Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-vq995 Total loading time: 0.194 Render date: 2021-10-19T03:56:41.902Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

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
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.

Type
Research Article
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, 289296.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, 351360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolhuis, JE, Schouten, WGP, Schrama, JW and Wiegant, VM 2005. Individual coping characteristics, aggressiveness and fighting strategies in pigs. Animal Behaviour 69, 10851091.CrossRefGoogle 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, 6885.CrossRefGoogle 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, 479484.CrossRefGoogle 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, 30883095.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cassady, JP 2007. Evidence of phenotypic relationships among behavioral characteristics of individual pigs and performance. Journal of Animal Science 85, 218224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 187191.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, 15441554.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, 4551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 451457.CrossRefGoogle 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, 12271233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 2941.CrossRefGoogle 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, 239248.CrossRefGoogle 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, 285295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hessing, MJC, Schouten, WGP, Wiepkema, PR and Tielen, MJM 1994. Implications of individual behavioural characteristics on performance in pigs. Livestock Production Science 40, 187196.CrossRefGoogle 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, 135139.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, 144153.CrossRefGoogle 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, 45894597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roff, DA 2001. The threshold model as a general purpose normalizing transformation. Genes & Development 86, 404411.Google ScholarPubMed
Rohrer, GA, Brown-Brandl, T, Rempel, LA, Schneider, JF and Holl, J 2013. Genetic analysis of behavior traits in swine production. Livestock Science 157, 2837.CrossRefGoogle 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, 541551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 207231.CrossRefGoogle 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, 3147.CrossRefGoogle 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, 3845.CrossRefGoogle 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, 199212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spake, JR, Gray, KA and Cassady, JP 2012. Relationship between backtest and coping styles in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 140, 146153.CrossRefGoogle 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, 19.CrossRefGoogle 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, 171185.CrossRefGoogle 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, 263266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 3138.CrossRefGoogle 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, 27672773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 1725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

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

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

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

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *