Heritability of the backtest response in piglets and its genetic correlations with production traits.

The backtest response of a pig gives an indication of its coping style, that is, its preferred strategy to cope with stressful situations, which may in turn be related to production traits. The objective of this study was therefore to estimate the heritability of the backtest response and estimate genetic correlations with production traits (birth weight, growth, fat depth and loin depth). The backtest was performed by placing the piglet on its back for 60 s and the number of struggles (NrS) and vocalizations (NrV), and the latency to struggle and vocalize (LV) was recorded. In total, 992 piglets were subjected to the backtest. Heritability estimates for backtest traits were statistically moderate (although high for behavioral traits), with LV having the highest heritability estimate (0.56±0.10, P<0.001) and NrS having the lowest estimate (0.37±0.09, P<0.001). Backtest traits also had high genetic correlations with each other, with vocalization traits (NrV and LV) having the highest (-0.94±0.03, P<0.001), and NrS with NrV the lowest correlation (0.70±0.09, P<0.001). No significant correlations were found between backtest traits and production traits, but correlations between NrS and birth weight (-0.38±0.25), and NrV and loin depth (-0.28±0.19) approached significance (P=0.07). More research into genotype-by-environment interactions may be needed to assess possible connections between backtest traits and production traits, as this may depend on the circumstances (environment, experiences, etc.). In conclusion, heritability estimates of backtest traits are high and it would therefore be possible to select for them. The high genetic correlations between backtest traits indicate that it may be possible to only consider one or two traits for characterization and selection purposes. There were no significant genetic correlations found between backtest traits and production traits, although some of the correlations approached significance and hence warrant further research.

Damaging biting behaviors in intensively kept rearing gilts: the effect of jute sacks and relations with production characteristics.

Pigs may display biting behavior directed at pen mates, resulting in body damage such as tail wounds. We assessed the suitability of jute sacks (hung vertically at wall) to reduce biting behaviors and tail wounds in rearing gilts. Additionally, we assessed several characteristics of different types of tail biters. Tail docked rearing gilts originated from 72 litters, which were kept in partly slatted pens with jute sacks (J) or barren control pens (CON; 36 litters per treatment). Tail and ear damage were observed at weaning (4 wk) and during the weaner and rearing phase (17 J and 19 CON pens). Sow (dam) damage was also considered. Biting behaviors (tail, ear, and other) were observed during the weaner and rearing phase. Weight was recorded at birth, weaning, and end of the weaner phase and ADG was calculated from birth till weaning and from weaning till 9 wk. Furthermore, estimated breeding values for litter size, litter birth weight, back fat, and growth between birth and ∼ 105 kg, and ∼ 25 to 105 kg were determined. Jute sacks reduced tail and ear damage at weaning (both P < 0.001) and tended to reduce sow tail damage (P = 0.09). Jute sacks also reduced tail damage post-weaning (P < 0.001 to 0.03), with a 5-fold reduction of (mild) tail wounds at the age of 13 wk. Biting behaviors directed at pen mates were up to 50% lower in J pens (P < 0.001 to 0.04). Higher genotypic litter size, litter birth weight, growth, and lower back fat seemed associated with higher levels of ear or tail-biting behavior (P = 0.002 to 0.09), albeit dependent on treatment and phase. Higher phenotypic litter sizes were associated with higher levels of biting behaviors (P = 0.004-0.08). High-tail-biters and Medium-tail-biters (the latter less pronounced) stemmed from larger litters (P = 0.01 to 0.05), were heavier (P = 0.03 to 0.04), grew faster (P = 0.05 to 0.08), and displayed higher levels of all kinds of biting behavior directed to pen mates and the jute sack (P < 0.001 to 0.10) compared with non-tail-biters, the effect size dependent on treatment and phase of life. To conclude, jute sacks may profoundly reduce damaging behaviors and tail wounds in rearing gilts, probably because they partly meet the behavioral need of pigs for rooting and chewing. Furthermore, (tail) biting is associated with production level of the gilts (phenotypically and genetically), which suggests a role for breeding programs and additional research focusing on metabolic demands of (tail) biting pigs.

Struggling to survive: early life challenges in relation to the backtest in pigs.

Intensively reared piglets may face many early life challenges and these may affect behavior. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between piglets' early life circumstances and their behavioral response in a backtest. Here, 992 piglets of 14 d of age were subjected to a backtest, in which they were restrained for 1 min in a supine position. The number of struggles in the backtest was assessed in relation to data on ADG, BW, BW relative to litter mates, teat order, litter size, and health. Piglets that had a lower ADG from birth until the test day were struggling more (b = -2.4 g ADG/struggle; P = 0.03). Also, piglets with a lower BW at 14 d of age tended to respond more actively in the backtest (b = -0.03 kg/struggle; P = 0.08). The response to the backtest was unrelated to ADG from birth until weaning, birth weight, weaning weight, teat order, litter size, and health. ADG and BW were unrelated to the variation of backtest responses within the litter. The weak though significant relationship suggests that smaller, slower-growing piglets more actively respond to a challenge, either because piglets born with such a behavioral response were better able to survive, or because piglets adapted their behavioral response to their physical condition.

Backtest and novelty behavior of female and castrated male piglets, with diverging social breeding values for growth.

Pigs housed together in a group influence each other's growth. Part of this effect is genetic and can be represented in a social breeding value. It is unknown, however, which traits are associated with social breeding values. The aim of this study was, therefore, to investigate whether personality and response to novelty could be associated with social breeding values for growth in piglets. Female and castrated male piglets from 80 litters, with either an estimated relative positive or negative social breeding value (+SBV or -SBV) for growth, were individually tested in a backtest and novel environment test, and group-wise in a novel object (i.e., a feeder with feed) test and human approach test. All tests were performed during the suckling period. No differences between +SBV and -SBV piglets were found for the frequency and latency of struggling and vocalizing in the backtest (at least, P > 0.30). In the novel object test, piglets with a +SBV for growth touched the feeder faster than piglets with -SBV for growth (P = 0.01) and were more frequently present near the person in the human approach test (P < 0.01). No behavioral differences between +SBV and -SBV piglets were found in the novel environment test (at least, P > 0.40), but piglets that struggled more in the backtest walked more in this test (P = 0.02). Behavior was affected by gender in each test. Female piglets were faster than castrated male piglets to start struggling in the backtest (P = 0.047). In the novel object test, females were faster than males to touch the feeder and sample the feed. In the human approach test, they were also faster than male piglets to touch a person (all, P < 0.001). Females were also more frequently present near the feeder (P < 0.001) and person (P = 0.03). In the novel environment test, female piglets explored the floor more (P = 0.046), produced less low- (P = 0.04) and high-pitched vocalizations (P = 0.02), and defecated (P = 0.08) and urinated less than male piglets (P < 0.01). It was concluded that +SBV and -SBV piglets do not differ in their response to the backtest, and only subtle differences were found in their response to novelty. More research is warranted to identify the traits underlying SBV for growth in pigs. Moreover, castrated male piglets seemed to react more fearfully to each test than female piglets.