It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Manipulative behaviour that consists of touching or close contact with ears or tails of pen mates is common in pigs and can become damaging. Manipulative behaviour was analysed from video recordings of 45-day-old pigs, and 15 manipulator-control pairs (n = 30) were formed. Controls neither received nor performed manipulative behaviour. Rectal faecal samples of manipulators and controls were compared. 16S PCR was used to identify Lactobacillaceae species and 16S amplicon sequencing to determine faecal microbiota composition. Seven culturable Lactobacillaceae species were identified in control pigs and four in manipulator pigs. Manipulators (p = 0.02) and females (p = 0.005) expressed higher Lactobacillus amylovorus, and a significant interaction was seen (sex * status: p = 0.005) with this sex difference being more marked in controls. Females (p = 0.08) and manipulator pigs (p = 0.07) tended to express higher total Lactobacillaceae. A tendency for an interaction was seen in Limosilactobacillus reuteri (sex * status: p = 0.09). Results suggest a link between observed low diversity in Lactobacillaceae and the development of manipulative behaviour.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 University of Helsinki, Research Centre for Animal Welfare, Department of Production Animal Medicine, Helsinki, Finland (GRID:grid.7737.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 0410 2071)
2 University of Turku, Functional Foods Forum, Turku, Finland (GRID:grid.1374.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 1371)
3 Vetcare Ltd., Mäntsälä, Finland (GRID:grid.460558.a) (ISNI:0000 0004 4677 6306); Sheaps Oy, Ojakkala, Finland (GRID:grid.460558.a)
4 University of Turku, Department of Computing, Turku, Finland (GRID:grid.1374.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 1371)
5 Institute of Agrochemistry and Food Technology-National Research Council (IATA-CSIC), Paterna, Spain (GRID:grid.419051.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 1945 7738)
6 EstiMates Ltd., Turku, Finland (GRID:grid.7737.4)