Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T02:40:59.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetics of behavioural adaptation of livestock to farming conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2012

L. Canario ,
S. Mignon-Grasteau ,
M. Dupont-Nivet  and
F. Phocas
L. Canario*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 0444 Laboratoire de Génétique Cellulaire, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
S. Mignon-Grasteau
Affiliation:
INRA, UR 0083 Station de Recherches Avicoles, 37380 Nouzilly, France
M. Dupont-Nivet
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1313 Génétique Animale et Biologie Intégrative, 78352 Jouy-en-Josas, France
F. Phocas
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1313 Génétique Animale et Biologie Intégrative, 78352 Jouy-en-Josas, France
*
†E-mail: Laurianne.Canario@toulouse.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

Behavioural adaptation of farm animals to environmental changes contributes to high levels of production under a wide range of farming conditions, from highly controlled indoor systems to harsh outdoor systems. The genetic variation in livestock behaviour is considerable. Animals and genotypes with a larger behavioural capacity for adaptation may cope more readily with varying farming conditions than those with a lower capacity for adaptation. This capacity should be exploited when the aim is to use a limited number of species extensively across the world. The genetics of behavioural traits is understood to some extent, but it is seldom accounted for in breeding programmes. This review summarizes the estimates of genetic parameters for behavioural traits in cattle, pigs, poultry and fish. On the basis of the major studies performed in the last two decades, we focus the review on traits of common interest in the four species. These concern the behavioural responses to both acute and chronic stressors in the physical environment (feed, temperature, etc.) and those in the social environment (other group members, progeny, humans). The genetic strategies used to improve the behavioural capacity for adaptation of animals differ between species. There is a greater emphasis on responses to acute environmental stress in fish and birds, and on responses to chronic social stress in mammals.

Keywords

behavioural genetics, fish, cattle, pig, poultry
Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , March 2013 , pp. 357 - 377
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Altan, O, Akbas, Y, Aksit, M 2004. Genetic variability of residual feed consumption (RFC) and its relationships with some production traits and fear response in Japanese quail hens (Coturnic coturnix japonica). Archiv fur Geflugelkunde 68, 223–229.Google Scholar
Alvarez, D, Nicieza, AG 2003. Predator avoidance behaviour in wild and hatchery-reared brown trout: the role of experience and domestication. Journal of Fish Biology 63, 1565–1577.Google Scholar
Arnaud, I, Gardin, E, Sauvage, E, Bernadet, MD, Couty, M, Guy, G, Guémené, D 2010. Behavioral and adrenal responses to various stressors in mule ducks from different commercial genetic selection schemes and their respective parental genotypes. Poultry Science 89, 1097–1109.Google Scholar
Bakker, TCM 1985. Two-way selection of aggression in juvenile, female, and male sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.) with some notes on hormonal factors. Behaviour 93, 69–81.Google Scholar
Barker, JSF 2009. Defining fitness in natural and domesticated populations. In Adaptation and fitness in animal populations: evolutionary and breeding perspectives on genetic resource management (ed. J van der Werf, HU Graser, R Franckham and C Gondro), pp. 3–14. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Beaumont, C, Lebihan-Duval, E, Mignon-Grasteau, S, Leterrier, C 2010. The European experience in poultry welfare – a decade ahead. Poultry Science 89, 825–831.Google Scholar
Beaumont, C, Roussot, O, Feve, K, Vignoles, F, Leroux, S, Pitel, F, Faure, JM, Mills, AD, Guémené, D, Sellier, N, Mignon-Grasteau, S, Le Roy, P, Vignal, A 2005. A genome scan with AFLPTM markers to detect fearfulness-related QTLs in Japanese quail. Animal Genetics 36, 401–407.Google Scholar
Beckman, D, Speidel, S, Brigham, B, Garrick, D, Enns, R 2005. Genetic parameter estimates for docility in Limousin cattle. Proceedings, Western Section, American Society of Animal Science 56, 109–111.Google Scholar
Beilharz, RG, Luxford, BG, Wilkinson, JL 1993. Quantitative genetics and evolution: is our understanding of genetics sufficient to explain evolution? Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 110, 161–170.Google Scholar
Benhajali, H, Boivin, X, Sapa, J, Pellegrini, P, Boulesteix, P, Lajudie, P, Phocas, F 2010. Assessment of different on-farm measures of beef cattle temperament for use in genetic evaluation. Journal of Animal Science 88, 3529–3537.Google Scholar
Bergeron, R, Gonyou, HW, Eurell, TE 1996. Behavioral and physiological responses of Meishan, Yorkshire and crossbred gilts to conventional and turn-around gestation stall. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 76, 289–297.Google Scholar
Bessei, W 1984. Untersuchungen zur Heritabilität des Federpickverhaltens bei Junghennen. 1. Mitteilung. Arch Geflügelk 48, 224–231.Google Scholar
Bessei, W 1995. Genetics of feather pecking. Proceedings of the 2nd European Poultry Breeders Roudtable, Foulum, 6–8 septembre 73, 9–21.Google Scholar
Bessei, W 2006. Welfare of broilers: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal 62, 455–466.Google Scholar
Bijma, P 2011. Breeding for social interaction, for animal welfare. In Encyclopedia of sustainability science and technology (ed. RA Meyers). Springer Science and Business Media LLC, New York (in press).Google Scholar
Biscarini, F, Bovenhuis, H, van der Poel, JJ, Rodenburg, TB, Jungerius, AP, van Aendonk, JAM 2010. Across-line SNP association study for direct and associative effects on feather damage in laying hens. Behavior genetics 40, 715–727.Google Scholar
Bizeray, D, Leterrier, C, Constantin, P, Faure, JM 2000. Early locomotor behaviour in genetic stocks of chickens with different growth rates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68, 231–242.Google Scholar
Boelling, D, Fogh, A, Nielsen, US 2007. Locomotion as a new trait: first results from Denmark. Interbull Bulletin 37, 175–178.Google Scholar
Boettcher, PJ, Dekkers, JC, Warnick, LD, Wells, SJ 1998. Genetic analysis of clinical lameness in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 1148–1156.Google Scholar
Boissy, A, Le Neindre, P, Gastinel, PL, Bouix, J 2002. Génétique et adaptation comportementale chez les ruminants: perspectives pour améliorer le bien-être en élevage. INRA Productions Animales 15, 373–382.Google Scholar
Bordas, A, Minvielle, F 1997. Réponse à la chaleur de poules pondeuses issues de lignées sélectionnées pour une faible (R−) ou forte (R+) consommation alimentaire résiduelle. Genetic Selection Evolution 29, 279–290.Google Scholar
Boulay, M, Arnould, C, Mignon-Grasteau, S, Chapuis, H 2006. Can plumage score be improved using an automatic measurement of pecking at a bunch of feathers? Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 174pp.Google Scholar
Bowman, PJ, Visscher, PM, Goddard, ME 1996. Customized selection indices for dairy bulls in Australia. Animal Science 62, 393–403.Google Scholar
Branciari, R, Mugnai, C, Mammoli, R, Miraglia, D, Ranucci, D, Dal Bosco, A, Castellini, C 2009. Effect of genotype and rearing system on chicken behavior and muscle fiber characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 87, 4109–4117.Google Scholar
Braastad, BO, Katle, J 1989. Behavioural differences between laying hen populations selected for high and low efficiency of food utilization. British Poultry Science 30, 533–544.Google Scholar
Breuer, K, Sutcliffe, MEM, Mercer, JT, Rance, KA, O'Connell, NE, Sneddon, IA, Edwards, SA 2005. Heritability of clinical tail-biting and its relation to performance traits. Livestock Production Science 93, 87–94.Google Scholar
Buitenhuis, AJ, Rodenburg, TB, van Hierden, YM, Siwek, M, Cornelissen, SJ, Nieuwland, MG, Crooijmans, RP, Groenen, MA, Koene, P, Korte, SM 2003. Mapping quantitative trait loci affecting feather pecking behavior and stress response in laying hens. Poultry Science 82, 1215–1222.Google Scholar
Buitenhuis, AJ, Rodenburg, TB, Siwek, M, Cornelissen, SJ, Nieuwland, MG, Crooijmans, RP, Groenen, MA, Koene, P, Bovenhuis, H, van der Poel, JJ 2004. Identification of QTLs involved in open-field behaviour in young and adult laying hens. Behaviour Genetics 34, 325–333.Google Scholar
Buitenhuis, AJ, Rodenburg, TB, Siwek, M, Cornelissen, SJB, Nieuwland, MGB, Crooijmans, RPMA, Groenen, MAM, Koene, P, Bovenhuis, H, van der Poel, JJ 2005. Quantitative trait loci for behavioural traits in chickens. Livestock Production Science 93, 95–103.Google Scholar
Burrow, HM 1997. Measurements of temperament and their relationships with performance traits of beef cattle: a review. Animal Breeding Abstracts 65, 477–495.Google Scholar
Burrow, HM 2001. Variances and covariances between productive and adaptative traits and temperament in a composite breed of tropical beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 70, 213–233.Google Scholar
Campo, JL, Carnicer, C 1993. Realized heritability of tonic immobility in White Leghorn hens: a replicated single generation test. Poultry Science 72, 2193–2199.Google Scholar
Chen, CF, Huang, NZ, Gourichon, D, Lee, YP, Tixier-Boichard, M, Bordas, A 2008. Effect of introducing the naked neck gene in a line selected for low residual feed consumption, on performance in temperate or subtropical environments. Poultry Science 87, 1320–1327.Google Scholar
Chen, C, Guo, Y, Yang, G, Yang, Z, Zhang, Z, Yang, B, Yan, X, Perez-Enciso, M, Ma, J, Duan, Y, Brenig, B, Huang, L 2009. A genome wide detection of quantitative trait loci on pig maternal infanticide behavior in a large scale White Duroc × Erhualian resource population. Behavioural Genetics 39, 213–219.Google Scholar
Craig, JV, Adams, AW 1984. Behaviour and well-being of hens (Callus domesticus) in alternative housing environments. World's Poultry Science Journal 40, 221–240.Google Scholar
Craig, JV, Muir, WM 1989. Fearful and associated responses of caged White Leghorn hens: genetic parameter estimates. Poultry Science 68, 1040–1046.Google Scholar
Craig, JV, Craig, TP, Dayton, AD 1983. Fearful behavior by caged hens of two genetic stocks. Applied Animal Ethology 10, 263–273.Google Scholar
Craig, JV, Jan, ML, Polley, CR, Bhagwat, AL 1975. Changes in relative aggressiveness and social dominance associated with selection for early egg production in chickens. Poultry Science 54, 1647–1658.Google Scholar
Craig, JV, Muir, WM 1993. Selection of reduction of beak-inflicted injuries among caged hens. Poultry Science 72, 411–420.Google Scholar
Crump, RE, Hansson, AC, Graser, HU, Sokolinski, R 2005. Potential quantitative genetic indicators of pig temperament. Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Noosa, Australia, pp. 91–94.Google Scholar
Dado, RG, Allen, MS 1994. Variation in and relationships among feeding, chewing, and drinking variables for lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 77, 132–144.Google Scholar
Dantzer, R 2001. Can farm animal welfare be understood without taking into account the issues of emotion and cognition? Journal of Animal Science 80 (E. suppl. 1), E1–E9.Google Scholar
Dantzer, R, Mormède, P 1983. Stress in farm animals: a need for reevaluation. Journal of Animal Science 57, 6–18.Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2004. Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Animal Welfare 13, S3–S7.Google Scholar
Désautés, C, Bidanel, JP, Milan, D, Iannuccelli, N, Amigues, Y, Bourgeois, F, Caritez, JC, Renard, C, Chevalet, C, Mormède, P 2002. Genetic linkage mapping of quantitative trait loci for behavioral and neuroendocrine stress response traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2276–2285.Google Scholar
Einum, S, Fleming, IA 1997. Genetic divergence and interactions in the wild among native, farmed and hybrid Atlantic salmon. Journal of Fish Biology 50, 634–651.Google Scholar
Fabrega, E, Font, J, Carrión, D, Velarde, A, Ruiz-de-la-Torre, J, Diestre, A, Manteca, X 2004. Differences in open field behaviour between heterozygous and homozygous negative gilts for the RYR(1) gene. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 7, 83–93.Google Scholar
Fan, B, Onteru, SK, Mote, BE, Serenius, T, Stalder, KJ, Rothschild, MF 2009. Large-scale association study for structural soundness and leg locomotion traits in the pig. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 14.Google Scholar
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) 2006. Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options, LEAD, FAO, Rome, 390pp.Google Scholar
Faure, JM, Arnould, C, Beaumont, C, Guemene, D, Leterrier, C, Mills, AD, Richard, S 2006. Consequences of selection for fear in Japanese quail. Archiv für Geflugelkunde 70, 216–222.Google Scholar
Fevolden, SE, Roed, KH, Fjalestad, KT 2002. Selection response of cortisol and lysozyme in rainbow trout and correlation to growth. Aquaculture 205, 61–75.Google Scholar
Fisher, AD, Morris, CA, Matthews, LR, Pitchford, WS, Bottema, CDK 2001. Handling and stress response traits in cattle: identification of putative genetic markers. In Proceedings of the 35th International Congress of the ISAE Center for Animal Welfare (ed. JP Garner, JA Mench and SP Heekin), pp. 100. UC Davis, Davis, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Flisikowski, K, Schwarzenbacher, H, Wysocki, M, Weigend, S, Preisinger, R, Kjaer, JB, Fries, R 2009. Variation in neighbouring genes of the dopaminergic and serotonergic systems affects feather pecking behaviour of laying hens. Animal Genetics 40, 192–199.Google Scholar
Forkman, B, Boissy, A, Meunier-Salaun, MC, Canali, E, Jones, RB 2007. A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiology and Behavior 92, 340–374.Google Scholar
Formanek, L, Houdelier, C, Lumineau, S, Bertin, A, Cabanès, G, Richard-Yris, MA 2008. Selection of social traits in juvenile Japanese quail affects adults’ behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112, 174–186.Google Scholar
Frankham, R 2009. Genetic architecture of reproductive fitness and its consequences. In Adaptation and fitness in animal populations: evolutionary and breeding perspectives on genetic resource management (ed. J van der Werf, HU Graser, R Franckham and C Gondro), pp. 15–40. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Francis, RC 1984. The effects of bidirectional selection for social dominance on agonistic behavior and sex ratios in the paradise fish (Macropodus opercularis). Behaviour 90, 25–45.Google Scholar
Gallup, GG Jr, Gordon, G 1979. Tonic immobility as a measure of fear in domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour 27, 316–317.Google Scholar
Gaughan, JB, Mader, TL, Holt, SM, Sullivan, ML, Hahn, GL 2010. Assessing the heat tolerance of 17 beef cattle genotypes. International Journal of Biometeorology 54, 617–627.Google Scholar
Gauly, M, Mathiak, H, Kraus, M, Erhardt, G 2001. Estimating genetic variability in temperamental traits in German Angus and Simmental cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74, 109–119.Google Scholar
Gentle, MJ, Hughes, BO, Fox, A, Waddington, D 1997. Behavioural and anatomical consequences of two beak trimming methods in 1- and 10-day old domestic chicks. British Poultry Science 38, 453–463.Google Scholar
Gerken, M, Petersen, J 1992. Direct and correlated responses to bidirectional selection for dustbathing activity in Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Behavioural Genetics 22, 601–612.Google Scholar
Gerken, M, Bamberg, H, Petersen, J 1988. Studies of the relationship between fear related responses and production traits in Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) bidirectionally selected for dustbathing activity. Poultry Science 67, 1363–1371.Google Scholar
Gilbert, H, Al Aïn, S, Bidanel, JP, Lagant, H, Billon, Y, Guillouet, P, Noblet, J, Sellier, P 2009. Divergent selection for residual feed intake in the growing pig: correlated effects on feeding behavior. Proceedings of the Research Swine Days, France, 41, 31–32.Google Scholar
Gill, CA, Boldt, CR, Abbey, CA, Wegenhoft, MA, Lunt, DK, Sawyer, JE, Herring, AD, Sanders, JO 2007. Identification of QTL affecting disposition in Bos indicus influenced cattle. Proceedings of the Joint ADSA PSA AMPA ASAS Meeting Symposia, San Antonio, TX, Abstract no. 544.Google Scholar
Gjerde, B, Pante, MJR, Baeverfjord, G 2005. Genetic variation for a vertebral deformity in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture 244, 77–87.Google Scholar
Grandin, T, Deesing, MJ 1998. Genetics and animal welfare. In Genetics and the behaviour of Domestic Animals (ed. T Grandin), pp. 113–144. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Grandinson, K, Lund, MS, Rydhmer, L, Strandberg, E 2002. Genetic parameters for the piglet mortality traits crushing, stillbirth and total mortality, and their relation to birth weight. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science 52, 167–173.Google Scholar
Grandinson, K, Rydhmer, L, Strandberg, E, Thodberg, K 2003. Genetic analysis of on-farm tests of maternal behaviour in sows. Livestock Production Science 83, 141–151.Google Scholar
Grignard, L 2001. Variabilité génétique des comportements sociaux chez les bovins domestiques (Bos taurus L). PhD thesis, Rennes I University, 147 pp.Google Scholar
Grindflek, E, Sehested, E 1996. Conformation and longevity in Norwegian pigs. In Proceedings of the Nordiska Jordbruksforskares Forening Seminar 265–Longevity of Sows. Research Centre Foulum, Denmark, pp. 77–83.Google Scholar
Gutierrez-Gil, B, Ball, N, Burton, D, Haskell, M, Williams, JL, Wiener, P 2008. Identification of quantitative trait loci affecting cattle temperament. Journal of Heredity 99, 629–638.Google Scholar
Håkansson, J, Bratt, C, Jensen, P 2007. Behavioural differences between two captive populations of red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus) with different genetic background, raised under identical conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102, 24–38.Google Scholar
Heil, G, Simianer, H, Dempfle, L 1990. Genetic and phenotypic variation in premaying behavior of Leghorn hens kept in single cages. Poultry Science 69, 1231–1235.Google Scholar
Hellbrügge, B, Tölle, KH, Bennewitz, J, Henze, C, Presuhn, U, 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, Barnett, JL, Treacy, D, Madgwick, P 1990. The heritability of the trait fear of humans and the association between this trait and subsequent reproductive performance of gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25, 85–95.Google Scholar
Herd, RM, Oddy, VH, Richardson, EC 2004. Biological basis for variation in residual feed intake in beef cattle. 1. Review of potential mechanisms. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 423–430.Google Scholar
Hiendleder, S, Thomsen, H, Reinsch, N, Bennewitz, J, Leyhe-Horn, B, Looft, C, Xu, N, Medjugorac, I, Russ, I, Kühn, C, Brockmann, GA, Blümel, J, Brenig, B, Reinhardt, F, Reents, R, Averdunk, G, Schwerin, M, Förster, M, Kalm, E, Erhardt, G 2003. Mapping of QTL for body conformation and behaviour in cattle. Journal of Heredity 94, 496–506.Google Scholar
Holl, JW, Rohrer, GA, Brown-Brandl, TM 2010. Estimates of genetic parameters among scale activity scores, growth, and fatness in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 88, 455–459.Google Scholar
Hoppe, S, Brandt, HR, Erhardt, G, Gauly, M 2008. Maternal protective behaviour of German Angus and Simmental beef cattle after parturition and its relation to production traits. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114, 297–306.Google Scholar
Hoppe, S, Brandt, HR, König, S, Erhardt, G, Gauly, M 2010. Temperament traits of beef calves measured under field conditions and their relationships to performance. Journal of Animal Science 88, 1982–1989.Google Scholar
Houston, RD, Haley, CS, Archibald, AL, Rance, KA 2005. A QTL affecting daily feed intake maps to chromosome 2 in pigs. Mammalian Genome 16, 464–470.Google Scholar
Howie, JA, Avendano, S, Tolkamp, BJ, Kyriazakis, I 2011. Genetic parameters of feeding behaviour traits and their relationship with live performance traits in modern broiler lines. Poultry Science 90, 1197–1205.Google Scholar
Huff, GR, Huff, WE, Rath, NC, Donoghue, AM, Anthony, NB, Nestor, KE 2007. Differential effects of sex and genetics on behavior and stress response of turkeys. Poultry Science 86, 1294–1303.Google Scholar
Hugues, AL, Buitenhuis, AJ 2010. Reduced variance of gene expression at numerous loci in a population of chickens selected for high feather pecking. Poultry Science 89, 1858–1869.Google Scholar
Ingvartsen, KL, Dewhurst, RJ, Friggens, NC 2003. On the relationship between lactational performance and health: is it yield or metabolic imbalance that causes diseases in dairy cattle? A position paper. Livestock Production Science 83, 277–308.Google Scholar
Janczak, AM, Pedersen, LJ, Rydhmer, L, 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, Keeling, L, Schütz, K, Andersson, L, Mormede, P, Brandstrom, H, Forkman, B, Kerje, S, Fredriksson, R, Ohlsson, C, Larsson, S, Mallmin, H, Kindmark, A 2005. Feather pecking in chickens is genetically related to behavioural and developmental traits. Physiology and Behavior 86, 52–60.Google Scholar
Jones, RB, Beuving, G, Blokhuis, HJ 1988. Tonic immobility and heterophil/lymphocyte responses of the domestic fowl to corticosterone infusion. Physiology and Behavior 42, 249–253.Google Scholar
Jones, RB, Blockhuis, HJ, Beuving, G 1995. Open-field and tonic immobility responses in domestic chicks of two genetic lines differing in their propensity to feather peck. British Poultry Science 36, 525–530.Google Scholar
Jones, RM, Hermesch, S, Crump, RE 2009. Evaluation of pig flight time, average daily gain and backfat using random effect models including growth group. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 18, 199–202.Google Scholar
Jones, RB, Mills, AD, Faure, JM, Williams, JB 1994. Restraint, fear and distress in Japanese quail genetically selected for long or short tonic immobility reactions. Physiology and Behavior 56, 529–534.Google Scholar
Jonsson, P 1985. Gene action and maternal effects on social ranking and its relationship with production traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 102, 208–220.Google Scholar
Johnsson, JI, Abrahams, MV 1991. Interbreeding with domestic strain increases foraging under threat of predation in juvenile steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): an experimental study. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48, 243–247.Google Scholar
Johnsson, JI, Höjesjö, J, Fleming, IA 2001. Behavioural and heart rate responses to predation risk in wild and domesticated Atlantic salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58, 788–794.Google Scholar
Kadzere, CT, Murphy, MR, Silznikove, N, Maltz, E 2002. Heat stress in lactating dairy cows: a review. Livestock Production Science 77, 59–91.Google Scholar
Kanis, E, van den Belt, H, Groen, AF, Schakel, J, de Greef, KH 2004. Breeding for improved welfare in pigs: a conceptual framework and its use in practice. Animal Science 78, 315–329.Google Scholar
Keeling, L, Jensen, P 1995. Do feather pecking and cannibalistic hens have different personalities? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44, 257–281.Google Scholar
Keeling, L, Andersson, L, Schütz, KE, Kerje, S, Fredriksson, R, Carlborg, Ö, Cornwallis, CK, Pizzari, T, Jensen, P 2004. Chicken genomics: feather-pecking and victim pigmentation. Nature 431, 645–646.Google Scholar
Kim, KS, Larsen, N, Short, T, Plastow, G, Rothschild, MF 2000. A missense variant of the porcine melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) gene is associated with fatness, growth, and feed intake traits. Mammalian Genome 11, 131–135.Google Scholar
Kjaer, JB, Mench, JA 2003. Behaviour problems associated with selection for increased production. In Poultry Genetics, Breeding and Technology (ed. WM Muir and SE Aggrey), pp. 67–82. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Kjaer, JB, Sørensen, P 1997. Feather pecking behaviour in White Leghorns, a genetic study. British Poultry Science 38, 333–341.Google Scholar
Kjaer, JB, Sorensen, P, Su, G 2001. Divergent selection on feather pecking behavior in laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71, 229–239.Google Scholar
Knap, PW 2005. Breeding robust pigs. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45, 763–773.Google Scholar
Knap, PW, Merks, JWM 1987. A note on the genetics of aggressiveness of primiparous sows towards their piglets. Livestock Production Science 17, 161–167.Google Scholar
Koolhaas, JM, de Boer, SF, Bohus, B 1997. Motivational systems or motivational states: behavioural and physiological evidence. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53, 131–143.Google Scholar
Labroue, F, Guéblez, R, Sellier, P 1997. Genetic parameters of feeding behavior and performance traits in group-housed Large White and French Landrace growing pigs. Genetic Selection and Evolution 29, 451–468.Google Scholar
Lahti, K, Laurila, A, Enberg, K, Piironen, J 2001. Variation in aggressive behaviour and growth rate between populations and migratory forms in the brown trout, Salmo trutta. Animal Behaviour 62, 935–944.Google Scholar
Laursen, MV, Boelling, D, Mark, T 2009. Genetic parameters for claw and leg health, foot and leg conformation and locomotion in Danish Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 1770–1777.Google Scholar
Le Bihan Duval, E, Beaumont, C, Colleau, JJ 1996. Genetic parameters of the twisted legs syndrome in broiler chickens. Genetics Selection Evolution 28, 177–195.Google Scholar
Le Neindre, P 1984. La relation mère-jeune chez les ovins: influence de l'environnement social et de la race. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Rennes.Google Scholar
Le Neindre, P, Grignard, L, Trillat, G, Boissy, A, Menissier, F, Sapa, J, Boivin, X 2002. Docile Limousin cows are not poor mothers. Proceedings of the 7th world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, 19–23 August, 2002, Montpellier, comm. 14–13.Google Scholar
Lepage, O, Øverli, Ø, Petersson, E, Jarvi, T, Winberg, S 2000. Differential stress coping in wild and domesticated sea trout. Brain Behaviour Evolution 56, 259–268.Google Scholar
Løvendahl, P, Munksgaard, L 2005. Are time-budgets of dairy cows affected by genetic improvement of milk yield? Journal of Dairy Science 88 (suppl. 1), 231.Google Scholar
Løvendahl, P, Damgaard, LH, Nielsen, BL, Thodberg, K, Su, G, 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
Luiting, P, Urff, EM 1991. Optimization of a model to estimate residual feed consumption in the laying hen. Livestock Production Science 27, 321–338.Google Scholar
Lundeheim, N 1987. Genetic analysis of osteochondrosis and leg weakness in the Swedish pig progeny testing scheme. Acta agricultura Scandinavica 37, 159–173.Google Scholar
Mambrini, M, Sanchez, MP, Chevassus, B, Labbé, L, Quillet, E, Boujard, T 2004. Selection for growth increases feed intake and affects feeding behaviour of brown trout. Livestock Production Science 88, 85–98.Google Scholar
Massault, C, Hellemans, B, Louro, B, Batargias, C, Van Houdt, JKJ, Canario, A, Volckaert, FAM, Bovenhuis, H, Haley, C, de Koning, DJ 2010. QTL for body weight, morphometric traits and stress response in European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax. Animal Genetics 41, 337–345.Google Scholar
McGlone, JJ, Akins, CK, Green, RD 1991. Genetic variation of sitting frequency and duration in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30, 319–322.Google Scholar
Mercat, MJ, Mormède, P 2002. Influences génétiques sur les processus d'adaptation et le comportement alimentaire chez le porc. INRA Productions Animales 15, 349–356.Google Scholar
Mesa, MG 1991. Variation in feeding, aggression, and position choice between hatchery and wild cut throat trout in an artificial stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120, 723–727.Google Scholar
Mignon-Grasteau, S, Faure, JM 2002. Génétique et adaptation: le point des connaisssances chez les volailles. INRA Productions Animales 15, 357–364.Google Scholar
Mignon-Grasteau, S, Roussot, O, Delaby, C, Faure, JM, Mills, A, Leterrier, C, Guéméné, D, Constantin, P, Mills, M, Lepape, G, Beaumont, C 2003. Factorial correspondence analysis of fear-related behaviour traits in Japanese quail. Behavioural Processes 61, 69–75.Google Scholar
Mignon-Grasteau, S, Boissy, A, Bouix, J, Faure, JM, Fisher, AD, Hinch, GN, Jensen, P, Le Neindre, P, Mormède, P, Prunet, P, Vandeputte, M, Beaumont, C 2005. Genetics of adaptation and domestication in livestock. Livestock Production Science 93, 3–14.Google Scholar
Mills, AD, Wood-Gush, DG, Hughes, BO 1985. Genetic analysis of strain differences in pre-laying behaviour in battery cages. British Poultry Science 26, 187–197.Google Scholar
Mills, A, Faure, JM 1991. Divergent selection for duration of tonic immobility and social reinstatement behavior in Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) chicks. Journal of Comparative Psychology 105, 25–38.Google Scholar
Minvielle, F, Mills, AD, Faure, JM, Monvoisin, JL, Gourichon, D 2002. Fearfulness and performance related traits in selected lines of Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica). Poultry Science 81, 21–326.Google Scholar
Minvielle, F, Kayang, BB, Inoue-Murayama, M, Miwa, M, Vignal, A, Gourichon, D, Neau, A, Monvoisin, JL, Ito, S 2005. Microsatellite mapping of QTL affecting growth, feed consumption, egg production, tonic immobility and body temperature of Japanese quail. BMC Genomics 6, 87.Google Scholar
Montanholi, YR, Swanson, KC, Palme, R, Schenkel, FS, McBride, BW, Lu, D, Miller, SP 2010. Assessing feed efficiency in beef steers through feeding behaviour, infrared thermography and glucocorticoids. Animal 4, 692–701.Google Scholar
Mormède, P, Foury, A, Terenina, E, Knap, PW 2011. Breeding for robustness: the role of cortisol. Animal 5, 651–657.Google Scholar
Morris, CA, Cullen, NG, Kilgour, R, Bremner, KJ 1994. Some genetic-factors affecting temperament in bos-taurus cattle. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 37, 167–175.Google Scholar
Muráni, E, Ponsuksili, S, D'Eath, RB, Turner, SP, Kurt, E, Evans, G, Thölking, L, Klont, R, Foury, A, Mormède, P, Wimmers, K 2010. Association of HPA axis-related genetic variation with stress reactivity and aggressive behavior in pigs. BMC Genetics 11, 74–85.Google Scholar
N'Dri, AL 2006. Etude des interactions entre génotype et environnement chez ler poulet de chair et la poule pondeuse. Thèse de l'INAPG, 249pp.Google Scholar
Nkrumah, JD, Crews, DH, Basarab, JA, Price, MA, Okine, EK, Wang, Z, Li, C, Moore, SS 2007. Genetic and phenotypic relationships of feeding behavior and temperament with performance, feed efficiency, ultrasound, and carcass merit of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 85, 2382–2390.Google Scholar
Nestor, KE, Anderson, JW, Patterson, RA, Velleman, SG 2008. Genetics of growth and reproduction in the Turkey. 17. Changes in genetic parameters over forty generations of selection for increased sixteen-week body weight. Poultry Science 87, 1971–1979.Google Scholar
Oltenacu, PA, Broom, DM 2010. The impact of genetic selection for increased milk yield on the welfare of dairy cows. Animal Welfare 19, 39–49.Google Scholar
Olsson, IAS, Keeling, LJ 2005. Why in earth? Dustbathing behavior in jungle and domestic fowl reviewed from a Tinbergian and animal welfare perspective. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93, 259–282.Google Scholar
Olsson, IAS, Gamborg, C, Sandøe, P 2006. Thanking ethics into account in farm animal breeding: what can the breeding companies achieve? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19, 37–47.Google Scholar
Øverli, Ø, Winberg, S, Pottinger, T 2005. Behavioral and neuroendocrine correlates of selection for stress responsiveness in rainbow trout – a review. Integrative and comparative biology 45, 463–474.Google Scholar
Øverli, Ø, Pottinger, TG, Carrick, TR, Øverli, E, Winberg, S 2002. Differences in behaviour between rainbow trout selected for high- and low-stress responsiveness. Journal of Experimental Biology 205, 391–395.Google Scholar
Øverli, Ø, Sorensen, C, Kiessling, A, Pottinger, TG, Gjoen, HM 2006. Selection for improved stress tolerance in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) leads to reduced feed waste. Aquaculture 261, 776–781.Google Scholar
Phocas, F, Boivin, X, Sapa, J, Trillat, G, Le Neindre, P 2006. Genetic correlations between docility and other breeding traits in Limousin heifers. Animal Science 82, 805–812.Google Scholar
Poindron, P 2005. Mechanisms of activation of maternal behavior in mammals. Reproduction Nutrition Development 45, 341–351.Google Scholar
Pottinger, TG, Carrick, TR 1999. Modification of the plasma cortisol response to stress in rainbow trout by selective breeding. General and Comparative Endocrinology 116, 122–132.Google Scholar
Quilter, CR, Blott, SC, Wilson, AE, Bagga, MR, Sargent, CA, Oliver, GL, Southwood, OI, Gilbert, CL, Mileham, A, Affara, NA 2007. Porcine maternal infanticide as a model for puerperal psychosis. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B Neuropsychiatric Genetics 144B, 862–868.Google Scholar
Quinton, CD, Wood, BJ, Miller, SP 2011. Genetic analysis of survival and fitness in turkeys with multiple-trait animal models. Poultry Science 90, 2479–2486.Google Scholar
Rauw, WM, Kanis, E, Noordhuizen-Stassen, EN, Grommers, FJ 1998. Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livestock Production Science 56, 15–33.Google Scholar
Rauw, WM 2007. Physiological consequences of selection for increased performance. Proceedings of the Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Armidale, NSW, Australia, 17, 240–247.Google Scholar
Ravagnolo, O, Misztal, I 2000. Genetic component of heat stress in dairy cattle, parameter estimation. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 2126–2130.Google Scholar
Reiner, G, Kohler, F, Berge, T, Fischer, R, Hubner-Weitz, K, Scholl, J, Willems, H 2009. Mapping of quantitative trait loci affecting behavior in swine. Animal Genetics 40, 366–376.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, UG 2001. Selection for surface feeding in farmed and sea-ranched Masu Salmon juveniles. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130, 155–158.Google Scholar
Richard, S, Arnould, C, Guemene, D, Leterrier, C, Mignon-Grasteau, S, Faure, JM 2008. Emotional reactivity in the quail: an integrated approach to animal welfare. INRA Productions Animales 21, 71–77.Google Scholar
Richardson, EC, Kilgour, RJ, Archer, JA, Herd, RM 1999. Pedometers measure differences in activity in bulls selected for high or low net feed efficiency. Proceedings of the Australian Society for the Study of Animal Behaviour 26, 16.Google Scholar
Richardson, EC, Herd, RM 2004. Biological basis for variation in residual feed intake in beef cattle. 2. Synthesis of results following divergent selection. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 431–440.Google Scholar
Riddel, BE, Swain, DP 1991. Competition between hatchery and wild coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch): genetic variation for agonistic behaviour in newly-emerged wild fry. Aquaculture 98, 161–172.Google Scholar
Robinson, DL, Oddy, VH 2004. Genetic parameters for feed efficiency, fatness, muscle area and feeding behaviour of feedlot finished beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 90, 255–270.Google Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, Buitenhuis, AJ, Ask, B, Uitdehaag, KA, Koene, P, van der Poel, JJ, van Arendonk, J, Bovenhuis, H 2004. Genetic and phenotypic correlations between feather pecking and open-field response in laying hens at two different ages. Behavior Genetics 34, 407–415.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Gomez M de, L, Huntingford, FA, Øverli, Ø, Thörnqvist, PO, Höglund, E 2011. Response to environmental change in rainbow trout selected for divergent stress coping styles. Physiology and Behavior 102, 317–322.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Gomez M de, L, Kittilsen, S, Höglund, E, Huntingford, FA, Sørensen, C, Pottinger, TG, Bakken, M, Winberg, S, Korzan, WJ, Øverli, Ø 2008. Behavioral plasticity in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) with divergent coping styles: when doves become hawks. Hormones and Behavior 54, 534–538.Google Scholar
Rutten, MJM, Bovenhuis, H, Komen, J, Bijma, P 2006. Mixed model methodology to infer whether aggression increases due to selection on growth in aquaculture species. Proceedings of the 8th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Belo Horizonte.Google Scholar
Ruzzante, DE, Doyle, RW 1991. Rapid behavioral-changes in medaka (Oryzias latipes) caused by selection for competitive and noncompetitive growth. Evolution 45, 1936–1946.Google Scholar
Sadler, LJ, Johnson, AK, Lonergan, SM, Nettleton, D, Dekkers, JCM 2011. The effect of selection for residual feed intake on general behavioral activity and the occurrence of lesions in Yorkshire gilts. Journal of Animal Science 89, 258–266.Google Scholar
Sartori, C, Mantovani, R 2010. Genetics of fighting ability in cattle using data from the traditional battle contest of the Valdostana breed. Journal of Animal Science 88, 3206–3213.Google Scholar
Satterlee, DG, Jones, RB, Ryder, FH 1993. Short-latency stressor effects on tonic immobility fear reactions of Japanese quail selected for adrenocortical responsiveness to immobilization. Poultry Science 72, 1132–1136.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, C, Poindron, P, Arnould, C 2009. Social motivation affects the display of individual discrimination in young and adult Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica). Developmental Psychobiology 51, 311–321.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, C, Arnould, C 2010. Emotional reactivity of Japanese quail chicks with high or low social motivation reared under unstable social conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 125, 143–150.Google Scholar
Schjolden, J, Backstrom, T, Pulman, KGT, Pottinger, TG, Winberg, S 2005. Divergence in behavioural responses to stress in two strains of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) with contrasting stress responsiveness. Hormones and Behaviour 48, 537–544.Google Scholar
Schmutz, SM, Stookey, JM, Winkelman-Sim, DC, Waltz, CS, Plante, Y, Buchanan, FC 2001. A QTL study of cattle behavioral traits in embryo transfer families. Journal of Heredity 92, 290–292.Google Scholar
Schutz, MM, Pajor, EA 2001. Genetic control of dairy cattle behavior. Journal of Dairy Science 84, E31–E38.Google Scholar
Schütz, K, Kerje, S, Carlborg, O, Jacobsson, L, Andersson, L, Jensen, P 2002. QTL analysis of a Red Junglefowl × White Leghorn intercross reveals trade-off in resource allocation between behavior and production traits. Behavioural Genetics 32, 423–433.Google Scholar
Schütz, KE, Kerje, S, Jacobsson, L, Forkman, B, Carlbörg, O, Andersson, L, Jensen, P 2004. Major growth QTLs in fowl are related to fearful behavior: possible genetic links between fear responses and production traits in a Red Junglefowl × White Leghorn intercross. Behavior Genetics 34, 121–130.Google Scholar
Serenius, T, Sevón-Aimonen, ML, Mäntysaari, EA 2001. The genetics of leg weakness in Finish Large White and Landrace populations. Livestock Production Science 69, 101–111.Google Scholar
Serenius, T, Sevón-Aimonen, ML, Kause, A, Mäntysaari, EA, Mäki-Tanila, A 2004. Genetic associations of prolificacy with performance, carcass, meat quality, and leg conformation traits in the Finnish Landrace and Large White pig populations. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2301–2306.Google Scholar
Shea-Moore, MM 1998. The effect of genotype on behavior in segregated early-weaned pigs tested in an open field. Journal of Animal Science 76 (suppl. 1), 100.Google Scholar
Silva, B, Gonzalo, A, Cañón, J 2006. Genetic parameters of aggressiveness, ferocity and mobility in the fighting bull breed. Animal Research 55, 65–70.Google Scholar
Stalder, KJ, Knauer, M, Baas, TJ, Rothschild, MF, Mabry, JW 2004. Sow longevity. Pig News and Information 25, 53N–74N.Google Scholar
Su, G, Kjaer, JB, Sørensen, P 2005. Variance components and selection response for feather-pecking behavior in laying hens. Poultry Science 84, 14–21.Google Scholar
Sundstrom, LF, Petersson, E, Hojesjo, J, Johnsson, JI, Järvi, T 2004. Hatchery selection promotes boldness in newly hatched brown trout (Salmo trutta): implications for dominance. Behavioural Ecology 15, 192–198.Google Scholar
Ten Napel, J, Bianchi, FB, Bestman, M 2006. Utilizing intrinsic robustness in agricultural production systems. Transforum, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Terlouw, EMC 2005. Stress reactions at slaughter and meat quality in pigs: genetic background and prior experience. A brief review of recent findings. Livestock Production Science 94, 125–135.Google Scholar
Thomson, JS, Watts, PC, Pottinger, TG, Sneddon, LU 2011. Physiological and genetic correlates of boldness: characterising the mechanisms of behavioural variation in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Hormones and Behavior 59, 67–74.Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Roehe, R, D'Eath, RB, Ison, SH, Farish, M, Jack, MC, Lundeheim, N, Rydhmer, L, Lawrence, AB 2009. Genetic validation of post-mixing skin injuries in pigs as an indicator of aggressiveness and the relationship with injuries under more stable social conditions. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3076–3082.Google Scholar
Väisänen, J, Jensen, P 2003. Social versus exploration and foraging motivation in young red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and White Leghorn layers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84, 139–158.Google Scholar
Väisänen, J, Lindqvist, C, Jensen, P 2005. Co-segregation of behavior and production related traits in an F3 intercross between red Junglefowl and White Leghorn laying hens. Livestock Production Science 94, 149–158.Google Scholar
Vallejo, RL, Rexroad III, CE, Silverstein, JT, Janss, LLG, Weber, GM 2009. Evidence of major genes affecting stress response in rainbow trout using Bayesian methods of complex segregation analysis. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3490–3505.Google Scholar
Vandeputte, M, Prunet, P 2002. Génétique et adaptation chez les poisons: domestication, résistance au stress et adaptation aux conditions de milieu. INRA Productions Animales 15, 365–371.Google Scholar
Vangen, O, Holm, B, Valros, A, Lund, MS, Rydhmer, L 2005. Genetic variation in sows’ maternal behaviour, recorded under field conditions. Livestock Production Science 93, 63–71.Google Scholar
Van der steen, HAM, Schaeffer, LR, de Jong, H, de Groot, PN 1988. Aggressive behaviour of sows at parturition. Journal of Animal Science 66, 271–279.Google Scholar
Velie, BD, Maltecca, C, Cassady, JP 2009. Genetic relationships among pig behavior, growth, backfat, and loin muscle area. Journal of animal science 87, 2767–2773.Google Scholar
Visscher, PM, Goddard, ME 1995. Genetic-parameters for milk-yield, survival workability, and type traits for dairy-cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 78, 205–220.Google Scholar
Vollestad, LA, Quinn, TP 2003. Trade-off between growth rate and aggression in juvenile coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Animal Behaviour 66, 561–568.Google Scholar
von Felde, A, Roehe, R, Looft, H, Kalm, E 1996. Genetic association between feed intake and feed intake behavior at different stages of growth of group-housed boars. Livestock Production Science 47, 11–22.Google Scholar
Wilson, K, Zanella, R, Ventura, C, Johansen, HL, Framstad, T, Janczak, A, Zanella, AJ, Nelbergs, HL 2012. Identification of chromosomal location associated with tail biting and being a victim of tail-biting behaviour in the domestic pig (SUS Scrofa domesticus). Journal of Applied Genetics 53, 449–456.Google Scholar
Wirén, A, Jensen, P 2010. A growth QTL on chicken chromosome 1 affects emotionality and sociality. Behavioural Genetics 41, 303–311.Google Scholar
Woodward, CC, Strange, RJ 1987. Physiological stress response in wild and hatchery-reared rainbow trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116, 574–579.Google Scholar
Wright, D, Nakamichi, R, Krause, J, Butlin, RK 2006. QTL analysis of behavioural and morphological differentiation between wild and laboratory zebrafish (Danio rerio). Behavior Genetics 36, 271–284.Google Scholar
Wright, D, Rimmer, L, Pritchard, VL, Krause, J, Butlin, RK 2003. Inter and intra-population variation in shoaling and boldness in the zebrafish (Danio rerio). Naturwiss 90, 374–377.Google Scholar
Xu, HP, Shen, X, Zhou, M, Luo, CL, Kang, L, Liang, Y, Zeng, H, Nie, QH, Zhang, DX, Zhang, XQ 2010. The dopamine D2 receptor gene polymorphisms associated with chicken broodiness. Poultry Science 89, 428–438.Google Scholar
Zhang, ZY, Ren, J, Ren, DR, Ma, JW, Guo, YM, Huang, LS 2009. Mapping quantitative trait loci for feed consumption and feeding behaviors in a White Duroc × Chinese Erhualian resource population. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3458–3463.Google Scholar