Housing, ease of handling and minimising inter-pig aggression at mixing for nursery to finishing pigs as reported in a survey of North American pork producers
•Producers’ housing, handling and management of nursery-finisher pigs were surveyed.•Respondents (n = 298) selected the usefulness of techniques to reduce aggression.•53% selected at least one management technique to minimise mixing aggression.•Those that regularly mixed unfamiliar pigs were more li...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Applied animal behaviour science 2018-08, Vol.205, p.159-166 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 166 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 159 |
container_title | Applied animal behaviour science |
container_volume | 205 |
creator | Ison, S.H. Bates, R.O. Ernst, C.W. Steibel, J.P. Siegford, J.M. |
description | •Producers’ housing, handling and management of nursery-finisher pigs were surveyed.•Respondents (n = 298) selected the usefulness of techniques to reduce aggression.•53% selected at least one management technique to minimise mixing aggression.•Those that regularly mixed unfamiliar pigs were more likely to use a technique.•Socialising piglets pre-weaning was rated as most useful but used by 19 respondents.
Inter-pig aggression is a welfare issue that has undergone extensive research. Although management techniques have proven useful in minimising aggression in research settings, it is not known how often these are used on-farm. One objective of an online survey of North American pork producers was to learn about the housing, ease of handling, and management of nursery to finishing pigs, including what techniques were used to minimise aggression, how useful they were perceived to be and what were potential barriers to their use. Respondents were given a list of techniques to select which ones they used, and indicate how useful they perceived them to be on a five-point scale (‘very useful’ to ‘not useful at all’). A step-wise binomial logistic regression was used to analyse the association between other factors and whether or not respondents reported that at least one technique was used. Respondents (n = 298), had nursery (11,604 ± 4032, range: 1–950,000) and/or finishing pigs (18,999 ± 5789, range: 2–1,500,000), or did not currently have pigs but answered the questions, at the time the survey was completed. Some had pigs of both stages (n = 181), and some had just nursery (n = 24), or finishing (n = 89) pigs. When asked if they regularly re-grouped unfamiliar pigs, 36% of all respondents selected yes (33% at nursery, 25% at finishing). Of all respondents, 53% reported using at least one technique to minimise re-grouping aggression. Techniques reported from most to least useful included: pre-weaning piglet socialisation (n = 19), using mixed weight pens (n = 9), night-time mixing (n = 50), mixing all pigs to a new pen (n = 108), barriers (n = 25), using specific mixing pens (n = 21), odour masking agents (n = 38), pre-exposure in a neighbouring pen (n = 45), and enrichment devices (n = 41). After stepwise selection, the best regression model for predicting the odds of using at least one technique included the factor pig stage (nursery, finisher, or both), as farms specialising in either nursery (P |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.05.004 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2093497248</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0168159118302326</els_id><sourcerecordid>2093497248</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-99c72d15bdb3846f0d659d24a122832b3efeeef8506d09bbb7eb3d943fe720f63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU-LFDEQxYMoOK5-BQl4tdtK-l9yc1nUFRa96DmkO5WZjDNJW-lenC_jZzXN6NlTQdXvvUfxGHstoBYg-nfH2s7zycZwriUIVUNXA7RP2E6oQVYa2u4p2xVQVaLT4jl7kfMRALpGwI79vk9rDnH_lqPNyJPnBxvdqWx4mfwcim3YAB7iglTNoRz2e8KcQ4rcLgX5tZ19Ih5XykgXviTuizAftkNRZG4zJ5wTLeiKEbc8r_SIly3vS9ke-O0ZKUw28gL94DMlt05I-SV75u0p46u_84Z9__jh29199fD10-e724dqapRaKq2nQTrRjW5sVNt7cH2nnWytkFI1cmzQI6JXHfQO9DiOA46N023jcZDg--aGvbn6luSfK-bFHNNKsUQaCbpp9SBbVaj-Sk2Ucib0ZqZwtnQxAszWhTmaf12YrQsDnSldFOH7qxDLD48ByeQpYJzQBcJpMS6F_1n8AeuxmZk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2093497248</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Housing, ease of handling and minimising inter-pig aggression at mixing for nursery to finishing pigs as reported in a survey of North American pork producers</title><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Ison, S.H. ; Bates, R.O. ; Ernst, C.W. ; Steibel, J.P. ; Siegford, J.M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Ison, S.H. ; Bates, R.O. ; Ernst, C.W. ; Steibel, J.P. ; Siegford, J.M.</creatorcontrib><description>•Producers’ housing, handling and management of nursery-finisher pigs were surveyed.•Respondents (n = 298) selected the usefulness of techniques to reduce aggression.•53% selected at least one management technique to minimise mixing aggression.•Those that regularly mixed unfamiliar pigs were more likely to use a technique.•Socialising piglets pre-weaning was rated as most useful but used by 19 respondents.
Inter-pig aggression is a welfare issue that has undergone extensive research. Although management techniques have proven useful in minimising aggression in research settings, it is not known how often these are used on-farm. One objective of an online survey of North American pork producers was to learn about the housing, ease of handling, and management of nursery to finishing pigs, including what techniques were used to minimise aggression, how useful they were perceived to be and what were potential barriers to their use. Respondents were given a list of techniques to select which ones they used, and indicate how useful they perceived them to be on a five-point scale (‘very useful’ to ‘not useful at all’). A step-wise binomial logistic regression was used to analyse the association between other factors and whether or not respondents reported that at least one technique was used. Respondents (n = 298), had nursery (11,604 ± 4032, range: 1–950,000) and/or finishing pigs (18,999 ± 5789, range: 2–1,500,000), or did not currently have pigs but answered the questions, at the time the survey was completed. Some had pigs of both stages (n = 181), and some had just nursery (n = 24), or finishing (n = 89) pigs. When asked if they regularly re-grouped unfamiliar pigs, 36% of all respondents selected yes (33% at nursery, 25% at finishing). Of all respondents, 53% reported using at least one technique to minimise re-grouping aggression. Techniques reported from most to least useful included: pre-weaning piglet socialisation (n = 19), using mixed weight pens (n = 9), night-time mixing (n = 50), mixing all pigs to a new pen (n = 108), barriers (n = 25), using specific mixing pens (n = 21), odour masking agents (n = 38), pre-exposure in a neighbouring pen (n = 45), and enrichment devices (n = 41). After stepwise selection, the best regression model for predicting the odds of using at least one technique included the factor pig stage (nursery, finisher, or both), as farms specialising in either nursery (P < 0.001) or finishing pigs (P < 0.001) only, had increased log odds of using a technique. Those that did not mix regularly had reduced odds (P < 0.001) of using a technique, and those that used bedding tended to have increased odds of using a technique (P = 0.08). Overall, producers avoided mixing unfamiliar pigs, but for systems in which regular mixing was used, techniques were more likely to be implemented to help minimise aggression. However, over a third of respondents who reported that they did not regularly mix at any stage, still indicated that they used at least one technique.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0168-1591</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-9045</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.05.004</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Aggression ; Aggressive behavior ; Animal behavior ; Animal care ; Bedding ; Farmers ; Farms ; Finishing ; Hogs ; Livestock housing ; Masking ; Odor ; Perception ; Pig ; Pork ; Regression analysis ; Regression models ; Survey ; Swine ; Weaning ; Weight</subject><ispartof>Applied animal behaviour science, 2018-08, Vol.205, p.159-166</ispartof><rights>2018 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier BV Aug 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-99c72d15bdb3846f0d659d24a122832b3efeeef8506d09bbb7eb3d943fe720f63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-99c72d15bdb3846f0d659d24a122832b3efeeef8506d09bbb7eb3d943fe720f63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.05.004$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,3554,27933,27934,46004</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ison, S.H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bates, R.O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ernst, C.W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steibel, J.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siegford, J.M.</creatorcontrib><title>Housing, ease of handling and minimising inter-pig aggression at mixing for nursery to finishing pigs as reported in a survey of North American pork producers</title><title>Applied animal behaviour science</title><description>•Producers’ housing, handling and management of nursery-finisher pigs were surveyed.•Respondents (n = 298) selected the usefulness of techniques to reduce aggression.•53% selected at least one management technique to minimise mixing aggression.•Those that regularly mixed unfamiliar pigs were more likely to use a technique.•Socialising piglets pre-weaning was rated as most useful but used by 19 respondents.
Inter-pig aggression is a welfare issue that has undergone extensive research. Although management techniques have proven useful in minimising aggression in research settings, it is not known how often these are used on-farm. One objective of an online survey of North American pork producers was to learn about the housing, ease of handling, and management of nursery to finishing pigs, including what techniques were used to minimise aggression, how useful they were perceived to be and what were potential barriers to their use. Respondents were given a list of techniques to select which ones they used, and indicate how useful they perceived them to be on a five-point scale (‘very useful’ to ‘not useful at all’). A step-wise binomial logistic regression was used to analyse the association between other factors and whether or not respondents reported that at least one technique was used. Respondents (n = 298), had nursery (11,604 ± 4032, range: 1–950,000) and/or finishing pigs (18,999 ± 5789, range: 2–1,500,000), or did not currently have pigs but answered the questions, at the time the survey was completed. Some had pigs of both stages (n = 181), and some had just nursery (n = 24), or finishing (n = 89) pigs. When asked if they regularly re-grouped unfamiliar pigs, 36% of all respondents selected yes (33% at nursery, 25% at finishing). Of all respondents, 53% reported using at least one technique to minimise re-grouping aggression. Techniques reported from most to least useful included: pre-weaning piglet socialisation (n = 19), using mixed weight pens (n = 9), night-time mixing (n = 50), mixing all pigs to a new pen (n = 108), barriers (n = 25), using specific mixing pens (n = 21), odour masking agents (n = 38), pre-exposure in a neighbouring pen (n = 45), and enrichment devices (n = 41). After stepwise selection, the best regression model for predicting the odds of using at least one technique included the factor pig stage (nursery, finisher, or both), as farms specialising in either nursery (P < 0.001) or finishing pigs (P < 0.001) only, had increased log odds of using a technique. Those that did not mix regularly had reduced odds (P < 0.001) of using a technique, and those that used bedding tended to have increased odds of using a technique (P = 0.08). Overall, producers avoided mixing unfamiliar pigs, but for systems in which regular mixing was used, techniques were more likely to be implemented to help minimise aggression. However, over a third of respondents who reported that they did not regularly mix at any stage, still indicated that they used at least one technique.</description><subject>Aggression</subject><subject>Aggressive behavior</subject><subject>Animal behavior</subject><subject>Animal care</subject><subject>Bedding</subject><subject>Farmers</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Finishing</subject><subject>Hogs</subject><subject>Livestock housing</subject><subject>Masking</subject><subject>Odor</subject><subject>Perception</subject><subject>Pig</subject><subject>Pork</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Regression models</subject><subject>Survey</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>Weaning</subject><subject>Weight</subject><issn>0168-1591</issn><issn>1872-9045</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkU-LFDEQxYMoOK5-BQl4tdtK-l9yc1nUFRa96DmkO5WZjDNJW-lenC_jZzXN6NlTQdXvvUfxGHstoBYg-nfH2s7zycZwriUIVUNXA7RP2E6oQVYa2u4p2xVQVaLT4jl7kfMRALpGwI79vk9rDnH_lqPNyJPnBxvdqWx4mfwcim3YAB7iglTNoRz2e8KcQ4rcLgX5tZ19Ih5XykgXviTuizAftkNRZG4zJ5wTLeiKEbc8r_SIly3vS9ke-O0ZKUw28gL94DMlt05I-SV75u0p46u_84Z9__jh29199fD10-e724dqapRaKq2nQTrRjW5sVNt7cH2nnWytkFI1cmzQI6JXHfQO9DiOA46N023jcZDg--aGvbn6luSfK-bFHNNKsUQaCbpp9SBbVaj-Sk2Ucib0ZqZwtnQxAszWhTmaf12YrQsDnSldFOH7qxDLD48ByeQpYJzQBcJpMS6F_1n8AeuxmZk</recordid><startdate>201808</startdate><enddate>201808</enddate><creator>Ison, S.H.</creator><creator>Bates, R.O.</creator><creator>Ernst, C.W.</creator><creator>Steibel, J.P.</creator><creator>Siegford, J.M.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201808</creationdate><title>Housing, ease of handling and minimising inter-pig aggression at mixing for nursery to finishing pigs as reported in a survey of North American pork producers</title><author>Ison, S.H. ; Bates, R.O. ; Ernst, C.W. ; Steibel, J.P. ; Siegford, J.M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-99c72d15bdb3846f0d659d24a122832b3efeeef8506d09bbb7eb3d943fe720f63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Aggression</topic><topic>Aggressive behavior</topic><topic>Animal behavior</topic><topic>Animal care</topic><topic>Bedding</topic><topic>Farmers</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Finishing</topic><topic>Hogs</topic><topic>Livestock housing</topic><topic>Masking</topic><topic>Odor</topic><topic>Perception</topic><topic>Pig</topic><topic>Pork</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Regression models</topic><topic>Survey</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>Weaning</topic><topic>Weight</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ison, S.H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bates, R.O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ernst, C.W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steibel, J.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siegford, J.M.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Applied animal behaviour science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ison, S.H.</au><au>Bates, R.O.</au><au>Ernst, C.W.</au><au>Steibel, J.P.</au><au>Siegford, J.M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Housing, ease of handling and minimising inter-pig aggression at mixing for nursery to finishing pigs as reported in a survey of North American pork producers</atitle><jtitle>Applied animal behaviour science</jtitle><date>2018-08</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>205</volume><spage>159</spage><epage>166</epage><pages>159-166</pages><issn>0168-1591</issn><eissn>1872-9045</eissn><abstract>•Producers’ housing, handling and management of nursery-finisher pigs were surveyed.•Respondents (n = 298) selected the usefulness of techniques to reduce aggression.•53% selected at least one management technique to minimise mixing aggression.•Those that regularly mixed unfamiliar pigs were more likely to use a technique.•Socialising piglets pre-weaning was rated as most useful but used by 19 respondents.
Inter-pig aggression is a welfare issue that has undergone extensive research. Although management techniques have proven useful in minimising aggression in research settings, it is not known how often these are used on-farm. One objective of an online survey of North American pork producers was to learn about the housing, ease of handling, and management of nursery to finishing pigs, including what techniques were used to minimise aggression, how useful they were perceived to be and what were potential barriers to their use. Respondents were given a list of techniques to select which ones they used, and indicate how useful they perceived them to be on a five-point scale (‘very useful’ to ‘not useful at all’). A step-wise binomial logistic regression was used to analyse the association between other factors and whether or not respondents reported that at least one technique was used. Respondents (n = 298), had nursery (11,604 ± 4032, range: 1–950,000) and/or finishing pigs (18,999 ± 5789, range: 2–1,500,000), or did not currently have pigs but answered the questions, at the time the survey was completed. Some had pigs of both stages (n = 181), and some had just nursery (n = 24), or finishing (n = 89) pigs. When asked if they regularly re-grouped unfamiliar pigs, 36% of all respondents selected yes (33% at nursery, 25% at finishing). Of all respondents, 53% reported using at least one technique to minimise re-grouping aggression. Techniques reported from most to least useful included: pre-weaning piglet socialisation (n = 19), using mixed weight pens (n = 9), night-time mixing (n = 50), mixing all pigs to a new pen (n = 108), barriers (n = 25), using specific mixing pens (n = 21), odour masking agents (n = 38), pre-exposure in a neighbouring pen (n = 45), and enrichment devices (n = 41). After stepwise selection, the best regression model for predicting the odds of using at least one technique included the factor pig stage (nursery, finisher, or both), as farms specialising in either nursery (P < 0.001) or finishing pigs (P < 0.001) only, had increased log odds of using a technique. Those that did not mix regularly had reduced odds (P < 0.001) of using a technique, and those that used bedding tended to have increased odds of using a technique (P = 0.08). Overall, producers avoided mixing unfamiliar pigs, but for systems in which regular mixing was used, techniques were more likely to be implemented to help minimise aggression. However, over a third of respondents who reported that they did not regularly mix at any stage, still indicated that they used at least one technique.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.applanim.2018.05.004</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0168-1591 |
ispartof | Applied animal behaviour science, 2018-08, Vol.205, p.159-166 |
issn | 0168-1591 1872-9045 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2093497248 |
source | Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | Aggression Aggressive behavior Animal behavior Animal care Bedding Farmers Farms Finishing Hogs Livestock housing Masking Odor Perception Pig Pork Regression analysis Regression models Survey Swine Weaning Weight |
title | Housing, ease of handling and minimising inter-pig aggression at mixing for nursery to finishing pigs as reported in a survey of North American pork producers |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-02T20%3A00%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Housing,%20ease%20of%20handling%20and%20minimising%20inter-pig%20aggression%20at%20mixing%20for%20nursery%20to%20finishing%20pigs%20as%20reported%20in%20a%20survey%20of%20North%20American%20pork%20producers&rft.jtitle=Applied%20animal%20behaviour%20science&rft.au=Ison,%20S.H.&rft.date=2018-08&rft.volume=205&rft.spage=159&rft.epage=166&rft.pages=159-166&rft.issn=0168-1591&rft.eissn=1872-9045&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.05.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2093497248%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2093497248&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0168159118302326&rfr_iscdi=true |