3 results
Breeding amiable animals? Improving farm animal welfare by including social effects in breeding programmes
- TB Rodenburg, P Bijma, ED Ellen, R Bergsma, S de Vries, JE Bolhuis, B Kemp, JAM van Arendonk
-
- Journal:
- Animal Welfare / Volume 19 / Issue S1 / May 2010
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2023, pp. 77-82
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Social interactions between individuals, such as co-operation and competition, are key factors in evolution by natural selection. As a consequence, evolutionary biologists have developed extensive theories to understand the consequences of social interactions for response to natural selection. Current genetic improvement programmes in animal husbandry, in contrast, largely ignore the implications of social interactions for the design of breeding programmes. Recently, we have developed theoretical and empirical tools to quantify the magnitude of heritable social effects, ie the heritable effects that animals have on their group mates’ traits, in livestock populations, and to utilise those effects in genetic improvement programmes. Results in commercial populations of pigs and laying hens indicate large heritable social effects, and the potential to substantially increase responses to selection in traits affected by social interactions. In pigs, including social effects into the breeding programme affected aggressive behaviour, both at mixing and in stable groups, indicating changes in the way dominance relationships are established and in aggressiveness. In laying hens, we applied selection between kin-groups to reduce mortality due to cannibalistic pecking. This resulted in a considerable difference in mortality between the low mortality line and the unselected control line in the first generation (20 vs 30%). Furthermore, changes in behavioural and neurobiological responses to stress were detected in the low mortality line, pointing to reduced fearfulness and stress sensitivity. These first results indicate that including social effects into breeding programmes is a promising way to reduce negative social interactions in farm animals, and possibly to also increase positive social interactions, by breeding animals with better social skills.
Are people with mild dementia able to (re)learn how to use technology? A literature review
- Y. J. F. Kerkhof, A. Bergsma, F. Mangiaracina, C. H. M. Planting, M. J. L. Graff, R. M. Dröes
-
- Journal:
- International Psychogeriatrics / Volume 34 / Issue 2 / February 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 15 March 2021, pp. 113-128
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objective:
There is growing evidence that people with mild dementia can benefit from using tablets and apps. Due to their cognitive decline, people with dementia need support in learning how to use these devices. The objective of this review was to identify which training interventions work best to help people with mild dementia (re)learn how to use technologies, including handheld touchscreen devices. Because the uptake of these devices in people with dementia is quite new, training interventions for the use of other technologies were also included, such as technologies assisting people in Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL).
Design:An electronic search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, APA PsycInfo (EBSCO), and CINAHL (EBSCO). Themes discussed include the learning effects; training method (e.g. errorful (EF) and errorless (EL) learning); training intensity and setting; technology task type; dementia type and severity; and study design and outcome measures.
Results:In total, 16 studies were included. All studies reported positive learning effects and improved task performance in people with dementia, regardless of dementia severity, training intensity, setting, and the method used. Although the EL training method was successful more often than the EF training method, it would be inappropriate to conclude that the EL method is more effective, because the majority of studies only investigated EL training interventions with (multiple) single-case study designs.
Conclusion:Future research should consider using more robust study designs, such as RCTs, to evaluate the effectiveness of training interventions for (re)learning technology-orientated tasks, including operating handheld touchscreen devices.
Impact of feed restriction on the performance of highly prolific lactating sows and its effect on the subsequent lactation
- S. De Bettio, A. Maiorka, L. N. E. Barrilli, R. Bergsma, B. A. N. Silva
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
A total of 50 mixed parity sows of a high-prolificacy genetic line were used to evaluate the impact of feed restriction during lactation on their production and reproductive performance and their performance in the subsequent lactation. From day 7 of lactation, sows were distributed according to a completely randomized experimental design into two treatments. In treatment 1, sows were fed 8.0 kg feed/day (control) and in treatment 2, sows were fed 4.0 kg/day. The same suckling pressure was maintained until weaning on day 28 of lactation. Average minimum and maximum temperatures measured during the experimental period were 32.1°C and 16.5°C, respectively. Control sows presented significantly higher feed intake (P<0.001) compared with the restricted sows (6.43 v. 4.14 kg/day, respectively). Treatments influenced BW and backfat thickness losses (P<0.001). Control sows lost less BW than the restricted-fed sows (7.8 v. 28.2 kg). Restricted-fed sows lost more backfat thickness than those in the control group (3.97 v. 2.07 mm; P<0.01). Restricted-fed sows tended (P<0.10) to be lighter at weaning compared with the control sows (211 v. 227 kg). The composition of BW loss was influenced by the treatments (P<0.001), as the restricted-fed sows lost more body protein, lipids and energy compared with the control sows (3.90 v. 0.98 kg, 11.78 v. 4.83 kg and 584 v. 224 MJ, respectively). Litter weight gain was greater (P<0.05) in control sows than in restricted-fed sows (2.70 v. 2.43 kg/day). Daily milk production was 19% higher (P<0.01) in the control sows compared with the restricted-fed sows (8.33 v. 6.99 kg/day). However, restricted-fed sows presented a higher (P<0.05) lactation efficiency than the sows of the control group (82.30% v. 72.93%). No differences were detected (P>0.10) in weaning-to-estrus interval and averaged 4.3 days. No effect of the treatment (P>0.10) was observed on any of the studied performance traits in the subsequent lactation, except for litter size at birth that tended (15.2 v. 14.1; P<0.10) to be lower for the restricted sows. In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that feed restriction during lactation leads to intense catabolism of the body tissues of sows, negatively affecting their milk production, and the litter weight gain and possibly number of piglets born in the next litter. On the other hand, restricted-fed sows are more efficient, producing more milk per amount of feed intake.