Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:25:28.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tonic immobility in pigs: two interpretations — coping strategies or fear

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

H. W. Erhard  and
M. Mendl
H. W. Erhard
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, SAC Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT
M. Mendl
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, SAC Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Extract

The concept of ‘coping strategies’ has received increasing attention over the last few years. Benus et al. (1991) reported two major types of strategy in rodents. These were the so-called active and passive strategies. The active strategy consists of being aggressive, forming behavioural routines and showing low responsiveness to changes in the environment, the passive strategy involves being low aggressive, flexible and responsive to changes in the environment. Hessing et al. (1993) reported similar findings in pigs. These strategies have potential implications for pig husbandry, since they may be more or less adaptive in specific farming environments.

Type
Poster abstracts
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 20: Animal Choices , 1997 , pp. 109 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 1997

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.)

References

Benus, R. F., Bohus, B., Koolhaas, J. M. and Oortmerssen, G. A. van. 1991. Heritable variation for aggression as reflection of individual coping strategies. Expenentia 47: 1008–1019.Google Scholar
Boissy, A. 1995. Fear and fearfulness in animals. The Quarterly Review of Biology 70:165–191.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G. Jr. 1974. Animal hypnosis: factual status of a fictional concept. Psychological Bulletin 81: 836–853.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G. Jr. 1977. Tonic immobility: the role of fear and predation. The Psychological Record 27: 41–61.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G. Jr, Ledbetter, D. and Maser, J. 1976. Strain differences among chickens in tonic immobility: evidence for an emotionality component. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 90:1075–1081.Google Scholar
Hessing, M. J. C., Hagelso, A. M., Beek, J. A. M. van, Wiepkema, P. R., Schouten, W. G. P. and Krukow, R. 1993. Individual behavioural characteristics in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 285–295.Google Scholar
McGraw, C. P. and Klemm, W. R. 1973. Genetic differences in susceptibility of rats to the immobility reflex (“animal hypnosis”). Behavior Genetics 3: 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maser, J. D. and Gallup, G. G. Jr. 1977. Tonic immobility and related phenomena: a partially annotated, tricentennial bibliography, 1636-1976. The Psychological Record 27: 177–217.Google Scholar