Limits...
Indirect genetic effects for growth rate in domestic pigs alter aggressive and manipulative biting behaviour.

Camerlink I, Ursinus WW, Bijma P, Kemp B, Bolhuis JE - Behav. Genet. (2014)

Bottom Line: Indirect genetic effects (IGEs) are heritable effects of an individual on phenotypic values of others, and may result from social interactions.Selection on high IGEg reduced biting behaviours additive to the, generally much larger, effects of straw-bedding (P < 0.01), with no G × E interactions.These results show opportunities to reduce harmful biting behaviours in pigs.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Animal Sciences, Adaptation Physiology Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands, irene.camerlink@sruc.ac.uk.

ABSTRACT
Indirect genetic effects (IGEs) are heritable effects of an individual on phenotypic values of others, and may result from social interactions. We determined the behavioural consequences of selection for IGEs for growth (IGEg) in pigs in a G × E treatment design. Pigs (n = 480) were selected for high versus low IGEg with a contrast of 14 g average daily gain and were housed in either barren or straw-enriched pens (n = 80). High IGEg pigs showed from 8 to 23 weeks age 40% less aggressive biting (P = 0.006), 27% less ear biting (P = 0.03), and 40% less biting on enrichment material (P = 0.005). High IGEg pigs had a lower tail damage score (high 2.0; low 2.2; P = 0.004), and consumed 30 % less jute sacks (P = 0.002). Selection on high IGEg reduced biting behaviours additive to the, generally much larger, effects of straw-bedding (P < 0.01), with no G × E interactions. These results show opportunities to reduce harmful biting behaviours in pigs.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Jute sack attached to pen wall as distraction material to limit tail biting. The sack was replaced when the sack was ‘consumed’ till the dashed line or further
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4289009&req=5

Fig1: Jute sack attached to pen wall as distraction material to limit tail biting. The sack was replaced when the sack was ‘consumed’ till the dashed line or further

Mentions: Oral manipulation amongst pigs is the repeatedly biting on the tail, ear or paw of a group member, and may result in injury, impaired health or mortality of the bitten animal. Oral manipulation such as tail biting may start harmlessly, but when no measures are taken many animals may be severely damaged (Statham et al. 2009). During the trial, measures were taken to reduce tail biting to an acceptable level to prevent the loss of animals and to guarantee a certain level of animal welfare. Tail biting wounds became significant from 6 weeks of age. To reduce the amount of damaging tail biting behaviour, a handful of wood shavings was provided to each pen from week 6 onward and from week 8 a jute sack was attached to the pen wall as material to chew on. The jute sack was a commercially available sack of approximately 60 × 105 cm, which was over the width attached to the pen wall and was replaced when there was less than 1/3 of the sack left (Fig. 1). When the sack was replaced, the remainders were approximated in cm2. The amount of jute sack that was ‘consumed’ was noted by pen. To reduce tail biting, the tails of bitten pigs were alternating between days covered with the aversive P.B.H. spray (Kommer Biopharm B.V.) or Stockholm tar (Rapide®). Pigs were removed from the pen when they had a reduction in tail length, irrespective of the amount of reduction. Six high IGEg pigs and three low IGE pigs, from eight different pens in total, were removed from the trial due to reduced tail length. One tail biter (low IGEg) was removed to limit further tail damage of its five pen mates.Fig. 1


Indirect genetic effects for growth rate in domestic pigs alter aggressive and manipulative biting behaviour.

Camerlink I, Ursinus WW, Bijma P, Kemp B, Bolhuis JE - Behav. Genet. (2014)

Jute sack attached to pen wall as distraction material to limit tail biting. The sack was replaced when the sack was ‘consumed’ till the dashed line or further
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4289009&req=5

Fig1: Jute sack attached to pen wall as distraction material to limit tail biting. The sack was replaced when the sack was ‘consumed’ till the dashed line or further
Mentions: Oral manipulation amongst pigs is the repeatedly biting on the tail, ear or paw of a group member, and may result in injury, impaired health or mortality of the bitten animal. Oral manipulation such as tail biting may start harmlessly, but when no measures are taken many animals may be severely damaged (Statham et al. 2009). During the trial, measures were taken to reduce tail biting to an acceptable level to prevent the loss of animals and to guarantee a certain level of animal welfare. Tail biting wounds became significant from 6 weeks of age. To reduce the amount of damaging tail biting behaviour, a handful of wood shavings was provided to each pen from week 6 onward and from week 8 a jute sack was attached to the pen wall as material to chew on. The jute sack was a commercially available sack of approximately 60 × 105 cm, which was over the width attached to the pen wall and was replaced when there was less than 1/3 of the sack left (Fig. 1). When the sack was replaced, the remainders were approximated in cm2. The amount of jute sack that was ‘consumed’ was noted by pen. To reduce tail biting, the tails of bitten pigs were alternating between days covered with the aversive P.B.H. spray (Kommer Biopharm B.V.) or Stockholm tar (Rapide®). Pigs were removed from the pen when they had a reduction in tail length, irrespective of the amount of reduction. Six high IGEg pigs and three low IGE pigs, from eight different pens in total, were removed from the trial due to reduced tail length. One tail biter (low IGEg) was removed to limit further tail damage of its five pen mates.Fig. 1

Bottom Line: Indirect genetic effects (IGEs) are heritable effects of an individual on phenotypic values of others, and may result from social interactions.Selection on high IGEg reduced biting behaviours additive to the, generally much larger, effects of straw-bedding (P < 0.01), with no G × E interactions.These results show opportunities to reduce harmful biting behaviours in pigs.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Animal Sciences, Adaptation Physiology Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands, irene.camerlink@sruc.ac.uk.

ABSTRACT
Indirect genetic effects (IGEs) are heritable effects of an individual on phenotypic values of others, and may result from social interactions. We determined the behavioural consequences of selection for IGEs for growth (IGEg) in pigs in a G × E treatment design. Pigs (n = 480) were selected for high versus low IGEg with a contrast of 14 g average daily gain and were housed in either barren or straw-enriched pens (n = 80). High IGEg pigs showed from 8 to 23 weeks age 40% less aggressive biting (P = 0.006), 27% less ear biting (P = 0.03), and 40% less biting on enrichment material (P = 0.005). High IGEg pigs had a lower tail damage score (high 2.0; low 2.2; P = 0.004), and consumed 30 % less jute sacks (P = 0.002). Selection on high IGEg reduced biting behaviours additive to the, generally much larger, effects of straw-bedding (P < 0.01), with no G × E interactions. These results show opportunities to reduce harmful biting behaviours in pigs.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus