Behavior Genetics

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 67–75 | Cite as

Bayesian Analysis of Genetic Associations of Skin Lesions and Behavioural Traits to Identify Genetic Components of Individual Aggressiveness in Pigs

  • S. P. Turner
  • R. Roehe
  • W. Mekkawy
  • M. J. Farnworth
  • P. W. Knap
  • A. B. Lawrence
Original Paper

Abstract

There is increasing interest in genetic selection against behavioural traits that impact negatively on welfare and productivity in commercial livestock production. Post-mixing aggressiveness in pigs shows wide phenotypic variation, affects health, welfare and growth performance and is a routine feature of production. A Bayesian approach was used to estimate the heritability of three traits associated with aggressiveness in pigs during the 24 h post-mixing; duration in reciprocal aggression, and in receipt of, or delivery of non-reciprocal aggression (NRA). For the purposes of genetic selection, recording aggressive behaviour is excessively labour intensive. The genetic correlations were quantified between the behavioural traits and an easily measurable indicator trait; the number of skin lesions following mixing (lesion score, LS). The heritabilities for the three behavioural traits ranged from 0.17 to 0.46 (receipt of NRA and reciprocal aggression respectively). The duration in reciprocal aggression and in delivery of NRA showed a strong genetic correlation (r = 0.79 with 95% Bayesian credibility interval of 0.62–0.94). The genetic correlation between LS and these two behaviours indicated that selection on breeding values of LS could be used to reduce aggressiveness. The duration in receipt of NRA appeared to be regulated by different genes or genomic effects compared with the other behavioural traits and LS. Although duration in receipt of NRA was not genetically associated with LS, it was lowly but significantly environmentally associated with the residuals of central and caudal LS (r e = 0.28–0.32), indicating that pigs that received NRA also received bites on the central and caudal third of the body. The pen that the animals were mixed into was found to be a very important factor for the analysed traits, in particular those representing behavioural characteristics. Based on the estimated genetic parameters, it is concluded that selection on breeding values for reduced LS (especially central LS) is expected to reduce reciprocal aggression and the delivery of NRA but will not change the receipt of NRA directly.

Keywords

Aggression Behaviour Lesion score Genetic correlation Pig 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the staff of the pig unit for their invaluable assistance. This project was funded through the LINK Sustainable Livestock Production programme by Defra with additional funding from the PIC International Group, JSR Genetics, the Meat and Livestock Commission, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. SAC receives financial support from SEERAD.

References

  1. Balaban E, Alpher JS, Kasamon YL (1996) Mean genes and the biology of aggression: a critical review of recent animal and human research. J Neurogen 11:1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breuer K, Sutcliffe MEM, Mercer JT, Rance KA, O’Connell NE, Sneddon IA, Edwards SA (2005) Heritability of clinical tail-biting and its relation to performance traits. Livest Prod Sci 93:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Edwards AC, Rollmann SM, Morgan TJ, Mackay TFC (2006) Quantitative genomics of aggressive behavior in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Genet 2:1386–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eley TC, Lichtenstein P, Moffitt TE (2003) A longitudinal behavioural genetic analysis of the etiology of aggressive and nonaggressive antisocial behaviour. Dev Psychopathol 15:383–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Erhard HW, Mendl M, Ashley DD (1997) Individual aggressiveness of pigs can be measured and used to reduce aggression after mixing. Appl Anim Behav Sci 54:137–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ewbank R (1976) Social hierarchy in suckling and fattening pigs: a review. Livest Prod Sci 3:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Francis DA, Christison GI, Cymbaluk NF (1996) Uniform or heterogeneous weight groups as factors in mixing weanling pigs. Can J Anim Sci 76:171–176Google Scholar
  8. Gauly M, Mathiak H, Hoffmann K, Kraus M, Erhardt G (2001) Estimating genetic variability in temperamental traits in German Angus and Simmental cattle. Appl Anim Behav Sci 74:109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grandison K, Rydhmer L, Strandberg E, Thodberg K (2003) Genetic analysis of on-farm tests of maternal behaviour in sows. Livest Prod Sci 83:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kanis E, van den Belt H, Groen AF, Schakel J, de Greef KH (2004) Breeding for improved welfare in pigs: a conceptual framework and its use in practice. Anim Sci 78:315–329Google Scholar
  11. Kjaer JB, Sørensen P (1997) Feather pecking in White Leghorn chickens – a genetic study. Brit Poult Sci 38:333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Knap PW, Merks JWM (1987) A note on the genetics of aggressiveness of premiparous sows towards their piglets. Livest Prod Sci 17:161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Løvendahl P, Damgaard LH, Nielsen BL, Thodberg K, Su G, Rydhmer L (2005) Aggressive behaviour of sows at mixing and maternal behaviour are heritable and genetically correlated traits. Livest Prod Sci 93:73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Luescher UA, Friendship RM, McKeown DB (1990) Evaluation of methods to reduce fighting among regrouped gilts. Can J Anim Sci 70:363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maxon SC (1998) Homologous genes, aggression and animal models. Dev Neuropsychol 14:143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McGlone JJ (1985) A quantitative ethogram of aggressive and submissive behaviours in recently regrouped pigs. J Anim Sci 61:559–565PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Miczek KA, Maxson SC, Fish EW, Faccidomo S (2001) Aggressive behavioural phenotypes in mice. Behav Brain Res 125:167–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Strabel T, Auvray B, Druet T, Lee DH (2002) BLUF90 and related programs (BGF90). In: Proceedings of the 7th world congress genetics applied to livestock production, Montpellier, France. CD-ROM. Communication No. 28-07Google Scholar
  19. van Oortmerssen GA, Bakker TCM (1981) Artificial selection for short and long attack latencies in wild Mus musculus domesticus. Behav Genet 11:115–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van Oortmerssen GA, Benus I, Dijk DJ (1985) Studies in wild house mice: genotype-environment interactions for attack latency. Netherlands J Zool 35:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Raftery AE, Lewis SM (1992) How many iterations in the Gibbs sampler? In: Bernado JM, Berger JO, Dawid AP, Smith AFM (eds) Bayesian statistics IV. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 763–774Google Scholar
  22. Rundgren M, Löfquist I (1989) Effects on performance and behaviour of mixing 20 kg pigs fed individually. Anim Prod 49:311–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Silva B, Gonzalo A, Canon J (2006) Genetic parameters of aggressiveness, ferocity and mobility in the fighting bull breed. Anim Res 55:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spoolder HAM, Edwards SA, Corning S (1999) Effects of group size and feeder space allowance on welfare in finishing pigs. Anim Sci 69:481–489Google Scholar
  25. Tan SSL, Shackleton DM, Beames RM (1991) The effect of mixing unfamiliar individuals on the growth and production of finishing pigs. Anim Prod 52:201–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thomas DC, Gauderman WJ (1996) Gibbs sampling methods in genetics. In: Gilks WR, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter DJ (eds) Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 419–440Google Scholar
  27. Turner SP, Ewen M, Rooke JA, 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. Livest Prod Sci 66:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Turner SP, Farnworth MJ, White IMS, Brotherstone S, Mendl M, Knap P, Penny P, Lawrence AB (2006a) The accumulation of skin lesions and their use as a predictor of individual aggressiveness in pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 96:245–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Turner SP, White IMS, Brotherstone S, Farnworth MJ, Knap PW, Penny P, Mendl M, Lawrence AB (2006b) Heritability of post-mixing aggressiveness in grower-stage pigs and its relationship with production traits. Anim Sci 82:615–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weary DM, Fraser D (1999) Partial tooth-clipping of suckling pigs: effects on neonatal competition and facial injuries. Appl Anim Behav Sci 65:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. P. Turner
    • 1
  • R. Roehe
    • 1
  • W. Mekkawy
    • 2
  • M. J. Farnworth
    • 1
    • 3
  • P. W. Knap
    • 4
  • A. B. Lawrence
    • 1
  1. 1.Scottish Agricultural CollegePenicuikUK
  2. 2.Animal Production Department, Faculty of AgricultureAin Shams UniversityCairoEgypt
  3. 3.School of Natural SciencesUnitecAucklandNew Zealand
  4. 4.PIC International GroupSchleswigGermany

Personalised recommendations