Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:13:22.654Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social behaviour of domestic animals. IV. Growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. McBride ,
J. W. James  and
N. Hodgens
G. McBride
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
J. W. James
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
N. Hodgens
Affiliation:
Queensland Agricultural College, Lawes, Australia
Get access

Extract

1. The normal pattern of social behaviour in growing Large White and Berkshire pigs is described. The pigs were observed from 8 to 16 weeks of age in pens of 6 to 10 pigs. Large Whites were more aggressive than Berkshires.

2. Social rank was found to be positively correlated with initial weight.

3. Initial weight and social rank both influenced growth; the relative effect of rank compared with that of initial weight was greater in the second month than in the first.

4. The contribution of social rank to the total variance in growth over the 2-month period was estimated at about 13%.

5. It is suggested that the use of individual housing in pig progeny test schemes may not be desirable because of the absence of social environmental effects.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 1964 , pp. 129 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Darwin, C., 1883. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2nd ed.John Murray, London.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A., 1948. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. 10th ed.Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. & Yates, F., 1957. Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Guhl, A. M., 1953. Social behaviour of the domestic fowl. Tech. Bull. Kans. agric. Expt. Sta. no. 73.Google Scholar
James, J. W. & Foenander, F., 1961. Social behaviour studies on domestic animals. 1. Hens in laying cages. Aust. J. agric. Res., 12: 1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, K., 1954. King Solomon's Ring: New Light on Animal Ways. Tr. M. K. Wilson, Methuen, London.Google Scholar
McBride, G., 1958a. The influence of social behaviour on experimental design in animal husbandry. Anim. Prod., 1: 81.Google Scholar
McBride, G., 1958b. The relationships between aggressiveness, peck order and some characters of selective significance in the domestic hen. Proc. roy. phys. Soc. Edinb., 27: 56.Google Scholar
McBride, G., 1960. Poultry husbandry and the peck order. Brit. Poult. Sci., 1: 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBride, G., 1962. Behaviour and a theory of poultry husbandry. Proc. XHth. World's Poultry Congress.Google Scholar
McPhee, C. P., McBride, G. & James, J. W., 1964. Social behaviour of domestic animals. III. Steers in small yards. Anim. Prod., 6: 9.Google Scholar
Tindell, D. & Craig, J. V., 1959. Effects of social competition on laying house performance in the chicken. Poult. Sci., 38: 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whatley, J. A., 1942. Influence of heredity and other factors on 180-day weight in Poland China swine. J. agric. Res., 65: 249.Google Scholar