• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

与基于动物的争斗结果测量方法相比,农民对猪攻击性的认知。

Farmer Perceptions of Pig Aggression Compared to Animal-Based Measures of Fight Outcome.

作者信息

Peden Rachel S E, Camerlink Irene, Boyle Laura A, Akaichi Faical, Turner Simon P

机构信息

Animal Behaviour & Welfare, Animal and Veterinary Sciences Research Group, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), West Mains Rd., Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK.

Institute of Animal Welfare Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria.

出版信息

Animals (Basel). 2019 Jan 10;9(1):22. doi: 10.3390/ani9010022.

DOI:10.3390/ani9010022
PMID:30634685
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6356235/
Abstract

Several animal welfare issues persist in practice despite extensive research which has been linked to the unwillingness of stakeholders to make changes. For example, most farmers do not perceive pig aggression to be a problem that requires action despite the fact that stress and injuries are common, and that several solutions exist. Frequent exposure to animal suffering could affect farmer responses to distressed animals. This study investigated for the first time whether this occurs, using pig aggression as a focus. Using video clips, 90 pig farmers judged the severity of aggression, level of pig exhaustion and the strength of their own emotional response. Their judgments were compared to objective measures of severity (pigs' skin lesions and blood lactate), and against control groups with similar pig experience (10 pig veterinarians) and without experience (26 agricultural students; 24 animal science students). Famers did not show desensitization to aggression. However, all groups underestimated the outcome of aggression when they did not see the fight occurring as compared to witnessing a fight in progress. We suggest that farmers be provided with evidence of the economic and welfare impact of aggression as indicated by lesions and that they be advised to score lesions on affected animals.

摘要

尽管进行了大量研究,但实践中仍存在一些动物福利问题,这与利益相关者不愿做出改变有关。例如,尽管压力和伤害很常见且有多种解决办法,但大多数农民并不认为猪的攻击行为是一个需要采取行动的问题。频繁接触动物的痛苦可能会影响农民对痛苦动物的反应。本研究首次以猪的攻击行为为重点,调查了这种情况是否会发生。通过视频片段,90名养猪农民对攻击行为的严重程度、猪的疲惫程度以及他们自己的情绪反应强度进行了判断。将他们的判断与严重程度的客观指标(猪的皮肤损伤和血液乳酸含量)进行比较,并与有类似养猪经验的对照组(10名猪兽医)和无经验的对照组(26名农业学生;24名动物科学学生)进行比较。农民对攻击行为并未表现出脱敏现象。然而,与目睹正在进行的打斗相比,当所有组没有看到打斗发生时,他们都低估了攻击行为的结果。我们建议向农民提供由损伤表明的攻击行为对经济和福利影响的证据,并建议他们对受影响动物的损伤进行评分。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c755/6356235/98f45b936a8e/animals-09-00022-g003a.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c755/6356235/e0eecd6e496d/animals-09-00022-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c755/6356235/84ae10253384/animals-09-00022-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c755/6356235/98f45b936a8e/animals-09-00022-g003a.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c755/6356235/e0eecd6e496d/animals-09-00022-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c755/6356235/84ae10253384/animals-09-00022-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c755/6356235/98f45b936a8e/animals-09-00022-g003a.jpg

相似文献

1
Farmer Perceptions of Pig Aggression Compared to Animal-Based Measures of Fight Outcome.与基于动物的争斗结果测量方法相比,农民对猪攻击性的认知。
Animals (Basel). 2019 Jan 10;9(1):22. doi: 10.3390/ani9010022.
2
Factors Influencing Farmer Willingness to Reduce Aggression between Pigs.影响农民降低猪之间攻击性意愿的因素。
Animals (Basel). 2018 Dec 22;9(1):6. doi: 10.3390/ani9010006.
3
Pig farmers' willingness to pay for management strategies to reduce aggression between pigs.养猪户对减少猪只间攻击性的管理策略的支付意愿。
PLoS One. 2019 Nov 8;14(11):e0224924. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224924. eCollection 2019.
4
'Would it sell more pork?' Pig farmers' perceptions of Real Welfare, the welfare outcome component of their farm assurance scheme.“这会增加猪肉销量吗?”——生猪养殖户对其农场保障计划中福利结果部分“真正福利”的看法。
Animal. 2019 Dec;13(12):2864-2875. doi: 10.1017/S1751731119000946. Epub 2019 May 20.
5
An estimation of the financial consequences of reducing pig aggression.降低猪攻击性的经济后果评估。
PLoS One. 2021 May 5;16(5):e0250556. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250556. eCollection 2021.
6
Assessing pig body language: agreement and consistency between pig farmers, veterinarians, and animal activists.评估猪的肢体语言:养猪户、兽医和动物活动家之间的一致性和共识。
J Anim Sci. 2012 Oct;90(10):3652-65. doi: 10.2527/jas.2011-4691. Epub 2012 Jun 28.
7
Perceptions of antimicrobial usage, antimicrobial resistance and policy measures to reduce antimicrobial usage in convenient samples of Belgian, French, German, Swedish and Swiss pig farmers.对比利时、法国、德国、瑞典和瑞士养猪户的便利样本中抗菌药物使用情况、抗菌药物耐药性以及减少抗菌药物使用的政策措施的认知。
Prev Vet Med. 2015 Apr 1;119(1-2):10-20. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.01.018. Epub 2015 Feb 7.
8
Dairy farmers' expectations and receptivity regarding animal welfare advice: A focus group study.奶农对动物福利建议的期望和接受程度:一项焦点小组研究。
J Dairy Sci. 2019 Aug;102(8):7385-7397. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-15821. Epub 2019 Jun 13.
9
Attitudes of Pig and Poultry Industry Stakeholders in Guandong Province, China, to Animal Welfare and Farming Systems.中国广东省生猪和家禽行业利益相关者对动物福利及养殖系统的态度
Animals (Basel). 2019 Oct 24;9(11):860. doi: 10.3390/ani9110860.
10
The effect of long or chopped straw on pig behaviour.长秸秆或切碎秸秆对猪行为的影响。
Animal. 2015 May;9(5):862-70. doi: 10.1017/S1751731114003024. Epub 2014 Dec 15.

引用本文的文献

1
An estimation of the financial consequences of reducing pig aggression.降低猪攻击性的经济后果评估。
PLoS One. 2021 May 5;16(5):e0250556. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250556. eCollection 2021.
2
Factors that Influence Farmers' Views on Farm Animal Welfare: A Semi-Systematic Review and Thematic Analysis.影响农民对农场动物福利看法的因素:一项半系统综述与主题分析
Animals (Basel). 2020 Aug 28;10(9):1524. doi: 10.3390/ani10091524.
3
Pig farmers' willingness to pay for management strategies to reduce aggression between pigs.养猪户对减少猪只间攻击性的管理策略的支付意愿。

本文引用的文献

1
Factors Influencing Farmer Willingness to Reduce Aggression between Pigs.影响农民降低猪之间攻击性意愿的因素。
Animals (Basel). 2018 Dec 22;9(1):6. doi: 10.3390/ani9010006.
2
Invited review: Improving neonatal survival in small ruminants: science into practice.特邀综述:提高小型反刍动物的新生儿存活率:从科学到实践
Animal. 2016 Mar;10(3):449-59. doi: 10.1017/S1751731115001974. Epub 2015 Oct 5.
3
Playing violent video games and desensitization to violence.玩暴力电子游戏与对暴力的脱敏作用。
PLoS One. 2019 Nov 8;14(11):e0224924. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224924. eCollection 2019.
Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2015 Jan;24(1):65-77. doi: 10.1016/j.chc.2014.08.001. Epub 2014 Oct 3.
4
Pig farmers' perceptions, attitudes, influences and management of information in the decision-making process for disease control.养猪户在疾病控制决策过程中的认知、态度、信息影响及管理
Prev Vet Med. 2014 Oct 1;116(3):223-42. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.08.004. Epub 2013 Aug 16.
5
Assessing pig body language: agreement and consistency between pig farmers, veterinarians, and animal activists.评估猪的肢体语言:养猪户、兽医和动物活动家之间的一致性和共识。
J Anim Sci. 2012 Oct;90(10):3652-65. doi: 10.2527/jas.2011-4691. Epub 2012 Jun 28.
6
Pre-slaughter conditions, animal stress and welfare: current status and possible future research.宰前条件、动物应激与福利:现状及未来可能的研究
Animal. 2008 Oct;2(10):1501-17. doi: 10.1017/S1751731108002723.
7
Stress and its influence on reproduction in pigs: a review.应激及其对猪繁殖性能的影响:综述
Acta Vet Scand. 2008 Dec 10;50(1):48. doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-50-48.
8
Bayesian analysis of genetic associations of skin lesions and behavioural traits to identify genetic components of individual aggressiveness in pigs.对皮肤病变与行为特征的基因关联进行贝叶斯分析,以确定猪个体攻击性的遗传成分。
Behav Genet. 2008 Jan;38(1):67-75. doi: 10.1007/s10519-007-9171-2. Epub 2007 Nov 7.
9
Using neural network to recognize human emotions from heart rate variability and skin resistance.利用神经网络从心率变异性和皮肤电阻识别人类情绪。
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2005;2005:5523-5. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2005.1615734.
10
Susceptibility of reproduction in female pigs to impairment by stress or elevation of cortisol.
Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2005 Aug;29(2):398-410. doi: 10.1016/j.domaniend.2005.02.031. Epub 2005 Apr 7.