Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T09:56:43.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social choices in farm animals: to fight or not to fight?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

M. Mendl  and
H.W. Erhard
M. Mendl
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
H.W. Erhard
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Abstract

From an animal production and welfare perspective, an important social choice made by farm animals is whether and how vigorously to fight others. The choice to fight (i.e. simultaneous escalated aggression by both contestants) may result in severe injury when unfamiliar animals first meet or compete for highly valued resources. Game theory models of aggressive interactions predict that animals have evolved to stop or avoid fighting when they assess their chances of winning a contest to be poor. Assessment may occur during or before a fight. If it occurs before a fight, reliable cues of fighting ability must exist. If farm animals can establish relative social status by assessment prior to fighting, it may be possible to construct social groups which contain individuals of differing abilities such that most disputes are resolved through assessment and levels of damaging aggression are kept low. Social status appears to be established by assessment rather than fighting in free-ranging deer and sheep when asymmetries exist in reliable cues of their fighting abilities such as roaring rate and horn size. However, there have been few detailed studies of other farmed species and findings are equivocal. Work on young pigs suggests that, in pair-wise encounters, individuals are unable to assess weight-related asymmetries in their abilities without fighting. However, recent studies of groups of pigs suggest that some form of assessment prior to fighting may occur. Individuals were classified as high (H) or low (L) aggressive on the basis of their behaviour in an attack latency test. When litters of H pigs were mixed with litters of L pigs, significantly fewer pairs of unfamiliar pigs fought than when newly mixed groups were made up of litters of H pigs only, or litters of L pigs only. Thus, fighting was least frequent when there was a marked asymmetry in the aggressiveness of unfamiliar individuals. Another study raised the possibility that H and L pigs may be following alternative strategies which, under certain circumstances, are similarly beneficial in welfare and production terms. Further work is required to substantiate these findings and to determine whether aggressiveness is a reliable cue of fighting ability and, if so, how it is manifest and assessed.

Type
Research Article
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 20: Animal Choices , 1997 , pp. 45 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 1997

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

Allee, W. C., Foreman, D., Banks, E. M. and Holabird, C. H. 1955. Effects of an androgen on dominance and subordinance in six common breeds of Gallus gallus . Physiological Zoology 28: 89–115.Google Scholar
Archer, J. 1988. The behavioural biology of aggression. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bouissou, M. F. 1972. Influence of body weight and presence of horns on social rank in domestic cattle. Animal Behaviour 20: 474–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, R. H. 1992. Individual attributes as predictors of social status in small groups of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34: 359–363.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H. and Albon, S. D. 1979. The roaring of red deer and the evolution of honest advertisement. Behaviour 69: 145–170.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Albon, S. D., Gibson, R. M. and Guinness, F. E. 1979. The logical stag: adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus elephas L). Animal Behaviour 27: 211–225.Google Scholar
Dawkins, M.S. 1990. From an animal’s point of view: motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 1–61.Google Scholar
Erhard, H. W. and Mendl, M. 1997. Measuring aggressiveness in growing pigs in a resident-intruder situation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science In press.Google Scholar
Erhard, H. W., Mendl, M. and Ashley, D. D. 1997. Individual aggressiveness of pigs can be measured and used to reduce aggression after mixing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science In press.Google Scholar
Fokkema, D. S. 1985. Social behaviour and blood pressure: a study of rats. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Forkman, B., Furuhaug, I. L. and Jensen, P. 1995. Personality, coping patterns and aggression in piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45: 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geist, V. 1971. Mountain sheep. Chicago University Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hessing, M. J. C., Hagelso, A. M., Beek, J. A. M. van, Wiepkema, P. R., Schouten, W. G. P. and Krukow, R. 1993. Individual behavioural characteristics in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 285–295.Google Scholar
Hessing, M. J. C., Schouten, W. G. P., Wiepkema, P. R. and Thielen, M. J. M. 1994. Implications of individual behavioural characteristics on performance in pigs. Livestock Production Science 40: 187–196.Google Scholar
Jackson, W. M. and Winnegrad, R. L. 1987. Linearity in dominance hierarchies: a second look at the individual attributes model. Animal Behaviour 36: 1237–1240.Google Scholar
Jensen, P., Forkman, B., Yngvesson, J. and Furuhaug, I. L. 1996. Assessment in pig conflicts. In Proceedings of the 30th international congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology (ed. Duncan, I. J. H., Widowski, T. M. and Haley, D. B.), p. 46. Col. K. L. Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, Guelph.Google Scholar
Leshner, A. I. 1983. The hormonal responses to competition and their behavioral significance. In Hormones and aggressive behavior (ed. Svare, B.), pp. 393–404. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, J. J. 1990. Olfactory signals that modulate pig aggressive behavior. In Social stress in domestic animals (ed. Zayan, R. and Dantzer, R.), pp. 86–109. Kluwer Academic Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. 1982. Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. and Parker, G. A. 1976. The logic of asymmetric contests. Animal Behaviour 24: 159–175.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. and Riechert, S. E. 1984. A conflicting-tendency model of spider agonistic behaviour: hybrid-pure population line comparisons. Animal Behaviour 32: 564–578.Google Scholar
Mendl, M. and Deag, J. M. 1995. How useful are the concepts of alternative strategy and coping strategy in applied studies of social behaviour? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendl, M. and Newberry, R. C. 1997. Social conditions. In Animal welfare (ed. Appleby, M. C. and Hughes, B. O.). CAB International Wallingford In press.Google Scholar
Mendl, M., Zanella, A. J. and Broom, D. M. 1992. Physiological and reproductive correlates of behavioural strategies in female domestic pigs. Animal Behaviour 44: 1107–1121.Google Scholar
Meunier-Salaun, M. C., Vantrimponte, M. N., Raab, A. and Dantzer, R. 1987. Effect of floor area restriction upon performance, behaviour and physiology of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 64: 1371–1377.Google Scholar
Moore, A. S., Gonyou, H. W. and Ghent, A. W. 1993. Integration of newly introduced and resident sows following grouping. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38: 257–267.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. 1974. Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology 47: 223–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J. 1985. Examining peck order in domestic chickens. Bird Behaviour 6: 1–9.Google Scholar
Rushen, J. 1987. A difference in weight reduces fighting when unacquainted newly weaned pigs first meet. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67:951–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J. 1988. Assessment of fighting ability or simple habituation: what causes young pigs (Sus scrofa) to stop fighting? Aggressive Behavior 14: 155–167.Google Scholar
Stookey, J. M. and 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
Thouless, C. R. and Guinness, F. E. 1986. Conflict between red deer hinds: the winner always wins. Animal Behaviour 34: 1166–1171.Google Scholar
Vehrencamp, S. 1983. A model for the evolution of despotic versus egalitarian societies. Animal Behaviour 31: 667–682.Google Scholar