 2021 as a joke. Lead Stories could not find any police or news reports of this event happening.

The claim appeared in a video (archived here ) published on TikTok on June 20, 2023, with the following caption, "#usefulfacts #creepyfacts #jamesknows." The video opened with a voiceover:

Did you know that Peppa Pig was based on a terrifying true story?

This is what the post looked like on TikTok at the time of writing:

(Source: TikTok.com screenshot taken on Wed Jun 28 15:26:18 2023 UTC)

The video claims that in 1952, a couple living on a farm injected pig DNA into their daughter named Peppa because they had the power to do so. This supposedly the inspiration for the animated children's show Peppa Pig. The video does not tell viewers where this farm was located or the name of the parents.

According to the video, a "villager" called the police to stop the parents, but Lead Stories could not find a police report or news story of this event happening on Google News , which indexes thousands of credible sources of information.

In 2021, a TikTok creator posted this story without revealing why the parents conducted the experiment on their daughter. Before the climax of the story, a clip of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson 's verse in the rap song, "Face Off" by Tech N9ne pops up, a version of a rickroll prank. We reached out to the creator of the TikTok, @ruthbellpan , to ask if this Peppa Pig lore was a joke she made up or if she had seen it somewhere before. We will update this article when we receive a relevant response.

We have also contacted Hasbro , the parent company of Peppa Pig, about this claim and will update this article when we get a response.

Peppa Pig has a theme park in Paulton's Park , which is located in the United Kingdom. The Paulton's Park website says that the creators of Peppa Pig wanted to make an animated series for children that had "clear and concise story lines" with "a main character who was a girl" that did not fall into the already present stories of princesses and ballerinas. There is no evidence on that website that the creators based their animations on a story about a girl who was injected with pig DNA.

Another Lead Stories fact check about a children's show can be found here .

Marlo Lee is a fact checker at Lead Stories. She is a graduate of Howard University with a B.S. in Biology. Her interest in fact checking started in college, when she realized how important it became in American politics. She lives in Maryland. Read more about or contact

Lead Stories is a fact checking website that is always looking for the latest false, misleading, deceptive or inaccurate stories, videos or images going viral on the internet. Spotted something? Let us know! .

Lead Stories is a:

• Verified signatory of the IFCN Code of Principles
• Facebook Third-Party Fact-Checking Partner
• Member of the #CoronavirusFacts Alliance

WhatsApp Tipline

Have a tip or a question? Chat with our friendly robots on WhatsApp!

Add our number +1 (404) 655-4223 , follow this link or scan the image below with your phone:

@leadstories

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please select all the ways you would like to hear from Lead Stories LLC:

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website.

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here.

Fact Check: NO Evidence 'Five Children Passed Away' In U.S. From Instant Ramen Noodles During Recall

Fact Check: Images Of Woman In Short Skirts, Black Stockings Are NOT Real Photos Of Kamala Harris

Fact Check: You Can NOT Update Voicemail In An Emergency With No Phone Service

Fact check: sean 'diddy' combs did not write a book called 'the adrenochrome witch'.

Fact Check: Video Does NOT Show Dog Being Spit-Roasted By 'Bosnian Neighbors' in U.S.

Fact Check: Photo Shows Distant Nebraska Relatives of Tim Walz Supporting Trump -- 3rd & 4th Cousins

Fact Check: Gov. Gavin Newsom Did NOT Sign Bill Banning Memes And Parody In California

Most recent.

Fact Check: Video Does NOT Show Singer Usher Refusing To Support Kamala Harris

Fact Check: Starbucks Is NOT Going Cashless In UK On October 1, 2024

Fact Check: FAKE Documents Are About Staged Relationship Between Travis Kelce, Taylor Swift

Fact Check: Debt-Relief Ad For Veterans Does NOT Represent White House Initiative -- It's Made-Up

Fact Check: Screenshot Does NOT Show Authentic Ryan Wesley Routh Instagram Account

Fact Check: Users Can NOT Get $750 Shein Gift Card By Answering Questions On Facebook -- Bait-and-Switch Scheme

Fact Check: Colin Kaepernick Did NOT Say He'll 'Go To Russia' If Disrespected In US -- From Satire Article

Share your opinion, lead stories.

This 'Peppa Pig' Backstory Is a Seriously Freaky Take on the Popular Kids' Show

Updated Oct. 7 2020, 9:04 p.m. ET

If you've had a preschooler within the past eight years or so, then you're likely well-acquainted with the British kids' show Peppa Pig . In the U.S., the reruns of the show — which feature a pig named Peppa, her little brother, George, and of course, Mummy and Daddy Pig — air often on Nick Jr. Between the characters' British accents and the relatable kid shenanigans that play out, both parents and their children have delighted in the U.K.-based animated series since 2004.

Each 5-minute episode of Peppa Pig features simplistic drawings, bright colors, and (typically) everyday situations faced by parents and their young children. The fact that each storyline is so short and simple makes the series great for little ones who tend to have short attention spans. (Not to mention, being a fan of the show tends to cause toddlers to develop somewhat of a British accent — which is hilariously adorable.) It's no wonder the series is a hit across the world.

So what is 'Peppa Pig's' backstory anyway?

The actual backstory of Peppa Pig isn't all that complicated, as the series focuses on 4-year-old Peppa, her 2-year-old brother, and their parents as they navigate life as a family. Daddy Pig works as a structural engineer while Mummy Pig is sometimes shown working from home on her computer. (But mostly, she's tasked with caring for Peppa and George when they're not at playgroup).

This alternate 'Peppa Pig' backstory is seriously creepy.

Evidently, there's an entirely different "backstory" to Peppa Pig than what first meets the eye — and chances are, you've never heard of it. But once you do, we can guarantee you'll never view the cheeky piggy and her animal friends in the same light again.

Over on the social storytelling platform, Wattpad, exists a Peppa Pig backstory that is bound to send chills down your spine. There, a user by the name of animegeek00 has published a fan-fiction collection called "Time to ruin your childhood!" — and it definitely delivers. Because in this alternate backstory for Peppa Pig , all of the show's characters are in a sort of afterlife following their deaths as humans.

"Peppa was never a healthy child. She was usually ill and spent her short life in a hospital bed," the titular character's backstory reads. "One night, Peppa's parents decided it would be best if they euthanised her. So that night, Peppa fell asleep and she was injected with a poison thus killing her. This causes Peppa to want to be a fairy as her last dream was about fairies."

Well, then. The rest of Peppa's family did not fare well after her death, in case you were wondering.

"Peppa's parents could not live with the guilt of killing their child," animegeek00 wrote. "After six agonising months of George asking where his sister had gone, Daddy pig snapped. He took a knife and killed himself, his wife and child."

Suzy Sheep's backstory isn't very cheery, either: "She was always a happy child and loved playing on her bike," according to the Wattpad user. "She wanted to be a nurse as she progressed in her life. One sunny day, Suzy was riding her bike when she was run over by an oncoming truck. The impact caused her to die immediately. In her after Suzy is usually found wearing a nurse costume."

Suzy Sheep's untimely death caused Mummy Sheep's demise, as well. "Already hooked on alcohol, she started taking crack cocaine and heroin," according to this particular backstory. "She got a deep-depression and died of drug overdose."

Another death that came in connection with Suzy's: Mr. Zebra. Because he was the one who was driving the truck that killed Suzy.

"He was not sent to prison but lost his driver's license and job," animegeek00 wrote. "Due to this, he lost his house, wife, and money and died living on the streets. (This is why Suzy and Mr. Zebra have never been seen in an episode together.)"

Suddenly, it all makes sense.

Grandpa Dog, Mummy Dog, and Danny Dog suffered pretty depressing fates as well — which seems to be a pattern with animegeek00.

"Grand dog had taken Danny on a sail around when a storm broke out. Lightning hit the boat which set it alight. Grandpa Dog was burnt to death while Danny drowned," they wrote. "Mummy dog was killed at the garage. She was fixing the car when it malfunctioned and killed her. This is why she is never ever seen at Grandpa Dog's garage and why Grandpa Dog doesn't like taking Danny on a boat."

Meanwhile, Pedro Pony was a geek in his human form who was drowned by bullies; Cousin Chloe jumped off the roof of her house when her parents wouldn't buy her a puppet theater (and then her parents followed suit when they learned they were expecting a baby); Madame Gazelle accidentally burned down her human schoolhouse while baking cookies for the children; and Grandpa Pig died when Peppa's treehouse fell on him in the garden.

It turns out, Grandma Pig was the very last to die — which brings this disturbing Peppa Pig backstory full circle because the show's reality only exists in her imagination.

"Grandma Pig is schizophrenic and is also taking multiple drugs. All of the characters of Peppa Pig are all of her loved ones," concluded animegeek00. "Grandma Pig is a widow, in grief, and fully alone. So her schizophrenia took over and transported her to a world where her loved ones are alive and well."

Well, we're sufficiently creeped out. How about you?

American Kids Are Developing British Accents Watching Too Much 'Peppa Pig'

The Cartoon Character Peppa Pig Is Probably Way Taller Than You Thought

These Are the Most Outlandish 'Phineas and Ferb' Conspiracy Theories

Latest Entertainment News and Updates

• About Distractify
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Connect with Distractify
• Link to Facebook
• Link to Instagram
• Contact us by Email

Opt-out of personalized ads

© Copyright 2024 Engrost, Inc. Distractify is a registered trademark. All Rights Reserved. People may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.

The History of Cloning

Lost in the midst of all the buzz about cloning is the fact that cloning is nothing new: its rich scientific history spans more than 100 years. The landmark examples below will take you on a journey through time, where you can learn more about the history of cloning.

1885 - First-ever demonstration of artificial embryo twinning

Hans Adolf Eduard Driesch

The sea urchin is a relatively simple organism that is useful for studying development. Dreisch showed that by merely shaking two-celled sea urchin embryos, it was possible to separate the cells. Once separated, each cell grew into a complete sea urchin.

This experiment showed that each cell in the early embryo has its own complete set of genetic instructions and can grow into a full organism.

1902 - Artificial embryo twinning in a vertebrate

Hans Spemann

Spemann’s first challenge was to figure out how to split the two cells of an embryo much stickier than sea urchin cells. Spemann fashioned a tiny noose from a strand of baby hair and tightened it between two cells of a salamander embryo until they separated. Each cell grew into an adult salamander. Spemann also tried to divide more advanced salamander embryos using this method, but he found that cells from these embryos weren’t as successful at developing into adult salamanders.

This experiment showed that embryos from a more-complex animal can also be “twinned” to form multiple identical organisms—but only up to a certain stage in development.

1928 - The cell nucleus controls embryonic development

Again using a strand of baby hair tied into a noose, Spemann temporarily squeezed a fertilized salamander egg to push the nucleus to one side of the cytoplasm. The egg divided into cells—but only on the side with the nucleus. After four cell divisions, which made 16 cells, Spemann loosened the noose, letting the nucleus from one of the cells slide back into the non-dividing side of the egg. He used the noose to separate this “new” cell from the rest of the embryo. The single cell grew into a new salamander embryo, as did the remaining cells that were separated.

Essentially the first instance of nuclear transfer, this experiment showed that the nucleus from an early embryonic cell directs the complete growth of a salamander, effectively substituting for the nucleus in a fertilized egg.

1952 - First successful nuclear transfer

Robert Briggs and Thomas King

Briggs and King transferred the nucleus from an early tadpole embryo into an enucleated frog egg (a frog egg from which the nucleus had been removed). The resulting cell developed into a tadpole.

The scientists created many normal tadpole clones using nuclei from early embryos. But just like Spemann’s salamander experiments, cloning was less successful with donor nuclei from more advanced embryos: the few tadpole clones that did survive grew abnormally.

Most importantly, this experiment showed that nuclear transfer was a viable cloning technique. It also reinforced two earlier observations. First, the nucleus directs cell growth and, ultimately, an organism’s development. Second, embryonic cells early in development are better for cloning than cells at later stages.

1958 - Nuclear transfer from a differentiated cell

John Gurdon

Gurdon transplanted the nucleus of a tadpole intestinal cell into an enucleated frog egg. In this way, he created tadpoles that were genetically identical to the one from which the intestinal cell was taken.

This experiment showed that, despite previous failures, nuclei from somatic cells in a fully developed animal could be used for cloning. Importantly, it suggested that cells retain all of their genetic material even as they divide and differentiate (although some wondered if the donor DNA came from a stem cell, which can differentiate into multiple types of cells).

1975 - First mammalian embryo created by nuclear transfer

J. Derek Bromhall

Mammalian egg cells are much smaller than those of frogs or salamanders, so they are harder to manipulate. Using a glass pipette as a tiny straw, Bromhall transferred the nucleus from a rabbit embryo cell into an enucleated rabbit egg cell. He considered the procedure a success when a morula, or advanced embryo, developed after a couple of days.

This experiment showed that mammalian embryos could be created by nuclear transfer. To show that the embryos could continue developing, Bromhall would have had to place them into a mother rabbit's womb. He never did this experiment.

1984 - First mammal created by nuclear transfer

Steen Willadsen

Willadsen used a chemical process to separated one cell from an 8-cell lamb embryo. The he used a small electrical shock to fuse it to an enucleated egg cell. As luck would have it, the new cell started dividing.

By this time, in vitro fertilization techniques had been developed, and they had been used successfully to help couples have babies. So after a few days, Willadsen placed the lamb embryos into the womb of surrogate mother sheep. The result was the birth of three live lambs.

This experiment showed that it was possible to clone a mammal by nuclear transfer—and that the clone could fully develop. Even though the donor nuclei came from early embryonic cells, the experiment was considered a great success.

1987 - Nuclear transfer from embryonic cell

Neal First, Randal Prather, and Willard Eyestone

Using methods very similar to those used by Willadsen on sheep, First, Prather, and Eyestone produced two cloned calves. Their names were Fusion and Copy.

This experiment added cows to the list of mammals that could be cloned by nuclear transfer. Still, mammalian cloning was limited to using embryonic cells as nuclear donors. Cloning using nuclei from differentiated adult somatic cells still wasn’t thought possible.

1996 - Nuclear transfer from laboratory cells

Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell

All previous cloning experiments used donor nuclei from cells in early embryos. In this experiment, the donor nuclei came from a slightly different source: cultured sheep cells, which were kept alive in the laboratory.

Wilmut and Campbell transferred the nuclei from cultured cells into enucleated sheep egg cells. The lambs born from this procedure were named Megan and Morag.

This experiment showed that cultured cells can supply donor nuclei for cloning by nuclear transfer. Because scientists had already learned how to transfer genes into cultured cells, this experiment showed that it might be possible to use such modified cells to create transgenic animals—such as cows that could make insulin for diabetics in their milk.

1996 - Dolly: First mammal created by somatic cell nuclear transfer

In this landmark experiment, Wilmut and Campbell created a lamb by transferring the nucleus from an adult sheep's udder cell into an enucleated egg. Never before had a mammal been cloned from an adult somatic cell. What was the big deal?

Every cell’s nucleus contains a complete set of genetic information. However, while embryonic cells are ready to activate any gene, differentiated adult cells have shut down the genes that they don't need for their specific functions. When an adult cell nucleus is used as a donor, its genetic information must be reset to an embryonic state. Often the resetting process is incomplete, and the embryos fail to develop.

Of 277 attempts, only one produced an embryo that was carried to term in a surrogate mother. This famous lamb, named Dolly, brought cloning into the limelight. Her arrival started conversations about the implications of cloning, bringing controversies over human cloning and stem cell research into the public eye.

1997 - First primate created by embryonic cell nuclear transfer

Rhesus monkey.

Li Meng, John Ely, Richard Stouffer, and Don Wolf

Primates are good models for studying human disorders. Cloning identical primates would decrease the genetic variation of research animals, and therefore the number of animals need in research studies.

Similar to previous cloning experiments, Wolf’s team of scientists fused early-stage embryonic cells with enucleated monkey egg cells using a small electrical shock. The resulting embryos were then implanted into surrogate mothers. Out of 29 cloned embryos, two monkeys were born. One was a female named Neti, and the other was a male named Ditto.

This experiment showed that primates, humans’ closest relatives, can be cloned.

1997 - Nuclear transfer from genetically engineered laboratory cells

Angelika Schnieke, Keith Campbell, Ian Wilmut

This experiment was an exciting combination of findings from earlier work. Campbell and Wilmut had already created a clone using the nucleus of a cultured cell. This time, the researchers introduced the human Factor IX (“factor nine”) gene into the genome of sheep skin cells grown in a laboratory dish. Factor IX codes for a protein that helps blood clot, and it's used to treat hemophilia, a genetic disorder where blood doesn't form proper clots.

To create the transgenic sheep, the scientists performed nuclear transfer using donor DNA from the cultured transgenic cells. The result was Polly, a sheep that produced Factor IX protein in her milk.

This experiment showed that sheep could be engineered to make therapeutic and other useful proteins in their milk, highlighting the potential medical and commercial uses for cloning.

1998-1999 - More mammals cloned by somatic cell nuclear transfer

Mice, cows, and goats.

Multiple groups

After the successes leading up to Dolly and Polly, other scientists wanted to see if similar techniques could be used to clone other mammalian species. Before long, several more animals had been successfully cloned. Among them were transgenic animals, clones made from fetal and adult cells, and a male mouse; all previous clones had been female.

2001 - Endangered animals cloned by somatic cell nuclear transfer

Gaur and mouflon.

As the list of successfully cloned animals grew, scientists began to explore cloning as a way to create animals belonging to endangered or extinct species. A challenge to cloning endangered and extinct species is finding closely related animals to serve as egg donors and surrogates. The gaur and mouflon were chosen in part because they are close relatives of domestic cattle and sheep, respectively.

In 2009, using goast as egg donors and surrogates, another group of researchers cloned the first extinct animal, a Spanish mountain goat called the bucardo. Sadly, the one kid that survived gestation died soon after birth due to a lung defect.

2007 - Primate embryonic stem cells created by somatic cell nuclear transfer

Shoukhrat Mitalipov and colleagues

Researchers took a cell from an adult monkey and fused it with an enucleated egg cell. The embryo was allowed to develop for a time, then its cells were grown in a culture dish. These cells, because they can differentiate to form any cell type, are called embryonic stem cells.

This experiment showed that nuclear transfer in a primate, which researchers had tried for years without success, was possible. It opened the door to the possibility of human therapeutic cloning: creating individual-specific stem cells that could be used to treat or study diseases.

2013 - Human embryonic stem cells created by somatic cell nuclear transfer

Overcoming decades of technical challenges, Mitalipov and colleagues were the first to use somatic cell nuclear transfer to create a human embryo that could be used as a source of embryonic stem cells. The resulting stem cell lines were specific to the patient they came from, a baby with a rare genetic disorder.

In this experiment, researchers took a skin cell from the patient and fused it with a donated egg cell. Key to the success of the experiment were modifications to the culture liquid in which the procedure was done and to the series of electrical pulses used to stimulate the egg to begin dividing.

Following the cloning controversy of 2004–2005, in which South Korean scientists falsely claimed to have used somatic cell nuclear transfer to create embryonic stem cell lines, the scientific community demanded much stronger evidence that the procedure had actually been successful.

• Newspapers & Gazettes
• Cootamundra Herald (NSW : 1877 - 1954) View title info
• Mon 7 Jan 1952 Prev issue Next issue Browse issues
• Page 2 Prev page Next page Browse pages
• ENGLISH PIG HOUSING EXPERIMENTS Prev article Next article Browse articles

Article text

Illustrations, word position.

Line position

Paragraph operations are made directly in the full article text panel located to the left. Paragraph operations include:

• Adjust the order paragraphs
• Add new blank paragraphs
• Duplicate an existing paragraph
• Remove a paragraph

Zone operations are made directly in the full article text panel located to the left. Zone operations include:

• Adjust the order of zones
• Add new blank zone
• Remove a zone

Tables. Coming soon

• Subheadings
• Abstract New thoughts on pig-housing are likely as the result of research which has been going on under Dr. G. H. Bates (in
• — Em Dash
• ½ One Half
• £ Pound
• ¼ One Quarter
• ¾ Three Quarters
• Æ Ligature AE
• æ Ligature ae
• Œ Ligature OE
• œ Ligature oe
• ° Degree
• ¶ Pilcrow
• § Section
• Ä A with Umlaut
• ä a with Umlaut
• Ö O with Umlaut
• ö o with Umlaut
• Ü U with Umlaut
• ü u with Umlaut
• ß Sharp S
• Õ O with Tilde
• õ o with Tilde
• Ô O with Circumflex
• ô o with Circumflex
• É E with Acute
• é e with Acute
• È E with Grave
• è e with Grave

Loading article contents, please wait...

Download Citation

EndNote EndNote XML BibTeX

• Article text 0 text corrections
• Categories 0
• Toggle Layout

Tags, Lists & Notes Help

Please choose from the following download options:

Share this item on:

Print article as...

Display settings Help

Article categories help, original category.

The National Library of Australia's Copies Direct service lets you purchase higher quality, larger sized photocopies or electronic copies of newspapers pages.

Clicking on the Order now button below will open the ordering form in a new window which will allow you to enter the details of your request.

More options under 'download'...

You need to login before you can save preferences.

Details of support

Text corrections.

Cootamundra Herald (NSW : 1877 - 1954), Mon 7 Jan 1952, Page 2 - ENGLISH PIG HOUSING EXPERIMENTS

Already got a Trove account

Sign up for a free trove account.

It's easy and takes two shakes of a lamb's tail!

With your Trove account you can:

• edit and delete tags and comments,
• create lists,
• create private tags and comments, readable only by you, and
• keep track of your newspaper corrections

Confirm you're a human

Since you've made it this far, we want to assume you're a real, live human. But we need to be super sure you aren't a robot.

Article text , suitable for Copy and Paste

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 17 April 2019

Pig experiment challenges assumptions around brain damage in people

• Stuart Youngner 0 &
• Insoo Hyun 1

Stuart Youngner is a professor of bioethics and psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Insoo Hyun is a professor of bioethics and philosophy at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

Surgeons in Berlin operate on a woman who has been declared brain dead to remove her liver and kidneys for transplantation. Credit: Fabrizio Bensch/Reuters

In this week’s Nature , researchers describe restoring certain structural and functional properties to pigs’ brains, even four hours after the animals had been killed 1 . They used an artificial perfusion system called Brain Ex .

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 568 , 302-304 (2019)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01169-8

Vrselja, Z. et al. Nature 568 , 336–343 (2019).

Article   Google Scholar  

Dalle Ave, A. L., Shaw, D. M. & Gardiner, D. Resuscitation 108 , 87–94 (2016).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Helft, P. R., Siegler, M. & Lantos, J. N. Engl. J. Med. 343 , 293–296 (2000).

Bernat, J. L. et al. Ann. Emerg. Med. 63 , 384–390 (2014).

Ortega-Deballon, I., Hornby, L. & Shemie, S. D. Crit. Care 19 , 268 (2015).

Torke, A. M., Bledsoe, P., Wocial, L. D., Bosslet, G. T. & Helft, P. R. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 12 , 440–445 (2015).

Bernat, J. L. Hastings Cent. Rep. 43 (1), 30–33 (2013).

Goldberger, Z. D. et al. Lancet 380 , 1473–1481 (2012).

Munjal, K. G. et al. Hastings Cent. Rep. 43 (1), 19–26 (2013).

Magliocca, J. F. et al. J. Trauma 58 , 1095–1102 (2005).

Ko, W. J., Chen, Y. S., Tsai, P. R. & Lee, P. H. Clin. Transplant. 14 , 152–156 (2000).

Childress, J. F. & Liverman, C. T. (eds) Organ Donation: Opportunities for Action (National Academies Press, 2006).

Google Scholar  

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

• Medical research
• Neuroscience
• Health care

Obesity-drug pioneers win prestigious Lasker Award for medical science

News 19 SEP 24

Thalidomide-like drug staunches bleeding from genetic disease

Research Highlight 18 SEP 24

Gut microbes fend off harmful bacteria by depriving them of nutrients

News & Views 18 SEP 24

Obesity is driven by a build-up of molecular mesh around hunger neurons

Endogenous opioid signalling regulates spinal ependymal cell proliferation

Article 18 SEP 24

Pathogenic hypothalamic extracellular matrix promotes metabolic disease

COVID pandemic started in Wuhan market animals after all, suggests latest study

News 20 SEP 24

Tackling the reality of noma

Outlook 19 SEP 24

High-Level Talents at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

For clinical medicine and basic medicine; basic research of emerging inter-disciplines and medical big data.

Nanchang, Jiangxi, China

The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

Assistant Professor in Molecular and Cellular Biophysics

Vanderbilt University seeks an outstanding individual for a tenure-track faculty position in molecular and cellular biophysics. The candidate will ...

Nashville, Tennessee

Vanderbilt University - Department of Biological Sciences

Associate or Senior Editor (Ecology), Nature Ecology & Evolution

Job Title: Associate or Senior Editor (Ecology), Nature Ecology & Evolution Location: New York, Jersey City, Philadelphia, Beijing or Shanghai - Hy...

New York City, New York (US)

Springer Nature Ltd

Faculty position, Department of Oncology - Division of Quality of Life and Palliative Care

Memphis, Tennessee

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (St. Jude)

Principal Investigator Positions at the Chinese Institutes for Medical Research, Beijing

Cancer Biology, Molecular and Cellular Therapeutics, Regenerative Medicine, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Genetics and etc...

Beijing, China

The Chinese Institutes for Medical Research (CIMR), Beijing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

How a family's choice to donate a body for pig kidney research could help change transplants

At nyu langone health, a pig kidney has worked properly in his body for over a month and counting — a record., by lauran neergaard and shelby lum | the associated press • published august 19, 2023 • updated on august 21, 2023 at 10:19 am.

Mary Miller-Duffy was dazed and grieving. Her brother suddenly collapsed and days later was brain-dead. Now she faced a tough question: Would she donate his body for research?

That’s how the body of Maurice “Mo” Miller started its journey to a sunny corner of NYU Langone Health’s intensive care unit — and became part of the quest to one day ease the nation’s transplant shortage with organs from animals.

“He always wanted to help people,” said Miller-Duffy, who struggled with the choice but is proud of her brother's last act. “This tragic death, this fast short death — something good has come out of it.”

24/7 New York news stream: Watch NBC 4 free wherever you are

Pig kidney works in a donated body for over a month, a step toward animal-human transplants

Cubs fan battling kidney disease takes search for a donor to Wrigley Field

Surgeons replaced Miller's kidneys with one from a genetically modified pig on July 14. Then doctors and nurses cared for the deceased man like they would a living patient while anxiously ticking off the days.

Remarkably, over a month later the new organ is performing all the bodily functions of a healthy kidney — the longest a pig kidney has ever worked in a person. Now the countdown is on to see if the kidney can last into September, a second month.

Get Tri-state area news delivered to your inbox. Sign up for NBC New York's News Headlines newsletter.

The Associated Press got an inside look at the challenges of experiments with the dead that may help bring animal-to-human transplants closer to reality.

Getting an organ transplant today is a long shot. More than 100,000 people are on the national waiting list, most who need a kidney. Thousands die waiting. Thousands more who could benefit aren’t even added to the list.

“I had seven cardiac arrests before I even was sick enough” to qualify for a new heart, said Dr. Robert Montgomery, chief of NYU Langone’s transplant institute. He’s a kidney transplant surgeon — and was lucky enough to get his own heart transplant in 2018.

Filling the gap, he’s convinced, will require using animal organs.

After decades of failed attempts, now pigs genetically modified so their organs are more humanlike are renewing interest in so-called xenotransplantation. Last year, University of Maryland surgeons tried to save a dying man with a pig heart — and he survived for two months.

Montgomery is getting more practice on the dead before taking a chance with a living patient. A handful of prior experiments at NYU and the University of Alabama at Birmingham have kept pig kidneys and hearts working in donated bodies for a few days to a week, avoiding the immediate rejection that doomed many earlier attempts.

But the most common kind of organ rejection develops over a month. That pig heart in Maryland worked great for nearly 50 days until abruptly faltering. Watching how pig kidneys reach those timepoints in donated bodies could offer vital lessons — but how long could Montgomery expect a family to turn over their loved one?

“I’m in awe of someone who can make a decision like that at, you know, one of the worst moments in their lives and really think about ... humanity,” he said.

In Newburgh, New York, an ambulance had raced Miller to the hospital after he collapsed, a mass in his brain. He never woke up from the biopsy, brain-dead at just 57. Next steps were up to his sister, his closest relative.

Miller-Duffy asked about donating his organs but he didn't qualify. That biopsy had found cancer.

Only then did the organ agency broach whole-body donation. Miller-Duffy wasn’t familiar with that, but the goal of improving kidney transplants, “that kind of struck a chord.” Another brother had died of kidney disease as a toddler. Other relatives have kidney-damaging illnesses or even died on dialysis.

Flipping through family photos, Miller-Duffy recalled how her brother would adopt animals and once took care of a terminally ill friend. Still, she had questions.

In a video call, Montgomery explained the pig transplant to Miller-Duffy and her wife, Sue Duffy — and why it could make a difference. Montgomery's compassion won them over.

“His body is not being hurt, you know,” Duffy said. “It’s just an incubation for the study to be done."

The experiment served as a rehearsal for one day operating on a living patient. Montgomery finished removing Miller's own kidneys as a helicopter headed for the hospital's riverside landing pad. Drs. Jeffrey Stern and Adam Griesemer, fellow NYU surgeons, raced in kidneys they'd removed from a pig bred by Blacksburg, Virginia-based Revivicor.

Sewing a pig kidney into a donated body isn't much different than a regular transplant, Stern said. Post-surgery immune-suppressing drugs are standard, too.

One twist: Tacked onto the pig’s kidney was its thymus, a gland that trains immune cells — and thus might help protect the organ.

Lots of extra steps come before and after surgery.

First, what pig to use: Some have up to 10 genetic changes but Montgomery is betting one is enough — removal of a single porcine gene that triggers an immediate immune attack.

While the pigs are housed in a germ-free facility, researchers performed extra testing for any hidden infection. Everyone in the operating room must have certain vaccinations and undergo blood tests of their own.

Surgery over, doctors wheeled Miller’s body into the same ICU room where five years earlier Montgomery had recovered from his heart transplant.

Next came more intense testing than living patients could tolerate. Every week doctors biopsy the kidney, putting samples under the microscope to spot any hints of rejection. Blood is continually monitored, the spleen got a peek, and nurses keep close watch that the body is being properly maintained on the ventilator.

The first few weeks, Griesemer checked lab test results and vital signs multiple times a day: "You’re like, OK, hopefully things are still good — but is this the day it starts to turn?”

And they're shipping biopsy samples to research partners across the country and as far away as France.

“Our staff doesn’t sleep that much,” said Elaina Weldon, a nurse practitioner who oversees the transplant research. But with each passing week, “everybody is really now at the point of, what more can we do? How far can we push?"

She knows firsthand the huge interest: NYU quizzed community groups and religious leaders before embarking on research with donated bodies that might have sounded “a little bit more on the sci-fi side of things.”

Instead, many people wanted to know how soon studies in the living could start, something the Food and Drug Administration will have to decide. Dozens have written Montgomery, eager to participate.

Montgomery regularly calls Miller-Duffy and her wife with updates, and invited them to NYU to meet the team. And as the study’s initial one-month deadline approached, he had another ask: It was going so well, could they keep her brother’s body for a second month?

It meant further postponing plans for a memorial service but Miller-Duffy agreed. Her request: That she gets to be there when her brother is finally disconnected from the ventilator.

Whatever happens next, the experiment has changed Sue Duffy’s outlook on organ donation.

“Maybe I don’t need all my organs when I go to heaven,” she said. “Before I was a hard no. ... Now I’m a hard yes.”

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

This article tagged under:

April 17, 2019

Pig Experiment Challenges Assumptions around Brain Damage in People

The restoration of some structures and cellular functions in pig brains hours after death could intensify debates about when human organs should be removed for transplantation, warn Stuart Youngner and Insoo Hyun

By Stuart Youngner , Insoo Hyun & Nature magazine

In some countries, ambulances carry special equipment to restore circulation to the organs of people who have been declared dead after a heart attack.

Getty Images

In this week’s  Nature , researchers describe restoring certain structural and functional properties to pigs’ brains, even four hours after the animals had been killed. They used an  artificial perfusion system called Brain Ex .

Electrophysiological monitoring did not detect any kind of neural activity thought to signal consciousness, such as any evidence of signalling between brain regions (see ‘Between life and death’). Nonetheless, the study challenges the long-held assumption that large mammalian brains are irreversibly damaged a few minutes after blood stops circulating. It also raises the possibility that researchers could get better at salvaging a person’s brain even after the heart and lungs have stopped working.

Advances following on from the Brain Ex  study could exacerbate tensions between efforts to save the lives of individuals and attempts to obtain organs to donate to others. (Such advances could also affect the  use of human brains and brain tissue in research .)

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

In our view, as the science of brain resuscitation progresses, some efforts to save or restore people’s brains might seem increasingly reasonable—and some decisions to forego such attempts in favour of procuring organs for transplantation might seem less so.

BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH

How were some cellular functions and structures restored to pig brains hours after the animals had been killed?

The researchers (largely at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut) used around 300 pig heads from a US Department of Agriculture abattoir1. After optimizing the technology, the team connected 32 pig brains to the Brain Ex  system (4 hours after the pigs had been killed, and after removing the brains from the skulls). This computerized network of pumps, heaters and filters controlled the flow, temperature and constituents of a proprietary perfusate solution for six hours.

There was no evidence of the kind of neural activity that is thought to signal consciousness, or the ability to perceive the environment and experience sensations such as pain or distress. But, incredibly, Brain Ex  did restore and sustain circulation to major arteries, small blood vessels and capillaries, cellular responsiveness to drugs and cerebral metabolism. A drug that increases blood flow in people’s brains, for instance, dilated pig blood vessels and increased the rate of flow of the perfusate.

Some large-scale anatomical and small-scale morphological features were restored and preserved, thanks to a reduction in swelling and other changes that would otherwise have led to cell damage and cell death. Electrodes inserted into slices of brain tissue (cultured in standard medium) detected electrical activity in individual neurons; neurons fired action potentials in response to an electrical stimulus and even displayed spontaneous synaptic activity. All of this was detected at normal body temperature.

It is not known how long uninterrupted perfusion could have sustained these functions. The team stopped the experiment after six hours, mainly because of the limited availability of fresh perfusate and the difficulties of having someone continually monitor and adjust the Brain Ex  system.

The study was designed to investigate whether any physiological and cellular functions can be restored in a large, intact mammalian brain several hours after death. Such work could, in principle, help investigators to develop therapies for brain injuries resulting from a lack of oxygen, and even  enable the study of intact human brains .

The transplant community, neuroscientists, emergency medical personnel and other stakeholders must debate the issues. Eventually, it might be useful for groups such as the US National Academy of Medicine to offer guidelines for physicians and hospitals. These would help to protect the interests of individuals for whom sufficient recovery is a possibility, as well as the interests of potential organ recipients.

Determination of death

For decades, bioethicists and transplantation-policy researchers have had to wrestle with the question of when to switch from trying to save someone’s life to trying to save their organs for the benefit of another person.

Invariably, this comes down to a moral decision—namely about futility, which is a contentious and value-laden concept. There are few data to support decisions. And clinicians disagree about when there is a chance of recovery. There is also little consensus on what level of recovery is ‘good enough’ from the perspective of patients and their families, as well as when these factors are weighed against limited medical resources.

In most countries, a person can be legally declared dead if they show irreversible loss of all brain function (brain death) or irreversible loss of all circulatory function (circulatory death).

In recent decades, most organs for transplant have been taken from those who have been declared brain dead, often after a catastrophic brain injury resulting from a stroke, trauma or prolonged lack of oxygen to the brain, caused for instance by drowning. (In these cases, the person’s heart and lung functions are maintained in the intensive care unit.)

Increasingly, however, those who are declared dead after their hearts and lungs have stopped working are being deemed eligible for organ donation. This shift has largely been driven by an increased need for organs as transplantation surgeries have become more successful. According to the US non-profit organization the United Network for Organ Sharing, someone is added to the US transplant waiting list every ten minutes. In 2017, around 18 people in the United States died every day while waiting for a transplant.

If technologies similar to Brain Ex  are improved and developed for use in humans, people who are declared brain dead (especially those with brain injuries resulting from a lack of oxygen) could become candidates for brain resuscitation rather than organ donation. Certainly, it could become harder for physicians or family members to be convinced that further medical intervention is futile.

For people who have been declared dead on the basis of circulatory criteria, matters could become even more complex.

Today, there are two main protocols for obtaining organs in these cases. One occurs in individuals who have severe brain injuries but are not brain dead. It is called controlled donation after circulatory determination of death (controlled DCDD).

Here, after carers obtain consent, they switch off the person’s mechanical ventilator and any other life support that might be in use in the operating room. The patient is then declared dead 2–5 minutes after their heart stops beating. Because adequate testing for brain death is impossible in the race to obtain healthy organs, it is assumed that the individual has had an irreversible loss of brain function.

The second protocol (uncontrolled DCDD) is practised mainly in Europe. It generally occurs after a person has had a heart attack in a non-medical setting. In these cases, after paramedics have declared resuscitative efforts futile, nothing is done for around 5–20 minutes. Next, steps are taken to try to preserve the organs. These might include resuming cardiopulmonary resuscitation to restore circulation; introducing cooling fluids through an artery in the groin; or even a technique that oxygenates the blood and pumps it throughout the body (known as extra corporeal membrane oxygenation, or ECMO).

Even now, clinicians and bioethicists disagree over how long is long enough for paramedics to keep trying to resuscitate. Practitioners use various rules of thumb, such as ‘declare death after 30 minutes of unsuccessful resuscitative efforts’, and can refer to published guidelines. But as the US neurologist James Bernat has pointed out, such rules “are difficult to apply in practice because each CPR is a unique event with different variables”. Data are scant, but one study of people who died of heart attacks in hospitals in the United States found that patients were declared dead with more certainty after longer resuscitative efforts.

Questions about the term ‘irreversible’ haunt both protocols. Does this mean that the care team is unable to reverse a situation, or that they have reasonably decided not to attempt to? Unsurprisingly, most advocates for transplantation favour the latter view. Some have even argued that further efforts to restore people’s brains at the expense of organ procurement would divert much-needed medical resources and potentially increase the number of people with severe disabilities.

Heightening the tension are concerns among bioethicists and medical practitioners that brain function could be recovered in some bodies that have been put on ECMO. Some organ-recovery teams in the United States and Taiwan have tried to prevent this by inserting a thoracic aortic occlusion balloon to stop the pumped blood from reaching the brain. This intervention was deemed a “serious problem” by a US Department of Health and Human Services panel because it raises “causation questions about physicians’ active complicity in the patient’s death”.

Lastly, there is considerable variation between countries about what is morally and legally acceptable. In France and Spain, ECMO equipment can be transported in a special ambulance to wherever the patient is. In the United States, the technique is controversial and rarely used.

These debates and decisions could become much more fraught if advances in research challenge assumptions about the brain’s inability to recover from an absence of oxygen, or even just hint at the possibility that consciousness can be restored after a person’s heart has stopped beating. Ultimately, more people could become candidates for brain resuscitation rather than for organ donation.

Healthy debate

Balancing the competing interests of developments in resuscitation and transplantation comes down to values, as well as science. Different people have different ideas about how to best save and improve lives.

In our view, the Brain Ex  study, and the follow-up work it will surely inspire, flag the need for more open discussion. Debate involving everyone—from neuroscientists and policymakers to patients and medical personnel—could help to clarify which criteria make someone eligible for organ donation versus resuscitation. Such discussions can also explore how to ensure that organ donation can be integrated into end-of-life care with minimal controversy.

Two institutions are well placed to take the lead and bring the relevant stakeholders together: the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the UK Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Both have held public meetings and produced multidisciplinary reports on controversial areas of science, medicine and ethics for decades. In 2006, for example, workshops held over a year involving researchers, health-care professionals and comments from the public led to an NAS report evaluating various proposals to increase organ donations, and their potential impact on people from minority ethnic groups and those who are socio-economically disadvantaged.

Researchers are a long way from being able to restore structures and functions in the brains of people who would today be declared dead. But, in our view, it is not too early to consider how this type of research could affect the growing population of critically ill patients who are waiting for kidneys, livers, lungs or hearts.

This article is reproduced with permission and was  first published  on April 17, 2019.

Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

UK Edition Change

• UK Politics
• News Videos
• Paris 2024 Olympics
• Rugby Union
• Sport Videos
• John Rentoul
• Mary Dejevsky
• Andrew Grice
• Sean O’Grady
• Photography
• Theatre & Dance
• Culture Videos
• Fitness & Wellbeing
• Food & Drink
• Health & Families
• Royal Family
• Electric Vehicles
• Car Insurance Deals
• Lifestyle Videos
• Hotel Reviews
• News & Advice
• Simon Calder
• Australia & New Zealand
• South America
• C. America & Caribbean
• Middle East
• Politics Explained
• News Analysis
• Today’s Edition
• Home & Garden
• Broadband deals
• Fashion & Beauty
• Travel & Outdoors
• Sports & Fitness
• Climate 100
• Sustainable Living
• Climate Videos
• Solar Panels
• Behind The Headlines
• On The Ground
• Decomplicated
• You Ask The Questions
• Binge Watch
• Travel Smart
• Watch on your TV
• Crosswords & Puzzles
• Most Commented
• Newsletters
• Ask Me Anything
• Virtual Events
• Wine Offers
• Betting Sites

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in Please refresh your browser to be logged in

A first-ever experiment shows how pigs might one day help people who have liver failure

Researchers at the university of pennsylvania have externally attached a pig liver to a brain-dead human body and watched it successfully filter blood, article bookmarked.

Find your bookmarks in your Independent Premium section, under my profile

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails, thanks for signing up to the breaking news email.

Surgeons externally attached a pig liver to a brain-dead human body and watched it successfully filter blood, a step toward eventually trying the technique in patients with liver failure.

The University of Pennsylvania announced the novel experiment Thursday, a different spin on animal-to-human organ transplants. In this case, the pig liver was used outside the donated body, not inside — a way to create a “bridge” to support failing livers by doing the organ's blood-cleansing work externally, much like dialysis for failing kidneys.

Animal-to-human transplants, called xenotransplants, have failed for decades because people's immune systems rejected the foreign tissue. Now scientists are trying again with pigs whose organs have been genetically modified to be more humanlike.

In recent years, kidneys from genetically modified pigs have been temporarily transplanted into brain-dead donors to see how well they function, and two men received heart transplants from pigs although both died within months.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering whether to allow a small number of Americans who need a new organ to volunteer for rigorous studies of either pig hearts or kidneys.

Some researchers also are looking to use pig livers. A liver has different complexities than kidneys and hearts: It filters blood, removes waste and produces substances needed for other bodily functions. About 10,000 people are currently on the U.S. waiting list for a liver transplant.

In the Penn experiment, researchers attached a liver from a pig — one genetically modified by eGenesis — to a device made by OrganOx that usually helps preserve donated human livers before transplant.

The family of the deceased, whose organs weren’t suitable for donation, offered the body for the research. Machines kept the body's blood circulating.

The experiment, conducted last month, filtered blood through the pig liver-device for 72 hours. In a statement, the Penn team reported that the donor’s body remained stable and the pig liver showed no signs of damage.

There's lots of work into developing liver dialysis-like machines, and experiments using pig livers were tried years ago — before today's more advanced genetic techniques, said Dr. Parsia Vagefi of UT Southwestern Medical Center, who wasn't involved in the new experiment but is closely watching xenotransplantation research.

“I applaud them for pushing this forward,” Vagefi said, calling this combination pig-device approach an intriguing step in efforts toward better care for liver failure.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article

Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.

New to The Independent?

Or if you would prefer:

Hi {{indy.fullName}}

• My Independent Premium
• Account details
• Help centre

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Assessing learning and memory in pigs

Elise titia gieling.

1 Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Farm Animal Health, Emotion and Cognition Program, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 7, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands

2 Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, Universiteitsweg 100, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Rebecca Elizabeth Nordquist

Franz josef van der staay.

In recent years, there has been a surge of interest in (mini) pigs ( Sus scrofa ) as species for cognitive research. A major reason for this is their physiological and anatomical similarity with humans. For example, pigs possess a well-developed, large brain. Assessment of the learning and memory functions of pigs is not only relevant to human research but also to animal welfare, given the nature of current farming practices and the demands they make on animal health and behavior. In this article, we review studies of pig cognition, focusing on the underlying processes and mechanisms, with a view to identifying. Our goal is to aid the selection of appropriate cognitive tasks for research into pig cognition. To this end, we formulated several basic criteria for pig cognition tests and then applied these criteria and knowledge about pig-specific sensorimotor abilities and behavior to evaluate the merits, drawbacks, and limitations of the different types of tests used to date. While behavioral studies using (mini) pigs have shown that this species can perform learning and memory tasks, and much has been learned about pig cognition, results have not been replicated or proven replicable because of the lack of validated, translational behavioral paradigms that are specially suited to tap specific aspects of pig cognition. We identified several promising types of tasks for use in studies of pig cognition, such as versatile spatial free-choice type tasks that allow the simultaneous measurement of several behavioral domains. The use of appropriate tasks will facilitate the collection of reliable and valid data on pig cognition.

Introduction

Over the past 100 years, scientists have shown that a number of animal species have substantial cognitive (i.e., learning and memory) abilities (Broom and Zanella 2004 ). In recent decades, scientists have primarily focused on rodents and, to a lesser degree, on primates, species considered relevant to human research (van der Staay 2006 ). When assessing the utility of animal models for investigating cognitive functions such as learning and memory, it is necessary to evaluate which species and what tests are most suitable, produce valid results, and allow generalization to humans (referred to as translational research; Markou et al. 2009 ).

In general, learning and memory are considered to require higher brain functions and are not merely the acquisition of a series of elicited responses (Kirsch et al. 2004 ). This is why it is so important to select the correct parameters so that learning is measured rather than more effortless or less deliberate types of performance (for which other strategies are adopted) (Kratzer 1971 ). Pigs are cooperative animals and learn classical and operant conditioning tasks rapidly (Baldwin 1969 ; Baldwin and Stephens 1973 ; Chaput et al. 1973 ; Kratzer 1971 ). They are generally seen as being ‘intelligent’ by the public, probably because they can be trained. For example, Breland and Breland ( 1915 ) successfully trained pigs for some pig shows, based on B.F. Skinners’ operant conditioning methods. Yet despite the growing literature on the cognitive abilities of pigs (including miniature or minipigs) (Ferguson et al. 2009 ), experience with and knowledge of this species as an animal model are still limited (Hagl et al. 2005 ). Pigs and minipigs have several advantageous characteristics, such as greater similarity to humans than rodents have, which might favor their use instead of—or alongside—other model species. For this reason, experimental data produced over the past 40 years should be verified and steps taken to advance research in the field of pig cognition. Animal welfare scientists, while sharing the opinion that pigs have considerable cognitive abilities, look at cognitive research in pigs from a different point of view from that of biomedical researchers. Their aim of studying this species is to become more aware of pigs’ cognitive abilities and sensory capacities, ultimately to improve the welfare of this intensively kept farm animal (Meehan and Mench 2007 ; Toates 2004 ). An additional aspect is that the public’s perception of the intelligence of an animal influences the importance attached to its welfare, and many people (consumers) consider farming practices that result in poor animal welfare to be unacceptable (Broom 2010 ). Cognitive ability should also be considered when designing methods of enriching the environments of captive animals.

The aim of this paper is to review the literature on studies of learning and memory in pigs from these two perspectives, focusing on the different types of tasks used (operant, spatial and recognition tasks, and tasks that assess observational learning and awareness) and distinguishing between appetitively and aversively motivated tasks. We also review the conditions under which tests should be performed in the future.

The pig as model species in biobehavioral research

Although the scientific advantages of using the pig, in particular the minipig, as animal model in biomedical research have long been recognized (e.g. Baldwin and Stephens 1973 ; Chaput et al. 1973 ), there has been a recent revival of interest in the pig as model of human disease. The pig has the potential to fill the gap between preclinical studies with rodents and clinical trials in humans (de Groot et al. 2005 ; Lind et al. 2007 ; Nunoya et al. 2007 ; Vodička et al. 2005 ). Its organ size, body mass, and physiology strongly resemble those of humans (Sachs 1994 ; Schook et al. 2005 ), and the immune system of pigs is more similar to that of humans than it is to the immune system of rodents (80% similarity of the compared variables between pigs and humans versus 10% between mice and humans) (Schook et al. 2005 ). Unlike rodents, which have a lisencephalic brain, pigs have a gyrencephalic brain, as do humans.

The brain of an average adult pig weighs up to 180 g and that of minipigs 70–80 g (Hofman 1985 ). The relatively large brain of pigs makes it suitable for imaging studies, particularly in young animals (Arnfred et al. 2004 ; Danielsen et al. 2001 ). For example, positron emission tomography (PET) studies have investigated aromatic amino acid decarboxylase activity in the brain of newborn piglets (Bauer et al. 2002 ), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been used to study the temporal expansion following cerebral contusion (Zhang et al. 2008 ), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has been used to study activity in the cortex, cerebellum, and brainstem following visual stimulation in postnatal piglets (Fang et al. 2006 ). In addition, the sequence and chromosome structure homology of the pig genome show strong similarity with those of the human genome (Chen et al. 2007 ; Lunney 2007 ; Petersen et al. 2008 ). However, the full potential of pig-based models for investigating the function/dysfunction of the nervous system in the regulation of normal and abnormal behavior has not yet been fully explored (Nielsen et al. 2009 ; Schook et al. 2005 ). Overall, it could be said that the pig shows several favorable physical characteristics, including suitability for advanced imaging techniques that support its use in research into human disease (Lind et al. 2007 ).

Traditionally, behavioral studies have used rodents because of the availability of numerous well-validated tests and models (Kornum et al. 2007 ), and the ease and cheaper costs of housing rodents compared with larger species. However, the pig may be a good non-primate, non-rodent species for biomedical research, for studying the effects of a wide range of clinical and behavioral stresses (Chaput et al. 1973 ), for screening in vivo receptor profiles of drugs (Lind et al. 2004 ), and for verifying neurological syndromes (e.g. MPTP-induced Parkinsonism syndrome; Mikkelsen et al. 1999 ). Pig models have been used to address lifestyle factors (e.g., stress, drugs, and abuse; Schook et al. 2005 ), diabetes (Larsen and Rolin 2004 ), and human brain disorders (Moustgaard et al. 2005 ; Nielsen et al. 2009 ).

Another important consideration is that pigs are relatively inexpensive compared with primates (Mikkelsen et al. 1999 ). Several domestic pig lines and a smaller number of minipig breeds are now commercially available from specialized breeders (e.g., Ellegaard Göttingen Minipig ® , Yucatan minipig, pot-bellied pig). The minipig is especially suited for behavioral research because of its smaller size, which makes handling easier and allows the scaling down of test equipment, compared with that used for the common domestic pig. However, the housing, physiology, and behavior of domestic pigs and minipigs have not yet been directly compared. The nature of the domestic pig and minipig breeding programs is different, especially with regard to weight gain. The Göttingen Minipig is bred to be a small and light laboratory animal (mature animals weigh around 30–35 kg, if they have been put on a calorie-controlled diet) and shows nearly linear growth in the first 160 days of life. In contrast, fattening pigs (weighing 117–138 kg when 26 weeks old, depending on their feeding regime) gain little weight during the first 7 weeks, but thereafter gain weight rapidly (Köhn et al. 2007 ). Researchers should be aware of these and other differences between the two types of pig when comparing data. Indeed, further research on potential differences is urgently needed.

Learning and memory in relation to welfare

Greater insight into pig cognition is needed not only with regard to biomedical research, but also with regard to improving pig welfare. Both research lines will benefit from the development of reliable and validated tests for studying pigs’ cognitive abilities. Indeed, Duncan and Petherick ( 1991 ) stated “animal welfare is dependent solely on the mental, psychological and cognitive needs of the animals concerned”. Farm animals, including pigs, are inadvertently exposed to many learning and memory challenges (Held et al. 2002 ), and knowledge of species-specific learning abilities and environmental preferences is expected to contribute to improvement of housing conditions, management, and handling routines, and hence animal welfare (Baldwin and Meese 1977 ; Boissy et al. 2007 ; Tanida and Nagano 1998 ; van Rooijen 1982 ; Wechsler and Lea 2007 ). Situations that adversely affect farm animal cognition can trigger stress responses (possibly associated with suffering) and can negatively affect productivity (Held et al. 2002 ). The capacity of an animal to cope with its housing conditions may be influenced by its learning abilities (Wechsler and Lea 2007 ).

A range of cognitive factors appear to influence emotions or emotional processes in animals (a topic nowadays of great importance when assessing animal welfare) (Ohl et al. 2008 ). More complex emotions are the result of interactions between cognitive and emotional processes that are needed for the evaluation of perceptual information (Ohl et al. 2008 ; Paul et al. 2005 ). Vice versa, the emotional state of an animal can also influence its cognitive functioning, “judgment of stimuli” (Mendl et al. 2009 ). Consequently, questions about farm animal welfare cannot be tackled without a thorough understanding of the fundamental psychology and behavior of these animals (Curtis and Stricklin 1991 ), an aspect that has long been neglected in farm animals (Puppe et al. 2007 ), but which influences our attitude to these animals. Nowadays, there is a growing public interest in and discussion of animal welfare issues, and cognitive research in farm animals may provide information relevant to these discussions (Mendl and Paul 2004 ).

Our aim is to review the biomedical and animal welfare literature with a view to facilitating the selection or design of appropriate tasks for pig cognition research. We hope it will prompt collaboration between scientists in both fields, to improve biomedical research models and animal welfare.

Implementation of cognitive tasks

Research into the effects of experimental interventions on cognitive processes in pigs necessitates the development of reliable and valid learning and memory tests (e.g., van der Staay 2006 ). One of the reasons why pig studies are under-represented in biomedical behavioral research is the lack of well-standardized and validated tasks. A main task of behavioral scientists is to develop or adapt existing tests to generate valid and sensitive test paradigms applicable to most commonly used model animals in addition to pigs and/or suitable for behavioral characterization (phenotyping).

Behavioral tasks for pigs should in general fulfill a number of criteria:

• healthy, unimpaired animals should be able to acquire/perform the task;
• the task should allow a detailed analysis of pigs’ behavior, i.e., it should preferentially provide indices for different behavioral domains (cognitive, sensory, motor, or motivational components) (Wainwright and Colombo 2006 );
• the task should be as stress-free as possible (for both the experimental animal and the experimenter; except if measuring the effects of stress is an explicit aim of the experimental procedure);
• the task should preferentially tap ecologically relevant behaviors (e.g., to prevent mismatches between the task and the adaptive mechanisms and available behavioral repertoire of the species) (Koolhaas et al. 2006 );
• the task should be standardized in order to enable comparisons between studies within and across laboratories (van der Staay et al. 2010 );
• the task should, wherever possible, be automated in order to eliminate variability between observers, and to allow fine-tuned analyses;
• the task should allow investigation of developmental effects (early ontogeny, aging) and should preferentially be suited for repeated testing (van der Staay 2002 ) in order to allow longitudinal studies;
• the task should be complex and sensitive enough to capture subtle differences in cognitive abilities (Friess et al. 2007 ; Hagl et al. 2005 ; Laughlin et al. 1999 ).

The above criteria are general criteria for test paradigms. Clearly, some criteria will be more relevant than others, depending on the specific research questions (biomedical or welfare related) and hypotheses tested. A multi-layered approach is needed to cover the full range of pig behavior, because cognition is not a unitary function but involves multiple and dissociable systems that interact in cognitive processes. This should be kept in mind when designing and interpreting studies of cognitive functioning (Wainwright and Colombo 2006 ).

Species-specific opportunities and constraints

Pigs are clearly different from rodents. It is important to take the species-specific abilities and constraints into account when developing new tasks or applying existing ones for pigs. In this context, we will briefly discuss the general characteristics of the domestic pig from an evolutionary point of view and give an overview of pigs’ known sensory capacities.

General features of the domestic pig

The behavioral traits of domestic pigs, which were domesticated around 9,000 years ago (Hemmer 1990 ), closely resemble those of its ancestor, the wild boar ( Sus scrofa ). Thus, study of wild and/or feral pigs provides insights into the behavior of the domestic pig (Graves 1984 ). Ethological studies have shown that wild boars, which are highly social and omnivorous (Graves 1984 ; Gustafsson et al. 1999 ), concentrate their daily activity into several main periods, generally synchronized with sunrise and sunset (Mauget 1984 ), depending on season, predator pressure, and food availability. Wild boars are active for about 65% of the time (Graves 1984 ), and although mainly diurnal, they can easily shift to nocturnal activity (Jensen 2003 ). During foraging, they move between different feeding areas while grazing, browsing, or, more commonly, rooting with their snout. Their muzzle (a flattened, tough, rounded disk) searches for food on and under the surface, and pigs generally move with their nostrils close to the ground (Graves 1984 ). Because pigs lack sweat glands, wallowing in mud or water is a common behavior to decrease body temperature (Jensen 2003 ).

The natural behavior of feral pigs and their ancestors gives us some insights into behaviors and aspects of domestic pigs that are of significant importance (e.g., rooting, social companionship, and the lack of sweat glands) to their well-being and which should be taken into account when housing experimental animals and designing or selecting suitable tasks. Typical behavior such as rooting could be used as stimulant to motivate animals to perform a task, in addition to food reward. Because most tasks are performed by individual animals, it is essential to habituate these social animals to being alone in the test environment. Fear, stress, or arousal can influence performance and decrease motivation (this will be discussed later on). Keeping the pen mates of the tested individual close to the experimental set-up could help to decrease arousal, because pen mates are within hearing and smelling range of the test pig. In cognitive tests in which the pig’s emotional state plays a role, communication and/or pheromone signaling between the test pig and the waiting pen mates may influence test performance. Moreover, it is conceivable that the testing order affects physiological and possibly behavioral measures (e.g. within-cage order effects of testing are found in mice (Arndt et al. 2009 )).

Sensory capacities

Visual and olfactory capacities.

Knowledge about the visual and olfactory capacities of the pig is limited, and the available results are contradictory. Pigs can learn olfactory discrimination tasks faster than visual discrimination tasks (Croney et al. 2003 ; Lind et al. 2007 ). However, despite large variations between individual pigs, Tanida and Nagano ( 1998 ) found visual as well as auditory cues to be more important than olfactory cues when pigs had to discriminate between people. Pigs detect odor cues very well, as evidenced by their use in truffle hunting (Pacioni 1986 ). Therefore, it is important to control odor cues so that the test can discriminate between physiological innate responses and learned behavior (Hagl et al. 2005 ).

Less is known about the visual capacities of the pig, and only a few studies have addressed pigs’ ability to distinguish details and shapes (visual acuity). Zonderland et al. found pigs to perform poorly when distinguishing smaller symbol sizes at close (<600 mm) range, but also found a large individual variation. Their animals failed to discriminate between visual cues smaller than 20 mm and the minimum-distinguishable visual acuity was about 0.001–0.03 (measured corresponding to Entsu et al. 1992 ), lower than that of cattle and humans. In contrast to Graf ( 1976 ), Zonderland et al. ( 2008 ) did not find a strong decrease in visual acuity below 12 lx (lux) for black-and-white cues. As regards pig color vision, Tanida et al. ( 1991 ) found that two sows could discriminate blue from red and green, but were unable to discriminate red from green (all with the same luminosity), whereas two other animals failed to discriminate red or green from gray but could distinguish between blue and gray. The results show that pigs discriminate blue from other colors on the basis of hue rather than brightness and suggest that pigs are red–green color blind or can poorly discriminate between these colors.

Auditory capacities

The pig’s hearing range is from 42 through 40,500 Hz (Heffner and Heffner 1992 ), and exceeds the human hearing range (31–17,600 Hz). This increases the risk of pigs being unwittingly exposed to aversive environmental noise (experimental machinery, etc.). Social vocalization plays a role in communication and recognition between pigs and can provide complex information about the identity of the sender and its arousal state (Held et al. 2009 ). This knowledge should be kept in mind when testing pigs in an experimental room with other animals present within hearing distance.

Gustatory preferences

Pigs appear to like sweet tastes (Kennedy and Baldwin 1972 ). Glaser et al. derived more specific gustatory information by testing 75 pigs in an adapted Richer-type drinking test. None of the pigs drank a bitter-tasting quinine hydrochloride solution (49 mg/l), but preferred different carbohydrate solutions to water, with sucrose being the most preferred. Seven polyols were preferred to water, with xylitol being the most preferred. Of twelve artificial or natural compounds considered sweet by humans, only acesulfame-K, alitame, dulcin, saccharin, and sucralose-D were able to elicit a preference response in pigs (Glaser et al. 2000 ). In a further study, 120 pigs were tested with 60 compounds perceived as sweet by humans. Lugduname and carrelame (both guanidinoacetic acid derivatives) are considered the sweetest by humans and proved to be the two most preferred compounds in pigs. (Nofre et al. 2002 ).

Although pigs are probably red–green color blind and probably cannot distinguish very small symbol sizes, too little is known about their visual capacities, and this has implications for task design (e.g., is poor performance caused by poor visual capacities or cognitive limitations?). Images can be projected onto touch screens during discrimination experiments or similar tasks with humans, primates, or chicken as subjects, but before we can use this approach with pigs (or use images in general), we need to know more about their visual capacities, to exclude possible false-negative results because pigs are physically incapable of performing the task. As pigs’ auditory acuity is better than that of humans, tones can serve as discriminative stimuli, or as secondary or conditioned reinforcer. However, it is important that researchers are aware that pigs hear, and may be disturbed by, sounds that are inaudible to humans. Beside auditory reinforcers, sweet solutions can be used as effective reinforcers, and quinine can be added to food if an aversive taste experience is needed. Somatosensory information concerning pigs is as yet lacking, and should be further investigated.

Reinforcements

Food rewards, such as pieces of apple, chocolate raisins, M&M chocolates, sow rolls, commercial pellets, dog biscuits, or milk replacer (for piglets) are most commonly used as reinforcers in appetitively motivated research (Croney et al. 2003 ; Hagl et al. 2005 ; Held et al. 2001b ; Laughlin et al. 1999 ; Moustgaard et al. 2005 ; Siegford et al. 2008 ; Tanida and Nagano 1998 ). In order to increase motivation and the reinforcing value of food rewards, food deprivation is often applied when testing pigs (Held et al. 2001b ; Held et al. 2005 ; Laughlin et al. 1999 ; Laughlin and Mendl 2000 ; Laughlin and Mendl 2004 ; Mendl et al. 1997 ; Moustgaard et al. 2002 ; Nielsen et al. 2009 ; Spinka et al. 1998 ), but is not always necessary (Arts et al. 2009 ; Ferguson et al. 2009 ). Lack of appetite (e.g., caused by treatment with drugs that can induce nausea or anorexia as side effect) (Chaput et al. 1973 ) should be borne in mind, as this may make the use of food rewards impossible.

Non-food reinforcers have also been used with success. Pigs are social animals that are motivated to perform a task in which access to the group (or to the sow in the case of preweaning piglets) serves as reinforcer (Siegford et al. 2008 ; van Rooijen 1982 ). Another type of reinforcer that has proved effective is light in darkness (Baldwin and Meese 1977 ; Chaput et al. 1973 ). The latter seems to be a mediocre reinforcer, but becomes more important when olfaction is removed by bulbectomy (Baldwin and Meese 1977 ). A dry area—in case of a water maze—(Siegford et al. 2008 ) and heat (Baldwin 1979 ; Baldwin and Meese 1977 ) are also effective reinforcers.

It is also important to consider the way in which the reinforcer is applied and how access to it is achieved. For example, Baldwin and Meese ( 1977 ) found pigs to work more consistently if they could push a beam with their snout intermittently, rather than constantly, to obtain light. As described in Sect. 2.1 , pigs have evolved to use their nose to seek and root; their legs and hooves are not designed to make subtle motor movements and their body is not that athletic (e.g., compared to most primates’ bodies). Thus, in order to keep animals motivated and to facilitate performance without duress, pigs should be allowed to use their snouts to reach the reinforcer or to manipulate a lever or similar mechanism. Tasks should be designed such that the required action matches one or more of the pig’s natural behaviors and that the pig naturally ‘understands’ the task, i.e. does not require extensive trial and error trials. This facilitates task learning and will keep the animal more motivated.

Tests for assessing learning and memory in pigs

Underlying learning mechanisms.

Learning and memory tasks, based on different underlying learning methods, have been administered to pigs and are briefly defined here. Examples of research involving pigs and different learning methods will be presented in subsequent sections. In Table  1 , these examples are outlined point-by-point, summarizing relevant information about subjects and materials (e.g., number and age of animals, and reinforcer used).

Table 1

Cognitive tasks performed in pigs

Task Name of the experiment performed. Tested cognitive ability/abilities Type of cognition measured during the experiment. N Amount of animals applied during the experiment. Sex: F  female/sow, M  male/intact boar, B  castrated male/barrow. Reinforcer Type of reinforcement applied. Age Age of animals at the beginning of the experiment, or if unknown, weight of animal at the beginning of the experiment. Food restriction schedule If applied, type of restriction schedule. Author Researcher(s) performing the experiment

Classical or Pavlovian conditioning studies in pigs, which imply learning about relations between stimuli, with one stimulus signaling the occurrence of the other (Rescorla 1988 ), were used in the early 1900s. Although Pavlov apparently thought that pigs could not be used as experimental subjects (Moore and Marcuse 1945 ), evidence has since accumulated that pigs can easily be conditioned (Kratzer 1971 ), using classical conditioning methods. Yet only a few classical conditioning studies have used pigs, as reviewed in the Sect. 3.2 .

When the response to a stimulus is followed by a reinforcer, the probability that the response will be made is increased. This is called operant conditioning or instrumental learning (Rescorla 1988 ). Yerkes and Coburn ( 1915 ) were probably the first to study operant conditioning in pigs, and since then operant conditioning has become a commonly used conditioning technique. Different types of reinforcers, both aversive and appetitive, have been used.

Spatial tasks

Spatial learning and the memory ability of animals can be assessed using different types of mazes, the so-called sequential choice or ‘alley’ mazes and ‘free - choice’ mazes . The alley mazes consist of a fixed starting position and one correct route to a fixed goal position, where incorrect alternatives such as visits to blind alleys or going back must be avoided. In contrast to ‘alley’ mazes, in ‘free-choice’ spatial discrimination tasks (Bouger and van der Staay 2005 ; Crannell 1942 ; Lachman and Brown 1957 ), rewards can be found in different places, and the animal is free to visit and revisit these baited places and unbaited alternatives, in whatever order it wishes. Once an animal has visited a place and consumed the food pellet, its revisits to the same location remain unreinforced. The most efficient behavior is to visit only baited locations, and to visit them only once. In spatial memory tasks, an animal must remember a list of places already visited in order to avoid revisits. This list of visits is held in the working memory (Olton and Samuelson 1976 ), and the information it contains is relevant only within a specific trial. The reference memory (Olton and Samuelson 1976 ) holds trial-independent information about, for example, the locations where the food reward can be found. Working memory and reference memory can be assessed simultaneously in free-choice mazes. As most variants of T- and Y-maze tasks for pigs are not based on the orientation of the animal in relation to the space it finds itself in, the pig variants of these tests will not be considered as spatial but as operant (or in some cases social) tasks.

Recognition tasks

The object recognition test (ORT) was developed by Ennaceur et al. for assessing ‘trial-unique’ memory in rodents (Ennaceur et al. 1989 ; Ennaceur and Delacour 1988 ; Ennaceur and Meliani 1992 ), based on the known preference of rodents to explore unknown objects more than familiar ones. The ORT provides measures of exploration, habituation, and discrimination, i.e., non-cognitive effects of experimental manipulations can be distinguished from effects on memory performance (Sik et al. 2003 ).

Similar results are obtained when the ORT is used to test social recognition and memory. Thor and Holloway ( 1982 ) studied this behavior in rats by re-exposing animals successively to familiar or unfamiliar conspecifics with differing inter-exposure intervals, and the cumulative duration of investigatory behavior was measured during re-exposure. In pigs, social recognition tends to be studied in a simultaneous setting (i.e., exposing the animal to different conspecifics at the same time), in a Y-maze (Kristensen et al. 2001 ; McLeman et al. 2005 ). For example, the recognition of humans by pigs was investigated by displaying familiar and non-familiar humans simultaneously in a Y-maze (Koba and Tanida 1999 ; Tanida and Nagano 1998 ). Another variant of social learning studied in pigs is observational learning (e.g., Held et al. 2000 ). Held describes it as studying social tactics (i.e., the ‘exploitation of knowledge of others’ or ‘deceptive tactics’). Although it is not behavioral imitation as such, this definition comes close to the definition ‘the capability to imitate a demonstrator’s behavior’, a type of learning often studied in monkeys and apes (Choleris and Kavaliers 1999 ).

Animals’ awareness or the ability to perceive, feel, or be conscious of events or objects can be studied by investigating their use of tools. Such studies usually involve primates and corvids, which are physically equipped to use tools with their paws or beak, whereas pigs are not capable of doing this. However, mirrors, and the information obtained from them, were recently used to demonstrate awareness in pigs (Broom et al. 2009 ).

Classical conditioning tasks

Appetitively motivated tasks.

In a small-scale study with two pigs, Moore and Marcuse ( 1945 ) examined 4 types of conditioning, including classical conditioning. They attempted to establish a ‘conditioned salivary response’ in an experimental setting similar to that used by Pavlov. Pigs equipped with a parotid fistula were trained to tolerate restraint on a platform. A tone (the conditioned stimulus, CS) was presented, immediately followed by food (the unconditioned stimulus, US). Both pigs established a stable, but not equally large, conditioned salivary response. In addition, the response was more profound in a laboratory setting than during feeding in the home pen, which is a less-controlled environment. Feeding time was signaled about 5 min in advance and elicited a conditioned salivary response in 100 and 75% of the trials in the laboratory, but only in 67 and 6.7% of the trials performed in the home pen.

Aversively motivated tasks

Noble and Adams ( 1963 ) examined the effect of interval length between a CS and an US on classical conditioning performance using Duroc pigs in two different experiments. In the first experiment, the CS–US interval ranged between 0.5 and 2 s, the CS was an increase in illumination, and the US was an electric shock to a hind leg. In the second experiment, the CS was a combination of an increase in illumination and a vibratory–auditory cue from a buzzer strapped to the neck behind the subjects’ ear, the CS–US interval was 1, 2, 4, and 8 s), and the US was as in the first experiment. The conditioned response (CR) of the animals after several trials was described as a ‘bracing’ posture. The CR was found to be more pronounced with increasing CS–US interval. This might partly be caused by the increased opportunity to respond to the prospective US.

These experiments support the notion that pigs can be classically conditioned using an aversive or appetitive US. However, it has not been proven that the length of the CS–US interval is the sole determinant of the presence and intensity of the CR. Probably because classical conditioning experiments are of limited interest to cognitive researchers, these relatively sensitive and automated experiments have not been followed up.

Operant conditioning tasks

Most operant conditioning studies have been performed using either positive (appetitive) or negative (aversive) reinforcers. Yerkes and Coburn ( 1915 ) decided to make use of both variants in an operant conditioning experiment with two Chester White pigs. The apparatus, situated in a meadow, consisted of 9 similar boxes and food troughs. The experimenters presented 4 different ‘problems’ to the pigs. The correct operant response required to receive a food reward was to choose the correct entry door out of several opened boxes. A wrong entry was punished with 1 min of confinement in the box. Entry into the correct box led to a filled food trough. The pigs acquired the task, but when one ‘problem’ was replaced by another problem, the second problem was solved more slowly, probably caused by proactive interference. Yerkes and Coburn commented that this research was a clever way to gain information about the ability of pigs to adjust themselves to fairly simple, but novel, situations (this is what they named ideational problem solving). It was several decades after this seminal study that learning experiments with pigs were repeated using an operant conditioning setting.

Appetitive learning

In the 1960s and 1970s, Baldwin et al. studied the pig extensively in several operant conditioning experiments. In 1973, they trained, within an hour, pigs that were loosely restrained in a metal stand to press levers with their snout for a food reward. The authors suggested that the pigs acquired the task so rapidly because the experimental environment was not new to them: the pigs had previously been trained in a thermal reinforcement experiment (Baldwin and Stephens 1973 ).

Food-rewarded panel switching was used by Kennedy and Baldwin ( 1972 ) to study taste preferences in pigs. Differing amounts of nutritive and non-nutritive sweeteners were added to water, and a progressive ratio (PR) schedule of reinforcement (i.e., the number of responses needed to earn a reward increased during the course of the study) was applied for each sweetener separately. It was found that pigs were willing to work to very high break points (the point at which they were no longer willing to work for the reward) to obtain sucrose and glucose, and to high break points for saccharin (Kennedy and Baldwin 1972 ). This is one of the studies (see ‘ Sensory capacities ’) confirming that pigs like sweet tastes. Sneddon et al. ( 2000 ) applied a reinforcement schedule with fixed ratio 2 and 3 (i.e., every second or third lever press was rewarded) during a lever-press experiment. Boars and gilts were housed in barren or enriched environments. No gender differences were found, but in general animals from an enriched housing environment acquired this task more rapidly.

Recently, Ferguson et al. ( 2009 ) exposed 6 female Yucatan minipigs to a food reinforced lever-pressing experiment. They applied a progressive ratio reinforcement (PR) schedule (PR1 + 2, i.e. in each successive trial, 2 more lever presses were needed to gain the reward than in the previous trial). The response rates of these prepubertal minipigs ranged between 0.48 and 1.99 lever presses per second. This means that, on this task, pigs have higher response rates than rats (which show lower response rates) but lower response rates than non-human primates (which show higher response rates). Ferguson reused the minipigs in a ‘temporal response differentiation training’ task, in which a reward was given when the lever was held down for a minimum of 10 and maximum of 14 s. Acquisition of this task was poor, but the researchers presumed that this was more likely the result of the apparatus and the physical response of the minipig (hooves easily slipped off of the lever) than the difficulty of the task itself. The last operant test used, involving 3 of the 6 minipigs from previous experiments, was ‘incremental repeated acquisition’, a progressive task in which in every trial several levers have to be pressed in a different order. Again, acquisition of this task was relatively poor, but the study lasted only for a short time and food deprivation was not applied. The design of these experiments was not optimal because the number of pigs was limited, training could not be continued long enough, and the apparatus was not adapted to pigs. Still, these studies support the notion that automated conditioning equipment can be used to present tasks of varying difficulty, which means that it is possible to compare the performance of rodents and pigs.

Apart from Skinner box-like operant lever-pressing experiments, various other positively reinforced operant conditioning tasks have been used. In a study investigating early development and later learning, Lien and Klopfer ( 1978 ) trained pigs in a discrimination reversal test. Piglets that showed a very strong preference for a particular teat (termed ‘stereotyped suckling’ by Lien and Klopfer) were compared with piglets that varied their suckling position. In an operant test comparing these 2 groups, hog pellets could be obtained by responding to the correct response panel on the stimulus apparatus lowered into the pen (presented together with a light cue). The apparatus was retracted after the pigs made a response. The automatic feeder was placed in another corner of the room. When the piglets had reached a preset learning criterion, they were trained on reversal of this problem (i.e., instead of responding on the side where the stimuli appeared, responding at the opposite side was rewarded). While there were minimal differences in task acquisition between the 2 groups of piglets, reversal learning appeared to be more difficult for piglets that showed strong teat preferences before weaning. Although ‘teat order’ is generally considered to be stable in piglets (i.e., Fraser and Thompson 1991 ), rendering the term ‘stereotyped suckling’ somewhat unsuitable, Lien & Klopfer showed that these learning experiments can be useful to investigate behavioral problems that are related to early development.

In 2004, Bolhuis et al. studied reversal learning in a T-maze, using pigs from 8 litters (housed in barren or enriched environments). These animals were first tested twice in a back-test (restraining a piglet for 60 s on its back) and classified as high- or low-responding according to the number of escape attempts. During training, one arm of the T-maze contained bait, but during 6 consecutive trials this arm did not contain bait, or an intramaze change was applied (placing of a novel object in the baited arm). During training trials, no housing, back-test classification, or sex differences were found. However, the reversal trials revealed low-responding piglets to perform better (i.e., they entered the new baited arm more often) than high-responding piglets. When an intra-maze change was applied, an interaction between housing and back-test classification was found: high responders from a barren environment spent more time investigating the novel object than low-responders from the same environment. However, low-responders from an enriched environment were found to be more distracted than the enriched housed high responders. Thus, although pigs learn this type of T-maze discrimination learning task relatively rapidly (i.e., the task is relatively simple), differences between groups of pigs can be detected by increasing the difficulty of the task, by introducing a reversal. Interestingly, coping style seemed to be related to performance.

Tanida et al. ( 1991 ) investigated whether pigs are able to discriminate between green, blue, and red, using a T-maze. Two female weanling pigs were trained to discriminate pairwise between the 3 colors. Additionally, 2 other weanlings were trained to discriminate pairwise between gray and 1 of the 3 colors (all colors had the same luminosity). All animals were able to discriminate between blue and all other colors, but not between green and red and green or red versus gray (Tanida et al. 1991 ). More about visual performance studies can be read in ‘ Sensory capacities ’.

In an operant conditioning task, Tanida and Nagano ( 1998 ) trained pigs to discriminate between a familiar and an unknown handler in a Y-maze. Animals had to respond to the familiar handler by entering the arm of the maze in which that person was present. A correct choice was rewarded with chocolate raisins. To find out pigs’ responses to changes in visual, auditory, and olfactory cues, hints were changed one at a time (i.e., no calling of the pig or wearing the same perfume anymore). This study demonstrated that pigs are able to discriminate between humans. Visual and auditory cues seemed to be more important than olfactory cues, but the variation in individual performance was large. In 1999, the handler discrimination experiment was repeated by Koba and Tanida, but this time visual cues seemed to be the most discriminative factor: when all handlers wore the same color clothes, only a few pigs were able to make the correct choice (Koba and Tanida 1999 ).

To gain insight into human-avoidance behavior, Hemsworth et al. ( 1996 ) studied pigs’ associative learning capacities in a human approach test. Three groups of sows received different types of treatment given by humans (e.g., a boar was introduced daily to the sow by a handler, or ‘back pressure treatment’ was applied daily by a handler, or the sow was minimally treated by a handler) during 2 estrus periods with or without the presence of food before being exposed to the test. During testing, all behaviors directed toward the human were scored. Hand-fed pigs were found to be less fearful, taking a shorter time to approach the experimenter.

The above experiments revealed that pigs can distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar persons. This knowledge could be used to improve animal welfare. However, because these experiments investigated not only on the pig’s memory, but also its sensory capacities such as sight, smell, and hearing, although not distinct from each other, future studies should try to separate the different sensory cues from each other.

Croney et al. ( 2003 ) applied relatively simple operant discrimination learning tests in pigs. Four minipig boars were trained to discriminate between colors (orange or green) or olfactory stimuli (coconut or almond) to earn a food reward. An experimenter used a clicker directly after a correct choice was made, and the pig approached the experimenter to obtain its reward. Pigs could discriminate between cues, and when the task presented multiple choices simultaneously (2-10 smells or colors), pigs were still able to respond to the correct stimulus. Croney et al. suggested that the animals might have formed a general learning set that transferred across tests with varying amounts of simultaneous choices. What remains unknown from this experiment is the number of sessions (10 trials/session) needed to reach criterion of learning for each new phase in which one stimulus was added. This omission makes it hard to interpret how easily pigs learn to discriminate between 2 or more visual or olfactory stimuli.

Using a non-spatial version of the radial-arm maze, Wang et al. ( 2007 ) studied 2 learning tests (‘easy’ and ‘difficult’) in succession. A visual cue (1 versus 3 black dots in the easy and 2 versus 3 black dots in the difficult task) was used, and the arm marked with 3 black dots hid accessible milk replacer. In both tests, 40 trials were given divided over 5 and 6 days, respectively. Memory was tested 2 days after completion of a set of trials, by presenting the same task again in one trial. Pigs were able to acquire both the easy and the difficult tasks, but criterion level was reached in fewer trials during the ‘difficult’ task, suggesting that previous acquisition of an ‘easy’ task facilitates the acquisition of a subsequent harder task. Pigs supplemented with sialic acid (possibly a conditional nutrient during rapid brain growth) acquired both tasks in fewer trials; however, it cannot be ruled out other domains, such as motivation, were affected. Memory was also positively influenced by sialic acid (2 days after completion of a set of learning trials, a single memory test of one trial only was performed), with the sialic acid-supplemented animals having higher scores than the controls. These results show that this visual discrimination task could be used to study the effects of putative cognition enhancers.

Moustgaard et al. ( 2004 ) trained Göttingen minipigs on black–white (visual) and right–left (spatial) discrimination by teaching them to put their nose in a response hole for a food reward. After acquisition of the discrimination task, it was investigated whether the pigs paid attention to particular stimulus dimensions by applying an extra-dimensional shift procedure (changing the stimulus dimension from visual to spatial or the other way around). Stimulus dimensions were not found to be important and nor was the pig’s sex, with boars and sows reaching the same level of performance. More recently (2005), Moustgaard et al. trained minipigs in a right–left discrimination task followed by a go/no-go task. To acquire the left–right discrimination task, animals were trained to respond in the left hole when both holes turned black and to respond in the right hole when both holes turned white. During the go/no-go task, pigs were rewarded with food if they responded when both holes turned blue and were mildly ‘punished’ (20 s of darkness) if they responded when both holes turned red. All pigs reached the criterion of >90% correct choices per session for the right–left discrimination task and nearly all reached this level for the go/no-go task.

Moustgaard et al. provided information about the time needed to train pigs in their visual and spatial discrimination tasks, information that unfortunately is missing in many other studies. Two out of 16 minipigs were not able to reach criterion of learning during the 1st step of the shaping phase (putting the snout in a response hole), and 2–15 sessions of 40 trials each were needed for the next step of the shaping phase. Criterion during the last step of the shaping phase was reached in 2–11 sessions. During the actual discrimination experiment, it took the animals 1–20 sessions of 20 trials each to learn the discrimination or reversal. This schedule for extensive training and pre-training shows that discrimination experiments with pigs can be very time-consuming. Moreover, the behavior needed to perform this task might not be part of the pig’s natural behavioral repertoire, which may mean that the pig cannot ‘learn’ the task or that it becomes demotivated.

Recently, Friess et al. ( 2007 ) examined the principle of operant learning in a ‘food cover task’. Female piglets were trained to remove a plastic cover from a food dish to gain access to the hidden food within 20 s. In a ‘glass barrier task’, piglets were trained to move around a transparent barrier in order to gain access to the food. These tests were part of a test battery used to obtain information about discrimination learning abilities after mild or moderate brain injury, which was induced by rapid axial head rotation. Both the brain-injured piglets and the control piglets performed the tasks at the same speed. Unlike other tests of the test battery (i.e., neurobehavioral tests such as beam walking), these learning and memory tests apparently fail to detect (subtle) deficits.

Aversive learning

During the late 1960s, Kratzer ( 1969 ) studied shock-motivated avoidance learning in Duroc and Hampshire pigs, using a shuttle box. The shock was delivered via a girth around the chest if the pig did not cross a wooden barrier when an avoidance signal (buzzer) had sounded. Tests were performed with pigs up to 160 days of age. Younger, approximately 20-day-old, pigs showed better avoidance learning (crossing the barrier) than older pigs, and heavier pigs were better learners than lighter pigs of the same age. Kratzer hypothesized that weight might be positively correlated with factors that increase learning performance, such as physiological maturity and general health. Results also clearly showed breed differences in learning, with Duroc pigs achieving higher levels of avoidance learning than Hampshire pigs, regardless of age. Because birth weight differences between low and normal birth weight piglets are known to be lasting (Rehfeldt and Kuhn 2006 ), one could speculate that birth weight is correlated with learning performance.

Chaput et al. ( 1973 ) trained 3- to 6-month-old pigs in a one-way shock-motivated avoidance shuttle box task in which a telephone buzzer was used as auditory CS. After the buzzer went off, pigs could avoid a subtetanizing shock by moving from a darkened to an illuminated chamber. If the pig did not cross into the illuminated chamber before the US, they were given an electric shock (max. duration 93.9 s). The average level of shock avoidance was very high. In their comparison of shuttle box learning and water maze learning (an aversively motivated spatial discrimination task), Hammell et al. ( 1975 ) found that the performance of pigs on the 2 tasks was uncorrelated and concluded that these 2 tasks tap different behavioral domains (e.g., motivation, sensory requirements).

Barnes et al. ( 1969 ) exposed pigs to a conditioned avoidance procedure in a large quadrangular arena with several hurdles. Shocks could be avoided by jumping a hurdle when a CS was presented (clicking signals). After 3 training sessions, an extinction session was run (i.e., the CS was no longer followed by a shock). Pigs that were malnourished early in life displayed higher levels of excitement (ethogram to score excitement was not described) in the extinction sessions and were unable to inhibit responses when the CS was presented. This operant task shows how the influence of specific (negative) early life conditions can be studied in an aversively motivated operant learning task.

Time perception and anticipation of future events were measured by Spinka et al. ( 1998 ) in a preference test. Pregnant sows were trained to enter 1 of 2 rooms, each containing several feeding crates. The rooms could be reached by turning left or right from a corridor. After the sow entered a crate, it received food and the crate closed automatically. The crate opened automatically again after 30 min (left room) or 240 min (right room). After a training period (i.e., in which sows were only allowed to enter one of the rooms), most sows entered the left room with the short confinement crate, which suggests that pigs can perceive time.

Spatial learning

Alley mazes.

The aversively motivated three-choice point water maze (a rectangle tub in which pigs have to swim from one side to the other with three left–right choice points in-between) is an example of a spatial learning task in an ‘alley’ type maze. Using this water maze, Hammell et al. ( 1975 ) found that pigs ( n  = 120) could readily learn alternating (exit not visible, pig swims around barriers) but not non-alternating (exit visible straight ahead, pig swims through openings in barriers) swimming patterns. de Jong et al. ( 2000 ) studied learning and long-term memory in a dry maze with different configurations, based on the Hebb–Williams maze. Piglets acquired the task at the age of 11 weeks, and retention was tested 9 weeks later. The goal of this study was to investigate whether housing in barren or enriched environments affected learning and memory. Piglets from both groups learned the maze configurations quickly, but the piglets raised in a barren environment made significantly more line crossings and had a longer latency to reach the food when the previously learned maze configuration was repeated in the retention test. De Jong et al. concluded that piglets raised in a barren environment had an impaired long-term memory compared with piglets housed in an enriched environment. The authors showed that it is possible to study postnatal influences on memory in a relatively simple maze test.

A more recent maze test designed by Siegford et al. ( 2008 ) was used to assess the effects of maze training on weaning stress in 5-day-old piglets. The maze used can be classified as an ‘alley’ maze, but increasingly complex variants were used. Here, instead of food, the reward was being returned to the home pen with the sow and littermates. Each piglet was randomly assigned to 1 of 3 different groups (‘maze task’, ‘short isolation control’, and ‘control with sow’). Piglets that were maze trained, i.e. were exposed to cognitive challenges, showed a decreased fear of unfamiliar persons after weaning compared with control piglets housed under the same conditions. The authors also investigated whether early cognitive experiences influence learning ability. This was tested in a ‘water maze spatial memory task’ (38–39°C heated pool with a diameter of 3.6 m) similar to the Morris Water Maze (Morris 1984 ). The outcomes of the male piglets previously trained in the first maze were notable: they escaped onto the platform faster than did piglets that were previously exposed to short-lasting social isolation. However, no differences were found between ‘control’ and ‘maze-tested’ animals, and therefore these results cannot be indisputably ascribed to the prior cognitive experience of the piglets. More research is needed to show whether cognitive enrichment at a very young age influences cognitive performance later in life.

Free-choice mazes

Most spatial learning and memory studies in pigs have used ‘free-choice mazes’. For example, Mendl et al. ( 1997 ) used a foraging arena to study spatial memory and its susceptibility to disruption by environmental stimuli. Ten identical food troughs placed against the walls of the arena were covered by panels and could not be seen by the pigs. In this repeated acquisition paradigm, one trough was baited, and pigs were allowed to search for it during a sample trial. During choice trials (i.e., relocation visits), pigs found their food in fewer visits than expected by chance, but disturbances during the inter-trial interval (e.g., isolation in a novel environment) resulted in more errors made during choice trials. This indicates that pigs isolated in a novel environment are susceptible to mild disruptions of spatial memory. This task seems to be suitable to measure the influence on spatial memory of disturbances during inter-trial intervals. A possible element of the task that might need some consideration is the number of food troughs. Yerkes and Coburn (1915) applied a similar task using 9 parallel entry doors. Their results showed that pigs have difficulties discriminating between doors. They performed best on the left, right, and middle doors, but had difficulties with discriminating or remembering the in-between doors. This might also be true for the radial-arm maze experiment performed by Laughlin et al. ( 1999 ). During the first experiment, the authors baited 4 out of 8 arms, and pigs were allowed to locate and eat the food freely. Spatial memory was tested after a retention interval (10 min) with or without a disturbance factor (e.g., weighing in a crate). Pigs that were weighed took longer to find the food reward, showing that environmental stimuli can disrupt memory, in this case for baited food sites (Laughlin et al. 1999 ).

Recently, efforts have been made to develop learning and memory tasks for pigs in which several factors can be controlled and measured experimentally, comparable to what is currently standard practice for other species. For example, Hagl et al. ( 2005 ) designed a multi-room maze to study possible subtle learning impairments in pigs that suffered from induced hypothermic circulatory arrest (HCA). Six out of 8 rooms in the maze were baited with apple. During each trial, an animal was only allowed to visit one of the rooms (other doors closed directly after entry of this one room). Between trials, the animals waited in a holding area for 30 s. Scores (i.e., decrease in the number of entries of unbaited chambers) improved over a 12-day period. A daily training session ended when all baited chambers had been visited or after 20 trials, whichever event occurred first. For the second problem (again 12 days), only the left 4 or the right 4 chambers were baited. Every day, during the second half of the trials, the baited rooms switched sides. This second problem was designed to increase the level of difficulty, to detect subtle differences in learning and memory. Learning and memory were similar in HCA animals and healthy subjects in the first task, but the performance of the HCA animals was impaired in the second task. The outcomes of this study clearly underline the importance of considering the sensitivity of a test design—too simple designs might yield false-negative results.

Laughlin and Mendl (2000) studied win-shift/win-stay strategies in pigs in a radial-arm maze. Four arms were baited, and these arms were rebaited for pigs assigned to the ‘stay’ strategy during the recall trial. The reward for the ‘shift’ pigs could be found in the 4 previously unbaited arms. The results showed that pigs are capable of using both a win-shift and a win-stay strategy, but that the task is performed faster and with a higher degree of accuracy after training in the win-shift task. When the costs to obtain food in the baited arm in the radial-arm maze were increased (i.e., more effort needed to reach the reinforcer, by placing a rope in the way) during the sampling trial in the win-stay task, the number of errors made during choice trials significantly decreased, possibly because pigs paid more attention to the baited arm.

Sneddon et al. ( 2000 ) tested pigs reared in barren and enriched environments in a spatial foraging arena. This arena was divided into 12 squares, with 7 of these squares fitted with food bowls. Only one bowl contained a food reward. The piglets (both sexes) raised in the enriched environment found the baited bowl significantly faster than the piglets raised in the barren environment. This is one of several experiments showing that an enriched rearing environment improves learning and memory.

In a spatial holeboard discrimination task, Arts et al. ( 2009 ) showed that mild mixing stress did not influence pigs’ performance. Mixing stress was induced by housing a pig in a new pen together with an unfamiliar individual 1–4 h before trials 1, 5, and 8 (13 trials in total). The test arena in which 16 buckets were symmetrically placed, measured 8 × 7.6 m. One entry door allowed access to the arena. After a training period, testing (consisting of 3 test phases with a total of 25, 13 and 13 trials, respectively) started. Each pig ( n  = 20, Finish Landrace x York F1) received its own configuration of 4 baited (chocolate covered raisins) holes. The configuration for each individual changed per test phase. Without food deprivation, pigs rapidly learned to search and collect baits and thus acquired the tasks. Performance (WM and RM) improved over test phases, and it was concluded that the animals ‘learned to learn’.

A somewhat different but comparable task used by Held et al. ( 2005 ) showed the relevance of utilizing spatial tasks when investigating pigs’ abilities to discriminate between food of different value. In a restricted retrieval choice test, Held et al. ( 2005 ) investigated whether domestic pigs could remember baited areas and differences in the amount and quality of the baits. In this version of a spatial memory task, 2 out of 8 possible food sites contained bait. The amount of food (8 versus 3 sow roll pieces) together with the addition of an obstacle (a brick) determined the relative value of each baited location. After a training period, pigs were only allowed to visit one of the food sites. The outcomes suggest that juvenile female pigs can discriminate between food sites of different value and overall choose for the site with the largest bait.

Recently, Nielsen et al. ( 2009 ) trained pigs in a reinforced T-maze alternation task to find a reward in one arm during the first trial and in the opposite arm in the second trial. The number of correct choices during several trials is a measure of spatial short-term memory. Pigs were able to perform this task with delay intervals of 60, 300, and 900 s. When treated with scopolamine (an anti-cholinergic drug that causes memory dysfunction; 0.40 mg/kg intramuscularly), the number of errors increased for all time intervals, and the speed of task performance decreased. By administering scopolamine after untreated animals had performed the task, Nielsen et al. clearly showed that this task measures memory performance, and their findings can be seen as a step forward in the validation of such tasks.

Tests that assess the recognition abilities of pigs can be subdivided into the recognition of objects, conspecifics (social recognition), and humans.

Object recognition

Moustgaard et al. ( 2002 ) demonstrated that Göttingen minipig boars are able to acquire the object recognition test (ORT). Non-castrated boars were tested because they were expected to be more explorative than sows. Pigs were first habituated to a test arena, and then to an arena containing 2 identical objects. One hour later, after one of these objects had been replaced by a non-familiar object, the pigs entered the arena. The boars investigated the novel object, but there was substantial variation in how long they investigated it. It was concluded that memory for objects lasted at least 1 h. Kornum et al. ( 2007 ) found that pigs could discriminate between familiar and novel objects, as evidenced by a longer time spent investigating a novel object during the ORT, but only when the retention interval was shorter than 1 h. The authors tested twelve different sets of objects and found that the time spent investigating the various objects was different, possibly due to differences in object preference.

In contrast, Gifford et al. reported that pigs failed to display novelty preference at any delay interval in the ORT, possibly due to the length of the exposure phase and the location where pigs were exposed to the familiar object. Unlike tests with human infants and rodents, pigs were exposed to the object in their home cage with littermates, instead of being alone. Gifford also suggested the possibility that these results were due to the lack of preference for an unfamiliar over a familiar object, even though the animal recognized the familiar object (Gifford 2005 ; Gifford et al. 2007 ). The few object recognition studies involving pigs published to date have yielded contradictory results opposite to those reported in rodent studies (which show that the animals have a stable preference for investigating a novel object (Ennaceur and Delacour 1988 ). Consequently, it still remains to be demonstrated that the ORT is useful to test object recognition memory in pigs.

Recognition of conspecifics

Meese et al. ( 1975 ) found that pigs could distinguish between urine samples from conspecifics. In the experimental set-up, gilts had to respond, by means of panel switching, to the correct odor stimulus in order to gain a food reward. Mendl et al. ( 2002 ) presented urine samples of unfamiliar conspecifics to 22 female Large White Landrace pigs to investigate whether they could discriminate between urinary odors of animals of similar age. In order to study this, a habituation–dishabituation procedure was applied in a control and a discrimination group. An animal was presented with a fresh urine sample from another animal for 2 min, followed by an interexposure interval of 15 min. After this interval, the sample was presented again for 2 min. After another 15-min interval, the sample was presented again for 2 min. The duration of urine sample investigation was recorded. Shorter durations (habituation) were expected when a sample from the same pig was presented a second time and longer durations (dishabituation) were expected when a urine sample from a different pig was presented. The discrimination group was presented with 2 different samples from one individual and one sample from a different individual. In this experiment, which is based on investigatory behavior, Mendl et al. ( 2002 ) showed that 10-week-old gilts are able to discriminate between urine samples from conspecifics. The habituation–dishabituation procedure was successful in showing stimulus discrimination in pigs, although exploration time appeared to be the only useful measure (Mendl et al. 2002 ).

The ability of pigs to recognize familiar conspecifics was studied by Kristensen et al. ( 2001 ). Using a Y-maze with a familiar and an unfamiliar stimulus pig behind doors that allowed tactile, visual, and olfactory contact or olfactory contact only, the authors found that juvenile animals responded well to (familiar) social cues and concluded that pigs are able to discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics. The variables studied were time spent in zones in close proximity to one of the conspecifics and the number of entries to those zones. This study suggests that pigs are more motivated to visit sites containing several social cues (i.e., tactile, olfactory, and visual) rather than only one such clue (olfactory). In 2005, McLeman et al. confirmed the finding that juvenile pigs could successfully discriminate between familiar littermates and unfamiliar individuals in a Y-maze. Pigs spent more time in close physical proximity to the familiar pig compared with the unfamiliar pig. De Souza ( 2006 ) also found that neonatal piglets had good short- and long-term social recognition performance and that social memory was not influenced by minor changes to the environment (relocation of sow and litter in a new pen).

The above-described studies all showed that pigs prefer staying in close proximity to familiar conspecifics if given the choice and thus confirm that pigs are able to discriminate between conspecifics. This basic knowledge about the species could be used when designing tasks to provide greater insight into social recognition in pigs (e.g., number of conspecifics recognized, long- and short-term social memory).

McLeman et al. continued their conspecific-discrimination studies using 12 Landrace X Large White X Duroc pigs. They used a Y-maze to show that pigs are able to discriminate between individual group members, using either bimodal or unimodal cues. The end of each arm of the Y-maze contained a rewarded and unrewarded stimulus pig. In this closed maze controlled for olfactory, visual, and auditory cues, pigs first had to learn a bimodal task. Animals were trained to discriminate between a pair of familiar, but unrelated littermates by using 2 of 3 sensory modalities (audition, olfaction, and vision). After the pig reached the learning criterion (3 consecutive sessions 8/10 correct choices), it was transferred to a unimodal task in which discrimination was based on only 1 of the 3 modalities. Daily sessions of 10 consecutive trials were given, and approaching the correct stimulus pig was rewarded with raisins. Although 4 animals did not reach the learning criterion in the bimodal test and 2 of the 8 animals successful in the bimodal test did not reach the criterion in the unimodal test, McLeman et al. showed that pigs are able to discriminate between related group members when only 1 or 2 sensory modalities are available. The closed and controlled environment of this Y-maze provides opportunities for further studies on social discrimination and mental representations without using invasive techniques (McLeman et al. 2008 ).

Observational learning

Observational learning-like studies have investigated socially cued behavior in pigs. However, results do not provide clear evidence that pigs are able to imitate a conspecifics’ behavior or exploit its knowledge. Baldwin and Meese ( 1979 ) observed the social behavior of 2 or 3 individuals at a time in a lever-press room. These individuals could be familiar or unfamiliar, trained to press the lever, or untrained. The authors reported that subordinate pigs pressed the lever at a low frequency and that observational learning did not occur. Dominant pigs were found to do most of the lever pressing, but lever-press frequency declined in all pigs with increasing test duration, possibly because of satiation effects (Baldwin and Meese 1979 ). However, it can be questioned whether observational learning can be properly investigated in this experimental set-up. Even though a pig might have learned from its conspecifics how to earn rewards, its hierarchical position within the group might prevent it from pressing the lever.

Held et al. ( 2000 ) studied this phenomenon using the ‘informed forager’ paradigm. In a spatial arena (see spatial memory), food was hidden in 1 of 8 buckets. A pig that had been trained to find the food entered the arena together with a heavier and non-trained pig. The results appeared to show that the non-trained pig followed the example of the trained pig rather than randomly investigating the buckets. Held described this behavior as the ‘exploitation of knowledge of an individual by another pig’. Held et al. investigated observational learning further in 2001, testing the hypothesis that pigs can discriminate between companions who can see where food is hidden and companions who cannot. Results provided weak evidence for the notion that pigs have visual perspective taking abilities, i.e., the ability to appreciate what others can or cannot see (Held et al. 2001a ). Because little is known about this type of cognitive ability in pigs and the tests used did not provide unambiguous evidence, further research is needed.

Very recently, Broom et al. ( 2009 ) assessed the ability of 4–6-week-old pigs to use information acquired with a mirror to locate a reward in a food bowl. Pairs of pigs from one group ( n  = 8) were placed in a pen with a mirror for 5 h and a pair of pigs from the control group ( n  = 11) were placed in a standard pen. Thereafter, a ‘mirror test’ was performed. Each piglet was individually released in a room with a mirror. A barrier, placed against the mirror at an angle of 90°, divided the first two-thirds of the room. The piglet entered the room at the back on the right side. From there, it was able to see a food bowl in the mirror, placed on the other, not directly visible, side of the barrier. Piglets were allowed to walk around the barrier and the mirror. Nine of eleven control pigs first approached the mirror and then walked behind it; however, 7 of 8 piglets with mirror experience looked at the mirror, saw the food bowl, and went to the other side of the barrier to obtain the food. The mirror-experienced pigs were presented with the same set-up again but with the mirror replaced by a wire mesh. The food bowl was placed behind the mesh at the same location where it had been visible before in the mirror. Of the 8 animals, 6 went to the area with the food bowl, behind the mesh. This experiment showed that piglets are able to observe and remember features of its surrounding and can act accordingly. To turn away from the mirror with the image of the food and to go around the barrier to get to the food requires piglets to have a mental map of the environment and awareness that it can access the food reward. By excluding other potential cues, such as smell and area preference, Broom et al. were able to show that pigs can learn how a mirror functions and how to exploit this knowledge. However, findings do not necessarily imply that the pigs recognized themselves, but this ability is the first step in the process of self-recognition (Macellini et al. 2010 ). Such studies have not yet been performed with pigs.

The pig in cognitive research: a twofold goal

Pigs appear to be a very suitable and promising animal species for use in biomedical research investigating learning and memory (de Groot et al. 2005 ; Lind et al. 2007 ; Nunoya et al. 2007 ; Vodička et al. 2005 ), and a number of behavioral cognitive tasks have been developed using these animals (Chaput et al. 1973 ; Larsen and Rolin 2004 ; Lind et al. 2004 ; Mikkelsen et al. 1999 ; Moustgaard et al. 2005 ; Nielsen et al. 2009 ; Schook et al. 2005 ). Pharmacological or experimental manipulation of brain structures has been performed in an attempt to modulate the pigs’ learning or memory abilities but, compared with the number of rodent studies, relatively few such studies have been performed. There is an urgent need to standardize and (pharmacologically) validate learning and memory tests for pigs.

Information gathered from studies of animal brains influences how we think about species with specific cognitive abilities (Broom and Zanella 2004 ). These studies also tell us something about the way an animal perceives its environment (Broom and Zanella 2004 ) and about the complexity of concepts that animals have (Broom 2010 ). Cognition studies can directly or indirectly contribute to improving animal welfare. For example, it is now known that pigs can recognize their handlers, have preferences, and benefit from environmental enrichment. These aspects should be considered when looking at ways to improve their welfare (Manteuffel et al. 2009 ). The general public is becoming increasing alert to farm animal welfare, and information and decisions about animal welfare need to be evidence based. Studies of both a fundamental (e.g., pigs capabilities in general) and applied (e.g., the influence of specific treatments on cognitive development) nature are relevant in this context. Although the aims of biomedical and animal welfare scientists are different, behavioral test paradigms are relevant to both fields of research, providing complementary information.

The need for validation and replication of paradigms

This review of the literature on cognitive research in pigs has highlighted deficiencies in both lines of research. More needs to be learned about emotional factors influencing learning in pigs (Lind and Moustgaard 2005 ), the relation between stress and cognitive function (Mendl 1999 ), pigs’ discriminatory abilities (McLeman et al. 2005 ), comparison of the cognitive abilities of pigs and other model species, such as mouse, rat, and monkey (Moustgaard et al. 2005 ), pigs’ perception of time (Spinka et al. 1998 ), memory for objects (Gifford et al. 2007 ), social and observational learning (Held et al. 2000 , 2001a ), cognitive abilities related to foraging behavior (Puppe et al. 2007 ), and cognitive abilities (Ferguson et al. 2009 ).

While our knowledge of pigs is increasing, there is a need for validated and translational behavioral paradigms (Kornum et al. 2007 ). The broad variety of experimental findings published in recent years has highlighted the learning abilities of pigs and has indicated which test paradigms might be suitable for this species (e.g. Ferguson et al. 2009 ; Nielsen et al. 2009 ). However, the drawback of the great diversity of paradigms used in pig research is that most studies have not (yet) been replicated. Consequently, little is known about the reproducibility and generalizability of results. To date, there is insufficient knowledge to consider pigs as a standard model for biomedical studies of learning and memory. There is always the danger that a number of these studies have yielded idiosyncratic outcomes (van der Staay 2006 ), and thus it is important to replicate the results of earlier studies, to consolidate the knowledge base (Muma 1993 ; van der Staay 2006 ; van der Staay et al. 2009 , 2010 ).

Suitability of specific tasks

On the basis of this review, we can identify which tests may be appropriate for specific research goals. Some of the tests used to study the cognitive abilities of pigs are suitable for investigating multiple cognitive abilities, while others are only useful for investigating one aspect (as summarized in Table  1 ). If we also take into account the essential criteria for a behavioral test for pigs mentioned earlier (see Sect. 1.3 of this review), we can consider what type of tests will be most promising for specific research goals (see the overview in Table  2 ).

Table 2

Overview of cognitive tasks applied in pig research and their opportunities for implementation in the field of animal welfare and biomedical research

Criteria are based on Chap. 1.3 (Implementation of cognitive tasks). + indicates a positive expectancy for this criteria in a particular test category, based on acquired results or analysis of the test construction. ± indicates that the expectancy might be promising, based on comparable tests applied in other species or analysis of the test construction. − indicates a negative expectancy for this criteria in a particular test category based on acquired results or analysis of the test construction. Due to the multiplicity of tests applied within pig research so far, the categorization made here is a broad outline, and some types of tests are be piled up to keep this table specific and to secure a convenient arrangement

Promising advances have been made in the automation, standardization, and complexity of operant tasks for pigs. The tasks designed by Friess et al. ( 2007 ) to measure learning after (mild) brain injury seem too simple to detect (subtle) differences, and many tasks would benefit from defining the optimal range of difficulty. The operant minipig tasks used by Ferguson et al. ( 2009 ) were relatively complex and automated, but of short duration. If these tasks could be repeated or extended, it might be possible to establish the reasons for their poor performance (e.g., level of cognitive or physical difficulty, motivation, time span). This could then lead to their optimization, e.g. by increasing the level of sensitivity or complexity or by aiming at a more species-specific design, and ultimately to their standardization. Moreover, sorting out the causes of poor performance would also lead to better founded conclusions concerning between-species comparisons (Ferguson’s progressive ratio lever-pressing experiment). Operant tasks like those of Moustgaard et al. ( 2004 , 2005 ) are believed to be relatively complex cognitive tasks that are potentially useful for investigating brain function in pig models of human brain disorders. Repeatedly applying tasks of increasing difficulty or complexity to define the optimal level of difficulty would provide knowledge about the range and limits of the cognitive abilities of pigs, knowledge that could be used to develop standardized tests of brain function in this species. However, what all these operant tests will always lack is the opportunity to tap different relevant natural behaviors of pigs.

Depending on the question to be answered, a spatial task might come closer to fulfilling the criteria listed in the Introduction. Free-choice mazes such as the eight-arm radial maze (Laughlin et al. 1999 ; Laughlin and Mendl 2000 , 2004 ) and the spatial or foraging arena (Mendl et al. 1997 ; Sneddon et al. 2000 ) appear to be suitable for studying (spatial) learning as well as memory. Arts et al. ( 2009 ) also clearly showed the advantages of the holeboard task for investigating the influence of rearing or housing conditions on cognitive performance. Water mazes (situated somewhere between alley and free-choice mazes) for pigs (Hammell et al. 1975 ; Siegford et al. 2008 ) provide measures of both learning and memory. However, this type of ‘simple’ test has a disadvantage. A water maze for pigs, which are fast growing and large, would have to be adjustable in size to be suitable for testing animals of different age and size. Moreover, while the effect of swimming on the pigs’ emotional state is unknown (see Chap. 4.4 ), it is likely that swimming tasks cause stress and therefore such tests are less suitable.

The freedom of movement and choice a pig encounters in free-choice tests such as a spatial arena (Sneddon et al. 2000 ) might mimic its foraging behavior and make it possible to measure several behavioral domains (e.g., cognitive, sensory, motor domains). Minor adaptations might make these tests suitable for measuring other (cognitive) domains such as discrimination learning (spatial, visual, or olfactory learning of 2 or multiple objects or individuals), problem-solving skills, or motivation. Even observational learning paradigms have been tested in a spatial arena-like apparatus (Held et al. 2000 ). It is important not to use tasks that are too simple or too difficult, because otherwise study outcomes might be false positive or negative (like the outcomes in Hagl et al.’ ‘first problem’ (see Hagl et al. 2005 )).

Y-mazes have proven effective for studying mainly social discrimination or recognition learning (Koba and Tanida 1999 ; Kristensen et al. 2001 ; McLeman et al. 2005 ; Tanida and Nagano 1998 ). These tests, which make use of a relatively simple apparatus, should be used more often to study the sensory capacities of pigs, about which our knowledge is relatively limited at the moment. McLeman et al. ( 2008 ) also showed that the Y-maze can be adapted to a more automated and controllable apparatus in which auditory, olfactory, and visual capacities can be tested in combination or separately. In contrast, the ORT test has proven relevance in rodents but not in pigs. In theory, this test could be promising and potentially fulfils several of the criteria mentioned in Table  2 . The main question to be solved here is whether pigs show a preference for investigating an unfamiliar object when it is presented together with a familiar one.

The latest development in cognitive pig research is related to the study of ‘animal consciousnesses’. To our knowledge, only one study has investigated this. Broom et al. ( 2009 ) applied a test with a mirror (not to be confused with the self-awareness Mirror Test of Gallup 1970 ) to assess awareness in pigs. The outcomes of this study support the notion that pigs are able to obtain and use information from an object (mirror), and thus this mirror task may prove a valuable task to assess the higher cognitive abilities of pigs.

In conclusion, when looking at the criteria outlined for cognitive tests for pigs to obtain the preferred level of reliability and validity, simple tasks such as the Y-maze could be appropriate for some purposes, but free-choice tasks, and especially spatial free-choice tasks, are the most promising tests. These tasks can be stress-free provided that animals receive a long-enough habituation period. Automation is possible, complexity can be increased or decreased, and animals are able to show a wide range of species-relevant behaviors.

Cognitive research in pigs: prerequisites

Stress and cognitive functioning.

Performing under stress or arousal is known to influence or even impair memory (Schwabe and Wolf 2010 ) and to disrupt cognitive processes (Mendl 1999 ), although the effect seems to be task specific. Performance on appetitively motivated spatial tasks, such as the holeboard task, may be negatively influenced by chronic stress. Studies with rodents suggest that chronic stress impairs memory performance in spatial tasks such as the holeboard or radial-arm maze, whereas learning in spatial tasks that evoke moderate to high levels of arousal (e.g., water mazes) seems to be unaffected or is even facilitated by chronic stress (see review of Conrad 2010 ). Several studies have used electrical shocks as stimulus in aversive learning tasks. The animal’s response to the CS is believed to be motivated by aversion of the shock caused by pain and/or fear. Since pain and fear are associated with stress, the use of this type of reinforcer is not recommended when studying learning and memory in pigs, except in the case of studies designed to assess learning during stressful circumstances. As stress might adversely affect results, caution is warranted if it is not known whether a certain procedure or reinforcer evokes stress. The pigs in the experiment of Spinka et al. ( 1998 ) were free to choose for short or long confinement during testing, but despite the presence of food reward, confinement still is a negative reinforcer. Thus, there is a probability that stress occurs due to negative reinforcement.

This is also true for water mazes. Although little is known about whether pigs find swimming pleasant or unpleasant, they are able to swim (Albarella et al. 2007 ; Bennett 1970 ). However, they probably do not swim often, and therefore swimming might not be the best behavior to choose for using in learning and memory tasks. Using conspecifics as reinforcing stimuli could cause stress in piglets if they are removed from the sow and their littermates. This is what Siegford et al. ( 2008 ) did in their study. In this specific case, stress might not only have influenced learning performance, but might also have interfered with the original research question (does early cognitive performance reduce stress during weaning) because it is uncertain whether weaning stress was reduced because of the piglets’ prior cognitive experience or their prior exposure to (a) stressful situation(s).

Even less is known about the influence of positive arousal (e.g., anticipation of reward) on learning and memory performance in animals. Positive arousal has been found to influence performance in humans, and probably also does so in pigs and other animals. A positive mood state can enhance cognition in humans (Ashby et al. 1999 ), and the mood state at the time of information retrieval influences performance. Emotional information is remembered better when mood at the time of retrieval matches the information to be retrieved (positive mood, positive material; (Lewis et al. 2005 ) Thus, it would be preferable to prevent negative as well as positive stress and arousal before and during testing as much as possible.

Versatility of tasks

Carefully designed reliable equipment that can be used in several tasks would provide a good basis for gathering basic, factual, and replicable results. The larger size of pigs means that test equipment will be more expensive than for rodents, and for this reason it should be appropriate for testing multiple variables and hypotheses. The apparatus should be designed in such a way that animals of different ages, breeds, sizes, and sex can be tested without evoking stress (Siswanto et al. 2008 ) and should be based on the pig’s natural abilities.

Translatability of results

The translatability of findings from pigs to humans and other species is an important consideration when developing behavioral cognitive tests suitable for pigs. The physiology of pigs resembles that of humans, which enhances the translatability of data to humans. A paradigm that can be used for animals and humans alike is expected to promote translational value. Technological advances have led to the development of virtual versions of animal-based tasks for use in human research, and spatial tasks in particular have made comparisons and translatability between animal and human studies easier. Examples of virtual reality spatial tasks for which analogs have been designed for humans and other animal species are the cognitive holeboard (Cánovas et al. 2008 ), the Morris Water Maze (Astur et al. 2002 ; Bartsch et al. 2010 ) and various spatial mazes (Grön et al. 2000 ; Kahana et al. 1999 ). Because genetically highly homogenous animals are used in most studies with rodents as subjects, whereas humans are highly heterogeneous, Hoyte et al. ( 2004 ) suggested that interventions should have demonstrated effectiveness in 2 species, in order to improve the translatability of findings. Pigs could be one of the species tested.

Factual knowledge about the species

A large amount of research has been performed on learning and memory in pigs. In particular, pig models are expected to have a higher translational value than commonly used rodent models. There are, however, a number of gaps in our knowledge about pigs that need to be closed. For example, little is known about the sensory capacities of pigs in general. Furthermore, there is a lack of replicated experimental findings and a lack of studies trying to optimize experimental approaches with pigs as subjects. Yet reliable equipment and validated test systems are needed to enable biomedical researchers and welfare specialists to study all aspects of learning and memory in this species. Such knowledge is a prerequisite for developing and validating pig models and for translating findings to management systems that improve pig welfare under production conditions.

This article has reviewed behavioral test paradigms that may contribute to biomedical research and pig welfare; however, systematic research is lacking. A critical point when designing tasks is that they should reflect the range of natural abilities of a species. To this end, further research into the sensory and motor abilities of pigs is urgently needed.

Several types of tests have proven useful. Simple two-choice mazes (mainly Y-mazes) are suited to investigate social discrimination and recognition, and sensory capacities. Operant (lever-pressing like) tests meet several of the criteria that tasks for testing cognition in pigs should fulfill. In particular, they can easily be automated and standardized. Free-choice spatial tests seem to be especially promising. In contrast to operant tasks, they are able to measure several behavioral domains simultaneously, and various paradigms have successfully been developed. While these tests appear to be promising instruments to evaluate the cognitive abilities of pigs, validation studies are still lacking. The growing interest in pig models for cognitive research and the need to improve animal welfare might provide the impetus needed to lift cognitive pig research to a higher level.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Contributor Information

Elise Titia Gieling, Phone: +31-30-2536487, Fax: +31-30-2521887, Email: [email protected] .

Rebecca Elizabeth Nordquist, Phone: +31-30-2535415, Email: [email protected] .

Franz Josef van der Staay, Phone: +31-30-2534205, Email: [email protected] .

• Albarella U, Dobney K, Ervynck K, Rowley-Conwy P. Pigs and humans: 10.000 years of interactions. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arndt SS, Laarakker MC, van Lith HA, van der Staay FJ, Gieling E, Salomons AR, van’t Klooster J, Ohl F. Individual housing of mice—impact on behaviour and stress responses. Physiol Behav. 2009; 97 :385–393. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnfred SM, Lind NM, Hansen AK, Hemmingsen RP. Pre-pulse inhibition of the acoustic startle eye-blink in the Göttingen minipig. Behav Brain Res. 2004; 151 :295–301. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arts JWM, van der Staay FJ, Ekkel ED. Working and reference memory of pigs in the spatial holeboard discrimination task. Behav Brain Res. 2009; 205 :303–306. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashby FG, Isen AM, Turken AU. A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychol Rev. 1999; 106 (3):529–550. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Astur RS, Taylor LB, Mamelak AN, Philpott L, Sutherland RJ. Humans with hippocampus damage display severe spatial memory impairments in a virtual Morris water task. Behav Brain Res. 2002; 132 :77–84. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baldwin BA. The study of behaviour in pigs. Br Vet J. 1969; 125 :281. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baldwin BA (1979) Operant studies on the behaviour of pigs and sheep in relation to the physical environment. J Anim Sci 49
• Baldwin BA, Meese GB. Sensory reinforcement and illumination preference in the domesticated pig. Anim Behav. 1977; 25 :497–507. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baldwin BA, Meese GB. Social behaviour in pigs studied by means of operant conditioning. Anim Behav. 1979; 27 :947–957. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baldwin BA, Stephens DB. The effects of conditioned behaviour and environmental factors on plasma corticosteroid levels in pigs. Physiol Behav. 1973; 10 :267–274. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes RH, Moore U, Pond WG. Behavioural abnormalities in young adult pigs caused by malnutrition in early life. J Nutrition. 1969; 100 :149–155. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartsch T, Schönfeld R, Müller FJ, Alfke K, Leplow B, Aldenhoff J, Deuschl G, Koch JM. Focal lesions of human hippocampal CA1 neurons in transient global amnesia impair place memory. Science. 2010; 328 :1412. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bauer R, Brust P, Walter B, Vorwieger G, Bergmann R, Elhalag E, Fritz A, Steinbach J, Füchtner F, Hinz R, Zwiener U, Johannsen B. Effect of hypoxia/hypercapnia on metabolism of 6-[F]fluoro-L-DOPA in newborn piglets. Brain Res. 2002; 934 :23–33. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bennett MK. Aspects of the Pig. Agric Hist. 1970; 44 :223–236. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boissy A, Manteuffel G, Jensen MB, Moe RO, Spruijt B, Keeling LJ, Winckler C, Forkma B, Dimitrov I, Langbein J, Bakken M, Veissier I, Aubert A. Assessment of positive emotion in animals to improve their welfare. Physiol Behav. 2007; 92 :375–397. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bolhuis JE, Schouten WGP, Leeuw de JA, Schrama JW, Wiegant VM. Individual coping characteristics, rearing conditions and behavioural flexibility in pigs. Behav Brain Res. 2004; 152 :351–360. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bouger PC, van der Staay FJ. Rats with scopolamine- or MK-801-induced spatial discrimination deficits in the cone field task: animal models for impaired spatial orientation performance. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005; 15 :331–346. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Breland K, Breland M. A field of applied animal psychology. Am Psychol. 1915; 6 :202–204. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Broom DM. Cognitive ability and awareness in domestic animals and decisions about obligations to animals. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2010; 126 :1–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Broom DM, Zanella AJ. Brain measures which tell us about animal welfare. Anim Welf. 2004; 13 :41–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Broom DM, Sena H, Moynihan KL. Pigs learn what a mirror image represents and use it to obtain information. Anim Behav. 2009; 78 :1037–1041. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cánovas R, Espínola M, Iribarne L, Cimadevilla JM. A new virtual task to evaluate human place learning. Behav Brain Res. 2008; 190 :112–118. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaput RL, Barron EL, Marrenfeltz JK, Dalton TK, Wolfe WW. The miniature pig: a biomedical model for behavioural studies. Lab Anim Sci. 1973; 23 :711–715. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen K, Baxter T, Muir WM, Groenen MA, Schook LB. Genetic resources, genome mapping and evolutionary genomics of the pig (Sus scrofa) Int J Biol Sci. 2007; 3 :153–165. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choleris E, Kavaliers M. Social learning in animals: sex differences and neurobiological analysis. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1999; 64 :767–776. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conrad CD. A critical review of chronic stress effects on spatial learning and memory. Prog Neuro-Psychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2010; 34 :742–755. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crannell CW. The choice point behavior of rats in a multiple path elimination problem. J Psychol. 1942; 13 :201–222. [ Google Scholar ]
• Croney CC, Adams KM, WashingtonCG Stricklin WR. A note on visual, olfactory and spatial cue use in foraging behaviour of pigs: indirectly assessing cognitive abilities. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2003; 83 :303–308. [ Google Scholar ]
• Curtis SE, Stricklin WR. The importance of animal cognition in agricultural animal production systems: an overview. J Anim Sci. 1991; 69 :2001–2007. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Danielsen EH, Smith DF, Andersen F, Gee AD, Bender D, Hansen SB, Hermansen F, Østergaard L, Cumming P, Gjedde A. FDOPA metabolism in the adult porcine brain: influence of tracer circulation time and VOI selection on estimates of striatal DOPA decarboxylation. J Neurosci Methods. 2001; 111 :157–168. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Groot J, Boersma W, van der Staay FJ, Niewold T, Stockhofe N, Koopmans SJ, van der Lende T, Schuurman T. Development of domestic animal models for the study of the ontogeny of human disease. In: Coe DHC, editor. Perinatal programming: early life determinants of adult health & disease. London: Taylor & Francis; 2005. pp. 117–128. [ Google Scholar ]
• de Jong IC, Prelle IT, Van d Burgwal JA, Lambooij E, Korte SM, Blokhuis HJ, Koolhaas JM. Effects of environmental enrichment on behavioural responses to novelty, learning, and memory, and the circadian rhythm in cortisol in growing pigs. Physiol Behav. 2000; 68 :571–578. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Souza AS (2006) Social recognition in neonatal pigs and the effects of acute stressors on it. Dissertation, Michigan State University
• de Souza AS, Jansen J, Tempelman RJ, Mendl M, Zanella AJ. A novel method for testing social recognition in young pigs and the modulating effects of relocation. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2006; 99 :77–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan IJ, Petherick JC. The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare. J Anim Sci. 1991; 69 :5017–5022. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennaceur A, Delacour J. A new one-trial test for neurobiological studies of memory in rats I: Behavioral data. Behav Brain Res. 1988; 31 :47–59. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennaceur A, Meliani K. A new one-trial test for neurobiological studies of memory in rats III spatial vs non-spatial working memory. Behav Brain Res. 1992; 51 :83–92. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennaceur AAC, Costa JC, Delacour J. A new one-trial test for neurobiological studies of memory in rats II: effects of piracetam and pramiracetam. Behav Brain Res. 1989; 33 :197–207. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Entsu S, Dohi H, Yamada A. Visual acuity of cattle determined by the method of discrimination learning. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1992; 34 :1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fang M, Li J, Rudd JA, Wai SM, Yew JCC, Yew DT (2006) fMRI Mapping of cortical centers following visual stimulation in postnatal pigs of different ages. Life Sci 78 [ PubMed ]
• Ferguson SA, Gopee NV, Paule MG, Howard PC. Female Mini-pig performance of temporal response differentation, incremental repeated aquisition, progressive ration operant tasks. Behav Processes. 2009; 80 (1):28–34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fraser D, Thompson BK. Armed sibling rivalry among suckling piglets. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1991; 29 :9–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Friess SH, Ichord RN, Owens K, Ralston J, Rizol R, Overall KL, Smith C, Helfaer MA, Margulies SS. Neurobehavioural functional deficits following closed head injury in the neonatal pig. Exp Neurol. 2007; 204 :234–243. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallup GG. Chimpanzees: Self-Recognition. Science. 1970; 167 :86–87. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gifford AK (2005) Assessing object recognition memory in the domestic pig. MSc thesis, Washington State University
• Gifford AK, Cloutier S, Newberry RC. Objects as enrichment: effect of object exposure time and delay interval on object recognition memory of the domestic pig. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007; 107 :206–217. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser D, Wanner M, Tinti JM, Nofre C. Gustatory responses of pigs to various natural and artificial compounds known to be sweet in man. Food Chem. 2000; 68 :375–385. [ Google Scholar ]
• Graf R (1976) Das visuelle Orientierungsvermögen der Schweine in Abhängigkeit von der Beleuchtungsstärke. In: Instituut voor Veeteeltkundig Onderzoek, Zeist, pp 56
• Graves HB. Behaviour and ecology of wild and feral swine (Sus Scrofa) J Anim Sci. 1984; 58 :482–492. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grön G, Wunderlich AP, Spitzer M, Tomczak R, Riepe MW. Brain activation during human navigation: gender-different neural networks as substrate of performance. Nature Neurosci. 2000; 3 :404–408. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gustafsson M, Jensen P, de Jonge FH, Schuurman T. Domestication effects on foraging strategies in pigs ( Sus scrofa ) Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1999; 62 :305–317. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagl C, Weisz DJ, Khaladj N, Griepp MM, Spielvogel D, Yang B, de Asla RA, Bodian CA, Griepp RB. Use of a maze to detect cognitive dysfunction in a porcine model of hypothermic circulatory arrest. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005; 79 :1307–1315. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammell DL, Kratzer DD, Bramble WJ. Avoidance and maze learning in pigs. J Anim Sci. 1975; 40 :573–579. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heffner HE, Heffner AS (1992) Auditory perception in farm animals and the environment. In: Phillips C, Piggins D (eds) CAB International, Wallingford, pp 159–184
• Held S, Mendl M, Devereux C, Byrne RW. Social tactics of pigs in a competitive foraging task: the ‘informed forager’ paradigm. Anim Behav. 2000; 59 :569–576. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Held S, Mendl M, Devereux C, Byrne RW. Behaviour of domestic pigs in a visual perspective task. Behaviour. 2001; 138 :1337–1354. [ Google Scholar ]
• Held S, Mendl M, Devereux C, Byrne RW. Studies in social cognition: from primates to pigs. Anim Welf. 2001; 10 :209–217. [ Google Scholar ]
• Held S, Mendl M, Laughlin K, Byrne RW. Cognition studies with pigs: livestock cognition and its implication for production. J Anim Sci. 2002; 80 :E10–E17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Held S, Baumgartner J, Kilbride A, Byrne RW, Mendl F. Foraging behaviour in domestic pigs (Sus scrofa): remembering and prioritizing food sites of different value. Anim Cogn. 2005; 8 :114–121. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Held S, Cooper JJ, Mendl MT. Advances in the study of cognition, behavioural priorities and emotions. In: Marchant-Forde JN, editor. The welfare of pigs. anim welf. Heidelberg: Springer; 2009. pp. 47–94. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hemmer H. Domestication—the decline of environmental appreciation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hemsworth PH, Verge J, Coleman GJ. Conditioned approach-avoidance responses to humans: the ability of pigs to associate feeding and aversive social experiences in the presence of humans with humans. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1996; 50 :71–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofman MA. Size and shape of the cerebral cortex in mammals (Part 1 of 2) I. The cortical surface. Brain Behav Evol. 1985; 27 :28–34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoyte L, Kaur J, Buchan AM. Lost in translation: taking neuroprotection from animal models to clinical trials. Exp Neurol. 2004; 188 :200–204. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jensen P. The ethology of domestic animals. CAB International, Wallingford: An introductory text; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahana MJ, Sekuler R, Caplan JB, Kirschen M, Madsen JR. Human theta oscillations exhibit task dependence during virtual maze navigation. Nature. 1999; 399 :781–784. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kennedy JM, Baldwin BA. Taste preference in pigs for nutritive and non-nutritive sweet solutions. Anim Behav. 1972; 20 :706–718. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirsch I, Lynn SJ, Vigorito M, Miller RR. The role of cognition in classical and operant conditioning. J Clin Psychol. 2004; 60 :369–392. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koba Y, Tanida H. How do miniature pigs discriminate between people? The effect of exchanging cues between a non-handler and their familiar handler on discrimination. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1999; 61 :239–252. [ Google Scholar ]
• Köhn F, Sharifi AR, Simianer H. Modeling of the growth of the Göttingen minipig. J Anim Sci. 2007; 85 :84–92. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koolhaas JM, de Boer de SF, Buwalda B. Stress and adaptation–toward ecologically relevant animal models. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2006; 15 :109–112. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kornum BR, Thygesen KS, Nielsen TR, Knudsen GM, Lind NM. The effect of the inter-phase delay interval in the spontaneous object recognition test for pigs. Behav Brain Res. 2007; 181 :210–217. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kratzer DD. Effects of age on avoidance learning in pigs. J Anim Sci. 1969; 28 :175–179. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kratzer DD. Learning in farm animals. J Anim Sci. 1971; 32 :1268–1273. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kristensen HH, Jones RB, Schofield CP, White RP, Wathes CM. The use of olfactory and other cues for social recognition by juvenile pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2001; 72 :321–333. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lachman SJ, Brown CR. Behavior in a free choice multiple path elimination problem. J Psychol. 1957; 43 :27–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Larsen MO, Rolin B (2004) Use of the Göttingen minipig as a model of diabetes, with special focus on type 1 diabetes research. ILAR J 45 [ PubMed ]
• Laughlin K, Mendl M. Pigs shift too: foraging strategies and spatial memory in the domestic pig. Anim Behav. 2000; 60 :403–410. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laughlin K, Mendl M. Costs of acquiring and forgetting information affect spatial memory and its susceptibility to interference. Anim Behav. 2004; 68 :97–103. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laughlin K, Huck M, Mendl M. Disturbance effects of environmental stimuli on pig spatial memory. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1999; 64 :169–180. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis PA, Critchley HD, Smith AP, Dolan RJ. Brain mechanisms for mood congruent memory facilitation. NeuroImage. 2005; 25 :1214–1223. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lien J, Klopfer FD. Some relations between stereotyped suckling in piglets and exploratory behaviour and discrimination reversal learning in adult swine. Appl Anim Ethol. 1978; 4 :223–233. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lind NM, Moustgaard A (2005) Response to novelty correlates with learning rate in a go/no-go task in Göttingen Minipigs. Neural Plast 12 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Lind NM, Arnfred SM, Hemmingsen RP, Hansen AK. Prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle reflex in pigs and its disruption by D-amphetamine. Behav Brain Res. 2004; 155 :217–222. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lind NM, Moustgaard A, Jelsing J, Vajta G, Cumming P, Hansen AK. The use of pigs in neuroscience: modelling brain disorders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2007; 31 :728–751. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lunney JK. Advances in swine biomedical model genomics. Int J Biol Sci. 2007; 3 :179–184. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macellini S, Ferrari PF, Bonini L, Fogassi L, Paukner A. A modified mark test for own-body recognition in pig-tailed macaques (Macaca nemestrina) Anim Cogn. 2010; 13 (4):631–639. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Manteuffel G, Langbein J, Puppe B. Increasing farm animal welfare by positively motivated instrumental behaviour. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2009; 118 :191–198. [ Google Scholar ]
• Markou A, Chiamulera C, Geyer MA, Tricklebank M, Steckler T. Removing obstacles in neuroscience drug discovery: The future path for animal models. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2009; 34 :74–89. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mauget R. Rythme d’activité et budget-temps chez le sanglier européen ( Sus scrofa L.) In: Spitz F, Pépin D, editors. Symposium International sur le Sanglier. Toulouse: INRA; 1984. pp. 79–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• McLeman MA, Mendl M, Jones RB, White R, Wathes CM. Discrimination of conspecifics by juvenile domestic pigs, sus scrofa . Anim Behav. 2005; 70 :451–461. [ Google Scholar ]
• McLeman MA, Mendl MT, Jones RB, Wathes CM. Social discrimination of familiar conspecifics by juvenile pigs, Sus scrofa: development of a non-invasive method to study the transmission of unimodal and bimodal cues between live stimuli. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2008; 115 :123–137. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meehan CL, Mench JA. The challenge of challenge: can problem solving opportunities enhance animal welfare? Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007; 102 :246–261. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meese GB, Conner DJ, Baldwin BA. Ability of the pig to distinguish between conspecific urine samples using olfaction. Physiol Behav. 1975; 15 :121–125. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mendl M. Performing under pressure: stress and cognitive function. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1999; 65 :221–244. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mendl M, Paul ES. Consciousness, emotion and animal welfare: insights from cognitve science. Anim Welf. 2004; 13 :S17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mendl M, Laughlin K, Hitchcock D. Pigs in space: spatial memory and its susceptibility to interference. Anim Behav. 1997; 54 :1491–1508. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mendl M, Randle K, Pope S. Young female pigs can discriminate individual differences in odours from conspecific urine. Anim Behav. 2002; 64 :97–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mendl M, Burman OHP, Parker RMA, Paul ES. Cognitive bias as an indicator of animal emotion and welfare: emerging evidence and underlying mechanisms. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2009; 118 :161–181. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikkelsen M, Moller A, Jensen LH, Pedersen A, Harajehi JB, Pakkenberg H. MPTP-Induced parkinsonism in Minipigs: a behavioural, biochemical, and histological study. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1999; 21 :169–175. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore AU, Marcuse FL. Salivary, cardiac and motor indices of conditioning in two sows. J Comp Psychol. 1945; 38 :1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morris R. Developments of a water-maze procedure for studying spatial learning in the rat. J Neurosci Methods. 1984; 11 :47. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moustgaard A, Lind NM, Hemmingsen R, Hansen AK. Spontaneous object recognition in the Göttingen Minipig. Neural Plast. 2002; 9 (4):255–259. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moustgaard A, Arnfred SM, Lind NM, Hansen AK, Hemmingsen R. Discriminations, reversals, and extra-dimensional shifts in the Göttingen minipig. Behav Processes. 2004; 67 :27–37. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moustgaard A, Arnfred SM, Lind NM, Hemmingsen R, Hansen AK. Acquisition of visually guided conditional associative tasks in Göttingen minipigs. Behav Processes. 2005; 68 :97–102. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muma JR (1993) The need for replication. J Speech Hear Res 36:927–930 [ PubMed ]
• Nielsen TR, Kornum BR, Moustgaard A, Gade A, Lind NM, Knudsen GM. A novel spatial delayed non-match to sample (DNMS) task in the Göttingen Minipig. Behav Brain Res. 2009; 196 :93–98. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noble M, Adams CK. Conditioning in pigs as a function of the interval between CS and US. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1963; 56 :215–219. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nofre C, Glaser D, J- Tinti, Wanner M. Gustatory responses of pigs to sixty compounds tasting sweet to humans. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2002; 86 :90–96. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nunoya T, Shibuya K, Saitoh T, Yazawa H, Nakamura K, Yasuko Baba Y, Hirai T. Use of miniature pig for biomedical research, with reference to toxicologic studies. JTP. 2007; 20 :125–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ohl F, Arndt SS, van der Staay FJ. Pathological anxiety in animals. Vet J. 2008; 175 :18–26. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olton DS, Samuelson RJ. Remembrance of places passed: spatial memory in rats. J Exp Psychol. 1976; 2 :97–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacioni G. Truffle hunting in Italy. Bull Br Mycol Soc. 1986; 20 :50–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul ES, Harding EJ, Mendl M. Measuring emotional processes in animal: the utility of a cognitive approach. Neurosci Bio Beh Rev. 2005; 29 :469–491. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petersen B, Carnwath JW, Niemann H. The perspectives for porcine-to-human xenografts. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008; 32 :91–105. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Puppe B, Ernst K, Schön PC, Manteuffel G. Cognitive enrichment affects behavioural reactivity in domestic pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007; 105 :75–86. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rehfeldt C, Kuhn G. Consequences of birth weight for postnatal growth performance and carcass quality in pigs as related to myogenesis. J Anim Sci. 2006; 84 :E113. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rescorla RA. Behavioral studies of pavlovian conditioning. Ann Rev Neurosci. 1988; 11 :329–352. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sachs DH. The pig as a potential xenograft donor. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 1994; 43 :185–191. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schook L, Beattie C, Beever J, Donovan S, Jamison R, Zuckermann F, Niemi S, Rothschild M, Rutherford M, Smith D. Swine in biomedical research: creating the building blocks of animal models. Anim Biotechnol. 2005; 16 :183–190. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwabe L, Wolf OT. Learning under stress impairs memory formation. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2010; 93 :183–188. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siegford JM, Rucker G, Zanella AJ. Effects of pre-weaning exposure to a maze on stress responses in pigs at weaning and on subsequent performance in spatial and fear-related tests. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2008; 110 :189–202. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sik A, van Nieuwehuyzen P, Prickaerts J, Blokland A. Performance of different mouse strains in an object recognition task. Behav Brain Res. 2003; 14 :49–54. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siswanto H, Hau J, Carlsson H, Goldkuhl R, Abelson KSP. Corticosterone concentrations in blood and excretion in faeces after ACTH administration in male Sprague-Dawley rats. In Vivo. 2008; 22 :435–440. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sneddon IA, Beattie VE, Dunne L, Neil W. The effect of environmental enrichment on learning in pigs. Anim Welf. 2000; 9 :373–383. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spinka M, Duncan IJH, Widowski TM. Do domestic pigs prefer short-term to medium-term confinement? Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1998; 58 :221–232. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tanida H, Nagano Y. The ability of miniature pigs to discriminate between a stranger and their familiar handler. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1998; 56 :149–159. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tanida H, Senda K, Suzuki S, Tanaka T, Yoshimoto T. Colour discrimination in weanling pigs. Anim Sci Technol. 1991; 62 :1029–1034. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thor DH, Holloway WR. Social memory of the male laboratory rat. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1982; 69 :1000–1006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Toates F. Cognition, motivation, emotion and action: a dynamic and vulnerable interdependence. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2004; 86 :173–204. [ Google Scholar ]
• van der Staay FJ. Assessment of age-associated cognitive deficits in rats: a tricky business. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2002; 26 :753–759. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van der Staay FJ (2006) Animal models of behavioral dysfunctions: basic concepts and classifications, and an evaluation strategy. Brain Res Rev 52(1):131–159 [ PubMed ]
• van der Staay FJ, Arndt SS, Nordquist RE (2009) Evaluation of animal models of neurobehavioral disorders. Behav Brain Funct 5:11 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• van der Staay FJ, Arndt SS, Nordquist RE. The standardization-generalization dilemma: a way out. Genes Brain Behav. 2010; 9 :849–855. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Rooijen J. Operant preference tests with pigs. Appl Anim Ethol. 1982; 9 :87–88. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vodička P, Smetana K, Dvořánková B, Emerick T, Xu YZ, Ourednik J, Ourednik V, Motlík J. The miniature pig as an animal model in biomedical research. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2005; 1049 :161–171. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wainwright PE, Colombo J. Nutrition and the development of cognitive functions: interpretation of behavioural studies in animals and human infants. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006; 84 :961–970. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang B, Yu B, Karim M, Hu H, Sun Y, McGreevy P, Petocz P, Held S, Brand-Miller J. Dietary sialic acid supplementation improves learning and memory in piglets. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007; 85 :561–569. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wechsler B, Lea SEG. Adaptation by learning: Its significance for farm animal husbandry. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007; 108 :197–214. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yerkes RM, Coburn CA (1915) A study of the behaviour of the pig sus crofa by the multiple choice method. J Anim Behav 5:185–188, 188a, 189–225
• Zhang J, Groff RF, Chen X, Browne KD, Huang J, Schwartz ED, Meaney DF, Johnson VE, Stein SC, Rojkjaer R, Smith DH. Hemostatic and neuroprotective effects of human recombinant activated factor VII therapy after traumatic brain injury in pigs. Exp Neurol. 2008; 210 :645–655. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zonderland JJ, Cornelissen L, Wolthuis-Fillerup M, Spoolder HAM. Visual acuity of pigs at different light intensities. Appl Anim Behav. 2008; 111 :28–37. [ Google Scholar ]

Pig burial experiment at Rookwood Cemetery

• Copy Link copied

More than a hundred pigs are to be buried in Australia’s largest cemetery as part of a controversial, world-first scientific trial that aims to create more grave space.

Fairfax Media can reveal that, in a contentious move at odds with numerous traditional religious customs, Rookwood Cemetery intends to accelerate the human decomposition process so more people can be laid to rest in the same plot.

Up to 120 pig corpses will be used as human substitutes and have individual plots at the same sacred site where more than a million people are buried. There the pig corpses will be exposed to compounds, additives and “a lot of different variables” that are designed to “speed up” the natural process below ground.

Like all burial sites across Sydney, Rookwood is inching towards full capacity. For religious groups that prohibit cremation, such as the Muslim and Jewish faiths, the situation is even more perilous.

“The sustainability of cemeteries everywhere is a major issue right now,” said George Simpson, chief executive of the Rookwood General Cemeteries Reserve Trust. “This is a real watershed if we can get it right. It would revolutionise the entire industry the world over.”

Until details were leaked to Fairfax Media last week, the independent study had progressed, in secret, for three years. While Mr Simpson acknowledged it might trigger some outcry, he said the interment industry had been forced to confront similar issues before. “If you go back to the 1950s and 1960s when cremation first became popular, there was an element of people who were for it and against it. It’s the nature of the industry,” he said, adding: “We are aware of that. But we also can’t lose sight of the fact that we need to look at innovative new ways of providing space for generations after us.”

When the State Government released the last parcel of land at the 280 hectare Rookwood Cemetery in 2013, it was divided between the Muslim and Jewish communities on the understanding there was no more left to give. Under Islamic tradition, it is strictly forbidden to lay a second body in a grave until the first has completely transformed. Additionally, Rookwood is severely hampered by a clay based soil composition that slows the decaying process.

According to Mr Simpson, “those communities from the Middle Eastern area have been encouraging us to come up with ways to accelerate that process.”

Fairfax Media has been told that representatives from both the Muslim and Jewish faiths have joined Rookwood hierarchy and the industry regulator, Cemeteries and Crematoria NSW (CCNSW) on an expert steering committee that is now finalising the decomposition plan.

When asked whether there had been any opposition from either the Jewish or Muslim communities about pigs being buried at the same holy site that accommodates their religions, Mr Simpson replied: “Quite to the contrary. The representatives from those faiths [on the committee] expected that would be the case. It is widely known the world over that pigs are the closest, anatomically, to humans. For us to get as close a match as we can, it was vital we use this proxy.”

He said the tests would be conducted in a “discreet” section of the cemetery, away from other burial areas, adding: “It is certainly not something we would take lightly.”

Fairfax Media requested, through Mr Simpson, interviews with religious representatives on the project’s steering committee. There was no response at the time of publication. The CCNSW declined to comment about the actual trial but said it was working “closely” with independent and Crown cemeteries “to plan for and respond to policy challenges”.

NSW Minister for Lands Paul Toole confirmed he was “aware” of the study, adding it was “consistent with priorities” outlined in the CCNSW Strategic Plan.