2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reliability of temperament tests on finishing pigs in group-housing and comparison to social tests

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
31
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
4
31
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This is similar to previous studies, where correlations were found between tests with similar stimuli (Janczak et al, 2003b;Lawrence et al, 1991;Spoolder et al, 1996). By contrast, a study of finisher pigs found consistency in response to different test types as well as over time (Brown et al, 2009) and prepubertal gilts showed a general reaction pattern across different non-social situations (Thodberg et al, 1999). In other situations, male and female growing pigs showed consistency in aggression and mounting behaviour (Clark and D'Eath, 2013) and at farrowing 14% of sows that savaged as gilts, savaged on the second parity, compared with only 0.8% of sows, which did not savage as gilts .…”
Section: Behavioural Testssupporting
confidence: 78%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This is similar to previous studies, where correlations were found between tests with similar stimuli (Janczak et al, 2003b;Lawrence et al, 1991;Spoolder et al, 1996). By contrast, a study of finisher pigs found consistency in response to different test types as well as over time (Brown et al, 2009) and prepubertal gilts showed a general reaction pattern across different non-social situations (Thodberg et al, 1999). In other situations, male and female growing pigs showed consistency in aggression and mounting behaviour (Clark and D'Eath, 2013) and at farrowing 14% of sows that savaged as gilts, savaged on the second parity, compared with only 0.8% of sows, which did not savage as gilts .…”
Section: Behavioural Testssupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Gilts interacted with the novel object longer during the first stable group novel object test, compared to the remaining two tests, which is unsurprising given that the novel object was different for the stable group tests. As in this study, a previous study in which pigs underwent several behavioural tests also showed a habituation effect, as latency to contact decreased with subsequent tests (Brown et al, 2009). Some consistency in behaviour was shown between individual and stable group human interaction tests.…”
Section: Behavioural Testssupporting
confidence: 64%
“…They reported that sows which displayed stronger aggressive reaction toward stockperson when their piglets were handled were scored to have greater lesions on their posterior region when moved to farrowing. To the contrary, Brown et al (2009) failed to report a significant relationship between approach latency and lesion severity. However in this study pig-initiated human contact, rather than human-initiation, was observed.…”
Section: Personality Traits In Gestating Sowsmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…Smith & MacKenzie 2006, Boersma et al 2011, animal welfare issues (e.g. Huntingford & Adams 2005, Brown et al 2009, Weiss et al 2011 and conservation (e.g. Conrad et al 2011, Vegvari et al 2011, Gherardi et al 2012.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%