Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:47:52.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction of reduction in aggressive behaviour of growing pigs using skin lesion traits as selection criteria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2016

S. Desire ,
S. P. Turner ,
R. B. D’Eath ,
A. B. Doeschl-Wilson ,
C. R. G. Lewis  and
R. Roehe
S. Desire*
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Sciences Group, Scotland’s Rural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, Scotland
S. P. Turner
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Sciences Group, Scotland’s Rural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, Scotland
R. B. D’Eath
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Sciences Group, Scotland’s Rural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, Scotland
A. B. Doeschl-Wilson
Affiliation:
Division of Genetics and Genomics, The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9RG, Scotland
C. R. G. Lewis
Affiliation:
Genus, PIC, Avda. Ragull 80, Sant Cugat del Valles, Barcelona 08173, Spain
R. Roehe
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Sciences Group, Scotland’s Rural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, Scotland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Aggression at regrouping is a common issue in pig farming. Skin lesions are genetically and phenotypically correlated with aggression and have been shown to have a significant heritable component. This study predicts the magnitude of reduction in complex aggressive behavioural traits when using lesion numbers on different body regions at two different time points as selection criteria, to identify the optimum skin lesion trait for selection purposes. In total, 1146 pigs were mixed into new social groups, and skin lesions were counted 24 h (SL24h) and 3 weeks (SL3wk) post-mixing, on the anterior, centre and posterior regions of the body. An animal model was used to estimate genetic parameters for skin lesion traits and 14 aggressive behavioural traits. Estimated breeding values (EBVs) and phenotypic values were scaled and standardised to allow direct comparison across multiple traits. Individuals with SL24h and SL3wk EBVs in the least aggressive 10% of the population were compared with the population mean to predict the expected genetic and phenotypic response in aggressive behaviour to selection. At mixing, selection for low anterior lesions was predicted to affect substantially more behavioural traits of aggressiveness than lesions obtained on other body parts, with EBVs between −0.21 and −1.17 SD below the population mean. Individuals with low central SL24h EBVs also had low EBVs for aggressive traits (−0.33 to −0.55). Individuals with high SL3wk EBVs had low EBVs for aggression at mixing (between −0.24 and −0.53 SD below the population mean), although this was predicted to affect fewer traits than selection against SL24h. These results suggest that selection against anterior SL24h would result in the greatest genetic and phenotypic reduction in aggressive behaviour recorded at mixing. Selection for increased SL3wk was predicted to reduce aggression at mixing; however, current understanding about aggressive behaviour under stable social conditions is insufficient to recommend using this trait for selection purposes.

Keywords

pigsaggressionskin lesionsselectiongenetics
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 8 , August 2016 , pp. 1243 - 1253
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Alemu, SW, Bijma, P, Møller, SH, Janss, L and Berg, P 2014. Indirect genetic effects contribute substantially to heritable variation in aggression-related traits in group-housed mink (Neovison vison). Genetics Selection Evolution 46, 30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arey, D and Edwards, S 1998. Factors influencing aggression between sows after mixing and the consequences for welfare and production. Livestock Production Science 56, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijma, P 2010. Estimating indirect genetic effects: precision of estimates and optimum designs. Genetics 186, 1013–1028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bijma, P and Wade, MJ 2008. The joint effects of kin, multilevel selection and indirect genetic effects on response to genetic selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21, 1175–1188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D’Eath, RB, Turner, SP, Kurt, E, Evans, G, Thölking, L, Looft, H, Wimmers, K, Murani, E, Klont, R, Foury, A, Ison, SH and Mormède, P 2010. Pigs’ aggressive temperament affects pre-slaughter mixing aggression, stress and meat quality. Animal 4, 604–616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Groot, J, Ruis, MA, Scholten, JW, Koolhaas, JM and Boersma, WJ 2001. Long-term effects of social stress on antiviral immunity in pigs. Physiology and Behavior 73, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desire, S, Turner, SP, D’Eath, RB, Doeschl-Wilson, AB, Lewis, CRG and Roehe, R 2015a. Analysis of the phenotypic link between behavioural traits at mixing and increased long-term social stability in group-housed pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 166, 52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desire, S, Turner, SP, D’Eath, RB, Doeschl-Wilson, AB, Lewis, CRG and Roehe, R 2015b. Genetic associations of short- and long-term aggressiveness identified by skin lesion with growth, feed efficiency and carcass characteristics in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 93, 3303–3312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellen, ED, Rodenburg, TB, Albers, GAA, Bolhuis, JE, Camerlink, I, Duijvesteijn, N, Knol, EF, Peeters, K, Reimert, I, Sell-Kubiak, E, Van Arendonk, JAM, Visscher, J and Bijma, P 2014. The prospects of selection for social genetic effects to improve welfare and productivity in livestock. Frontiers in Genetics 5, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faucitano, L 2001. Causes of skin damage to pig carcasses. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 3, 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmour, AR, Gogel, BJ, Cullis, BR and Thompson, R 2009. ASReml user guide release 3.0. VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, UK.Google Scholar
Guy, JH, Burns, SE, Barker, JM and Edwards, SA 2009. Reducing post-mixing aggression and skin lesions in weaned pigs by application of a synthetic maternal pheromone. Animal Welfare 18, 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meese, GB and Ewbank, R 1973. The establishment and nature of the dominance hierarchy in the domesticated pig. Animal Behaviour 21, 326–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendl, M, Zanella, AJ and Broom, DM 1992. Physiological and reproductive correlates of behavioural strategies in female domestic pigs. Animal Behaviour 44, 1107–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, C and Mantovani, R 2012. Indirect genetic effects and the genetic bases of social dominance: evidence from cattle. Heredity 110, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stookey, JM and Gonyou, HW 1994. The effects of regrouping on behavioral and production parameters in finishing swine. Journal of Animal Science 72, 2804–2811.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stukenborg, A, Traulsen, I, Puppe, B, Presuhn, U and Krieter, J 2011. Agonistic behaviour after mixing in pigs under commercial farm conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 129, 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tönepöhl, B, Appel, AK, Voß, B, König von Borstel, U and Gauly, M 2013. Interaction between sows’ aggressiveness post-mixing and skin lesions recorded several weeks later. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44, 108–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, SP, Farnworth, MJ, White, IM, Brotherstone, S, Mendl, M, Knap, P, Penny, P and Lawrence, AB 2006. The accumulation of skin lesions and their use as a predictor of individual aggressiveness in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, SP, Roehe, R, D’Eath, RB, Ison, SH, Farish, M, Jack, MC, Lundeheim, N, Rydhmer, L and Lawrence, AB 2009. Genetic validation of postmixing skin injuries in pigs as an indicator of aggressiveness and the relationship with injuries under more stable social conditions. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3076–3082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, SP, Roehe, R, Mekkawy, W, Farnworth, MJ, Knap, PW and Lawrence, AB 2008. Bayesian analysis of genetic associations of skin lesions and behavioural traits to identify genetic components of individual aggressiveness in pigs. Behavior Genetics 38, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, AJ, Gelin, U, Perron, MC and Réale, D 2009. Indirect genetic effects and the evolution of aggression in a vertebrate system. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276, 533–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, AJ, Morrissey, MB, Adams, MJ, Walling, CA, Guinness, FE, Pemberton, JM, Clutton-Brock, TH and Kruuk, LEB 2011. Indirect genetics effects and evolutionary constraint: an analysis of social dominance in red deer, Cervus elaphus . Journal of Evolutionary Biology 24, 772–783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Desire supplementary material

Tables S1-S3

Download Desire supplementary material(File)
File 30 KB