Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:26:01.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Breeding for improved welfare in pigs: a conceptual framework and its use in practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

E. Kanis ,
H. van den Belt ,
A. F. Groen ,
J. Schakel  and
K. H. de Greef
E. Kanis*
Affiliation:
Wageningen University, Animal Breeding and Genetics Group, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands Animal Sciences Group, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
H. van den Belt
Affiliation:
Wageningen University, Applied Philosophy Group, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
A. F. Groen
Affiliation:
Wageningen University, Animal Breeding and Genetics Group, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
J. Schakel
Affiliation:
Wageningen University, Rural Sociology Group, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
K. H. de Greef
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail:[email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Welfare of animals can be defined as the kind of feelings the environmental conditions bring about in the animals. These feelings depend on the needs of the animals and their degree of satisfaction. Needs of animals, and so their welfare, are partly genetically determined. Therefore, welfare can be changed by breeding. The aim of this study was to investigate how welfare of pigs under modern intensive farm conditions can be improved by genetic selection, with emphasis on the precise definition of the breeding goal and determination of the animal characteristics on which selection can be based in practice.

The existing thermoregulation model was used to develop a conceptual framework that describes welfare of growing pigs and production sows with respect to each of their needs as a curvilinear function of the respective environmental conditions. The framework assumes that welfare in terms of feelings is reflected by the physiological and behavioural mechanisms the pig has to activate in order to cope with the various environmental conditions it encounters. Based on those physiological and behavioural responses to changing conditions, five welfare zones can be distinguished for each need. Breeding goals for welfare were defined in terms of the transition points between these welfare zones, such that future pigs would better cope with unfavourable or unfamiliar farming conditions, therewith quickening the domestication process, to some extent. However, as long as genetic parameters for these transition points are not available, more common welfare-related characteristics like temperament, stress resistance and robustness can be included in the breeding goal, as an alternative.

For selection among potential breeding candidates, transition points between welfare zones can be determined in sib tests, thereby also collecting the data for estimating genetic parameters. As a cheaper alternative, breeding candidates could be tested under hard conditions and selected on their coping success. In addition, various behavioural tests and operant conditioning tests (to test a pig's motivation to change its actual environment) can be carried out. Under common conditions on the farm, problems associated with coping (like incidences of diseases, injuries, and stereotypies) and/or other relevant traits (e.g. saliva cortisol levels, longevity and even production traits) should be recorded routinely and used as selection index information. Selection for improved welfare should lead to more tolerant pigs that are better able to cope with possible unfavourable farm conditions by a more efficient use of the adaptation mechanisms they already possess. It should, however, not result in lowering husbandry standards. More research is needed to assess genetic correlations among various welfare aspects and with production traits to prevent undesired side effects in future populations of pigs.

Keywords

adaptationanimal welfarebasic needsgenetic variationpigs
Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , April 2004 , pp. 315 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2004

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

Barnett, J. L., Hemsworth, P. H., Cronin, G. M., Jongman, E. C. and Hutson, G. D. 2001. A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benus, R. F., Bohus, B., Koolhaas, J. M. and Van Oortmerssen, G. A. 1991. Heritable variation for aggression as a reflection of individual coping strategies. Experientia 47: 1008–1019.Google Scholar
Bergeron, R., Bolduc, J., Ramonet, Y., Meunier-Salaün, M. C. and Robert, S. 2000. Feeding motivation and stereotypies in pregnant sows fed increasing levels of fibre and/or food. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70: 27–40.Google Scholar
Bracke, M. B. M. 2001. Modelling of animal welfare: the development of a decision support system to assess the welfare status of pregnant sows. Ph. D. thesis, Wageningen University.Google Scholar
Bracke, M. B. M., Spruijt, B. M. and Metz, J. H. M. 1999. Overall animal welfare reviewed. 3. Welfare assessment based on needs and supported by expert opinion. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47: 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, H. and Täubert, H. 1998. Parameter estimates for purebred and crossbred performances in pigs. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 115: 97–104.Google Scholar
Broom, D. M. 1994. The effects of production efficiency on animal welfare. In Biological basis of sustainable animal production. (ed. E. A. Huisman, J. W. M. Osse, D. van der Heide, S. Tamminga, B. J. Tolkamp, W. G. P. Schouten, C. E. Hollingworth, and van Winkel, G. L.), proceedings of the fouth Zodiac symposium, EAAP publication no. 67 , pp. 201–211. Wageningen Press, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Brown-Brandl, T.M, Eigenberg, R. A., Nienaber, J. A. and Kachman, S.D. 2001. Thermoregulatory profile of a newer genetic line of pigs. Livestock Production Science 71: 253–260.Google Scholar
Craig, J. V. and Muir, W. M. 1989. Fearful and associated responses of caged white leghorn hens: genetic parameter estimates. Poultry Science 68: 1040–1046.Google Scholar
Cronin, G. M., Wiepkema, P. R. and Van Ree, J. M. 1985. Endogenous opioids are involved in abnormal stereotyped behaviours of tethered sows. Neuropeptides 6: 527–530.Google Scholar
Dellmeier, G. R. 1989. Motivation in relation to the welfare of enclosed livestock. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eissen, J. J., Kanis, E. and Kemp, B. 2000. Sow factors affecting voluntary feed intake during lactation. Livestock Production Science 64: 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kooij, Erp-van der, van, E., Kuijpers, A. H., Schrama, J. W., Eerdenburg, F. J. C. M. van, Schouten, W. G. P. and Tielen, M. J. M. 2002. Can we predict behaviour in pigs? Searching for consistency in behaviour over time and across situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75: 293–305.Google Scholar
Faure, J. M. and Mills, A. D. 1998. Improving the adaptability of animals by selection. In Genetics and the behavior of domestic animals (ed. Grandin, T.), pp. 235–264. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Geers, R., Bleus, E., Van Schie, T., Villé, H., Gerard, H., Janssens, S., Nackaerts, G., Decuypere, E. and Jourquin, J. 1994. Transport of pigs different with respect to the halothane gene: stress assessment. Journal of Animal Science 72: 2552–2558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T. and Deesing, M. J. 1998a. Behavioral genetics and animal science. In Genetics and the behavior of domestic animals (ed. Grandin, T.), pp. 1–30. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Grandin, T. and Deesing, M. J. 1998b. Genetics and animal welfare. In Genetics and the behavior of domestic animals (ed. Grandin, T.), pp. 319–346. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, M., Jensen, P., Jonge, F. H. de and Schuurman, T. 1999. Domestication effects on foraging strategies in pigs (Sus scrofa). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62: 305–317.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Barnett, J. L., Coleman, G. J. and Hansen, C. 1989. A study on the relationships between the attitudinal and behavioural profiles of stockpersons and the level of fear of humans and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Barnett, J. L., Treacy, D. and Madgwick, P. 1990. The heritability of the trait fear of humans and the association between this trait and subsequent reproductive performance of gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25: 85–95.Google Scholar
Henryon, M., Berg, P., Jensen, J. and Andersen, S. 2001. Genetic variation for resistance to clinical and subclinical diseases exists in growing pigs. Animal Science 73: 375–387.Google Scholar
Hermesch, S., Luxford, B. D. and Graser, H. -U. 2000. Genetic parameters for lean meat yield, meat quality, reproduction and feed efficiency traits for Australian pigs. 1. Description of traits and heritability estimates. Livestock Production Science 65: 239–248.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. and Toates, F. M. 1997. Stress as a state of motivational systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. B. and Hocking, P. M. 1999. Genetic selection for poultry behaviour: big bad wolf or friend in need? Animal Welfare 8: 343–359.Google Scholar
Kanis, E., Groen, A. F. and Greef, K. H. de. 2003. Societal concerns about pork and pork production and their relationships to the production system. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16: 137–162.Google Scholar
Kjaer, J. B. and Sørensen, P. 1997. Feather pecking behaviour in White Leghorns, a genetic study. British Poultry Science 38: 333–341.Google Scholar
Kjaer, J. B., Sørensen, P. and Su, G. 2001. Divergent selection on feather pecking behaviour in laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71: 229–239.Google Scholar
Le Bellego, L., Milgen, J. van and Noblet, J. 2002. Effect of high temperature and low-protein diets on the performance of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 80: 691–701.Google Scholar
McGlone, J. J. 2001. Farm animal welfare in the context of other society issues: toward sustainable systems. Livestock Production Science 72: 75–81.Google Scholar
Mitlöhner, F. M., Morrow, J. L., Dailey, J. W., Wilson, S. C., Galyean, M. L., Miller, M. F. and McGlone, J. J. 2001. Shade and water misting effects on behavior, physiology, performance, and carcass traits of heat-stressed feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 79: 2327–2335.Google Scholar
Mount, L. E. 1979. Adaptation to thermal environment: man and his productive animals. Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd, London.Google Scholar
Muir, W. M. 1996. Group selection for adaptation to multiple-hen cages: selection program and direct responses. Poultry Science 75: 447–458.Google Scholar
Muir, W. M. and Schinckel, A. 2002. Incorporation of competitive effects in breeding programs to improve productivity and animal well being. Proceedings of the seventh world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Montpellier, communication no. 14-07.Google Scholar
Newman, S. 1994. Quantitative and molecular-genetic effects on animal well-being: adaptive mechanisms. Journal of Animal Science 72: 1641–1653.Google Scholar
Olesen, I., Groen, A. F. and Gjerde, B. 2000. Definition of breeding goals for sustainable production systems. Journal of Animal Science 78: 570–582.Google Scholar
Price, E. O. 1999. Behavioural development in animals undergoing domestication. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 245–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauw, W. M., Kanis, E., Noordhuizen-Stassen, E. N. and Grommers, F. J. 1998. Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livestock Production Science 56: 15–33.Google Scholar
Rowan, A. N. 1997. The concepts of animal welfare and animal suffering. In Animal alternatives, welfare and ethics . (ed. Zutphen, L. F. M. van and Balls, M.), proceedings of the second world congress on alternatives and animal use in the life sciences, pp. 157–168. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Sandøe, P., Nielsen, B. L., Christensen, L. G. and Sørensen, P. 1999. Staying good while playing God — the ethics of breeding farm animals. Animal Welfare 8: 313–328.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, A. L., Sather, A. P., Tong, A. K. W. and Lepace, P. 1989. Behaviour in pigs from three genotypes segregating at the halothane locus. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 15–25.Google Scholar
Schoenecker, B. and Heller, K. E. 2000. Indication of a genetic basis of stereotypies in laboratory-bred bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 339–347.Google Scholar
Schutz, M. M. and Pajor, E. A. 2001. Genetic control of dairy cattle behavior. Journal of Dairy Science 84: (suppl. ) E31-E38.Google Scholar
Schuurman, T., Wichers Schreur, M. J. M., Olsson, A. and De Jonge, F. H. 1997. Behavioural and physiological differences between domesticated and crossbred pigs: effects of domestication. Proceedings of the 31st international congress of the ISAE, Prague, Czech Republic (ed. P. H., Hemsworth Sˆpinka, M. and Koˆst’ál, L’.), pp. 113–114. Polygrafia SAV, Slovakia.Google Scholar
Schwaibold, U. and Pillay, N. 2001. Stereotypic behaviour is genetically transmitted in the African striped mouse Rhabdomys pumilio . Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 273–280.Google Scholar
Scientific Veterinary Committee. 1997. The welfare of intensively kept pigs. EU-Doc XXIV/B3/ScVC/0005/1997, http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out17_en.htmlGoogle Scholar
Scobie, D. R., Bray, A. R. and O’Connell, D. 1999. A breeding goal to improve the welfare of sheep. Animal Welfare 8: 391–406.Google Scholar
Sørensen, D. B., Ladewig, J., Matthews, L., Ersbøll, A. K. and Lawson, L. 2001. Measuring motivation: using the cross point of two demand functions as an assessment of the substitutability of two reinforcers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 281–291.Google Scholar
Špinka, M., Illmann, G., De Jonge, F., Andersson, M., Schuurman, T. and Jensen, P. 2000. Dimensions of maternal behaviour characteristics in domestic and wild ✕ domestic crossbred sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70: 99–114.Google Scholar
Verstegen, M. W. A. and Close, W. H. 1994. The environment and the growing pig. In Principles of pig science (ed. Cole, D. J. A. Wiseman, J. and Varley, M. A.), pp. 333–353. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Wechsler, B. 1995. Coping and coping strategies: a behavioural view. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 123–134.Google Scholar
Wiepkema, P. R. 1987. Behavioural aspects of stress. In Biology of stress in farm animals: an integrative approach (ed. Wiepkema, P. R. and P. W. M. van Adrichem), pp. 113–133. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Wilkie, B. and Mallard, B. 1999. Selection for high immune response: an alternative approach to animal health maintenance? Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 72: 231–235.Google Scholar
Yazdi, M. H., Rydhmer, L., Ringmar-Cederberg, E., Lundeheim, N. and Johansson, K. 2000. Genetic study of longevity in Swedish Landrace sows. Livestock Production Science 63: 255–264.Google Scholar