Social stress as a cause of diseases in farm animals: Current knowledge and future directions

Proudfoot, Kathryn L.; Habing, Gregory

doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.05.024

Cited by 99 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, while a pig sample may present as “healthy” and homogeneous in gross examination, animals reared for consumption are not subject to regular health assessment and should not be assumed to be homogeneously “healthy” at the time of death. Pathological stimulants identified in research include immunocompromise following psychosocial stress, including decreased antibody response to antigenic challenge relative to stock density and increases in viral–bacterial load, such as Salmonella following exacerbated norepinephrine excretion which Bearson and Bearson demonstrated may directly impact growth and virulence of Salmonella , including the upregulation of genes resulting in enhanced motility. Disease associated with commercial rearing, captivity, and confinement is sufficient to result in research dedicated to locating ever emerging biomarkers for pig disease in an effort to curb economic loss .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the Use of Pigs as Human Proxies in Decomposition Studies

Connor

Baigent

Hansen

2017

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigs are a common human analogue in taphonomic study, yet data comparing the trajectory of decomposition between the two groups are lacking. This study compared decomposition rate and gross tissue change in 17 pigs and 22 human remains placed in the Forensic Investigation Research Station in western Colorado between 2012 and 2015. Accumulated degree days (ADD) were used to assess the number of thermal units required to reach a given total body score (TBS) (1) which was used as the measure of decomposition. A comparison of slopes in linear mixed effects model indicated that decomposition rates significantly differed between human donors and pig remains χ = 5.662, p = 0.017. Neither the pig nor the human trajectory compared well to the TBS model. Thus, (i) pigs are not an adequate proxy for human decomposition studies, and (ii) in the semiarid environment of western Colorado, there is a need to develop a regional decomposition model.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the Use of Pigs as Human Proxies in Decomposition Studies

Connor

Baigent

Hansen

2017

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This will result in an increase in the presence of diseases [57], with a subsequent increase in costs and decrease in production.…”

Section: Consequences Of Stress In Pigsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Causes, consequences and biomarkers of stress in swine: an update

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn recent decades there has been a growing concern about animal stress on intensive pig farms due to the undesirable consequences that stress produces in the normal physiology of pigs and its effects on their welfare and general productive performance. This review analyses the most important types of stress (social, environmental, metabolic, immunological and due to human handling), and their biological consequences for pigs. The physio-pathological changes associated with stress are described, as well as the negative effects of stress on pig production. In addition an update of the different biomarkers used for the evaluation of stress is provided. These biomarkers can be classified into four groups according to the physiological system or axis evaluated: sympathetic nervous system, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and immune system.ConclusionsStress it is a process with multifactorial causes and produces an organic response that generates negative effects on animal health and production. Ideally, a panel of various biomarkers should be used to assess and evaluate the stress resulting from diverse causes and the different physiological systems involved in the stress response. We hope that this review will increase the understanding of the stress process, contribute to a better control and reduction of potential stressful stimuli in pigs and, finally, encourage future studies and developments to better monitor, detect and manage stress on pig farms.

show abstract

“…In confined systems, the timing and frequency of feed delivery, and feed bunk structure and space allowance, are important features of the feeding environment that affect the feeding behaviour of ruminants (cattle: von Keyserlingk and Weary, 2010; goats: Jørgensen et al, 2007). Domesticated ruminants are generally social so social interactions between group mates, including competition for resources and learning from social partners, can also affect feeding behaviour (Forbes and Kyriazakis, 1995;Proudfoot and Habing, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review: Individual variability in feeding behaviour of domesticated ruminants

Neave

Weary

Keyserlingk

2018

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual animals behave differently from one another, especially when confronting challenges such as changes in diet (e.g. weaning), environment (e.g. moving from pasture to feedlot) and social grouping (e.g. movement to lactating group after parturition). Each of these challenges involves some element of novelty, impacting the welfare and productivity of the animal. Indeed, the large individual variability in the development and expression of feeding behaviour cannot be fully explained by differences in genetics, management practices, body size or growth rate. In this review we outline evidence that individual variability in feeding behaviour is associated with the personality of the individual. We focus on three key personality traits: exploration, fear or reactivity and sociability. Individuals differ in how much they explore their feeding environment, with more exploratory individuals being less reactive to novel situations. Feeding behaviour can be impaired in individuals that are especially reactive to a change in their environment, change in diet or handling or restraint by humans. The social environment is also a major factor affecting how individuals express their behaviour. Sociability of the individual, including dominant-subordinate and affiliative relationships, affects how individuals make foraging decisions, gain access to feed and adopt particular social strategies to maintain or adjust feeding patterns when the social environment changes. Personality traits such as exploration, boldness and sociability also affect the use of social information when learning where, how or what to eat. Our review highlights the implications of feeding behaviour variability for the welfare and productivity of the individual, and how an understanding of personality can help tailor management to the needs of the individual.

show abstract

Social stress as a cause of diseases in farm animals: Current knowledge and future directions

Cited by 99 publications

References 78 publications

Testing the Use of Pigs as Human Proxies in Decomposition Studies

Testing the Use of Pigs as Human Proxies in Decomposition Studies

Causes, consequences and biomarkers of stress in swine: an update

Review: Individual variability in feeding behaviour of domesticated ruminants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About