Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-fsdjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-24T10:22:17.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on instability of the dominance hierarchy and variations in level of aggression within groups of fattening pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. B. Meese  and
R. Ewbank
G. B. Meese
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool
R. Ewbank
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool
Get access

Summary

Social organization in the pig is based on the dominance hierarchy. Hitherto this has been assumed to be stable but present studies have shown that spontaneous changes of rank can occur. It has proved almost impossible, however, to alter social ranks artificially. Pig groups also show considerable fluctuations from day to day in the level of aggression at feeding periods. This variation cannot be correlated with the occurrence of sexual cycles in the females or variations in the general level of group activity.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , June 1972 , pp. 359 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1972

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ewbank, R. 1969. Social behaviour and intensive animal production. Vet. Rec. 85: 183–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ewbank, R. and Meese, G. B. 1971. Aggressive behaviour in groups of domesticated pigs on removal and return of individuals. Anim. Prod. 13: 685–693.Google Scholar
Guhl, A. M. 1969. The social environment and behaviour. In Behaviour of Domestic Animals (ed. Hafez, E. S. E.), 2nd ed., pp. 85–94. Bailliere, Tindall and Cassell, London.Google Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. and Signoret, J. P. 1969. The behaviour of swine. In Behaviour of Domestic Animals (ed. Hafez, E. S. E.), 2nd ed., pp. 349–390. Bailliere, Tindall and Cassell, London.Google Scholar
Mcbride, G., James, J. W. and Hodgens, N. 1964. Social behaviour of domestic animals. IV. Growing pigs. Anim. Prod. 6: 129–140.Google Scholar
Maroney, R. J., Warren, J. M. and Sinha, M. M. 1959. Stability of social dominance hierarchies in monkeys (Macaca mulatto). J. Soc. Psychoi. 50: 285–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, O. G., Banks, E. M., Berry, T. H. and Becker, D. E. 1962. Social dominance in gilts. J. Anim. Sci. 21: 520–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J. P. and Fredericson, E. 1951. The causes of fighting in mice and rats. Physiol. Zool. 24: 273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwick, C. H. 1967. An experimental study of intragroup agonistic behaviour in Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatto). Behaviour 28: 182–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valzetti, L. 1969. Aggressive behaviour induced by isolation. In Aggressive Behaviour (ed. Garattini, S. and Sigg, E. B.), pp. 70–76. Excerpta Medica Foundation, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Van Kreveld, D. 1970. A selective review of dominance subordination relations in animals. Genet. Psychol. Monog. 81: 144–173.Google Scholar