2
|
Kunej T, Horvat S, Salobir J, Stres B, Mikec Š, Accetto T, Avguštin G, Matijašić BB, Cividini A, Majhenič AČ, Čepon M, Deutsch L, Djurdjevič I, Erjavec E, Gorjanc G, Holcman A, Jordan D, Juvančič L, Kavčič S, Kermauner A, Klopčič M, Kocjančič T, Kovač M, Kuhar A, Lavrenčič A, Leskovec J, Levart A, Malovrh Š, Marinšek-Logar R, Lorbeg PM, Narat M, Obermajer T, Paveljšek D, Pirman T, Potočnik K, Rac I, Rezar V, Rogelj I, Simčič M, Snoj A, Bajec SS, Šumrada T, Terčič D, Treven P, Vodovnik M, Šemrov MZ, Žgajnar J, Žgur S, Dovč P. How Can We Advance Integrative Biology Research in Animal Science in 21st Century? Experience at University of Ljubljana from 2002 to 2022. OMICS 2022; 26:586-588. [PMID: 36315198 PMCID: PMC9700370 DOI: 10.1089/omi.2022.0133] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
In this perspective analysis, we strive to answer the following question: how can we advance integrative biology research in the 21st century with lessons from animal science? At the University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Animal Science, we share here our three lessons learned in the two decades from 2002 to 2022 that we believe could inform integrative biology, systems science, and animal science scholarship in other countries and geographies. Cultivating multiomics knowledge through a conceptual lens of integrative biology is crucial for life sciences research that can stand the test of diverse biological, clinical, and ecological contexts. Moreover, in an era of the current COVID-19 pandemic, animal nutrition and animal science, and the study of their interactions with human health (and vice versa) through integrative biology approaches hold enormous prospects and significance for systems medicine and ecosystem health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tanja Kunej
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Simon Horvat
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Janez Salobir
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Blaž Stres
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Špela Mikec
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Tomaž Accetto
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
- Department of Microbiology, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Gorazd Avguštin
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
- Department of Microbiology, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | | | - Angela Cividini
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | | | - Marko Čepon
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Leon Deutsch
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
- Department of Microbiology, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Ida Djurdjevič
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Emil Erjavec
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Gregor Gorjanc
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
- The Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Antonija Holcman
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Dušanka Jordan
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Luka Juvančič
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Stane Kavčič
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Ajda Kermauner
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Marija Klopčič
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Tina Kocjančič
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Milena Kovač
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Aleš Kuhar
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Andrej Lavrenčič
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Jakob Leskovec
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Alenka Levart
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Špela Malovrh
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Romana Marinšek-Logar
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
- Department of Microbiology, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Petra Mohar Lorbeg
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Mojca Narat
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Tanja Obermajer
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Diana Paveljšek
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Tatjana Pirman
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Klemen Potočnik
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Ilona Rac
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Vida Rezar
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Irena Rogelj
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Mojca Simčič
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Aleš Snoj
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Simona Sušnik Bajec
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Tanja Šumrada
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Dušan Terčič
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Primož Treven
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Maša Vodovnik
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
- Department of Microbiology, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Manja Zupan Šemrov
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Jaka Žgajnar
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Silvester Žgur
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| | - Peter Dovč
- Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Boyle LA, Edwards SA, Bolhuis JE, Pol F, Šemrov MZ, Schütze S, Nordgreen J, Bozakova N, Sossidou EN, Valros A. The Evidence for a Causal Link Between Disease and Damaging Behavior in Pigs. Front Vet Sci 2022; 8:771682. [PMID: 35155642 PMCID: PMC8828939 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.771682] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2021] [Accepted: 12/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Damaging behaviors (DB) such as tail and ear biting are prevalent in pig production and reduce welfare and performance. Anecdotal reports suggest that health challenges increase the risk of tail-biting. The prevalence of tail damage and health problems show high correlations across batches within and between farms. There are many common risk factors for tail-biting and health problems, notably respiratory, enteric and locomotory diseases. These include suboptimal thermal climate, hygiene, stocking density and feed quality. The prevalence of tail damage and health problems also show high correlations across batches within and between farms. However, limited evidence supports two likely causal mechanisms for a direct link between DB and health problems. The first is that generalized poor health (e.g., enzootic pneumonia) on farm poses an increased risk of pigs performing DB. Recent studies indicate a possible causal link between an experimental inflammation and an increase in DB, and suggest a link between cytokines and tail-biting. The negative effects of poor health on the ingestion and processing of nutrients means that immune-stimulated pigs may develop specific nutrient deficiencies, increasing DB. The second causal mechanism involves tail-biting causing poor health. Indirectly, pathogens enter the body via the tail lesion and once infected, systemic spread of infection may occur. This occurs mainly via the venous route targeting the lungs, and to a lesser extent via cerebrospinal fluid and the lymphatic system. In carcasses with tail lesions, there is an increase in lung lesions, abscessation, arthritis and osteomyelitis. There is also evidence for the direct spread of pathogens between biters and victims. In summary, the literature supports the association between poor health and DB, particularly tail-biting. However, there is insufficient evidence to confirm causality in either direction. Nevertheless, the limited evidence is compelling enough to suggest that improvements to management and housing to enhance pig health will reduce DB. In the same way, improvements to housing and management designed to address DB, are likely to result in benefits to pig health. While most of the available literature relates to tail-biting, we suggest that similar mechanisms are responsible for links between health and other DB.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura A. Boyle
- Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Cork, Ireland
- *Correspondence: Laura A. Boyle
| | - Sandra A. Edwards
- School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - J. Elizabeth Bolhuis
- Adaptation Physiology Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands
| | | | - Manja Zupan Šemrov
- Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Animal Science, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Sabine Schütze
- Chamber of Agriculture of North Rhine-Westphalia, Animal Health Services, Bad Sassendorf, Germany
| | - Janicke Nordgreen
- Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Paraclinical Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Oslo, Norway
| | - Nadya Bozakova
- Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Trakia University, Stara Zagora, Bulgaria
| | - Evangelia N. Sossidou
- Ellinikos Georgikos Organismos-DIMITRA (ELGO-DIMITRA), Veterinary Research Institute, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Anna Valros
- Department of Production Animal Medicine, Research Centre for Animal Welfare, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lidfors LM, Farhadi N, Anderson C, Zupan Šemrov M. Investigating the Reward Cycle of Play in Pigs (Sus scrofa). Front Anim Sci 2021. [DOI: 10.3389/fanim.2021.740778] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Observations of play in animals have been suggested as a promising indicator of positive emotions and thus of positive animal welfare. However, if play can follow the proposed reward cycle concept where animals estimate and value reward differently in different phases of the cycle (anticipation, consummation and post-consummation) is unclear. To investigate if a reward cycle for play exists in growing pigs, we carried out an exploratory study where pigs were tested when they were naïve to a reward cycle test (first occasion) against when they were accustomed to going through the test after having the access to an open play arena with objects. Forty undocked pigs were housed in a weaner stable with two castrated males and two females per pen. Within each litter, we randomly selected and tested one male and one female test pig, each being tested as naïve or accustomed to the testing environment. The first week the pigs (n = 20) were tested four times and regarded as naïve during the first day. After that they were regarded as accustomed, and were tested twice a week for 3 weeks. We observed the behavior of the tested pairs in three subsequent stages: (1) in a holding pen 3 min, (2) in a play arena 15 min, and (3) in their home pen 10 min. When accustomed, pigs showed more locomotor play, social interactions and standing, and a tendency of more orientation toward the play arena and exploring bars facing the play arena (i.e., reward-seeking behavior) in the holding pen than when they were naïve, suggesting an anticipation to enter the play arena. Performing high numbers of object play in all sessions, and for accustomed pigs more exploration and social interaction, but less locomotor play and walking in the play arena may suggest consumption of play and exploration. Finding more lying and sitting in accustomed pigs, but less standing and walking in the home pen is in line with the previous hypothesis of the post-consummatory behaviors. Our study showed mixed results for the existence of a reward cycle for play in pigs and generated questions for future research.
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
Abnormalities in bone development in humans and non-humans can lead to impaired physical and psychological health; however, evidence is lacking regarding the role of individual psychosocial factors in the development of poor bone conditions. Addressing this lack of knowledge, we used low-productive laying hens (n = 93) and assessed behavioral responses to an open-field test [at 17, 18, 29, 33 weeks of age (wa)], an aerial predator test (at 39 wa), and a social reinstatement test (at 42 wa). Bone condition was assessed using a palpation technique on five occasions (at 16, 29, 33, 45, 58 wa), with half of the hens experiencing damage (deviations, fractures, or both) at 29 wa and all hens by 58 wa. Corticosterone (CORT) concentration in feathers (at 16, 33, 58 wa) and body weight (at 23, 47, 58 wa) were also investigated. We hypothesized that lighter birds (at 23 wa) with higher CORT (at 16 wa) and open field-induced fear collected before the onset of lay (at 17 and 18 wa) are associated with a worse bone condition when in lay. We also hypothesized that those birds with more damage at the peak of laying (at 29 wa) would be lighter at 47 and 58 wa and more fearful by showing higher open field-induced (at 29 and 33 wa) and predator-induced fear responses, however, acting less socially toward conspecifics. These hens were also expected to have higher CORT (at 33 and 58 wa). Our results show no association between open-field fear level and fear behavior, CORT concentration, or body weight on the one hand (all measured before starting to lay) and bone damage at 29 wa on the other. When in lay, bone damage was associated with more pecking and less crossing zones when faced with an open-field situation at 29 wa and improved sociality at 42 wa. This study provides the first evidence of a relationship of bone health with fear, sociality, and stress response. When in poor bone condition, our hens had enhanced psychological stress measured by fear behavior reactivity but not physiological stress measured as feather CORT concentration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neža Rokavec
- Department of Animal Science, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Domžale, Slovenia
| | - Manja Zupan Šemrov
- Department of Animal Science, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Domžale, Slovenia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Terčič D, Pančur M, Jordan D, Zupan Šemrov M. Effects of Dimethyl Anthranilate-Based Repellents on Behavior, Plumage Condition, Egg Quality, and Performance in Laying Hens. Front Vet Sci 2020; 7:533. [PMID: 32974401 PMCID: PMC7466561 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00533] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2020] [Accepted: 07/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Feather pecking is a behavior that occurs in order to cope with a constrained environment and is a serious problem in the egg production industry. This longitudinal study was conducted under commercial conditions to investigate whether the application of two repellent mixtures, previously suggested as aversive to wild birds, to the plumage of Prelux-R hybrid egg layers is a viable alternative to beak trimming as a solution to discourage feather pecking among laying hens. A total of 180 untrimmed hybrid layers was reared together in a floor pen. At 18 weeks of age they were allocated randomly to three treatments (repellent P, repellent T, control), each consisting of 6 replicated enriched cages with 10 hens in each cage. Hens were evenly sprayed once every 2 weeks for 54 weeks with solution P (dimethyl anthranilate and methyl phenylacetate), solution T (dimethyl anthranilate and geraniol), or distilled water (control). Body weight, plumage condition, behavior, feed intake, and egg quality measurements were taken at five time periods from 26 to 76 weeks of age. Egg production and mortality were recorded daily. The treatments did not affect feather pecking behavior. Hens treated with repellent T tended to perform less cage pecking than the control hens. The use of the repellents did not reduce feather pecking, the plumage was even more significantly damaged in the hens given the repellents compared to the control hens. This suggests the chemicals in the repellents worsened the plumage. No differences in feed intake and daily egg production between treatments were found. Raw and hard-boiled eggs were highly uniform in odor/flavor/taste and no offensive odor absorption related to the chemicals in the repellents was detected. In conclusion, in the present study we did not find any beneficial effect of dimethyl anthranilate-based repellents on feather pecking frequency and plumage/feather condition. Therefore, we do not encourage their use in wider commercial settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dušan Terčič
- Department of Animal Science, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|