Suitability of traits related to aggression and handleability for integration into pig breeding programmes: Genetic parameters and comparison between Gaussian and binary trait specifications.

Changes in husbandry systems as well as consumers' increasing demands for animal welfare lead to increasing importance of traits such as handleability and aggressiveness in pigs. However, before using such novel traits for selection decisions, information on genetic parameters for these traits for the specific population is required. Therefore, weight gain and behaviour-related traits were recorded in 1004 pigs (814 Pietrain x German Landrace crossbred, 190 German Landrace purebred) at different ages. Behaviour indicators and tests were assessed and conducted, respectively under commercial farm conditions and included scoring of skin lesions (twice) and behaviour during backtests (twice), injections (once), handling (twice) and weighing (three times). Since behaviour scores often exhibit suboptimal statistical properties for parametric analyses, variance components were estimated using an animal model assuming a normal (Gaussian, GA; all traits) and additionally a binary distribution of variables (BI; using a logit-link function for all behaviour traits). Heritabilities for behavioural traits ranged from 0.02 ± 0.04 (finishing pig handling test; BI) to 0.36 ± 0.08 (backtest 2; GA) suggesting that some of the traits are potentially useful for genetic selection (e.g. finishing pig weighing test: h2 (GA) = 0.20 ± 0.07). Only minor differences were observed for results from binary and Gaussian analyses of the same traits suggesting that either approach might yield valid results. However, four-fold cross-validation using correlations between breeding values of a sub-set of animals for the sample trait finishing pig weighing score indicated slight superiority of the logit model (r = 0.85 ± 0.04 vs. r = 0.77 ± 0.03). Generally, only weak to moderate associations were found between behavioural reactions to the same test at different ages (rp ≤ 0.11 for weighing at different ages; rp = 0.30 but rg (GA) = 0.84 ± 0.11 for the backtests) as well as between reactions to different tests. Therefore, for inclusion of behaviour traits into breeding programmes, and considering high labour input required for some tests such as the backtest, it is recommended to assess behaviour during situations that are relevant and identical to practical conditions, while the use of indicator traits generally does not appear to be a very promising alternative.

Variance components of aggressive behavior in genetically highly connected Pietrain populations kept under two different housing conditions.

Mixing of unfamiliar pigs is a standard management procedure in commercial pig production and is often associated with a period of intense and physically damaging aggression. Aggression is considered a problem for animal welfare and production. The objective of the present paper was to investigate the genetic background of aggressive behavior traits at mixing of unfamiliar gilts under 2 different housing conditions. Therefore, a total of 543 purebred Pietrain gilts, from 2 nucleus farms (farm A: n = 302; farm B: n = 241) of 1 breeding company, were tested at an average age of 214 d (SD 12.2 d) for aggressive behavior by 1 observer. Observations included the frequencies of aggressive attack and reciprocal fighting during mixing with unfamiliar gilts. On farm A 41% of the gilts were purebred Pietrains, whereas 59% were purebred Landrace or Duroc gilts. On the farm B 42% of the gilts were purebred Pietrains, and 58% purebred Large White gilts. The average size of the newly mixed groups of gilts was 28 animals on farm A and 18 animals on farm B. The Pietrain gilts from the 2 herds were genetically closely linked. They were the offspring of 96 sires, with 64% of these sires having tested progeny in both farms. There were clear differences in the housing of the animals between the 2 farms. The test pen on farm A had a solid concrete floor littered with wooden shavings and was equipped with a dry feeder. On farm B there was a partly slatted floor, and the gilts were fed by an electronic sow feeder. Mean space allowance was 2.6 m(2)/gilt on farm A and 3.9 m(2)/gilt on farm B. Although large interindividual differences existed, gilts from farm B performed numerically more aggressive attack (mean 1.12, SD 1.42 vs. mean 0.71, SD 1.20) and reciprocal fighting (mean 0.78, SD 0.98 vs. mean 0.44, SD 0.82) when compared with gilts from farm A. The heritabilities and additive genetic variances for behavioral traits were estimated with a linear animal model and were on a low level in farm A (h(2) = 0.11, SE = 0.07, and σ(2)a = 0.12 for aggressive attack and h(2) = 0.04, SE = 0.07, and σ(2)a = 0.02 for reciprocal fighting) and on a moderate level in farm B (h(2) = 0.29, SE = 0.13, and σ(2)a = 0.44 for aggressive attack and h(2) = 0.33, SE = 0.12, and σ(2)a = 0.27 for reciprocal fighting). For both aggressive attack and reciprocal fighting, genetic correlation of the same trait between farm A and farm B was 1.0. Therefore, aggressive behavior does not seem to be influenced by genotype × environment interactions. Under these circumstances aggressions in group housing can be reduced by genetic selection against aggressive behavior. Therewith, the welfare and health of sows will ultimately increase.