Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:28:18.554Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Breeding for behavioural change in farm animals: practical, economic and ethical considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

RB D'Eath ,
J Conington ,
AB Lawrence ,
IAS Olsson  and
P Sand⊘e
RB D'Eath*
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
J Conington
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
AB Lawrence
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
IAS Olsson*
Affiliation:
IBMC, Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto, Portugal Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
P Sand⊘e
Affiliation:
Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: rick.death@sac.ac.uk
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: rick.death@sac.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In farm animal breeding, behavioural traits are rarely included in selection programmes despite their potential to improve animal production and welfare. Breeding goals have been broadened beyond production traits in most farm animal species to include health and functional traits, and opportunities exist to increase the inclusion of behaviour in breeding indices. On a technical level, breeding for behaviour presents a number of particular challenges compared to physical traits. It is much more difficult and time-consuming to directly measure behaviour in a consistent and reliable manner in order to evaluate the large numbers of animals necessary for a breeding programme. For this reason, the development and validation of proxy measures of key behavioural traits is often required. Despite these difficulties, behavioural traits have been introduced by certain breeders. For example, ease of handling is now included in some beef cattle breeding programmes. While breeding for behaviour is potentially beneficial, ethical concerns have been raised. Since animals are adapted to the environment rather than the other way around, there may be a loss of ‘naturalness’ and/or animal integrity. Some examples, such as breeding for good maternal behaviour, could enhance welfare, production and naturalness, although dilemmas emerge where improved welfare could result from breeding away from natural behaviour. Selection against certain behaviours may carry a risk of creating animals which are generally unreactive (‘zombies’), although such broad effects could be measured and controlled. Finally, breeding against behavioural measures of welfare could inadvertently result in resilient animals (‘stoics’) that do not show behavioural signs of low welfare yet may still be suffering. To prevent this, other measures of the underlying problem should be used, although cases where this is not possible remain troubling.

Keywords

animal welfareeconomicsethicsgeneticsproxy measuresselection index
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 19 , Issue S1: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Darwinian selection, selective breeding and the welfare of animals’ Bristol, 2009 , May 2010 , pp. 17 - 27
Copyright
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

AEBC 2002 Animals and Biotechnology. Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission Report. Department of Trade and Industry: London, UK. http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/pdf/animals_and_biotechnology_report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Albers, GAA, Gray, GD, Piper, LR, Barker, JSF, Lejambre, LF and Barger, IA 1987 The genetics of resistance and resilience to Haemonchus contortus infection in young Merino sheep. International Journal for Parasitology 17: 1355–1363CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO 1991 Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: environmental, physical and behavioural aspects. World's Poultry Science Journal 47: 109–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Limousin Breeders Society 2009 Limousin Assurance Programme. http://www.limousin.com.au/assurance-program.htmlGoogle Scholar
Banner, M 1995 Report of the Committee to Consider the Ethical Implications of Emerging Technologies in the Breeding of Farm Animals. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, HMSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Beilharz, RG and Cox, DF 1967 Genetic analysis of open field behavior in swine. Journal of Animal Science 26: 988–990CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergsma, R, Kanis, E, Knol, EF and Bijma, P 2008 The contribution of social effects to heritable variation in finishing traits of domestic pigs (Sus scrofa). Genetics 178: 1559–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijma, P, Muir, WA and van Arendonk, JAM 2007a Multilevel selection 1: Quantitative genetics of inheritance and response to selection. Genetics 175: 277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijma, P, Muir, WM, Ellen, ED, Wolf, JB and van Arendonk, JAM 2007b Multilevel selection 2: Estimating the genetic parameters determining inheritance and response to selection. Genetics 175: 289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A, Fisher, AD, Bouix, J, Hinch, GN and Le Neindre, P 2005 Genetics of fear in ruminant livestock. Livestock Production Science 93: 23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brascamp, EW, Smith, C and Guy, DR 1985 Derivation of economic weights from profit equations. Animal Production 40: 175–180Google Scholar
Breuer, KB, Beattie, VE, Dunne, LM, Slade, EC, Davies, Z, Mercer, JT, Rance, KA, Sneddon, IA, Sutcliffe, MEM and Edwards, SA 2001 Validation and Development of a Behavioural Test to Predict the Predisposition of Growing Pigs to Perform Harmful Social Behaviour such as Tail biting. BSAS: Scarborough, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuer, K, Sutcliffe, MEM, Mercer, JT, Rance, KA, O’Connell, NE, Sneddon, IA and Edwards, SA 2005 Heritability of clinical tail-biting and its relation to performance traits. Livestock Production Science 93: 87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British Limousin Cattle Society 2009 Limousin Society to Introduce Docility Scoring. http://www.limousin.co.uk/projects/docility_scoring.htmlGoogle Scholar
Buitenhuis, AJ and Kjaer, JB 2008 Long term selection for reduced or increased pecking behaviour in laying hens. World's Poultry Science Journal 64: 477–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrow, HM 1997 Measurements of temperament and their relationships with performance traits in beef cattle. Animal Breeding Abstracts 65: 477–495Google Scholar
Canario, L, Bergsma, R, D’Eath, RB, Lawrence, AB, Roehe, R, Lundeheim, N, Rydhmer, L, Knol, E and Turner, SP 2008 Genetic relations between the group effect for average daily gain, and post-mixing aggression and skin lesions in Swedish pigs. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production. 24-27 August, Vilnius, LithuaniaGoogle Scholar
Christensen, LG 1998 Possibilities for genetic improvement of disease resistance, functional traits and animal welfare. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science Supplement 29: 77–89Google Scholar
Conington, J, Collins, J and Dwyer, CM 2010 Breeding for easier managed sheep. Animal Welfare 19: S83–S92Google Scholar
Cooper, MD and Wrathall, JHM 2010 Assurance schemes as a tool to tackle genetic welfare problems in broilers. Animal Welfare 19: S51–S56Google Scholar
Craig, JV and Muir, WM 1989 Fearful and associated responses of caged White Leghorn hens, genetic parameter estimates. Poultry Science 68: 1040–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, JV and Muir, WM 1993 Selection for reduction of beak-inflicted injuries among caged hens. Poultry Science 72: 411–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, JV, Ortman, LL and Guhl, AM 1965 Genetic selection for social dominance ability in chickens. Animal Behaviour 13: 114–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB, Roehe, R, Turner, SP, Ison, SH, Farish, M, Jack, MC and Lawrence, AB 2009 Genetics of animal temperament: aggressive behaviour at mixing is genetically associated with the response to handling in pigs. Animal 3: 1544–1554Google ScholarPubMed
Dekkers, JCM and Gibson, JP 1998 Applying breeding objectives to dairy cattle improvement. Journal of Dairy Science 81: 19–35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Désautés, C, Bidanel, JP, Milan, D, Iannuccelli, N, Amigues, Y, Bourgeois, F, Caritez, JC, Renard, C, Chevalet, C and Mormède, P 2002 Genetic linkage mapping of quantitative trait loci for behavioral and neuroendocrine stress response traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 80: 2276–2285Google ScholarPubMed
Duncan, IJH and Filshie, JH 1980 The use of radio telemetry devices to measure temperature and heart rate in domestic fowl. In: Amlaner, CJ and Macdonald, DW (eds) A Handbook on Biotelemetry and Radio Tracking pp 579–588. Pergamon: Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellenberg, U, Mattern, T, Seddon, PJ and Jorquera, GL 2006 Physiological and reproductive consequences of human disturbance in Humboldt penguins: The need for species-specific visitor management. Biological Conservation 133: 95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, DS and Mackay, TFC 1996 Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 4th Edition. Longman: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Faure, JM and Mills, AD 1998 Improving the adaptability of animals by selection. In: Grandin, T (ed) Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals pp 235–264. Academic Press: San Diego, USAGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2004 Report on the Welfare Implications of Animal Breeding and Breeding Technologies in Commercial Agriculture. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Finn, DA, Rutledge-Gorman, MT and Crabbe, JC 2003 Genetic animal models of anxiety. Neurogenetics 4: 109–135CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205Google Scholar
Grandinson, K 2005 Genetic background of maternal behaviour and its relation to offspring survival. Livestock Production Science 93: 43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandinson, K, Rydhmer, L, Strandberg, E and Thodberg, K 2003 Genetic analysis of on-farm tests of maternal behaviour in sows. Livestock Production Science 83: 141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutierrez-Gil, B, Ball, N, Burton, D, Haskell, M, Williams, JL and Wiener, P 2008 Identification of quantitative trait loci affecting cattle temperament. Journal of Heredity 99: 629–638Google ScholarPubMed
Hansen, CPB 1993a Stereotypies in ranch mink, the effect of genes, litter size and neighbors. Behavioural Processes 29: 165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, SW 1993b Selection for behavioural characteristics in mink and the effect on reproduction results. Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction of Fur Animals, NJF Report No 90, Proceedings of a NJFworkshop, Viborg pp 35–41. 29 April 1993, Viborg, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Hazel, LN 1943 The genetic basis for constructing selection indexes. Genetics 28: 476–490Google ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, 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: 85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, WG 2010 Understanding and using quantitative genetic variation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B 365: 73–85CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmes, ND 2007 Comparing king, gentoo, and royal penguin responses to pedestrian visitation. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2575–2582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irish Limousin Cattle Society 2009 Irish Limousin Docility Reaching New Heights. http://www.irishlimousin.com/docilityfile.htmlGoogle Scholar
Jenet, A, Yimegnuhal, A, Fernandez-Rivera, S, Tegegne, A, Osuji, PO, McCrabb, G and Kreuzer, M 2004 Long-term response to feeding level in lactational performance of Boran (Bos indicus) and Boran x Holstein cows. Animal Science 78: 331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeppesen, LL, Heller, KE and Bilds⊘e, A 2004 Stereotypies in female farm mink (Mustela vison) may be genetically transmitted and associated with higher fertility due to effects on body weight. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86: 137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB and Hocking, PM 1999 Genetic selection for poultry behaviour: Big bad wolf or friend in need? Animal Welfare 8: 343–359Google Scholar
Kadel, MJ, Johnston, DJ, Burrow, HM, Graser, HU and Ferguson, DM 2006 Genetics of flight time and other measures of temperament and their value as selection criteria for improving meat quality traits in tropically adapted breeds of beef cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 57: 1029–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanis, E, De Greef, KH, Hiemstra, A and van Arendonk, JAM 2005 Breeding for societally important traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 83: 948–957CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanis, E, van den Belt, H, Groen, AF, Schakel, J and De Greef, KH 2004 Breeding for improved welfare in pigs: a conceptual framework and its use in practice. Animal Science 78: 315–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjaer, JB and Sorensen, P 1997 Feather pecking behaviour in White Leghorns, a genetic study. British Poultry Science 38: 333–341CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambe, NR, Conington, J, Bishop, SC, Waterhouse, A and Simm, G 2001 A genetic analysis of maternal behaviour score in Scottish Blackface sheep. Animal Science 72: 415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, AB, Conington, J and Simm, G 2004 Breeding and animal welfare: practical and theoretical advantages of multi-trait selection. Animal Welfare 13: S191–S196Google Scholar
Lawrence, AB, Pryce, JE and Simm, G 2001 G x EEE: the missing link when breeding for welfare. In: Garner, GP, Mench, JA and Heekin, SP (eds) Center for Animal Welfare. UC Davis: Davis, USAGoogle Scholar
Le Neindre, P, Trillat, G, Sapa, J, Menissier, F, Bonnet, JN and Chupin, JM 1995 Individual-differences in docility in Limousin cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2249–2253CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
L⊘vendahl, P, Damgaard, LH, Nielsen, BL, Thodberg, K, Su, GS and Rydhmer, L 2005 Aggressive behaviour of sows at mixing and maternal behaviour are heritable and genetically correlated traits. Livestock Production Science 93: 73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macfarlane, JM, Matheson, SM and Dwyer, CM 2010 Genetic parameters for birth difficulty, lamb vigour and lamb sucking ability in suffolk sheep. Animal Welfare 19: S99–S105Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P 2004 Animals in their nature: A case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification and ‘nature’. Sociology-the Journal of the British Sociological Association 38: 533–551Google Scholar
Malmkvist, J and Hansen, SW 2001 The welfare of farmed mink (Mustela vison) in relation to behavioural selection: A review. Animal Welfare 10: 41–52Google Scholar
Mason, G, Clubb, R, Latham, N and Vickery, S 2007 Why and how should we use environmental enrichment to tackle stereotypic behaviour? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102: 163–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G and Latham, N 2004 Can't stop, won't stop: Is stereotypy a reliable animal welfare indicator. Animal Welfare 13: S57–S69Google Scholar
McInerney, J 2004 Animal Welfare, Economics and Policy. Report on a study undertaken for the Farm & Animal Health Economics Division of Defra. Defra: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Miczek, KA, Maxson, SC, Fish, EW and Faccidomo, S 2001 Aggressive behavioral phenotypes in mice. Behavioural Brain Research 125: 167–181Google ScholarPubMed
Mignon-Grasteau, S, Boissy, A, Bouix, J, Faure, JM, Fisher, AD, Hinch, GN, Jensen, P, Le Neindre, P, Mormede, P, Prunet, P, Vandeputte, M and Beaumont, C 2005 Genetics of adaptation and domestication in livestock. Livestock Production Science 93: 3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, JS 1863 Utilitarianism. Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Mills, AD, Duncan, IJH, Slee, GS and Clark, JSB 1985a Heart-rate and laying behavior in two Strains of domestic chicken. Physiology & Behavior 35: 145–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, AD and Faure, JM 1991 Divergent selection for duration of tonic immobility and social reinstatement behavior in Japanese-quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) chicks. Journal of Comparative Psychology 105: 25–38CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mills, AD, Woodgush, DGM and Hughes, BO 1985b Genetic-analysis of strain differences in pre-laying behavior in battery cages. British Poultry Science 26: 187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mormède, P 2005 Molecular genetics of behaviour: research strategies and perspectives for animal production. Livestock Production Science 93: 15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muir, WM and Craig, JV 1998 Improving animal well-being through genetic selection. Poultry Science 77: 1781–1788CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neeteson-van Nieuwenhoven, AM, Merks, J, Bagnato, A and Liinamo, AE 2006 Sustainable transparent farm animal breeding and reproduction. Livestock Science 103: 282–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, HM and Amer, PR 2007 An approach to derive economic weights in breeding objectives using partial profile choice experiments. Animal 1: 1254–1262Google ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, HM, Christensen, LG and Odegard, J 2006 A method to define breeding goals for sustainable dairy cattle production. Journal of Dairy Science 89: 3615–3625Google ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, UL and Therkildsen, N 1995 Selektionsfors⊘g for og imod pelsgnav hos mink. In: Therkildsen N (ed) Faglig Årsberetning 1993/94 pp 209. Pelsdyrerhvervets Fors⊘gs: og Rådgivningsvirksomhed A/S: Holsterbro, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Nimon, AJ, Schroter, RC and Stonehouse, B 1995 Heart-rate of disturbed penguins. Nature 374: 415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olesen, I, Groen, AF and Gjerde, B 2000 Definition of animal breeding goals for sustainable production systems. Journal of Animal Science 78: 570–582CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsson, IAS, Gamborg, C and Sand⊘e, P 2006 Taking ethics into account in farm animal breeding: What can the breeding companies achieve? Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 19: 37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phocas, F, Boivin, X, Sapa, J, Trillat, G, Boissy, A and Le Neindre, P 2006 Genetic correlations between temperament and breeding traits in Limousin heifers. Animal Science 82: 805–811Google Scholar
Price, EO 1984 Behavioral aspects of animal domestication. The Quarterly Review of Biology 59: 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryce, JE, Coffey, MP and Brotherstone, S 2000 The genetic relationship between calving interval, body condition score and linear type and management traits in registered Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 2664–2671Google ScholarPubMed
Pryce, JE, Conington, J, S⊘rensen, P, Kelly, HRC and Rydhmer, L 2004 Breeding strategies for organic livestock. In: Vaarst, M, Roderick, S, Lund, V and Lockeretz, W (eds) Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture pp 357–388. CABI: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryce, JE, Esslemont, RJ, Thompson, R, Veerkamp, RF, Kossaibati, MA and Simm, G 1998 Estimation of genetic parameters using health, fertility and production data from a management recording system for dairy cattle. Animal Science 66: 577–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quilter, CR, Blott, SC, Wilson, AE, Bagga, MR, Sargent, CA, Oliver, GL, Southwood, OI, Gilbert, CL, Mileham, A and Affara, NA 2007 Porcine maternal infanticide as a model for puerperal psychosis. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B-Neuropsychiatric Genetics 144B: 862–868CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rauw, WM, Kanis, E, Noordhuizen-Stassen, EN and Grommers, FJ 1998 Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livestock Production Science 56: 15–33Google Scholar
Reif, A and Lesch, KP 2003 Toward a molecular architecture of personality. Behavioural Brain Research 139: 1–20Google Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, Bijma, P, Ellen, ED, Bergsma, R, de Vries, S, Bolhuis, JE, Kemp, B and van Arendonk, JAM 2010 Breeding amiable animals? Improving farm animal welfare by including social effects into the genetic model. Animal Welfare 19: S77–S82Google Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, Buitenhuis, AJ, Ask, B, Uitdehaag, KA, Koene, P, van der Poel, JJ and Bovenhuis, H 2003 Heritability of feather pecking and open-field response of laying hens at two different ages. Poultry Science 82: 861–867CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rollin, BE 2002 An ethicist's commentary on equating productivity and welfare. Canadian Veterinary Journal 43(2): 83Google ScholarPubMed
Sand⊘e, P 1996 Animal and human welfare; are they the same kind of thing? Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A Supplement 27: 11–15Google Scholar
Sand⊘e, P, Nielsen, BL, Christensen, LG and S⊘rensen, P 1999 Staying good while playing god. The ethics of breeding farm animals. Animal Welfare 8: 313–328Google Scholar
Siipi, H 2008 Dimensions of naturalness. Ethics & the Environment 13: 71–103Google Scholar
Silva, B, Gonzalo, A and Canon, J 2006 Genetic parameters of aggressiveness, ferocity and mobility in the fighting bull breed. Animal Research 55: 65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simm, G 1998 Genetic Improvement of Cattle and Sheep. Farming Press: Ipswich, UKGoogle Scholar
Statham, PTE, Green, LE and Mendl, M 2006 Development of a propensity to chew test as a predictor of tail-biting in pigs. Proceedings of the 40th International Congress of the ISAE. Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Su, G, Lund, MS and S⊘rensen, D 2007 Selection for litter size at day five to improve litter size at weaning and piglet survival rate. Journal of Animal Science 85: 1385–1392CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svendsen, PM, Hansen, BK, Malmkvist, J, Hansen, SW, Palme, R and Jeppesen, LL 2007 Selection against stereotypic behaviour may have contradictory consequences for the welfare of farm mink (Mustela vison). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107: 110–119Google Scholar
T-AP 1995 Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes (T-AP): Recommendations Concerning Domestic Fowl (Gallus gallus). http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/biological_safety%2C_use_of_animals/farming/Rec%20fowl%20E.aspGoogle Scholar
T-AP 1999 Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes (T-AP): Recommendations Concerning Fur Animals. http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/biological_safety%2C_use_of_animals/farming/rec%20fur%20animals%20e%201999.aspGoogle Scholar
T-AP 2005a Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes (T-AP). Recommendations Concerning Pigs. http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/biological_safety%2C_use_of_animals/farming/Rec%20pigs%20rev%20E%202004.aspGoogle Scholar
T-AP 2005b Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming purposes (T-AP): Recommendations Concerning Farmed Fish. http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/biological_safety%2C_use_of_animals/farming/Rec%20fish%20E.aspGoogle Scholar
Turner, SP, D’Eath, RB, Roehe, R and Lawrence, AB 2010 Selection against pig aggressiveness at re-grouping; practical application and implications for long-term behavioural patterns. Animal Welfare 19: S123–S132Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Farnworth, MJ, White, IMS, Brotherstone, S, Mendl, M, Knap, P, Penny, P and Lawrence, AB 2006a The accumulation of skin lesions and their use as a predictor of individual aggressiveness in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96: 245–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, SP and Lawrence, AB 2007 Relationship between maternal defensive aggression, fear of handling and other maternal care traits in beef cows. Livestock Science 106: 182–188Google 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 skin injuries in pigs as an indicator of post-mixing aggressiveness and the relationship with aggression under stable social conditions. Journal of Animal Science 87: 3076–3082Google Scholar
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: 67–75CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, SP, White, IMS, Brotherstone, S, Farnworth, MJ, Knap, PW, Penny, P, Mendl, M and Lawrence, AB 2006b Heritability of post-mixing aggressiveness in grower-stage pigs and the relationship between aggressiveness and production traits. Animal Science 82: 615–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oers, K, de Jong, G, Van Noordwijk, AJ, Kempenaers, B and Drent, PJ 2005 Contribution of genetics to the study of animal personalities: a review of case studies. Behaviour 142: 1185–1206Google Scholar
Villanueva, B, Avenano, S and Woolliams, JA 2006 Prediction of genetic gain from quadratic optimisation with constrained rates of inbreeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 38: 127–146Google ScholarPubMed
Vinke, CM, Eenkhoorn, NC, Netto, WJ, Fermont, PCJ and Spruijt, BM 2002 Stereotypic behaviour and tail biting in farmed mink (Mustela vison) in a new housing system. Animal Welfare 11: 231–245Google Scholar
Wolf, BT, McBride, SD, Lewis, RM, Davies, MH and Haresign, W 2008 Estimates of the genetic parameters and repeatability of behavioural traits of sheep in an arena test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112: 68–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar