Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:15:39.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behavioural comparison of transgenic and control sheep: movement order, behaviour on pasture and in covered pens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. O. Hughes ,
G. S. Hughes ,
D. Waddington  and
M. C. Appleby
B. O. Hughes
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
G. S. Hughes
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
D. Waddington
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
M. C. Appleby
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh, Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Abstract

Because of the evidence that growth hormone gene transfer in pigs and mice can result in widespread pathological changes and more general concerns that transgenesis techniques themselves may have deleterious effects, a study was undertaken to compare the behaviour of two populations of immature female sheep, one of transgenic and one of control animals. The gene transferred was that for human alpha-1 antitrypsin factor. In the first part of the study the behaviour of 25 transgenic (T) and 25 control (C) sheep was compared in three separate situations: competition for a limited quantity of supplementary concentrate, six categories of normal behaviour on pasture and movement order when driven through a crush. With two minor exceptions (idling and ‘other’ behaviour in focally sampled animals), none of the differences observed between the two populations was significant and in most cases the mean values observed for T and C sheep were very similar. In the second part 25 T and 25 C sheep (different individuals from those in part 1) were compared in straw-littered covered pens for both normal behaviour and competition for a complete diet provided in a trough. The only significant differences in the seven categories of normal behaviour were a lower incidence of idling and ‘other’ behaviour in T sheep. There was a difference between T and C sheep in their social interaction under very competitive conditions (the T sheep reached food less quickly). The behavioural differences found in this study were all slight. Overall, the findings suggest that the gene transferred had no detectable deleterious effects on the normal behaviour of immature animals.

Keywords

behavioursheeptransgenesiswelfare
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , August 1996 , pp. 91 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1996

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

Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification. 1989. Guidelines on work with transgenic animals. ACGM/HSE 9. Health and Safety Executive, London.Google Scholar
Aitchison, J. 1986. The statistical analysis of compositional data. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, G. W. 1975. Herbage intake and grazing behaviour in ewes of 4 breeds at different physiological states. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 26: 1017–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, G. W. and Mailer, R. A. 1974. Some aspects of competition between sheep for supplementary feed. Animal Production 19: 309–319.Google Scholar
Banner Committee. 1995. Report of the Committee to the Ethical Implications of Emerging Technologies in the Breeding of Farm Animals. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Broom, D. M. 1981. Biology of behaviour, mechanisms, functions and applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Broom, D. M. 1993. Assessing the welfare of modified or treated animals. Livestock Production Science 36: 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatfield, C. and Collins, A. J. 1980. Introduction to multivariate analysis. Chapter 8. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doi, T., Striker, L. J., Quaife, C., Conti, F. G., Palmiter, R., Behringer, R., Brinster, R. and Striker, G. E. 1988. Progressive glomerulosclerosis develops in transgenic mice chronically expressing growth hormone and growth hormone releasing factor but not in those expressing insulin-like growth factor-1. American Journal of Pathology 131: 398–403.Google ScholarPubMed
Done-Currie, J. R., Hecker, J. F. and Wodzicka-Tomaszewska, M. 1984. Behaviour of sheep transferred from pasture to an animal house. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12: 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dove, H., Beilharz, R. G. and Black, J. L. 1974. Dominance patterns and positional behaviour of sheep in yards. Animal Production 19: 157–168.Google Scholar
Dudziński, M. L. and Arnold, G. W. 1979. Factors influencing the grazing behaviour of sheep in a Mediterranean climate. Applied Animal Ethology 5: 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evock, C. M., Etherton, T. D., Chung, C. S. and Ivy, R. E. 1988. Pituitary porcine growth hormone (pGH) and a recombinant pGH analog stimulate pig growth in a similar manner. Journal of Animal Science 66: 1928–1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gary, L. A., Sherrit, G. W. and Hale, E. B. 1970. Behaviour of Charolais cattle on pasture. Journal of Animal Science 30: 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonyou, H. W. 1984. The role of behaviour in sheep production: a review of research. Applied Animal Ethology 11: 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Great Britain Parliament. 1986. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Jarman, P. J. 1974. The social organisation of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48: 215–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loew, F. M. 1994. Beyond transgenics: ethics and values. British Veterinary Journal 150: 3–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, J. J., Hinch, G. N. and Adams, D. B. 1992. The behaviour of sheep. Biological principles and implications for production. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
McNatty, K. P. and Young, A. 1973. Diurnal changes of plasma cortisol levels in sheep adapting to a new environment. Journal of Endocrinology 56: 329–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearson, R. A. and Mellor, D. J. 1976. Some behavioural and physiological changes in pregnant goats and sheep during adaptation to laboratory conditions. Research in Veterinary Science 20: 215–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penning, P. D., Parsons, A. J., Newman, J. A., Orr, R. J. and Harvey, A. 1991. The effects of group size on grazing time of sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, T. B. 1995. Welfare considerations with regard to transgenic animals. Animal Welfare 4: 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pursel, V. G., Pinkert, C. A., Miller, K. F., Bolt, D. J., Campbell, R. G., Palmiter, R. D., Brinster, R. L. and Hammer, R. E. 1989. Genetic engineering of livestock. Science 244: 1281–1288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reenen, C. G. van and Blokhuis, H. J. 1993. Investigating welfare of dairy calves involved in genetic modification: problems and perspectives. Livestock Production Science 36: 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rook, A. J. and Penning, P. J. 1991. Synchronisation of eating, ruminating and idling activity by grazing sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C. M. 1990. Priority of access to limited feed, butting hierarchy and movement order in a large group of sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25: 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C. M. and Johnson, K. G. 1987. The influence of social factors on the use of shade by sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squires, V. R. and Daws, G. T. 1975. Leadership and dominance relationships in Merino and Border Leicester sheep. Applied Animal Ethology 1: 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syme, L. A. 1981. Social disruption and forced movement in sheep. Animal Behaviour 29: 283–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar