![]() ![]() The proportion of variance explained by the follower social effect (Prpô 2 f) was 2%, and the residual variance (ô 2 e) decreased, suggesting an improved model fit by including the follower effect. Using the IRT subset, the posterior mean of the proportion of variance explained by the direct effect (Prpô 2 d) was 18% for all models. The marginal posterior distribution of the parameters was obtained by Bayesian method. ![]() The data were divided into two subsets: “non-immediate replacement” time (NIRT, N = 6,256), where the follower pig occupied the feeder at least 600 s after the feeding pig left the feeder, and “immediate replacement” time (IRT, N = 58,255), where the elapsed time between replacements was less than or equal to 60 s. To estimate animal effects, the direct effect was apportioned to the animal feeding (feeding pig), and the social effect was apportioned to the animal that entered the feeder immediately after the feeding pig left the feeding station (follower). The sequence of visits at the feeder was employed as a proxy for the social interaction between individuals. The dataset included 74,413 records of each visit duration time (min) event at the automatic feeder from 135 pigs housed in 14 pens. This study fitted mixed models to estimate the direct and social effects on visit duration at the feeder of group-housed pigs. Automatic feeding systems in pig production allow for the recording of individual feeding behavior traits, which might be influenced by the social interactions among individuals. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |