Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:09:22.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimation of genetic parameters for agonistic behaviour of pigs at different ages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2016

K. SCHEFFLER ,
E. STAMER ,
I. TRAULSEN  and
J. KRIETER
K. SCHEFFLER*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrecht-University, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany
E. STAMER
Affiliation:
TiDa Tier und Daten GmbH, Bosseer Straße 4c, 24259 Westensee/Brux, Germany
I. TRAULSEN
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrecht-University, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany
J. KRIETER
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrecht-University, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The mixing of pigs unacquainted with each other in commercial pig production is a standard procedure which leads to agonistic interactions with a wide range of individual pig behaviour. Hence, the aims of the present study were to assess the heritabilities of agonistic behaviour and to estimate correlations between three different age groups (weaned pigs n = 1111, growing pigs n = 446 and breeding gilts n = 279). The behavioural observation analysis included a period of 17 h directly after mixing as weaned pigs, growing pigs and breeding gilts (220 days of age) whereby the following agonistic traits were observed: number of fights (NF), duration of fights (DF), initiated fights (IF), received fights (RF), fights won (FW) and fights lost (FL). The behaviour of the weaned and growing pigs was significantly influenced by cross-fostering, their weight at mixing and litter attributes. Cross-fostered animals showed fewer agonistic interactions as weaned pigs and as growing pigs than non-cross-fostered animals. The influence of weight revealed that heavier pigs had a higher NF score at weaning and as growing pigs. The random litter effect explained up to 0·08 of the total variance in weaned and 0·04 in growing pigs, whereby this could partly be explained by litter size. Pigs from larger litters tended to have more agonistic interactions. The heritabilities of the recorded traits were at a low to medium level but similar between the age groups. There were high correlations between NF and all other traits in weaned pigs. The trait IF showed that the more fights a pig initiated, the more it won. This was also found for growing pigs and breeding gilts. The relationships between the age groups provided no uniform trend. The phenotypic correlations were low and the genetic correlations varied widely, partly due to the small sample size.

Type
Animal Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 154 , Issue 4 , May 2016 , pp. 732 - 741
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

REFERENCES

Chaloupková, H., Illmann, G., Pedersen, L. J., Malmkvist, J. & Simecková, M. (2008). Sow responsiveness to human contacts and piglet vocalization during 24 h after onset of parturition. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112, 260–269.Google Scholar
Champagne, F. A. & Curley, J. P. (2005). How social experiences influence the brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 15, 704–709.Google Scholar
Clark, C. C. A. & D'Eath, R. B. (2013). Age over experience: consistency of aggression and mounting behaviour in male and female pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 147, 81–93.Google Scholar
D'Eath, R. B. (2004). Consistency of aggressive temperament in domestic pigs: the effects of social experience and social disruption. Aggressive Behaviour 30, 435–448.Google Scholar
D'Eath, R. B. (2005). Socialising piglets before weaning improves social hierarchy formation when pigs are mixed post-weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93, 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Eath, R. B. & Lawrence, A. B. (2004). Early life predictors of the development of aggressive behaviour in the domestic pig. Animal Behaviour 67, 501–509.Google Scholar
D'Eath, R. B., Roehe, R., Turner, S. P., Ison, S. H., Farish, M., Jack, M. C. & Lawrence, A. B. (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
Erhard, H. W., Mendl, M. & Ashley, D. D. (1997). Individual aggressiveness of pigs can be measured and used to reduce aggression after mixing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54, 137–151.Google Scholar
Fels, M. & Hoy, S. (2013). Einflüsse einer Gewichtssortierung von Aufzuchtferkeln auf Lebendmasseentwicklung, aggressive Auseinandersetzungen und Verletzungsgrad nach der Gruppierung (Effects of sorting weaner pigs by weight on growth performance, aggressive interactions and skin lesion score after mixing). Berliner und Münchener tierärztliche Wochenschrift 126, 121–129.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. (1975). The teat order of suckling pigs: II. Fighting during suckling and the effects of clipping the eye teeth. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 84, 393–399.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. & Jones, R. M. (1975). The teat order of suckling pigs: I. Relation to birth weight and subsequent growth. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 84, 387–391.Google Scholar
GFE (2006). Empfehlungen zur Energie und Nährstoffversorgung von Schweinen. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: DLG-Verlag.Google Scholar
Groeneveld, E. (1990). PEST User’s Manual. Neustadt, Germany: Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Behaviour Federal Research Centre.Google Scholar
Hurvich, C. M. & Tsai, C.-L. (1989). Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76, 297–307.Google Scholar
Ismayilova, G., Oczak, M., Costa, A., Thays Sonoda, L., Viazzi, S., Fels, M., Vranken, E., Hartung, J., Bahr, C., Berckmans, D. & Guarino, M. (2013). How do pigs behave before starting an aggressive interaction? Identification of typical body positions in the early stage of aggression using video labelling techniques [in English]. Wie verhalten sich Schweine vor Beginn einer aggressiven Interaktion? Identifizierung typischer Körperpositionen im frühen Stadium aggressiver Auseinandersetzungen anhand von Video-Labelling-Techniken. Berliner und Münchener tierärztliche Wochenschrift 126, 113–120.Google Scholar
Kovac, M. & Groeneveld, E. (2007). VCE-6 User’s Guide and Reference Manual Version 6. Ljubljana, Slovenia: University of Ljubljana.Google Scholar
Langbein, J. & Puppe, B. (2004). Analysing dominance relationships by sociometric methods – a plea for a more standardised and precise approach in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 293–315.Google Scholar
Litten, J. C., Drury, P. C., Corson, A. M., Lean, I. J. & Clarke, L. (2003). The influence of piglet birth weight on physical and behavioural development in early life. Neonatology 84, 311–318.Google Scholar
Løvendahl, P., Damgaard, L. H., Nielsen, B. L., Thodberg, K., Su, G. & Rydhmer, L. (2005). Aggressive behaviour of sows at mixing and maternal behaviour are heritable and genetically correlated traits. Livestock Production Science 93, 73–85.Google Scholar
Meese, G. B. & Ewbank, R. (1973). The establishment and nature of the dominance hierarchy in the domesticated pig. Animal Behaviour 21, 326–334.Google Scholar
Otten, W., Puppe, B., Stabenow, B., Kanitz, E., Schön, P. C., Brüssow, K. P. & Nürnberg, G. (1997). Agonistic interactions and physiological reactions of top- and bottom-ranking pigs confronted with a familiar and an unfamiliar group: preliminary results. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55, 79–90.Google Scholar
Puppe, B. (1998). Effects of familiarity and relatedness on agonistic pair relationships in newly mixed domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58, 233–239.Google Scholar
Roehe, R., Shrestha, N. P., Mekkawy, W., Baxter, E. M., Knap, P. W., Smurthwaite, K. M., Jarvis, S., Lawrence, A. B. & Edwards, S. A. (2009). Genetic analyses of piglet survival and individual birth weight on first generation data of a selection experiment for piglet survival under outdoor conditions. Livestock Science 121, 173–181.Google Scholar
Rushen, J. & Pajor, E. (1987). Offence and defence in fights between young pigs (Sus scrofa). Aggressive Behaviour 13, 329–346.Google Scholar
SAS institute Inc. (2008). User’s Guide (Release 9.2). Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 6, 461–464.Google Scholar
Silerova, J., Spinka, M., Sarova, R. & Algers, B. (2010). Playing and fighting by piglets around weaning on farms, employing individual or group housing of lactating sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 124, 83–89.Google Scholar
Stookey, J. M. & Gonyou, H. W. (1994). The effects of regrouping on behavioral and production parameters in finishing swine. Journal of Animal Science 72, 2804–2811.Google Scholar
Stukenborg, A., Traulsen, I., Puppe, B., Presuhn, U. & Krieter, J. (2011). Agonistic behaviour after mixing in pigs under commercial farm conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 129, 28–35.Google Scholar
Stukenborg, A., Traulsen, I., Stamer, E., Puppe, B., Presuhn, U. & Krieter, J. (2012). Heritabilities of agonistic behavioural traits in pigs and their relationships within and between different age groups. Livestock Science 149, 25–32.Google Scholar
Tan, S. S. L., Shackleton, D. M. & Beames, R. M. (1991). The effect of mixing unfamiliar individuals on the growth and production of finishing pigs. Animal Production 52, 201–206.Google Scholar
Tönepöhl, B., Appel, A. K., Voß, B., König Von Borstel, U. & Gauly, M. (2013). Interaction between sows’ aggressiveness post mixing and skin lesions recorded several weeks later. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144, 108–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuchscherer, M. & Manteuffel, G. (2000). Die wirkung von psychischem stress auf das immunsystem. Ein weiterer grund für tiergerechte haltung (übersichtsreferat). Archiv Tierzucht 43, 547–560.Google Scholar
Tuchscherer, M., Puppe, B., Tuchscherer, A. & Kanitz, E. (1998). Effects of social status after mixing on immune, metabolic, and endocrine responses in pigs. Physiology and Behavior 64, 353–360.Google Scholar
Turner, S. P., Roehe, R., Mekkawy, W., Farnworth, M. J., Knap, P. W. & Lawrence, A. B. (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
Turner, S. P., Roehe, R., D'eath, R. B., Ison, S. H., Farish, M., Jack, M. C., Lundeheim, N., Rydhmer, L. & Lawrence, A. B. (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.Google Scholar
Turner, S. P., Farnworth, M. J., Mendl, M., Erhard, H. W. & Lawrence, A. B. (2011). Evidence for residence-induced enhancement of aggressiveness in the non-territorial pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 130, 10–19.Google Scholar