4.5 Article

Savaging gilts are more restless and more responsive to piglets during the expulsive phase of parturition

期刊

APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR SCIENCE
卷 76, 期 1, 页码 83-91

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00207-6

关键词

pig; piglet-directed aggression; savaging; maternal behaviour; gilt

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Piglet-directed aggression by farrowing pigs seriously threatens the welfare of the piglets and also results in economic waste within the pig industry. Pre-weaning piglet mortality in the UK is around 11% with savaging accounting for up to 25% of deaths. The aim of this study was to investigate whether gilts that savage piglets behave differently to non-savaging gilts during the expulsive phase of parturition. The behaviour of the gilts during the 8 h following the birth of the first piglet was recorded. The gilts were categorised as savagers (n = 4) or non-savagers (n = 15) depending on their response to piglets during farrowing, and then behaviour during farrowing was compared between the two groups. The maternal behaviour during the first 8 h of farrowing differed significantly between the savagers and non-savagers. Savaging gilts were significantly more restless and more responsive towards their piglets during farrowing as characterised by increased posture changing, higher frequency of walking and time spent investigating piglets that approached their head. Overall the results of this study suggest that aberrant maternal behaviour during farrowing involves increased restlessness and responsiveness to piglets, particularly in the early stages of the expulsive phase, which are opposite to the inactivity and passivity suggested to reflect good maternal care in the pig. It is suggested that this restlessness and responsiveness of savaging gilts may not necessarily reflect poor maternal ability, but may be related to the individual's inability to cope with restrictive environments around farrowing. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据