The role of breeding and genetics

in animal welfare
T. Bas Rodenburg, Animal Breeding & Genomics Centre
Simon P. Turner, Scottish Agricultural College (SAC)

Introduction

Domestication started
thousands of years ago

Past 50-60 years:

intensive selection for
increased production

Genetic selection
Contributed to welfare issues: lameness broilers
Can also be used to alleviate welfare issues
(Rauw et al., 1998)

Variation between species

Domestic species vary greatly in:

Traits under selection
Selection intensity
Application of breeding technologies

Intensive versus extensive systems

Differences in genetic progress

Focus on intensive sectors

Breeding-related welfare challenges

Mainly associated with the
highly selected poultry,
dairy and pig sectors

Also play a role in the extensively

managed breeds

Increased lambing rate:

reduction in lamb survival

Calving difficulties
in beef cattle

Variation within species

Breeds and hybrids

Generalist- versus specialist-type
Intensive production: generalist-type
Rare breeds: specialist-type

Rare breeds more hardy in

specific environments

Easy care sheep

High-yield crosses

Pigs and poultry: pure-bred lines used for selection

Commercial product is a hybrid cross (4 lines)
Female lines: reproductive traits
Male line: fast growth, low feed conversion

Sheep production: low-maintenance ewes

Mated to less hardy,
but more productive sires

Crossbreds for fattening

on lower ground

Selection for increased growth in broilers

Extremely successful:
25 to 100 grams/day

Increased incidences of
Lameness
Ascites
Sudden death

syndrome

(Knowles et al., 2008)

Suboptimal conditions

40
35
Temperature

30
25
Control

20

Test

15
10
5
0
1

14

16

21

Age (days)

29

42

49

Van Horne et al., 2004

(van Horne et al., 2004)

Mortality

Slow growing

Fast
growing

Sudden Death

1.7

1.7

Heart Failure

1.7

1.3

Ascites

0.8

13.8

Total Heart +
circulation

1.7

4.2

15.0

Van Horne et al., 2004

(van Horne et al., 2004)

Slower growing broilers

Grow to slaughter weight in 56 rather than 42 days

Much less welfare issues
Reduced mortality
Reduced lameness
Reduced footpad

Limited feed restriction required in

parent stock (dwarf mothers)

dermatitis

Dairy cows

Selection for increased milk yield

Decreased fertility and longevity
Increased lameness
Increased metabolic problems
A higher incidence of mastitis

Future: automatic collection of

data in/around milking parlour

Incorporate information
in breeding program
(Oltenacu and Broom, 2010)

Selection enhancing undesired behaviour

Genetic correlation tail biting with (Breuer et al., 2005):

Lean tissue growth rate (0.27)
Backfat thickness (-0.28)

Selection for early sexual maturation laying hens

Correlated to increased feather pecking
(Jensen et al., 2005)

Selection for improved welfare

Direct selection against undesired behaviours feasible

Aggression in pigs

(Turner, 2011)

Feather pecking in laying hens

Helpful in understanding
behaviours

Unravel underlying
mechanisms

Frequency of feather pecking

(Kjaer et al., 2001)

5
4
3

High feather
pecking

Low feather
pecking

1
0
0

Generation

Breeding for improved group performance

Traditional: focus on
individual performance

Risk to select animals

that are harmful
for group performance

Alternative methods needed that take group

performance into account

Group selection

(Muir, 1996)

Eggs
Per
cage

26

Per
individual

6.5

Group Selected
19

6.3

15

15

Individual Selected
23

5.7

Cumulative mortality

(Muir, 1996)

450
CONTROL

400
350

GROUP SELECTED 7

300
COMMERCIAL

250
200
150
100
50
0
18

21

24

27

30

33

36 39 42
AGE (WEEKS)

45

48

51

54

57

New methods

Kin selection method

Combine individual performance
with information from sisters in
group housing (Ellen et al., 2007)

Social breeding values

Estimate the genetic effect an animal
has on the performance of its group mates
(Muir, 2005; Bijma et al., 2007)

Kin selection on low mortality

White leghorn line

Control line:

Low mortality line

Selection candidate individual

Selection on production

Selection candidate individual

Selection on production
Full sisters in group (4)
Selection on low mortality

Non-beak trimmed in cages:

mortality due to cannibalism

(Ellen et al., 2007)

Results after one generation

Generation 1

Mortality %

50
40
30
20
10
0
Control

Low

Effects on behaviour

Birds selected on low mortality:

Less fearful
Young age
Adult age
Reduced stress response
Less cannibalistic pecking
Changes in the serotonergic system
compared with control birds

(Bolhuis et al., 2009; Rodenburg et al, 2009ab;

Nordquist et al., 2011)

Role of the serotonergic system

Feather pecking is redirected foraging

In response to fear and stress inducing stimuli

The serotonergic (5-HT) system central role:

Involved in coping with fear and stress,
Involved in foraging and in feather pecking
(van Hierden et al., 2004)

Selection for low mortality: changes in the peripheral

serotonergic (5-HT) system (Bolhuis et al., 2009)

FP and the serotonergic system

Associations between feather pecking and genes

involved in the serotonergic system

Comparison of lines selected

for high an low FP

Frequency difference
DEAF1 polymorphisms

Regulatory gene
serotonergic system

(Flisikowski et al., 2009)

FP and the serotonergic system

Association study on
feather damage

of laying hens

Brown and white lines

Allele
frequency

Nine different lines

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Brown

White

Association between feather damage and HTR2C

Receptor gene serotonergic system
(after Biscarini et al., 2010)

Plumage condition

Plumage condition

5.5

4.5

4
Brown

White
(after Uitdehaag et al., 2008)

Fearfulness
Probability of showing a
fearful response

0.4

0.3

0.2

Brown
White

0.1

0
23

46
69
Age (weeks)
(after Uitdehaag et al., 2008)

Coherent with selection experiment

Birds selected on low mortality

Less fearful
Reduced stress response
Less cannibalistic pecking
Changes in the serotonergic system

compared with control birds

Further developing genetic fingerprint associated with FP

will enhance possibilities for genetic selection
(Bolhuis et al., 2009; Rodenburg et al, 2009ab;
Nordquist et al., 2011)

Aggression in pigs

Observed after mixing but also under stable conditions

Mixing is a routine procedure

Results in skin lesions

Aggression can negatively
affect performance

(Turner et al., 2006)

Breeding against aggression

Technically possible
Fighting and bullying have
moderate heritabilities in pigs
(between 0.17 and 0.43)

Number of resulting skin lesions

(between 0.21 and 0.26)
(Lovendahl et al., 2005; Turner et al., 2006; 2009)

Genetic correlations indicate that skin lesions can be

used as an indicator of being aggressive
(Turner et al., 2006)

Effects of selection

Genetic correlation between aggression around mixing

and under stable conditions: selection reduces both

Associated changes in:

Genes involved in coping
with stress (HPA-axis)

Brain gene expression

vasopressin and serotonin

Altered cholesterol metabolism

(Murani et al., 2010, 2011; DEath et al., 2005)

Effects of selection

Selection might alter basic pathways that govern a range

of biological functions

Aggressive animals also

faster to enter weighing
scale (DEath et al., 2009)

No differences in general activity

levels to underlie reduced aggressiveness

No adverse effects on lean tissue growth

(Turner et al., 2006)

Social breeding values

Traditional selection methods lack attention for social

interactions

Social genetic effects contribute profoundly to genetic

variance in growth rate in pigs

(Bergsma et al. 2008)

Number of lesions
Similar results found by Canario et al. (2008)
Post mixing
Low SBV
High
SBV
Anterior 17.03a
11.59b **
Middle
7.80
7.46
Rear
1.95
2.10
Back
-

Steady situation
High SBV Low SBV
4.27
1.84
0.90
1.08a

4.77
2.33
1.28
1.63b *

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

De Vries, unpublished results

(Rodenburg et al. 2010, Canario et al. 2008)

Effects on manipulative behaviour

High SBV pigs showed:

Showed 15% more
comfort behaviour

Spent 14% less time

on ear biting

Spent 35% less time

on chewing objects

Had less tail damage

This may indicate that low SBV pigs have a stronger

tendency to perform oral manipulation
(Camerlink et al. 2012, Ursinus et al. 2012)

Conclusion selection experiments

Scope to use novel selection methods

to improve welfare of group-housed
animals

Kin selection laying hens

Social breeding value pigs

Progress may be slower than expected

Hens: easier to select for increased damage
Pigs: realised genetic progress relatively small

Increased understanding of genetics of social behaviour

General conclusion

Breeding and genetics: important role in the welfare of

domestic animals

If focused only on
increasing production:

Clear risk of increasing

welfare problems

Wider perspective is needed that encompasses both

production and welfare traits

General conclusion

Genomics era could offer opportunities

More precise information on the biological
impact of certain breeding decisions

Help breeders to make more informed

choices in their selection programs

Facilitate selection for complex

behavioural traits:
5-HT polymorphisms

Genetic fingerprint: targeted

genomic selection approaches

Open to collaboration!

Main topic:
Improving social behaviour in group-housed
animals by genetic selection and improving
early-life conditions

Future position (from 1 August):

Assistant Professor Behavioural Ecology at WUR
Focus on research + teaching
applied animal behaviour and welfare

Centre of Animal Welfare and Adaptation

(CAWA)

Thank you!

This paper will be published in the

July 2012 issue of Animal Frontiers

(special issue on Animal Welfare,

edited by Don Lay)