Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T21:12:16.950Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ontogeny of behavioral traits in commercial sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2018

K. M. Horback  and
T. D. Parsons
K. M. Horback*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616, USA
T. D. Parsons
Affiliation:
Swine Teaching and Research Center, University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, 382 West Street Road, Kennett Square, PA 19348, USA
*
†E-mail: kmhorback@ucdavis.edu
Get access

Abstract

As the number of gestating sows reared in group housing increases, a better understanding of behavioral traits needed to negotiate these more complex social interactions promises to increase animal welfare and productivity. However, little is known about different behavioral strategies or coping styles in sows, and even less is understood about their ontogeny. To study the development of coping styles in adult gestating sows, 36 sows from the same sire line and same commercial maternal genetics were followed from birth through their second parity. Each animal was observed in a battery of stress-related behavioral tests at 5 weeks, and 3 months of age as well as 24 h postpartum as a parity 1 sow, and during introduction to subsequent gestation period in group housing. The tests at different ages included response to handling, open field exploration, human interaction, litter handling and social interactions with conspecifics. Many of the observed behaviors were correlated during the same period of the animal’s life and provided the motivation for a principal component analysis by age. Using principal component analysis, multiple traits were determined at each age point; at 5 weeks old: active, non-exploratory and cautious explained 82.5% of the variance; at 3 months of age: active, non-exploratory and low fear of humans explained 87.7% of the variance; and as primiparous sows: active, aggressive/dominant and submissive explained 82.0% of the variance. Several individual juvenile behaviors were associated with adult behavioral traits. For instance, the response to handling at 5 weeks was significantly predictive (β=0.4; P<0.05) of the aggressive/dominant trait of parity 1 sows. Taken together results presented here suggest that early behavioral responses of prepuberal gilts during specific instances of elevated environmental or social stress can predict future behavioral response as gestating sows.

Keywords

swinepersonalitycoping stylessowanimal welfare
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 11 , November 2018 , pp. 2365 - 2372
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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

Bench, CJ, Rioja-Lang, FC, Hayne, SM and Gonyou, HW 2013a. Group gestation housing with individual feeding—I: How feeding regime, resource allocation, and genetic factors affect sow welfare. Livestock Science 152, 208–217.Google Scholar
Bench, CJ, Rioja-Lang, FC, Hayne, SM and Gonyou, HW 2013b. Group gestation sow housing with individual feeding—II: How space allowance, group size and composition, and flooring affect sow welfare. Livestock Science 152, 218–227.Google Scholar
Bolhuis, JE, Parmentier, HK, Schouten, WG, Schrama, JW and Wiegant, VM 2003. Effects of housing and individual coping characteristics on immune responses of pigs. Physiology & Behavior 79, 289–296.Google Scholar
Capitanio, JP, Mendoza, SP and Baroncelli, S 1999. The relationship of personality dimensions in adult male rhesus macaques to progression of simian immunodeficiency virus disease. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 13, 138–154.Google Scholar
De Jonge, FH, Bokkers, EAM, Schouten, WGP and Helmond, FA 1996. Rearing piglets in a poor environment: developmental aspects of social stress in pigs. Physiology & Behavior 60, 389–396.Google Scholar
Erhard, HW, Mendl, M and Christiansen, SB 1999. Individual differences in tonic immobility may reflect behavioural strategies. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 64, 31–46.Google Scholar
Forkman, B, Furuhang, IL and Jensen, P 1995. Personality, coping patterns and aggression in piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45, 31–42.Google Scholar
Geverink, NA, Kappers, A, van de Burgwal, JA, Lambooij, E, Blokhuis, HJ and Wiegant, VM 1998. Effects of regular moving and handling on the behavioral and physiological responses of pigs to pre-slaughter treatment and consequences for meat quality. Journal of Animal Science 76, 2080–2085.Google Scholar
Geverink, NA, Schouten, WG, 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
Gosling, SD 2001. From mice to men: what can we learn about personality from animal research? Psychological Bulletin 127, 45–86.Google Scholar
Hartsock, TG, Graves, HB and Baumgardt, BR 1977. Agonistic behavior and the nursing order in suckling piglets: relationships with survival, growth and body composition. Journal of Animal Science 44, 320–330.Google Scholar
Hellbrügge, B, Tölle, KH, Bennewitz, J, Henze, C, Presuhn, U and Krieter, J 2008. Genetic aspects regarding piglet losses and the maternal behaviour of sows. Part 2. Genetic relationship between maternal behaviour in sows and piglet mortality. Animal 2, 1281–1288.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH and Barnett, JL 1991. The effects of aversively handling pigs, either individually or in groups, on their behaviour, growth and corticosteroids. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30, 61–72.Google Scholar
Hodgkiss, NJ, Eddison, JC, Brooks, PH and Bugg, P 1998. Assessment of the injuries sustained by pregnant sows housed in groups using electronic feeders. Veterinary Record 143, 604–607.Google Scholar
Horback, KM 2017. Personality in swine. In personality in non‐human animals (ed. J Vonk, S Kuczaj and A Weiss), pp. 185–204. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Horback, KM and Parsons, TD 2016. Temporal stability of personality traits in group-housed gestating sows. Animal 10, 1352–1359.Google Scholar
Janczak, AM, Pedersen, LJ, Rydhmer, L and Bakken, M 2003. Relation between early fear- and anxiety-related behaviour and maternal ability in sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 82, 121–135.Google Scholar
Jensen, P and Yngvesson, J 1998. Aggression between unacquainted pigs – sequential assessment and effects of familiarity and weight. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58, 49–61.Google Scholar
Koolhaas, JM 2008. Coping style and immunity in animals: making sense of individual variation. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 22, 662–667.Google Scholar
Koolhaas, JM, Korte, S, De Boer, S, Van Der Vegt, B, Van Reenen, C, Hopster, H, De Jong, I, Ruis, M and Blokhuis, H 1999. Coping styles in animals: current status in behavior and stress-physiology. Neuroscience Biobehavioral Review 23, 925–935.Google Scholar
Koolhaas, JM and Van Reenen, CG 2016. Animal behavior and well-being symposium: interaction between coping style/personality, stress, and welfare: relevance for domestic farm animals. Journal of Animal Science 94, 2284–2296.Google Scholar
Løvendahl, P, Damgaard, LH, Nielsen, BL, Thodberg, K, Su, G and Rydhmer, L 2005. Aggressive behaviour of sows at mixing and maternal behaviour are heritable and genetically correlated traits. Livestock Production Science 93, 73–85.Google Scholar
Marchant-Forde, JN 2002. Piglet-and stockperson-directed sow aggression after farrowing and the relationship with a pre-farrowing, human approach test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75, 115–132.Google Scholar
Mason, SP, Jarvis, S and Lawrence, AB 2003. Individual differences in responses of piglets to weaning at different ages. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80, 117–132.Google Scholar
Meese, GB and Ewbank, R 1973. The establishment and nature of the dominance hierarchy in the domesticated pig. Animal Behaviour 21, 326–334.Google 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
Meunier-Salaun, MC, Vantrimponte, MN, Raab, A and Dantzer, R 1987. Effect of floor area restriction upon performance, behavior and physiology of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 64, 1371–1377.Google Scholar
Price, EO 2002. Animal domestication and behaviour. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Ruis, MA, 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 2016. Relationship between behavioural tests and agonistic interactions at different age levels in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 177, 19–24.Google Scholar
Schulz, LL and Tonsor, GT 2015. The US gestation stall debate. Choices 30, 1–7.Google Scholar
Terlouw, EMC and Rybarczyk, P 2008. Explaining and predicting differences in meat quality through stress reactions at slaughter: The case of Large White and Duroc pigs. Meat Science 79, 795–805.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
Von Borell, E 2001. The biology of stress and its application to livestock housing and transportation assessment. Journal of Animal Science 79, E260–E267.Google Scholar
Webster, MM and Ward, AJ 2011. Personality and social context. Biological Reviews 86, 759–773.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Horback and Parsons supplementary material 1

Supplementary Table

Download Horback and Parsons supplementary material 1(File)
File 18.9 KB