Emma Baxter

Dr. Emma Baxter

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

21Years (2006-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 June 2018 in Computers in Industry
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
MHMark F. Hansen
Mark F. Hansen
MSMelvyn L. Smith
Melvyn L. Smith
LSLyndon N. Smith
Lyndon N. Smith
MSMichael G. Salter
Michael G. Salter
EBEmma Baxter
Emma Baxter
BGBruce Grieve
Bruce Grieve

1 April 2008 in Theriogenology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
EBEmma Baxter
Emma Baxter
SJS. Jarvis
S. Jarvis
RDR.B. D’eath
R.B. D’eath
DRD.W. Ross
D.W. Ross
SRS.K. Robson
S.K. Robson
SESandra Edwards
Sandra Edwards

1 May 2013 in Animal Welfare
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
KRKmd Rutherford
Kmd Rutherford
EBEmma Baxter
Emma Baxter
RDRb D’eAth
Rb D’eAth
STSp Turner
Sp Turner
GAG Arnott
G Arnott
ALAB Lawrence
AB Lawrence
Increasing litter size has long been a goal of pig breeders and producers, and may have implications for pig(Sus scrofa domesticus)welfare. This paper reviews the scientific evidence on biological factors affecting sow and piglet welfare in relation to large litter size. It is concluded that, in a number of ways, large litter size is a risk factor for decreased animal welfare in pig production. Increased litter size is associated with increased piglet mortality, which is likely to be associated with significant negative animal welfare impacts. In surviving piglets, many of the causes of mortality can also occur in non-lethal forms that cause suffering. Intense teat competition may increase the likelihood that some piglets do not gain adequate access to milk, causing starvation in the short term and possibly long-term detriments to health. Also, increased litter size leads to more piglets with low birth weight which is associated with a variety of negative long-term effects. Finally, increased production pressure placed on sows bearing large litters may produce health and welfare concerns for the sow. However, possible biological approaches to mitigating health and welfare issues associated with large litters are being implemented. An important mitigation strategy is genetic selection encompassing traits that promote piglet survival, vitality and growth. Sow nutrition and the minimisation of stress during gestation could also contribute to improving outcomes in terms of piglet welfare. Awareness of the possible negative welfare consequences of large litter size in pigs should lead to further active measures being taken to mitigate the mentioned effects.

1 May 2013 in Animal Welfare
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
EBEmma Baxter
Emma Baxter
KRKmd Rutherford
Kmd Rutherford
RDRb D’eAth
Rb D’eAth
GAG Arnott
G Arnott
STSp Turner
Sp Turner
ALAB Lawrence
AB Lawrence
Increasing litter size has long been a goal of pig(Sus scrofa domesticus)breeders and producers in many countries. Whilst this has economic and environmental benefits for the pig industry, there are also implications for pig welfare. Certain management interventions are used when litter size routinely exceeds the ability of individual sows to successfully rear all the piglets (ie viable piglets outnumber functional teats). Such interventions include: tooth reduction; split suckling; cross-fostering; use of nurse sow systems and early weaning, including split weaning; and use of artificial rearing systems. These practices raise welfare questions for both the piglets and sow and are described and discussed in this review. In addition, possible management approaches which might mitigate health and welfare issues associated with large litters are identified. These include early intervention to provide increased care for vulnerable neonates and improvements to farrowing accommodation to mitigate negative effects, particularly for nurse sows. An important concept is that management at all stages of the reproductive cycle, not simply in the farrowing accommodation, can impact on piglet outcomes. For example, poor stockhandling at earlier stages of the reproductive cycle can create fearful animals with increased likelihood of showing poor maternal behaviour. Benefits of good sow and litter management, including positive human-animal relationships, are discussed. Such practices apply to all production situations, not just those involving large litters. However, given that interventions for large litters involve increased handling of piglets and increased interaction with sows, there are likely to be even greater benefits for management of hyper-prolific herds.

1 January 2006 in Hormones and Behavior
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SJSusan Jarvis
Susan Jarvis
CMChristine Moinard
Christine Moinard
SRSheena K. Robson
Sheena K. Robson
EBEmma Baxter
Emma Baxter
EOElisabeth Ormandy
Elisabeth Ormandy
ALAlistair Lawrence
Alistair Lawrence

1 January 2011 in Animal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
EBEmma Baxter
Emma Baxter
ALAlistair Lawrence
Alistair Lawrence
SESandra Edwards
Sandra Edwards
The construction of a suitable farrowing environment is a continuing dilemma: the piglet’s needs must be matched with those of the sow and the farmer during the main phases that constitute farrowing: nest building, parturition and lactation. Difficulties exist in resolving the various conflicts of interest between and within these three parties (e.g. sow v. farmer: space needed for nest building v. space needed to maximise the amount of farrowing accommodation, or sow v. sow: ensuring the survival of the current litter v. maintaining condition for future litters). Thus, the challenge is to resolve these conflicts and design a system that maximises sow and piglet welfare while maintaining an economically efficient and sustainable enterprise. In order to successfully design a farrowing and lactation environment, it is necessary to consider the biological needs of both the sow and her litter. The natural behaviour of the sow has been well documented and very little variation exists between reports of peri-parturient behaviour observed in extensively kept domestic sows and their wild counterparts. The failure for domestication to significantly alter these behavioural patterns provides evidence that they are biologically significant and that the commercial farrowing environment should attempt to accommodate this behavioural repertoire. In addition, the behavioural needs of the piglets, as well as the physiological needs of both sows and their offspring should be considered. This article aims to review the considerable body of literature detailing the behavioural repertoire of sows and their offspring during the different phases of farrowing, and the accompanying physiological processes. The focus is on identifying biological needs of the animals involved in order to synthesise the appropriate design criteria for farrowing and lactation systems, which should optimise both welfare and animal production.