The role of human–pig interactions in modulating gut microbiota, stress, and performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The microbiota‒gut‒brain axis modulates pigs' stress response, behavior, and overall welfare. Stressful management practices can disrupt gut microbiota (GM), negatively impacting pigs' health and welfare. This study evaluated how the quality of human handling influences stress-related physiological responses, productive performance, and gut microbiota (GM) composition in pigs during the nursery phase. RESULTS: Female pigs (n= 36, 21 days old) were randomly assigned to three experimental groups (12 pigs/group, four pens per treatment): positive human handling (PHH), negative human handling (NHH), and a control group (CG). The PHH group experienced gentle tactile interactions, whereas the NHH group was subjected to chronic intermittent stress through acute stressors, and the CG group received minimal handling for routine practices. Hair cortisol concentrations were measured as an indicator of chronic stress (days 15 and 64). Productive performance was assessed through body weight (BW), average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), and feed conversion (FC). Fecal samples were collected at baseline (T0, day 16), mid-study (T1, day 37), and end of the study (T2, day 65) and analyzed using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing to assess GM changes over time. Pigs in the PHH group showed a significant reduction in cortisol levels from baseline to post-treatment (P < 0.0001), while no significant changes were observed in the NHH group (P = 0.26). A smaller but significant decrease was also detected in the CG group (P = 0.001). PHH pigs had higher BW (P = 0.0009) and ADG (P = 0.03) during the later growth phase compared to NHH pigs. At T2, PHH pigs exhibited greater diversity and richness compared to NHH pigs, indicating a restorative effect on GM composition. Differential abundance analyses identified four bacterial genera that distinguished treatment groups: Blautia, Megasphaera, and Subdoligranulum were enriched in PHH pigs, while Terrisporobacter was enriched in NHH pigs. Additionally, bacterial interaction networks exhibited the least complex network in the NHH group, with ecological associations primarily involving Clostridium and Terrisporobacter. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of human handling influenced stress physiology, performance, and gut microbiota in pigs. Positive handling reduced cortisol levels, improved growth, and promoted microbial diversity, while negative handling was linked to decreased performance and reduced microbial network complexity. These results highlight the potential of positive interactions to enhance welfare and productivity, and identify specific bacterial genera as potential biomarkers differentiating negative and positive handling conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".