Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T01:43:09.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Temporal stability of personality traits in group-housed gestating sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

K. M. Horback  and
T. D. Parsons
K. M. Horback*
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Medicine, Swine Teaching and Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, 382 West Street Road, Kennett Square, PA 19348, USA
T. D. Parsons
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Medicine, Swine Teaching and Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, 382 West Street Road, Kennett Square, PA 19348, USA
*
†Email: khorback@vet.upenn.edu
Get access

Abstract

The movement of sows (Sus scrofa domesticus) out of individual gestation stalls and into group housing can introduce new sources of stress due to the enhanced environmental and social complexity. Some sows may have the behavioral capacity to adapt to these changes better than others. However, little is known about individual differences in behavioral responses, or personality traits, in gestating sows and how they impact the animal’s ability to cope with group housing. The temporal consistency in the assessment of an animal’s behavior is a prerequisite to the establishment of personality traits and was addressed at an interval of approximately five months during two consecutive gestation periods in the present study. Forty-six group-housed sows from a commercially available genetic line were assessed for aggressive and social behaviors at mixing into a group, reaction to human approach, ease of handling, exploration of an open field, and reaction to a novel object. Principal component analysis revealed the presence of three traits accounting for over 60% of the variance in behaviors: aggressive/dominant, avoidant of humans and active/exploratory. Individual component scores were significantly correlated between pregnancies demonstrating temporal stability of trait assessment. Significant relationships were found between aggressive/dominant component scores and individual feed rank at electronic sow feeding stations and skin lesion scores, as well as between avoidant of humans component scores and average number of stillbirths per litter. These findings provide evidence for the temporal stability of distinct behaviors contributing to personality traits within a group of genetically similar sows and demonstrate how these traits may be useful in identifying individuals likely to succeed in group housing.

Keywords

sowgroup-housedgestationbehaviorpersonality
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 8 , August 2016 , pp. 1351 - 1359
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

Andersen, IL, Bøe, KE, Fœrevik, G, Janczak, AM and Bakken, M 2000. Behavioural evaluation of methods for assessing fear responses in weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69, 227–240.Google Scholar
Arey, DS 1999. Time course for the formation and disruption of social organization in group-housed sows. Applied Animal Behavior Science 62, 199–207.Google Scholar
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Newman, EA, McCallum, TH and Chilton, D 1992. Effects of pen size, partial stalls and method of feeding on welfare-related behavioural andphysiological responses of group-housed pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34, 207–220.Google Scholar
Beattie, VE, Walker, N and Sneddon, IA 1995. Effect of rearing environment and change of environment on the behavior of gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46, 57–65.Google Scholar
Bench, CJ, Rioja-Lang, FC, Hayne, SM and Gonyou, HW 2013. 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 and Behavior 79, 289–296.Google Scholar
Budaev, SV 2010. Using principal components and factor analysis in animal behaviour research: caveats and guidelines. Ethology 116, 472–480.Google Scholar
Brown, JA, Dewey, C, Delange, CF, Mandell, IB, Purslow, PP, Robinson, JA, Squires, EJ and Widowski, TM 2009. Reliability of temperament tests on finishing pigs in group-housing and comparison to social tests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 1181, 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapinal, N, Ruiz-de-la-Torre, J, Cerisuelo, A, Baucells, M, Gasa, J and Manteca, X 2008. Feeder use patterns in group-housed pregnant sows fed with an unprotected electronic sow feeder (Fitmix). Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 11, 319–336.Google Scholar
Coffey, RD, Parker, GR and Laurent, KM 1999. Assessing sow body condition. ASC-158. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.Google Scholar
Fabrega, E, Diestre, A, Font, J, Carrion, D, Velarde, A, Ruiz-de-la-Torre, JL and Manteca, X 2004. Differences in open field behavior between heterozygous and homozygous negative gilts for the RYR (1) gene. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 7, 83–93.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
Fraser, D 1974. The vocalization and other behaviour of growing pigs in an open-field test. Applied Animal Ethology 1, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giroux, S, Martineau, GP and Robert, S 2000. Relationships between individual behavioural traits and post-weaning growth in segregated early-weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70, 41–48.Google Scholar
Gosling, SD 2001. From mice to men: What can we learn about personality from animal research? Psychological Bulletin 127, 45–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayne, SM and Gonyou, HW 2003. Effects of regrouping on the individual behavioural characteristics of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 82, 267–278.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, Pedersen, V, Cox, M, Cronin, GM and Coleman, GJ 1999. A note on the relationship between the behavioural response of lactating sows to humans and the survival of their piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, 43–52.Google Scholar
Hessing, MJ, Hagelso, AM, Van Beek, JA, Wiepkema, PR, Schouten, WG and Krukow, R 1993. Individual behavioral and physiological strategies in pigs. Applied Animal Behavior Science 55, 39–46.Google Scholar
Hunter, E, Broom, DM, Edwards, SA and Sibly, RM 1988. Social hierarchy and feeder access in a group of 20 sows using a computer-controlled feeder. Animal Production 47, 139–148.Google Scholar
Jensen, P 1980. An ethogram of social interaction patterns in group-housed dry sows. Applied Animal Ethology 6, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koolhaas, JM 2008. Coping style and immunity in animals: making sense of individual variation. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 22, 662–667.Google Scholar
Kristensen, HH, Jones, RB, Schofield, CP, White, RP and Wathes, CM 2001. The use of olfactory and other cues for social recognition by juvenile pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72, 321–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lesink, BJ, Leruste, H, Le Roux, T and Bizeray-Filoche, D 2009. Relationship between the behaviour of sows at 6 months old and the behaviour and performance at farrowing. Animal 3, 128–134.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 752, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, LR and Hemsworth, PH 2012. Drivers of change: law, international markets, and policy. Animal Frontiers 2 (3), 40–45.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
Segerstrom, SC 2000. Personality and the immune system: models, methods and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2, 180–190.Google Scholar
Sih, A, Bell, A and Johnson, JC 2004. Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 197, 372–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tönepöhl, B, Appel, AK, Voß, B, von Borstel, UK and Gauly, M 2013. Interaction between sows’ aggressiveness post mixing and skin lesions recorded several weeks later. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144, 108–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinpro 2012. Feet first swine locomotion scoring system. Retrieved July 1, 2012, from http://www.zinpro.com/lameness/swine/locomotion-scoring.Google Scholar