A plea to implement robustness into a breeding goal: poultry as an example

Abstract

ABSTRACT. The combination of breeding for increased production and the intensification of housing conditions have resulted in increased occurrence of behavioral, physiological, and immunological disorders. These disorders affect health and welfare of production animals negatively. For future livestock systems, it is important to consider how to manage and breed production animals. In this paper, we will focus on selective breeding of laying hens. Selective breeding should not only be defined in terms of production, but should also include traits related to animal health and welfare. For this we like to introduce the concept of robustness. The concept of robustness includes individual traits of an animal that are relevant for health and welfare. Improving robustness by selective breeding will increase (or restore) the ability of animals to interact successfully with the environment and thereby to make them more able to adapt to an appropriate husbandry system. Application of robustness into a breeding goal will result in animals with improved health and welfare without affecting their integrity. Therefore, in order to be ethically acceptable, selective breeding in animal production should accept robustness as a breeding goal.

Resilience in farm animals: biology, management, breeding and implications for animal welfare

“…The recognition that several functional and conformation traits including health, reproduction and leg strength have deteriorated during selection for production traits in farm animals (Rauw et al 1998) has led to a strong call to increase robustness through genetic selection to improve functional traits (Knap 2005;Star et al 2008). The definition provided by Knap (2005) is commonly used to characterise robustness in farm animals.…”

“…Managing the animal so that its experience of the environment improves its ability to adapt, and breeding for resilience traits should help lead to better welfare outcomes. Nonetheless, as noted by others, selection for resilience, adaptability and robustness in farm animals should not be viewed as a substitute for good housing, good management and fitting the genotype of the animal to the production environment (Star et al 2008;Fraser et al 2013;Ferguson 2014). Rather, selection for resilience can be seen as a continuation of the genetic change associated with the process of domestication that has been occurring over several millennia (Price 1999;Mignon-Grasteau et al 2005;Canario et al 2013).…”

Breeding for robustness: the role of cortisol

“…As stated by Knap (2009), 'Sustainable breeding goals combine robustness traits with production traits to such an extent that selection balances genetic change in production potential with genetic change in environmental sensitivity'. Indeed, when selection focuses on production traits only, the above-mentioned functional traits are likely to become compromised (Rauw et al, 1998;Star et al, 2008;Knap and Rauw, 2009;Siegel et al, 2009;Veerkamp et al, 2009). The current evolution of animal production systems (increase of economic pressure, diversification of production environments, reduction of individual animal management, increase of parasitic load with outdoor production) combined with global warming, increases the importance of adaptation and robustness traits in sustainable breeding goals.…”

“…Local breeds, well adapted to their (eventually harsh) environment have usually low absolute levels of production, although it may be high considering the environmental constraints. By contrast, genetically selected, highly productive stocks frequently show signs of reduced robustness (Rauw et al, 1998;Star et al, 2008;Knap and Rauw, 2009;Siegel et al, 2009;Veerkamp et al, 2009). This trade-off between productivity and robustness is predicted by the resource allocation theory (Beilharz, 1998;Glazier, 2009) -the energetic resources of an individual are limited and their allocation across metabolic functions is optimized towards the best adaptation of the individual to its environment ( 5 fitness).…”

Minimising pain in farm animals: the 3S approach – ‘Suppress, Substitute, Soothe’

“…For example, local breeds, well adapted to their (potentially harsh) environment, have usually low absolute levels of production, although they may be high relative to the environmental constraints. Conversely, genetically selected, highly productive stocks frequently show signs of reduced robustness (Rauw et al, 1998;Knap and Rauw, 2008;Siegel et al, 2008;Star et al, 2008;Veerkamp et al, 2008). Reduced robustness may be associated with increased pain and reduced animal welfare, due to, for example, increased lameness and susceptibility to other diseases, reduced survival of newborns and lower functional longevity.…”