|
Swanson, J. C. (1995). Farm animal well-being and intensive production systems. J. Anim Sci., 73(9), 2744–2751.
Abstract: Animal welfare, or well-being, is a social issue with ethical, scientific, political, and aesthetic properties. Answering questions about the welfare of animals requires scientific definition, assessment, solutions, and public acceptance. With respect to the actual well-being of the animal, most issues are centered on how the animal “feels” when managed within a specific level of confinement, during special agricultural practices (e.g., tail docking, beak trimming, etc.) and handling. Questions of this nature may require exploration of animal cognition, motivation, perception, and emotional states in addition to more commonly recognized indicators of well-being. Several general approaches have emerged for solving problems concerning animal well-being in intensive production systems: environmental, genetic, and therapeutic. Environmental approaches involve modifying existing systems to accommodate specific welfare concerns or development of alternative systems. Genetic approaches involve changing the behavioral and (or) physiological nature of the animal to reduce or eliminate behaviors that are undesirable within intensive system. Therapeutic approaches of a physical (tail docking, beak trimming) and physiological (drug and nutritional therapy) nature bring both concern and promise with regard to the reduction of confinement stress. Finally, the recent focus on commodity quality assurance programs may indirectly provide benefits for animal well-being. Although research in the area of animal well-being will provide important information for better animal management, handling, care, and the physical design of intensive production systems there is still some uncertainty regarding public acceptance. The aesthetics of modern intensive production systems may have as much to do with public acceptance as with science.
|
|
|
Bradley, B. L. (1980). Animal flavor types and their specific uses in compound feeds by species and age. Fortschr Tierphysiol Tierernahr, (11), 110–122.
|
|
|
Meese, G. B., & Ewbank, R. (1973). Exploratory behaviour and leadership in the domesticated pig. Br. Vet. J., 129(3), 251–259.
|
|
|
Puppe, B. (1996). [Social dominance and rank relationships in domestic pigs: a critical review]. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr, 109(11-12), 457–464.
Abstract: Viewing dominance as an attribute of repeated agonistic interactions between two individuals, the present paper reviews theoretical approaches towards concepts of dominance, methods of measurement, and basic principles and problems connected with social dominance in domestic pigs. Domestic pigs are able to establish social organization structures during all stages of their ontogeny. According to definition, dominance relationships occur when a consistent asymmetry of the result of dyadic agonistic interactions can be assessed. This must not necessarily be connected immediately with a better availability of resources, or a high stability of existing dominance relationships, or a functional definition of dominance. When sociometric characteristics are calculated, it seems to be appropriate to use them for different levels of a biological system (individual, individual pair, group). Investigations of social behaviour and dominance in farm animals should take into account that mechanisms of social behaviour in confined environments are often carried out in parts only. Connections of the dominance concept with other concepts of behavioural regulation should be theoretically considered and further investigated by experimental studies.
|
|
|
Bottoms, G. D., Roesel, O. F., Rausch, F. D., & Akins, E. L. (1972). Circadian variation in plasma cortisol and corticosterone in pigs and mares. Am J Vet Res, 33(4), 785–790.
|
|