Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:45:26.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection against aggressiveness in pigs at re-grouping: practical application and implications for long-term behavioural patterns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

SP Turner ,
RB D’Eath ,
R Roehe  and
AB Lawrence
SP Turner*
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
RB D’Eath
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
R Roehe
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
AB Lawrence
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: simon.turner@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.

The routine mixing of pigs causes aggression that cannot be greatly reduced by low-cost environmental changes. The variability and heritability of aggressiveness are discussed and both appear adequate to make selection against aggressiveness worthwhile in grower-stage pigs. Selection would require rapid phenotyping of many animals for which a validated indicator genetically correlated to aggressive behaviour is required. Three potential indicators are discussed (attack latency, number of skin lesions and relationship to non-social behavioural traits). Attack latency correlates with post-mixing aggressiveness under research conditions but attacks are delayed under commercial conditions reducing the practicability of the trait for selection. Correlations between aggressiveness and responses to non-social challenges, such as the back-test, are not always consistent. Lastly, the counting of skin lesions is rapid, and the number of lesions has a moderate heritability and is genetically correlated with involvement in aggressive behaviour. The wider effects of selection against post-mixing aggressiveness are discussed. Examining the behavioural strategies of unaggressive pigs, especially their response to defeat, would reveal how selection may alter aggressive tactics. Selection against lesions from mixing is also expected to reduce their number in more stable social conditions, but the implications for aggression between sows and that of sows towards their piglets and humans needs to be investigated. Aggressiveness is genetically correlated with response to handling involving components of social isolation, human presence and novelty. Identifying how unaggressive pigs respond to other challenging situations differing in these components may be worthwhile. Selection against aggression using skin lesions appears to be achievable although the full value of this would benefit from estimations of the genetic correlations with the traits outlined above.

Keywords

aggressionanimal welfaregenetic correlationheritabilitypigsselective breeding
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. 123 - 132
Copyright
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Arey, DS and Edwards, SA 1998 Factors influencing aggression between sows after mixing and the consequences for welfare and production. Livestock Production Science 56: 61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balaban, E, Alper, JS and Kasamon, YL 1996 Mean genes and the biology of aggression: a critical review of recent animal and human research. Journal of Neurogenetics 11: 1–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumgartner, J 2007 How to deal with complex data of skin lesions in weaner pigs. Animal Welfare 16: 165–168Google Scholar
Benus, RF 1999 Differential effect of handling on adult aggression in male mice bidirectionally selected for attack latency. Aggressive Behaviour 25: 365–368Google Scholar
Benus, RF, Koolhaas, JM and van Oortmerssen, A 1992 Individual strategies of aggressive and non-aggressive male mice in encounters with trained aggressive residents. Animal Behaviour 43: 531–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijma, P, Muir, WM, Ellen, ED, Wolf, JB and van Arendonk, JAM 2007 Multilevel selection 2: estimating the genetic parameters determining inheritance and response to selection. Genetics 175: 289–299CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolhuis, JE, Schouten, WGP, Schrama, JW and Wiegant, VM 2005 Individual coping characteristics, aggressiveness and fighting strategies in pigs. Animal Behaviour 69: 1085–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolhuis, JE, Schouten, WGP, Schrama, JW and Wiegant, VM 2006 Effects of rearing and housing environment on behaviour and performance of pigs with different coping characteristics. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101: 68–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burfoot, A, Kay, RM and Corning, S 1995 A scoring method to assess damage caused by aggression between sows after mixing. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science p 196. 10-12 April 1995, Scarborough, UKCrossRefGoogle 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 International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level, Ghent p 42. 10-13 September 2008, Ghent, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Cassady, JP 2007 Evidence of phenotypic relationships among behavioural characteristics of individual pigs and performance. Journal of Animal Science 85: 218–224CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, CCA 2007 Understanding the phenotype of aggressiveness. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB 2002 Individual aggressiveness measured in a resident-intruder test predicts the persistence of aggressive behaviour and weight gain in young pigs after mixing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77: 267–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB and Burn, CC 2002 Individual differences in behaviour: A test of ‘coping style’ does not predict resident/intruder aggressiveness in pigs. Behaviour 139: 1175–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB and Pickup, HE 2002 Behaviour of young growing pigs in a resident-intruder test designed to measure aggressiveness. Aggressive Behaviour 28: 401–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB, Roehe, R, Turner, SP, Ison, SH, Farish, M, Jack, MC, Lundeheim, N, Rydhmer, L and Lawrence, AB 2009 Genetics of animal temperament: aggressive behaviour at mixing is genetically associated with the response to handling in pigs. Animal 3: 1544–1554CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Groot, J, Ruis, MAW, Scholten, JW, Koolhaas, JM and Boersma, WJA 2001 Long-term effects of social stress on antiviral immunity in pigs. Physiology and Behaviour 73: 145–158CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eley, TC, Lichtenstein, P and Moffitt, TE 2003 A longitudinal behavioural genetic analysis of the etiology of aggressive and nonaggressive antisocial behaviour. Development and Psychopathology 15: 383–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erhard, HW and Mendl, M 1997 Measuring aggressiveness in growing pigs in a resident-intruder situation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erhard, HW, Mendl, M and Ashley, DD 1997 Individual aggressiveness of pigs can be measured and used to reduce aggression after mixing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 137–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forkman, B, Furuhaug, IL and Jensen, P 1995 Personality, coping patterns, and aggression in piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45: 31–42Google Scholar
Formanek, L, Houdelier, C, Lumineau, S, Bertin, A, Cabanès, G and Richard-Yris, M-A 2008 Selection of social traits in juvenile Japanese quail affects adults’ behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112: 174–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D and Rushen, J 1987 Aggressive behaviour. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 3: 285–305Google Scholar
Gabor, TM, Hellgren, EC, Van Den Bussche, RA and Silvy, NJ 1999 Demography, sociospatial behaviour and genetics of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in a semi-arid environment. Journal of Zoology, London 247: 311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geverink, NA, Schouten, WGP, Gort, G and Wiegant, VM 2002 Individual differences in aggression and physiology in peripubertal breeding gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77: 43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T and Bruning, J 1992 Boar presence reduces fighting in mixed slaughter-weight pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 273–276CrossRefGoogle 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
Guillot, PV and Chapoutier, G 1996 Intermale aggression and dark preference in ten inbred mouse strains. Behavioural Brain Research 77: 211–213CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haraldsen, M, Odegard, J, Olsen, D, Vangen, O, Ranberg, IMA and Meuwissen, THE 2009 Prediction of genetic growth curves in pigs. Animal 3: 475–481CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janczak, AM, Pedersen, LJ and Bakken, M 2003 Aggression, fearfulness and coping styles in female pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S, Moinard, C, Robson, SK, Baxter, E, Ormandy, E, Douglas, AJ, Seckl, JR, Russell, JA and Lawrence, AB 2006 Programming the offspring of the pig by prenatal social stress: Neuroendocrine activity and behaviour. Hormones and Behavior 49: 68–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, P 1994 Fighting between unacquainted pigs: effects of age and of individual reaction pattern. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41: 37–52CrossRefGoogle 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
Kapell, DNRG, Ashworth, CJ, Walling, GA, Lawrence, AB, Edwards, SA and Roehe, R 2009 Estimation of genetic associations between reproduction and production traits based on a sire and dam line with common ancestry. Animal 3: 1354–1362CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knap, PW and Merks, JWM 1987 A note on the genetics of aggressiveness of premiparous sows towards their piglets. Livestock Production Science 17: 161–167CrossRefGoogle 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
L⊘vendahl, P, Damgaard, LH, Nielsen, BL, Thodberg, K, Su, G 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
Luescher, UA, Friendship, RM and McKeown, DB 1990 Evaluation of methods to reduce fighting among regrouped gilts. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 70: 363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meerlo, P, Overkamp, GJF and Koolhaas, JM 1997 Behavioural and physiological consequences of a single social defeat in Roman high- and low-avoidance rats. Psychoneuroendocrinology 22: 155–168Google ScholarPubMed
Mendl, M 1993 Are aggressiveness and social status of group housed sows predictable from observations of earlier behaviour. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science p 87. 12-14 April 1993, Scarborough, UKGoogle Scholar
Mendl, M 1995 The social behaviour of non-lactating sows and its implications for managing sow aggression. The Pig Journal 34: 9–20Google Scholar
Mendl, M and Erhard, HW 1997 Social choices in farm animals: to fight or not to fight? In: Forbes JM, Lawrence TLJ, Rodway RG and Varley MA (eds) British Society of Animal Science. Occasional Publication 20: 45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miczek, KA, Maxson, SC, Fish, EW and Faccidomo, S 2001 Aggressive behavioural phenotypes in mice. Behavioural Brain Research 125: 167–181CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrow-Tesch, JL, McGlone, JJ and Salak-Johnson, JL 1994 Heat and social stress effects on pig immune measures. Journal of Animal Science 72: 2599–2609CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olesen, LS, Nygaard, CM, Friend, TH, Bushong, D, Knabe, DA, Vestergaard, KS and Vaughan, RK 1996 Effect of partitioning pigs on aggressive behaviour of pigs regrouped at weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popova, NK, Nikulina, EM and Kulikov, AV 1993 Genetic analysis of different kinds of aggressive behaviour. Behaviour Genetics 23: 491–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruis, MAW, te Brake, JHA, van de Burgwal, JA, de Jong, IC, Blokhuis, HJ and Koolhaas, JM 2000 Personalities in female domesticated pigs: behavioural and physiological indications. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 31–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruis, MAW, te Brake, JHA, Engel, B, Ekkel, E, Buist, WG, Blokhuis, HJ and Koolhaas, JM 2002 Implications of coping characteristics and social status for welfare and production of paired growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75: 207–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J 1987 A difference in weight reduces fighting when unacquainted newly weaned pigs first meet. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67: 951–960CrossRefGoogle 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
Spoolder, HAM, Edwards, SA and Corning, S 1999 Effects of group size and feeder space allowance on welfare in finishing pigs. Animal Science 69: 481–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoolder, HAM, Edwards, SA and Corning, S 2000 Aggression among finishing pigs following mixing in kennelled and unkennelled accommodation. Livestock Production Science 63: 121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolba, A 1988 Ethograms of the domestic pig and European wild boar. In: The Library of the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour pp 287–298. Bailliere Tindall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Stookey, JM and Gonyou, HW 1994 The effects of regrouping on behavioral and production parameters in finishing swine. Journal of Animal Science 72: 2804–2811Google ScholarPubMed
Tan, SSL, Shackleton, DM and Beames, RM 1991 The effect of mixing unfamiliar individuals on the growth and production of finishing pigs. Animal Production 52: 201–206Google Scholar
Terlouw, C 2005 Stress reactions at slaughter and meat quality in pigs: genetic background and prior experience. A brief review of recent findings. Livestock Production Science 94: 125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, SP, Ewen, M, Rooke, JA and Edwards, SA 2000 The effect of space allowance on performance, aggression and immune competence of growing pigs housed on straw deep-litter at different group sizes. Livestock Production Science 66: 47–55Google Scholar
Turner, SP, White, IMS, Brotherstone, S, Farnworth, MJ, Knap, PW, Penny, P, Mendl, M and Lawrence, AB 2006a Heritability of post-mixing aggressiveness in grower-stage pigs and its relationship with production traits. Animal Science 82: 615–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, SP, Farnworth, MJ, White, IMS, Brotherstone, S, Mendl, M, Knap, P, Penny, P and Lawrence, AB 2006b 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, 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. Behaviour Genetics 38: 67–75CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, SP, Roehe, R, D’Eath, RB, Ison, SH, Farish, M, Jack, MC, Lundeheim, N, Rydhmer, L and Lawrence, AB 2009 Genetic validation of post-mixing skin injuries in pigs as an indicator of aggressiveness and the relationship with injuries under more stable social conditions. Journal of Animal Science 87: 3076–3082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warriss, PD, Brown, SN, Gade, PB, Santos, C, Costa, LN, Lambooij, E and Geers, R 1998 An analysis of data relating to pig carcass quality and indices of stress collected in the European Union. Meat Science 49: 137–144Google ScholarPubMed