Behaviour of two genotypes of growing–finishing pig in three different housing systems

Guy, Jonathan; Rowlinson, Peter; Chadwick, J. P.; Ellis, Michael

doi:10.1016/s0168-1591(01)00197-6

Cited by 92 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If tail-biting is indeed a redirected behaviour then we would expect decreased levels of tail-biting in conditions which induced increased levels of rooting. Previous studies which have found that provision of straw reduced the amount of tail-biting seen have involved adding straw to the pen every day (Fraser et al, 1991a;Day et al, 2002b;Scott et al, 2006;Van De Weerd et al, 2006;Scott et al, 2007a;Scott et al, 2007b;Zonderland et al, 2008), and also noted increased time spent interacting with substrate (Day et al, 2002a;Guy et al, 2002;Van De Weerd et al, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…As mentioned earlier, much of the previous research has compared groups with straw provided on solid floors and no bedding on slatted floors (Beattie et al, 1995;O'Connell and Beattie, 1999;Beattie et al, 2000b;Guy et al, 2002;Van de Weerd et al, 2005;Scott et al, 2007a). A slatted system confounds the lack of bedding with a reduced opportunity to root as all substrates pass through the slats.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This means that whilst the findings are likely to be reliable they may have limited applicability to commercial farms in the UK where group sizes tend to be larger, many extraneous factors vary from day to day and, due to economic and time constraints, straw provision is typically weekly or bi-weekly if it is used at all. The second category is research carried out on commercial farms but where the presence of straw has been confounded with other factors such as higher stocking density in the non-straw treatment (Simonsen, 1995) or both higher stocking density and the presence of slats in the non-straw treatment groups (Beattie et al, 1995;O'Connell and Beattie, 1999;Beattie et al, 2000b;Guy et al, 2002;Van de Weerd et al, 2005;Scott et al, 2007a). Whilst these are commercially relevant comparisons it means that it is unclear whether the provision of straw, the presence of a solid floor or decreased stocking density was most influential in reducing tail-biting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A longitudinal study of the effects of providing straw at different stages of life on tail-biting and other behaviour in commercially housed pigs

Statham

Green

Mendl

2011

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tail-biting (TB) is a welfare concern. Recent studies indicate that early provision of straw may help prevent TB, however, many of these studies were carried out on small groups of pigs and may have limited applicability to commercial farms. The effect of providing straw at different stages of life was studied in large groups of pigs (21-39) on a commercial farm. Six replicates of four treatments were used (No Straw (NS), Straw in Finishing (12 weeks of age onwards) (SF), Straw from Weaning (SW), Straw Throughout Life (ST)). Based on previous studies, it was predicted that levels of TB would be lowest in ST and highest in NS. A total of 706 pigs were followed from birth to slaughter, however one replicate (all four groups) was excluded due to circumstances beyond our control. All pigs were housed on solid floors, and shavings were provided in pens without straw. Fresh bedding was provided twice per week. Behaviours were recorded at regular intervals and all tail-biting outbreaks were recorded.The timing of straw provision had limited effect on pigs" behaviour. Before weaning there was no difference in the time spent exploring the substrate between groups with straw and those without. After weaning, the time spent rooting was significantly different between treatments (F (13,16) =3.796, p<0.05) with post-hoc testing indicating that levels were significantly higher in SW than NS but that there was no difference between ST and the other treatments. Of the 20 groups, fourteen had tail-biting outbreaks (NS=3, SF=2, SW=4, ST=5), eight of these were classed as severe (NS=2, SF=0, SW=1, ST=3). Provision of straw did not have a significant effect on the distribution of tail-biting outbreaks (p = 0.336).This unexpected finding was not explained by other variables (e.g. stocking density). It may have been related to the finding that straw provision did not increase the amount of rooting as expected, perhaps because the provision of solid floors and shavings allowed rooting in non-straw treatments. Most TB was seen in the finishing pigs where straw levels increased for SF but declined for ST and SW relative to earlier in life due to the farm"s management practice. The levels of tail-biting were higher than expected in ST / SW and lower than expected in SF, suggesting that the novelty of straw for SF might have decreased the risk of TB whilst the decline in straw provision for ST/SW might have increased the risk.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A longitudinal study of the effects of providing straw at different stages of life on tail-biting and other behaviour in commercially housed pigs

Statham

Green

Mendl

2011

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a UK study, there was no effect of breed on tail biting, although there were breed differences in ear biting (Duroc > Large White > Landrace; Breuer et al, 2003). Two other studies reported finding no breed differences in the performance of tail biting (Lund and Simonsen, 2000;Guy et al, 2002). Thus, as with breed differences in being tail bitten, breed differences in biting might occur, but the evidence is fairly weak.…”

Section: Controlling Tail Biting Without Tail Dockingmentioning

confidence: 95%

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

D’Eath

Arnott

Turner

et al. 2014

Animal

150

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

“…The onset of tail-biting behaviour has been associated with many factors including physical (i.e. floor type), environmental, nutritional and feeding management, over-crowding, gender, genetics, length of tail and lack of substrates (Fraser, 1987;Fraser and Rushen, 1987;McGlone et al, 1990;McGlone and Nicholson, 1992;Guy et al, 2002;Widowski, 2003 and2004;Walker and Bilkei, 2006). Currently, tail docking is routinely used on farms in the USA as a solution to this problem.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tail docking in pigs: acute physiological and behavioural responses

Sutherland

Bryer

Krebs

et al. 2008

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tail docking of piglets is a routine procedure on farms to control tail-biting behaviour; however, docking can cause an acute stress response. The objectives of this research were to determine the stress responses to tail docking in piglets and to compare two methods of tail docking; cautery iron (CAUT) and the more commonly used blunt trauma cutters (BT). At approximately 6 days of age, piglets were tail docked using CAUT (n 5 20), BT (n 5 20) or sham tail docked with their tails remaining intact (CON; n 5 40). Blood samples were taken prior to tail docking and at 30, 60 and 90 min after tail docking to evaluate the effect of tail docking on white blood cell (WBC) measures and cortisol concentrations. The above experiment was repeated to observe behaviour without the periodic blood sampling, so as not to confound the effects of blood sampling on piglet behaviour. Piglet behaviour was recorded in the farrowing crate using 1 min scan-samples via live observations for 60 min prior to and 90 min after tail docking. Total WBC counts were reduced (P . 0.05) among BT and CAUT compared with CON piglets 30 min after tail docking. Cortisol concentrations were higher (P , 0.01) among BT compared with CON and CAUT piglets 60 min after tail docking. Cautery and BT-docked piglets spent more (P , 0.05) time posterior scooting compared with CON piglets between 0 and 15 min, and 31 and 45 min after tail docking. Piglets tail docked using CAUT and BT tended to spend more (P , 0.07) time sitting than CON piglets between 0 and 15 min post tail docking. Elevated blood cortisol can be reduced by the use of the CAUT rather than the BT method of tail docking. Although the tail docking-induced rise in cortisol was prevented by using CAUT, the behavioural response to BT and CAUT docking methods was similar.

show abstract

Behaviour of two genotypes of growing–finishing pig in three different housing systems

Cited by 92 publications

References 8 publications

A longitudinal study of the effects of providing straw at different stages of life on tail-biting and other behaviour in commercially housed pigs

A longitudinal study of the effects of providing straw at different stages of life on tail-biting and other behaviour in commercially housed pigs

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

Tail docking in pigs: acute physiological and behavioural responses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About