Feed efficiency effects on barrow and gilt behavioral reactivity to novel stimuli tests.

Increasing feed efficiency is an important goal for improving sustainable pork production and profitability for producers. To study feed efficiency, genetic selection based on residual feed intake (RFI) was used to create 2 divergent lines. Low-RFI pigs consume less feed for equal weight gain compared to their less efficient, high-RFI counterparts. Therefore, our objective was to assess how a pig's behavioral reactivity toward fear-eliciting stimuli related to RFI selection and improvement of feed efficiency. In this study, behavioral reactivity of pigs divergently selected for RFI was evaluated using human approach (HAT) and novel object (NOT) tests. Forty low-RFI and 40 high-RFI barrows and gilts ( = 20 for each genetic line; 101 ± 9 d old) from ninth-generation Yorkshire RFI selection lines were randomly selected and evaluated once using HAT and once using NOT over a 2-wk period utilizing a crossover experimental design. Each pig was individually tested within a 4.9 × 2.4 m test arena for 10 min; behavior was evaluated using live and video observations. The test arena floor was divided into 4 zones; zone 1 being oral, nasal, and/or facial contact with the human (HAT) or orange traffic cone (NOT) and zone 4 being furthest from the human or cone and included the point where the pig entered the arena. During both HAT and NOT, low-RFI pigs entered zone 1 less frequently compared to high-RFI pigs ( ≤ 0.03). During NOT, low-RFI pigs changed head orientation more frequently ( = 0.001) but attempted to escape less frequently (low-RFI = 0.97 ± 0.21 vs. high-RFI = 2.08 ± 0.38; = 0.0002) and spent 2% less time attempting to escape compared to high-RFI pigs ( = 0.04). Different barrow and gilt responses were observed during HAT and NOT. During HAT, barrows spent 2% more time within zone 1 ( = 0.03), crossed fewer zone lines ( < 0.0001), changed head orientation less frequently ( = 0.002), and froze less frequently compared to gilts ( = 0.02). However, during NOT, barrows froze more frequently ( = 0.0007) and spent 2% longer freezing ( = 0.05). When the behavior and RFI relationship was examined using odds ratios, decreasing RFI by 1 kg/d decreased the odds of freezing by 4 times but increased the odds of attempting to escape by 5.26 times during NOT ( ≤ 0.04). These results suggest that divergent selection for RFI resulted in subtle behavioral reactivity differences and did not impact swine welfare with respect to responses to fear-eliciting stimuli.

[1]  Anna K. Johnson,et al.  Effects of genetic selection for residual feed intake on behavioral reactivity of castrated male pigs to novel stimuli tests , 2014 .

[2]  B. Kemp,et al.  Responses to novel situations of female and castrated male pigs with divergent social breeding values and different backtest classifications in barren and straw-enriched housing , 2014 .

[3]  E. Huff-Lonergan,et al.  Evidence of decreased muscle protein turnover in gilts selected for low residual feed intake. , 2013, Journal of animal science.

[4]  J. Dekkers,et al.  Divergent genetic selection for residual feed intake impacts mitochondria reactive oxygen species production in pigs. , 2013, Journal of animal science.

[5]  J. Dekkers,et al.  Effect of immune system stimulation and divergent selection for residual feed intake on digestive capacity of the small intestine in growing pigs. , 2012, Journal of animal science.

[6]  S. Lonergan,et al.  Improved nutrient digestibility and retention partially explains feed efficiency gains in pigs selected for low residual feed intake. , 2012, Journal of animal science.

[7]  S. Edwards,et al.  The Weaker Sex? The Propensity for Male-Biased Piglet Mortality , 2012, PloS one.

[8]  J. Dekkers,et al.  Effects of ad libitum and restricted feeding on early production performance and body composition of Yorkshire pigs selected for reduced residual feed intake. , 2011, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[9]  J. Dekkers,et al.  Effect of selection for residual feed intake on feeding behavior and daily feed intake patterns in Yorkshire swine. , 2011, Journal of animal science.

[10]  J. van Milgen,et al.  Energy utilization in pigs selected for high and low residual feed intake. , 2010, Journal of animal science.

[11]  A. Zanella,et al.  Effects of pre-weaning exposure to a maze on stress responses in pigs at weaning and on subsequent performance in spatial and fear-related tests , 2008 .

[12]  J. Dekkers,et al.  Selection response and genetic parameters for residual feed intake in Yorkshire swine. , 2008, Journal of animal science.

[13]  A. Boissy,et al.  A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses , 2007, Physiology & Behavior.

[14]  Marian Stamp Dawkins,et al.  Observing Animal Behaviour: Design and analysis of quantitative data , 2007 .

[15]  M. Taverne,et al.  Cortisol administration to pregnant sows affects novelty-induced locomotion, aggressive behaviour, and blunts gender differences in their offspring , 2006, Hormones and Behavior.

[16]  J. Dekkers,et al.  Identification of errors and factors associated with errors in data from electronic swine feeders. , 2005, Journal of animal science.

[17]  L. Pedersen,et al.  Aggression, fearfulness and coping styles in female pigs , 2003 .

[18]  J. Schrama,et al.  Can we predict behaviour in pigs? Searching for consistency in behaviour over time and across situations , 2002 .

[19]  S. D. de Boer,et al.  Coping styles in animals: current status in behavior and stress-physiology , 1999, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[20]  J. Koolhaas,et al.  Effects of strawbedding on physiological responses to stressors and behavior in growing pigs , 1998, Physiology & Behavior.

[21]  B. Mcewen,et al.  Sex differences in dendritic atrophy of CA3 pyramidal neurons in response to chronic restraint stress , 1997, Neuroscience.

[22]  E. Price,et al.  Behavioural responses of domestic pigs and cattle to humans and novel stimuli , 1996 .

[23]  P. R. Wiepkema,et al.  Individual behavioral and physiological strategies in pigs , 1994, Physiology & Behavior.

[24]  P. Hemsworth,et al.  The effects of early contact with humans on the subsequent level of fear of humans in pigs , 1992 .

[25]  P. Hemsworth,et al.  The influence of handling by humans on the behavior, growth, and corticosteroids in the juvenile female pig , 1981, Hormones and Behavior.

[26]  L. Canario,et al.  Behavioral Genetics in Pigs and Relations to Welfare , 2014 .

[27]  Anna K. Johnson,et al.  Evaluation of the Responsiveness of Swine Divergently Selected for Feed Efficiency to an Exogenous Adrenocorticotropin Hormone (ACTH) Challenge , 2013 .

[28]  J. Dekkers,et al.  The effect of selection for residual feed intake on general behavioral activity and the occurrence of lesions in Yorkshire gilts. , 2011, Journal of animal science.

[29]  J. Dekkers,et al.  Effects of ad libitum and restricted feed intake on growth performance and body composition of Yorkshire pigs selected for reduced residual feed intake. , 2011, Journal of animal science.

[30]  Anna K. Johnson,et al.  Can Fear Be Effectively Assessed in Swine? A Study Measuring Fear Levels during a Human Approach Test , 2009 .

[31]  J. Cassady Evidence of phenotypic relationships among behavioral characteristics of individual pigs and performance. , 2007, Journal of animal science.

[32]  D. Lay,et al.  Preweaning survival in swine , 2002 .