Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:53:32.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heritability of the backtest response in piglets and its genetic correlations with production traits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2016

M. W. Iversen ,
J. E. Bolhuis ,
I. Camerlink ,
W. W. Ursinus ,
I. Reimert  and
N. Duijvesteijn
M. W. Iversen
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
J. E. Bolhuis
Affiliation:
Adaptation Physiology Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
I. Camerlink
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands Adaptation Physiology Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
W. W. Ursinus
Affiliation:
Adaptation Physiology Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Animal Behaviour & Welfare, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
I. Reimert
Affiliation:
Adaptation Physiology Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
N. Duijvesteijn
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands Topigs Norsvin Research Center B.V., PO Box 43, 6640 AA Beuningen, The Netherlands
Get access

Abstract

The backtest response of a pig gives an indication of its coping style, that is, its preferred strategy to cope with stressful situations, which may in turn be related to production traits. The objective of this study was therefore to estimate the heritability of the backtest response and estimate genetic correlations with production traits (birth weight, growth, fat depth and loin depth). The backtest was performed by placing the piglet on its back for 60 s and the number of struggles (NrS) and vocalizations (NrV), and the latency to struggle and vocalize (LV) was recorded. In total, 992 piglets were subjected to the backtest. Heritability estimates for backtest traits were statistically moderate (although high for behavioral traits), with LV having the highest heritability estimate (0.56±0.10, P<0.001) and NrS having the lowest estimate (0.37±0.09, P<0.001). Backtest traits also had high genetic correlations with each other, with vocalization traits (NrV and LV) having the highest (−0.94±0.03, P<0.001), and NrS with NrV the lowest correlation (0.70±0.09, P<0.001). No significant correlations were found between backtest traits and production traits, but correlations between NrS and birth weight (−0.38±0.25), and NrV and loin depth (−0.28±0.19) approached significance (P=0.07). More research into genotype-by-environment interactions may be needed to assess possible connections between backtest traits and production traits, as this may depend on the circumstances (environment, experiences, etc.). In conclusion, heritability estimates of backtest traits are high and it would therefore be possible to select for them. The high genetic correlations between backtest traits indicate that it may be possible to only consider one or two traits for characterization and selection purposes. There were no significant genetic correlations found between backtest traits and production traits, although some of the correlations approached significance and hence warrant further research.

Keywords

backtestgenetic correlationsheritabilitypigsproduction traits
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , April 2017 , pp. 556 - 563
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

Bolhuis, JE, Parmentier, HK, Schouten, WGP, Schrama, JW and Wiegant, WA 2003. Effects of housing and individual coping characteristics on immune responses of pigs. Physiology & Behavior 79, 289–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolhuis, JE, Schouten, WGP, de Leeuw, JA, Schrama, JW and Wiegant, VM 2004. Individual coping characteristics, rearing conditions and behavioural flexibility in pigs. Behavioural Brain Research 152, 351–360.Google Scholar
Bolhuis, JE, Schouten, WGP, Schrama, JW and Wiegant, VM 2005. Individual coping characteristics, aggressiveness and fighting strategies in pigs. Animal Behaviour 69, 1085–1091.Google Scholar
Bolhuis, JE, Schouten, WGP, Schrama, JW and Wiegant, VM 2006. Effects of rearing and housing environment on behaviour and performance of pigs with different coping characteristics. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 68–85.Google Scholar
Brokordt, K, Farias, W, Lhorente, JP and Winkler, F 2012. Heritability and genetic correlations of escape behaviours in juvenile scallop Argopecten purpuratus. Animal Behaviour 84, 479–484.Google Scholar
Camerlink, I, Ursinus, WW and Bolhuis, JE 2014. Struggling to survive: early life challenges in relation to the backtest in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 92, 3088–3095.Google Scholar
Cassady, JP 2007. Evidence of phenotypic relationships among behavioral characteristics of individual pigs and performance. Journal of Animal Science 85, 218–224.Google Scholar
Darfour-Oduro, KA, Naazie, A, Ahunu, BK and Aboagye, GS 2009. Genetic parameter estimates of growth traits of indigenous pigs in Northern Ghana. Livestock Science 125, 187–191.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drent, PJ, van Oers, K and van Noordwijk, AJ 2003. Realized heritability of personalities in the great tit (Parus major). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 270, 45–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geverink, NA, Schouten, WGP, Gort, G and Wiegant, WM 2002. Individual differences in behavioral and physiological responses to restraint stress in pigs. Physiology & Behavior 77, 451–457.Google Scholar
Geverink, NA, Heetkamp, MJW, Schouten, WGP, Wiegant, VM and Schrama, JW 2004. Backtest type and housing condition of pigs influence energy metabolism. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1227–1233.Google Scholar
Geverink, NA, Schouten, WGP, Gort, G and Wiegant, VM 2003. Individual differences in behaviour, physiology and pathology in breeding gilts housed in groups or stalls. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 29–41.Google Scholar
Gilmour, AR, Gogel, B, Cullis, B and Thompson, R 2009. ASReml user guide release 3.0. VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, UK.Google Scholar
Guerra, JLL 2004. Statistical models and genetic evaluation of binomial traits. PhD Thesis, Louisiana State University, Louisiana, LA, USA.Google Scholar
Hermesch, S, Luxford, BG and Graser, HU 2000. Genetic parameters for lean meat yield, meat quality, reproduction and feed efficiency traits for Australian pigs: 1. Description of traits and heritability estimates. Livestock Production Science 65, 239–248.Google Scholar
Hessing, MJC, Hagelso, AM, van Beek, JAM, Wiepkema, RP, Schouten, WGP and Krukow, R 1993. Individual behavioural characteristics in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37, 285–295.Google Scholar
Hessing, MJC, Schouten, WGP, Wiepkema, PR and Tielen, MJM 1994. Implications of individual behavioural characteristics on performance in pigs. Livestock Production Science 40, 187–196.Google Scholar
Jensen, P, Rushen, J and Forkman, B 1995. Behavioural strategies or just individual variation in behaviour – a lack of evidence for active and passive piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43, 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melotti, L, Oostindjer, M, Bolhuis, JE, Held, S and Mendl, M 2011. Coping personality type and environmental enrichment affect aggression at weaning in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 133, 144–153.Google Scholar
Reimert, I, Rodenburg, TB, Ursinus, WW, Duijvesteijn, N, Camerlink, I, Kemp, B and Bolhuis, JE 2013. Backtest and novelty behavior of female and castrated male piglets, with diverging social breeding values for growth. Journal of Animal Science 91, 4589–4597.Google Scholar
Reimert, I, Rodenburg, TB, Ursinus, WW, Kemp, B and Bolhuis, JE 2014. Selection based on indirect genetic effects for growth, environmental enrichment and coping style affect the immune status of pigs. PLoS ONE 9, e108700.Google Scholar
Roff, DA 2001. The threshold model as a general purpose normalizing transformation. Genes & Development 86, 404–411.Google Scholar
Rohrer, GA, Brown-Brandl, T, Rempel, LA, Schneider, JF and Holl, J 2013. Genetic analysis of behavior traits in swine production. Livestock Science 157, 28–37.Google Scholar
Ruis, MAW, te Brake, JH, Engel, B, Buist, WG, Blokhuis, HJ and Koolhaas, JM 2001. Adaptation to social isolation0 – acute and long-term stress responses of growing gilts with different coping characteristics. Physiology & Behaviour 73, 541–551.Google Scholar
Ruis, MAW, te Brake, JH, Engel, B, Buist, WG, Blokhuis, HJ and Koolhaas, JM 2002. Implications of coping characteristics and social status for welfare and production of paired growing gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75, 207–231.Google Scholar
Ruis, MAW, te Brake, JH, van de Burgwal, JA, de Jong, IC, Blokhuis, HJ and Koolhaas, JM 2000. Personalities in female domesticated pigs: behavioural and physiological indications. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66, 31–47.Google Scholar
Scheffler, K, Stamer, E, Traulsen, I and Krieter, J 2014. Genetic analysis of the individual behaviour in backtests and human approach tests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 160, 38–45.Google Scholar
Solanes, FX, Grandinson, K, Rydhmer, L, Stern, S, Andersson, K and Lundeheim, N 2004. Direct and maternal influences on the early growth, fattening performance, and carcass traits of pigs. Livestock Production Science 88, 199–212.Google Scholar
Spake, JR, Gray, KA and Cassady, JP 2012. Relationship between backtest and coping styles in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 140, 146–153.Google Scholar
Turner, SP 2011. Breeding against harmful social behaviours in pigs and chickens: state of the art and the way forward. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 134, 1–9.Google Scholar
van Erp-van der Kooij, E, Kuijpers, AH, Schrama, JW, Ekkel, ED and Tielen, MJM 2000. Individual behavioural characteristics in pigs and their impact on production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66, 171–185.Google Scholar
van Erp-van der Kooij, E, Kuijpers, AH, van Eerdenburg, F and Tielen, MJM 2001. A note on the influence of starting position, time of testing and test order on the backtest in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73, 263–266.Google Scholar
van Erp-van der Kooij, E, Kuijpers, AH, van Eerdenburg, F and Tielen, MJM. 2003. Coping characteristics and performance in fattening pigs. Livestock Production Science 84, 31–38.Google Scholar
Velie, BD, Maltecca, C and Cassady, JP 2009. Genetic relationships among pig behavior, growth, backfat, and loin muscle area. Journal of Animal Science 87, 2767–2773.Google Scholar
Zebunke, M, Repsibler, D, Nürnberg, G, Wittenburg, D and Puppe, B 2015. The backtest in pigs revisited – an analysis of intra-situational behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 169, 17–25.Google Scholar