Evaluating environmental enrichment as a method to alleviate pain after castration and tail docking in pigs

Backus, Brittany L.; McGlone, John J.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2018.04.009

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are also possible gains in terms of performance that need to be quantified, e.g., crate-born piglets raised with enrichment from birth can have improved growth and a modulated immune response compared to piglets from barren crates [110]. Future efforts should focus on quantifying the benefits of enrichment in relation to the improved performance of growing pigs [32], improved performance of sows (e.g., lower lameness levels, lower stress levels and stereotypies, improved pregnancies, ease of farrowing, shorter partus, increased maternal care), possibly leading to more pigs/sow/year; and possible improved piglet survival (e.g., coping with and adapting to weaning, reducing the growth check after weaning, e.g., [111]).…”

Section: Main Barriers (Globally) and How To Overcome Thesementioning

confidence: 99%

Providing Effective Environmental Enrichment to Pigs: How Far Have We Come?

Weerd¹,

Ison

2019

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science has defined the characteristics of effective environmental enrichment for pigs. We provide an overview of progress towards the provision of pig enrichment in the three largest global pork producing regions. In the USA, enrichment has not yet featured on the policy agenda, nor appeared on farms, except when required by certain farm assurance schemes. China has very limited legal animal welfare provisions and public awareness of animal welfare is very low. Food safety concerns severely restrict the use of substrates (as enrichment) on farms. Providing enrichment to pigs is a legal requirement in the EU. In practice, enrichment is not present, or simple (point-source) objects are provided which have no enduring value. Other common issues are the provision of non-effective or hazardous objects, inadequate presentation, location, quantity and size or inadequate maintenance of enrichment. Improvements can be made by applying principles from the field of experimental analysis of behaviour to evaluate the effectiveness of enrichment; providing welfare knowledge transfer, including training and advisory services; highlighting the economic benefits of effective enrichment and focusing on return on investment; increasing pressure from the financial sector; using novel drivers of change, such as public business benchmarking. The poor implementation of scientific knowledge on farms suggests that the pig industry has not fully embraced the benefits of effective enrichment and is still a long way off achieving an enriched pig population.

show abstract

Section: Main Barriers (Globally) and How To Overcome Thesementioning

confidence: 99%

Providing Effective Environmental Enrichment to Pigs: How Far Have We Come?

Weerd¹,

Ison

2019

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, no effects of the severity (25, 50 or 75% of the tails left) of docking on these vigorous startling movements of the body and of one or more limbs (= jerks) were found (Herskin et al, 2016). During tail docking, the number and rate of high-pitched vocalizations (including screams and squeals) as well as their loudness were higher in pigs docked using cutting pliers or hot iron cautery than in sham-docked pigs (Backus and McGlone, 2018;Courboulay et al, 2015;Herskin et al, 2016;Marchant-Forde et al, 2009;Prunier et al, 2001;Tallet et al, 2019). In their study, Di Giminiani et al (2017b) found no difference in the call rate, the maximum, or the mean frequency of the calls but demonstrated higher mean call energy and loudness in docked than in sham-docked pigs and a lower peak to peak pressure level in docked than in sham-docked pigs, with a stronger effect using cold than hot iron cautery.…”

Section: Evidence Of Pain During and Shortly After Tail Dockingmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…During the same period, grunts and high-pitched vocalizations (Noonan et al, 1994), rapid tail movements (= tail wagging) (Noonan et al, 1994;Prunier et al, 2001) and having the tail pressed against the body (Prunier et al, 2001) were more frequent in docked than in sham-docked pigs. In the following minutes and hours, some behavioural differences were depicted: more tail trembling and less ample tail movements (Courboulay et al, 2015), more scooting plus huddling and tail jammed between legs (Backus and McGlone, 2018), more lying (Tallet et al, 2019) and more lying in the heated creep area (Herskin et al, 2016) being observed in docked than in sham-docked pigs. On the day after docking (Courboulay et al, 2015) and during the three (Fu et al, 2019) or four following weeks (Tallet et al, 2019), some differences were still depicted.…”

Section: Evidence Of Pain During and Shortly After Tail Dockingmentioning

confidence: 99%

4. Husbandry interventions in suckling piglets, painful consequences and mitigation

Prunier

Devillers

Herskin

et al. 2020

The Suckling and Weaned Piglet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During their first days of postnatal life, piglets reared for meat production are often subjected to numerous husbandry practices that cause injury of sensitive tissues and hence are potential sources of pain. The intensity and duration of the pain engendered depend on the nature and magnitude of tissue damage. Each of these practices is carried out for specific reasons, such as preventing boar taint (castration), reducing the risk of tail biting (tail docking), limiting lesions on siblings and the sow's teats (tooth resection), improving health (injections) or identifying animals (ear tagging or notching). This chapter will discuss the rationale and methods used, the evidence of pain during and shortly after the procedure, the long-term pain consequences, the consequences for health and human-animal relationships, the current options for pain mitigation and the pros and cons of avoiding these practices completely. Solutions are emerging to minimise the industry's dependence on these practices and, when still considered necessary, to enable selection of the least painful option and best mitigate any residual pain. A better knowledge of the affective component of the pain involved in the practices as well as the establishment of standard and validated protocols of pain evaluation are needed in order to move forward and determine the best solutions from an animal welfare perspective and feasibility by farmers.

show abstract

“…Pigs from farrowing crates showed greater cortisol responses after ear tagging [10] and restraint [11] compared to pigs from outdoor pens, and greater cortisol responses after transport compared to pigs from larger crates and pens enriched with straw [12]. The ratio of neutrophil to lymphocyte cells after husbandry procedures was higher in pigs from barren environments than pigs from environments enriched with newspaper, soil, balls and rope [13]. Play behaviour was performed more frequently [6,9] and occurred earlier in life [6] in piglets in loose pens, which suggests the farrowing crate environment negatively impacts the development of normal social skills.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Positive Human Contact and Housing Systems Impact the Responses of Piglets to Various Stressors

Hayes

Hemsworth

Morrison³

et al. 2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This experiment studied the effects of lactation housing systems and human interaction on piglets’ responses to routine stressors. Forty litters of piglets were reared in either a standard farrowing crate (FC) or a loose farrowing and lactation pen (LP; PigSAFE pen) and received either routine contact with humans (C) or regular opportunities for positive human contact (+HC; 3 min of patting, stroking and scratching 5 times/week). Behavioural and physiological responses to routine husbandry procedures, weaning, novelty and humans were studied in addition to effects on piglet growth, injuries and survival. Compared to C piglets, +HC piglets vocalised for shorter durations (p = 0.018) during husbandry procedures and showed a lower intensity of escape behaviour during iron injection (p = 0.042) and oral vaccination (p = 0.026) at 3 d of age, capture at 2 wk of age (p < 0.001), and intramuscular vaccination (p = 0.005) at 3 wk of age. +HC piglets at 2 wk of age were faster than C piglets to approach (p = 0.048) and interact (p = 0.042) with a stationary unfamiliar human. Compared to LP piglets, FC piglets showed a lower intensity of escape behaviour during capture and iron administration by a stockperson at 3 d of age (p = 0.043). FC piglets at 2 wk of age were faster than LP piglets to approach (p = 0.005) and interact (p = 0.027) with a novel object and approach (p = 0.009) and interact (p = 0.008) with an unfamiliar human. FC piglets had fewer injuries than LP piglets at 2 wk of age (p = 0.004). +HC pigs had fewer injuries than C pigs after weaning (p = 0.003). After weaning there were more pigs from LP than FC observed to be upright (both stationary, p = 0.002 and walking, p = 0.024), vocalizing (p = 0.004), nosing another pig (p = 0.035) and nosing the pen floor (p = 0.038). There were no significant effects on neutrophil:lymphocyte ratios or plasma cortisol concentrations 1.5 h after weaning. However, 25 h after weaning +HC pigs had higher haptoglobin concentrations than C pigs (p = 0.002), and C/LP pigs had higher cortisol concentrations than +HC/LP and C/FC pigs (p = 0.012). There were no significant effects on piglet growth, the number of piglets born alive or the number stillborn, however there were more piglets weaned from FC than LP (p = 0.035). The results from this experiment raise questions that require further research on the ability of pigs reared in loose pens to cope with stressors such as exposure to humans, novelty, husbandry procedures and weaning. This experiment also provides evidence that regular positive human interaction reduces pigs’ fear of humans and husbandry procedures imposed by stockpeople. More research is required to determine if any of these effects are sustained long-term.

show abstract

Evaluating environmental enrichment as a method to alleviate pain after castration and tail docking in pigs

Cited by 15 publications

References 43 publications

Providing Effective Environmental Enrichment to Pigs: How Far Have We Come?

Providing Effective Environmental Enrichment to Pigs: How Far Have We Come?

4. Husbandry interventions in suckling piglets, painful consequences and mitigation

Positive Human Contact and Housing Systems Impact the Responses of Piglets to Various Stressors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About