Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T06:12:58.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic associations between maternal traits and aggressive behaviour in Large White sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

A. K. Appel ,
B. Voß ,
B. Tönepöhl ,
U. König von Borstel  and
M. Gauly
A. K. Appel*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany BHZP GmbH, 21368 Dahlenburg-Ellringen, Germany
B. Voß
Affiliation:
BHZP GmbH, 21368 Dahlenburg-Ellringen, Germany
B. Tönepöhl
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany
U. König von Borstel
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany
M. Gauly
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany
*
†E-mail: appel@bhzp.de
Get access

Abstract

The present study examined the possibilities and consequences of selecting pigs for reduced aggression and desirable maternal behaviour. Data were recorded from 798 purebred Large White gilts, with an age of 217±17.7 (mean±SD) days, which were observed at mixing with unfamiliar conspecifics. The reaction of the sows towards separation from their litter was assessed for 2022 litters from 848 Large White sows. Sows’ performance during their time in the farrowing unit was scored based on the traits farrowing behaviour (i.e. need of birth assistance), rearing performance (i.e. litter quality at day 10 postpartum (pp)), usability (i.e. additional labour input during lactation period e.g. for treatments) and udder quality of the sow (i.e. udder attachment). For agonistic behaviour, traits heritabilities of h2=0.11±0.04 to h2=0.28±0.06 were estimated. For the sow’s reaction towards separation from her litter low heritabilities were found (h2=0.03±0.03 for separation test on day 1 pp and h2=0.02±0.03 for separation test on day 10 pp). Heritabilities for lactating sow’s performance (farrowing behaviour, rearing performance, usability of the sow and udder quality) in the farrowing unit ranged from h2=0.03±0.02 to h2=0.19±0.03. Due to these results it can be assumed that selection for these traits, for example, for udder quality or reduced aggression, is possible. Antagonistic associations were found between separation test on day 1 pp and different measures of aggressiveness (rg=−0.22±0.26 aggressive attack and rg=−0.41±0.33 reciprocal fighting). Future studies should determine economic as well as welfare-related values of these traits in order to decide whether selection for these traits will be reasonable.

Keywords

aggressionbehaviourgenetic parametersmaternal abilitypig
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 7 , July 2016 , pp. 1234 - 1242
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

Andersen, IL, Berg, S and Bøe, KE 2005. Crushing of piglets by the mother sow (Sus scrofa) – purely accidental or a poor mother? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93, 229–243.Google Scholar
Appel, AK, Voß, B, Tönepöhl, B, König von Borstel, U and Gauly, M 2013. Variance components of aggressive behavior in genetically highly connected Pietrain populations kept under two different housing conditions. Journal of Animal Science 91, 5557–5563.Google Scholar
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Jongman, EC and Hutson, GD 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
Berry, DP, Buckley, F, Dillon, P, Evans, RD and Veerkamp, RF 2004. Genetic relationships among linear type traits, milk yield, body weight, fertility and somatic cell count in primiparous dairy cows. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 43, 161–176.Google Scholar
Brown, JA, Dewey, C, Delange, CFM, Mandell, IB, Purslow, PP, Robinson, JA, Squires, EL and Widowski, TM 2009. Reliability of temperament tests on finishing pigs in group-housing and comparison to social tests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118, 28–35.Google Scholar
Canario, L, Roy, N, Gruand, J and Bidanel, JP 2006. Genetic variation of farrowing kinetics traits and their relationships with litter size and perinatal mortality in French Large White sows. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1053–1058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chalkias, H, Rydhmer, L and Lundeheim, N 2013. Genetic analysis of functional and non-functional teats in a population of Yorkshire pigs. Livestock Science 152, 127–134.Google Scholar
Damm, BI, Vestergaard, KS, Schrøder-Petersen, DL and Ladewig, J 2000. The effect of branches on prepartum nest building in gilts with access to straw. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69, 113–124.Google 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, 1544–1554.Google Scholar
Engblom, L, Lundeheim, N, Dalin, A-M and Andersson, K 2007. Sow removal in Swedish commercial herds. Livestock Science 106, 76–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewbank, R 1976. Social hierarchy in suckling and fattening pigs: a review. Livestock Production Science 3, 363–372.Google Scholar
Geng, S, Schneeman, P and Wang, W-J 1982. An empirical study of the robustness of analysis of variance procedures in the presence of commonly encountered data problems. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 33, 131–134.Google Scholar
Gerjets, I 2011. Coliform mastitis in sows: analysis of potential influencing factors and bacterial pathogens with special emphasis on Escherichia coli. PhD thesis, Christian-Albrechts-University, Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar
Gerjets, I and Kemper, N 2009. Coliform mastitis in sows: a review. Journal of Swine Health and Production 17, 97–105.Google Scholar
Grandinson, K 2005. Genetic background of maternal behaviour and its relation to offspring survival. Livestock Production Science 93, 43–50.Google 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, 141–151.Google Scholar
Hellbrügge, B 2007. Genetic aspects of piglet losses and the maternal behaviour of sows. PhD thesis, Christian-Albrechts-University, Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar
Hellbrügge, B and Henne, H 2010. Integration von Verhaltensmerkmalen in Schweinezuchtprogramme. DGfZ-Schriftenreihe 56, 52–63.Google Scholar
Hellbrügge, B, Tölle, K-H, Bennewitz, J, Henze, C, Presuhn, U and Krieter, J 2008. Genetic aspects regarding piglet losses and the maternal behaviour of sows. Part 2. Genetic relationship between maternal behaviour in sows and piglet mortality. Animal 2, 1281–1288.Google Scholar
Holm, B, Bakken, M, Vangen, O and Rekaya, R 2004. Genetic analysis of litter size, parturition length, and birth assistance requirements in primiparous sows using a joint linear-threshold animal model. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2528–2533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkden, RD, Broom, DM and Andersen, IL 2013. Invited review: piglet mortality: management solutions. Journal of Animal Science 91, 3361–3389.Google Scholar
Kongsted, AG 2004. Stress and fear as possible mediators of reproduction problems in group housed sows: a review. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica, Section A-Animal Science 54, 58–66.Google Scholar
Littell, RC, Milliken, GA, Stroup, WW, Wolfinger, RD and Schabenberger, O 2006. SAS® for mixed models, 2nd edition. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA. 834pp.Google Scholar
Løvendahl, P, Damgaard, L, 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, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow-Tesch, J, McGlone, JJ and Salak-Johnson, JL 1994. Heat and social stress effects on pig immune measures. Journal of Animal Science 72, 2599–2609.Google Scholar
Muirhead, MR 1983. Pig housing and environment. The Veterinary Record 113, 587–593.Google Scholar
Neumaier, A and Groeneveld, E 1998. Restricted maximum likelihood estimation of covariances in sparse linear models. Genetics Selection Evolution 30, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, OL, Pedersen, AR and Sørensen, MT 2001. Relationships between piglet growth rate and mammary gland size of the sow. Livestock Production Science 67, 273–279.Google Scholar
Preissler, R, Tetens, J, Reiners, K, Looft, H and Kemper, N 2013. A genome‐wide association study to detect genetic variation for postpartum dysgalactia syndrome in five commercial pig breeding lines. Animal genetic 44, 502–508.Google Scholar
Pritchard, T, Coffey, M, Mrode, R, Moore, K and Wall, E 2010. Genetic parameters of udder health traits in Holstein Friesian UK dairy cattle (ID487). Paper presented at the 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 1–6 August 2010, Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar
Rodenburg, TB and Turner, SP 2012. The role of breeding and genetics in the welfare of farm animals. Animal Frontiers 2, 16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, KMD, Baxter, EM, D’Eath, RB, Turner, SP, Arnott, G, Roehe, R, Ask, B, Sandoe, P, Moustsen, VA, Thorup, F, Edwards, SA, Berg, P and Lawrence, AB 2013. The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig I: biological factors. Animal Welfare 22, 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serenius, T and Stadler, KJ 2004. Genetics of length of productive life and lifetime prolificacy in the Finnish Landrace and Large White pig populations. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3111–3117.Google Scholar
Sevón-Aimonen, M-L, Haltia, S and Uimari, P 2012. Heritability of sow longevity and life time production in Finnish Large White and Landrace pigs. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Federation of Animal Science, 27–31 August 2012, Bratislava, Slovakia, 271pp.Google Scholar
The Council of the European Union 2001. Council Directive 2001/88/EC amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Retrieved on 8 January 2015 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001L0088&from=EN.Google Scholar
Tönepöhl, B 2012. Untersuchungen zur Erfassung und Genetik von Verhaltensmerkmalen beim Schwein unter Praxisbedingungen. PhD thesis, Georg-August-University, Göttingen, Deutschland.Google Scholar
Tönepöhl, B, Appel, AK, Voss, B, König, V, Borstel, U and Gauly, M 2013. Interaction between sow’s aggressiveness post mixing and skin lesions recorded several weeks later. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144, 108–115.Google Scholar
Turner, SP, D’Eath, RB, Roehe, R and Lawrence, AB 2010. Selection against aggressiveness in pigs at re-grouping: practical application and implications for long-term behavioural patterns. Animal Welfare 19 (suppl.), 123–132.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 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, 3076–3082.Google 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, 67–75.Google Scholar
van Nieuwamerongen, SE, Bolhuis, JE, van der Peet-Schwering, CMC and Soede, NM 2014. A review of sow and piglet behaviour and performance in group housing systems for lactating sows. Animal 8, 448–460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vangen, O, Holm, B, Valros, A, Lund, MS and Rydhmer, L 2005. Genetic variation in sow’s maternal behaviour recorded under field conditions. Livestock Production Science 93, 63–71.Google Scholar
Voß, B, Appel, AK and Henne, H 2013. Nutzung von Verhaltensparametern. DGfZ-Schriftenreihe 62, 71–79.Google Scholar
Wischner, D 2009. Sows’maternal behavior as a major influence in the survival of piglets. PhD thesis, Christian-Albrechts-University, Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar