Multilevel Selection 2: Estimating the Genetic Parameters Determining Inheritance and Response to Selection

Bijma, P.; Muir, William M.; Ellen, E.D.; Wolf, Jason B.; Arendonk, J.A.M. van

doi:10.1534/genetics.106.062729

Cited by 194 publications

(306 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

294

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Quantitative genetic models for pig growth can be modified allowing pigs to have heritable influences on the growth of their pen-mates (Bijma et al, 2007a and2007b;Rodenburg et al, 2010). Depending on the context, these 'social breeding values' might reflect differences in positive social behaviours such as social nosing (Camerlink et al, 2012) or in negative behaviours such as aggression, food competition, disease transmission and ear, flank or tail biting.…”

Section: Controlling Tail Biting Without Tail Dockingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

D’Eath

Arnott

Turner

et al. 2014

Animal

152

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tail biting is a serious animal welfare and economic problem in pig production. Tail docking, which reduces but does not eliminate tail biting, remains widespread. However, in the EU tail docking may not be used routinely, and some 'alternative' forms of pig production and certain countries do not allow tail docking at all. Against this background, using a novel approach focusing on research where tail injuries were quantified, we review the measures that can be used to control tail biting in pigs without tail docking. Using this strict criterion, there was good evidence that manipulable substrates and feeder space affect damaging tail biting. Only epidemiological evidence was available for effects of temperature and season, and the effect of stocking density was unclear. Studies suggest that group size has little effect, and the effects of nutrition, disease and breed require further investigation. The review identifies a number of knowledge gaps and promising avenues for future research into prevention and mitigation. We illustrate the diversity of hypotheses concerning how different proposed risk factors might increase tail biting through their effect on each other or on the proposed underlying processes of tail biting. A quantitative comparison of the efficacy of different methods of provision of manipulable materials, and a review of current practices in countries and assurance schemes where tail docking is banned, both suggest that daily provision of small quantities of destructible, manipulable natural materials can be of considerable benefit. Further comparative research is needed into materials, such as ropes, which are compatible with slatted floors. Also, materials which double as fuel for anaerobic digesters could be utilised. As well as optimising housing and management to reduce risk, it is important to detect and treat tail biting as soon as it occurs. Early warning signs before the first bloody tails appear, such as pigs holding their tails tucked under, could in future be automatically detected using precision livestock farming methods enabling earlier reaction and prevention of tail damage. However, there is a lack of scientific studies on how best to respond to outbreaks: the effectiveness of, for example, removing biters and/or bitten pigs, increasing enrichment, or applying substances to tails should be investigated. Finally, some breeding companies are exploring options for reducing the genetic propensity to tail bite. If these various approaches to reduce tail biting are implemented we propose that the need for tail docking will be reduced.

show abstract

Section: Controlling Tail Biting Without Tail Dockingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

D’Eath

Arnott

Turner

et al. 2014

Animal

152

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bijma et al (2007b) showed that non-genetic covariance among group mates can bias the estimates of genetic associative effects. Although we modelled social interactions differently, we fitted a random group effect to asses the magnitude of such non-genetic covariance in our analysis (see Bergsma et al 2008).…”

Section: Social Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Across-Line SNP Association Study for Direct and Associative Effects on Feather Damage in Laying Hens

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An association study between SNP markers and feather condition score on the back, rump and belly of laying hens was performed. Feather condition score is a measure of feather damage, which has been shown to be closely related to feather pecking behaviour in hens housed in groups. A population of 662 hens was genotyped for 1536 SNPs of which 1022 could be used for the association study. The analysis was conducted across 9 different lines of White Leghorn and Rhode Island Red origin. Across lines linkage disequilibrium is conserved at shorter distances than within lines; therefore, SNPs significantly associated with feather condition score across lines are expected to be closer to the functional mutations. The SNPs that had a significant across-line effect but did not show significant SNP-by-line interaction were identified, to test that the association was consistent across lines. Both the direct effect of the individual's genotype on its plumage condition, and the associative effect of the genotype of the cage mates on the individual's plumage condition were analysed. The direct genetic effect can be considered as the susceptibility to be pecked at, whereas the associative genetic effect can be interpreted as the propensity to perform feather pecking. Finally, 11 significant associations between SNPs and behavioural traits were detected in the direct model, and 81 in the associative model. A role of the gene for the serotonin receptor 2C (HTR2C) on chromosome 4 was found. This supports existing evidence of a prominent involvement of the serotonergic system in the modulation of this behavioural disorder in laying hens. The genes for IL9, IL4, CCL4 and NFKB were found to be associated to plumage condition, revealing relationships between the immune system and behaviour.

show abstract

“…However, his work had limited impact because it lacks an approach to the problem of identifying heritable components and an implementation in the framework of mixed model equations. The last has been achieved mainly by B. Muir and P. Bijama in several very elegant papers (Bijma et al, 2007a and2007b;Ellen et al, 2007;Bijma and Wade, 2008).…”

Section: Selection For Social Traitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The methodology presented above has been recently applied to analyse mortality in a commercial population of layer chickens (Bijma et al, 2007b;Ellen et al, 2008). The data were provided by Hendrix Genetics and consisted of observations on survival days of a single generation of 3800 hens bred from 36 sires and 287 dams, which had been mated at random.…”

Section: Selection For Social Traitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Future trends in Animal Breeding due to new genetic technologies

Toro

2010

Advances in Animal Biosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multilevel Selection 2: Estimating the Genetic Parameters Determining Inheritance and Response to Selection

Cited by 194 publications

References 46 publications

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

Across-Line SNP Association Study for Direct and Associative Effects on Feather Damage in Laying Hens

Future trends in Animal Breeding due to new genetic technologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About