3 results
Piglet mortality on farms using farrowing systems with or without crates
- R Weber, NM Keil, M Fehr, R Horat
-
- Journal:
- Animal Welfare / Volume 16 / Issue 2 / May 2007
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 11 January 2023, pp. 277-279
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Crating sows in farrowing systems greatly restricts their normal behaviour, which is usually justified by the assumption that piglet mortality is higher with loose-housed sows. Based on experiments showing that this is not the case, farrowing crates were banned in Switzerland in 1997. Since then, many farms have introduced loose farrowing systems, enabling a comparison of piglet mortality in farrowing systems with and without crates based on a large sample size. Data of a sow-recording scheme (UFA2000) were analysed using generalised linear mixed-effects models with an underlying Poisson distribution. In 2002 and 2003, the average total piglet mortality on 173 farms (n = 18,824 litters) with loose farrowing systems amounted to 1.40 piglets per litter and did not differ from that of 482 farms (n = 44,837 litters) with crates (1.42 piglets per litter). Nevertheless, the number of crushed piglets was significantly higher in pens with loose-housed sows (0.62 versus 0.52 piglets per litter), whereas the number of piglets that died for other reasons was significantly higher in crates (0.78 versus 0.89 piglets per litter). Total piglet mortality was influenced by litter size at birth, age of the sow and season. Consequently, evaluation of the reproductive data of commercial farms shows that no more piglet losses occur in loose farrowing pens, common nowadays in Switzerland, than in farrowing pens with crates, and that litter size at birth is the main influence on piglet losses.
Contributors
-
- By Graham Allan, Donna M. Allen, Irwin Altman, Arthur Aron, Donald H. Baucom, Steven R. H. Beach, Ellen Berscheid, Rosemary Blieszner, Jeffrey Boase, Tyfany M. J. Boettcher, Barbara B. Brown, Abraham P. Buunk, Lorne Campbell, Daniel J. Canary, Rodney Cate, John P. Caughlin, Mahnaz Charania, Jennie Y. Chen, F. Scott Christopher, Jennifer A. Clarke, Marilyn Coleman, W. Andrew Collins, Michael K. Coolsen, Nathan R. Cottle, Carolyn E. Cutrona, Marianne Dainton, Valerian J. Derlega, Lisa M. Diamond, Pieternel Dijkstra, Steve Duck, Pearl A. Dykstra, Norman B. Epstein, Beverley Fehr, Frank D. Fincham, Helen E. Fisher, Julie Fitness, Garth J. O. Fletcher, Myron D. Friesen, Lawrence Ganong, Kelli A. Gardner, Jenny de Jong Gierveld, Robin Goodwin, Christine R. Gray, Kathryn Greene, David W. Harris, Willard W. Hartup, John H. Harvey, Kathi L. Heffner, Ted L. Huston, William J. Ickes, Emily A. Impett, Michael P. Johnson, Deborah J. Jones, Deborah A. Kashy, Janice K. Kiecolt‐Glaser, Jeffrey L. Kirchner, Brighid M. Kleinman, Galena H. Kline, Mark L. Knapp, Ascan Koerner, Jean‐Philippe Laurenceau, Kim Leon, Timothy J. Loving, Stephanie D. Madsen, Howard J. Markman, Alicia Mathews, Mario Mikulincer, Patricia Noller, Nickola C. Overall, Letitia Anne Peplau, Daniel Perlman, Sally Planalp, Urmila Pillay, Nicole D. Pleasant, Caryl E. Rusbult, Barbara R. Sarason, Irwin G. Sarason, Phillip R. Shaver, Alan L. Sillars, Jeffry A. Simpson, Susan Sprecher, Susan Stanton, Greg Strong, Catherine A. Surra, Anita L. Vangelisti, C. Arthur VanLear, Theo van Tilburg, Barry Wellman, Amy Wenzel, Carol M. Werner, Adam R. West, Sarah W. Whitton, Heike A. Winterheld
- Edited by Anita L. Vangelisti, University of Texas, Austin, Daniel Perlman, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 05 June 2006, pp xvii-xxii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
6 - Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity: Evidence and Economic Applications
- Edited by Mathias Dewatripont, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Lars Peter Hansen, University of Chicago, Stephen J. Turnovsky, University of Washington
-
- Book:
- Advances in Economics and Econometrics
- Published online:
- 19 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 20 January 2003, pp 208-257
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION
Most economic models are based on the self-interest hypothesis that assumes that all people are exclusively motivated by their material self-interest. Many influential economists – including Adam Smith (1759), Gary Becker (1974), Kenneth Arrow (1981), Paul Samuelson (1993), and Amartya Sen (1995) – pointed out that people often do care for the well-being of others and that this may have important economic consequences. Yet, so far, these opinions have not had much of an impact on mainstream economics. In recent years, experimental economists have gathered overwhelming evidence that systematically refutes the self-interest hypothesis. The evidence suggests that many people are strongly motivated by other-regarding preferences, and that concerns for fairness and reciprocity cannot be ignored in social interactions. Moreover, several theoretical papers have been written showing that the observed phenomena can be explained in a rigorous and tractable manner. Some of these models shed new light on problems that have puzzled economists for a long time (e.g., the persistence of noncompetitive wage premia, the incompleteness of contracts, the allocation of property rights, the conditions for successful collective action, and the optimal design of institutions). These theories in turn induced a new wave of experimental research offering additional exciting insights into the nature of preferences and into the relative performance of competing theories of fairness. The purpose of this paper is to review these recent developments, to point out open questions, and to suggest avenues for future research. Furthermore, we will argue that it is not only necessary, but also very promising for mainstream economics to take the presence of other-regarding preferences into account.