Influences of intermittent daily draught on the behaviour of weaned pigs

Scheepens, C.J.M.; Hessing, M.; Laarakker, E.; Schouten, W.G.P.; Tielen, M.J.M.

doi:10.1016/0168-1591(91)90154-p

Cited by 23 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The impact of air velocity on the probability that a pen-week had at least one pig with score ≥1, shown in this study, is in line with Scheepens et al [25]. In their study, pigs showed significantly more exploratory and agonistic behaviour on penmates in periods of draught, which were produced with cold air and a high air velocity [25]. Nevertheless, interpreting the measured values for air velocity in our study, we should keep in mind that these values might be subject to strong variation, represent only one point of time per week and might be influenced by movements of the animals as well as the observer.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Provision of straw by a foraging tower –effect on tail biting in weaners and fattening pigs

Holling

Beilage

Vidondo³

et al. 2017

Porc Health Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundStraw is one of the most effective rooting materials to reduce tail biting in pigs. A so-called foraging-tower (FT) provides only small quantities of straw compatible with liquid manure systems. The focus of the present study was on the effect of providing straw by FT in order to prevent tail biting in tail docked pigs. Four consecutive batches of 160 pigs, randomly divided into a straw (SG) and a control group (CG) were followed up from weaning to slaughter.ResultsTail wounds (Score ≥ 2) were detected in 104 out of 12,032 single observations (SG n = 48; CG n = 56) in 9 pens (SG n = 4/32; CG n = 5/32) mainly focused on the fattening period of batch 2 due to a failure in the ventilation system. No significant differences concerning the distribution of Score ≥ 2 in pens of the SG and CG could be identified. Bite marks (Score 1) were documented in 395 observations at animal level (SG n = 197, CG n = 198) in all batches. In the nursery period, the air velocity significantly increased the chance that at least one pig per pen and week showed a tail lesion score ≥1 (p = 0.024). In the fattening period ammonia concentration was positively associated with tail lesions (p = 0.007).The investigation of blood samples revealed infections with Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae in all batches and a circulation of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (NA-vaccine strain) and Porcine Circovirus Type 2 in two batches each. The average daily straw consumption was 3.5 g/pig (standard deviation (SD) = 1.1) during the rearing period and 31.9 g/pig (SD = 7.7) during the fattening period.ConclusionDue to the low prevalence of tail biting in all batches the effect of the FT tower could not be evaluated conclusively. The operation of the FT with an average daily straw consumption of 3.5 g/pig (SD = 1.1) during the rearing period and 31.9 g/pig (SD = 7.7) during the fattening period did not affect the weight gain. Exploratory behaviour seems to cause bite marks (score 1), which do not necessarily result in tail biting. The main outbreak of tail biting was probably triggered by a failure of the ventilation system, which resulted in a number of climatic and air quality changes including higher ammonia concentrations and sudden temperature changes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40813-017-0052-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Provision of straw by a foraging tower –effect on tail biting in weaners and fattening pigs

Holling

Beilage

Vidondo³

et al. 2017

Porc Health Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Seasonal effects on tail damage have been identified (Schrøder-Petersen and Simonsen, 2001, Busch, personal communication), the exact nature of which varies between different studies. It seems plausible that rapid changes in temperature (either up or down), an increase in draughts at certain times of year (known to affect activity, Scheepens et al, 1991), or heat stress are likely to be the underlying cause of seasonal effects (Figure 1), as there is a limit to the capacity of ventilation/heating/cooling systems in most pig buildings.…”

Section: Availability Of Manipulable Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

D’Eath

Arnott

Turner

et al. 2014

Animal

151

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

“…Studies on the influence of draught on the health and productivity of weaned pigs have shown negative effects on health, productivity and behaviour (41)(42)(43). In this study we show that, when compared to optimal climate housed pigs, draught-exposed pigs displayed; a) altered in vivo mononuclear cell responses to PHA; b) altered lymphocyte proliferative responses to PHA and ConA and c) altered leucocyte numbers or leucocyte profiles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…Stressful conditions can result in metabolic (47), behavioural (41,51), hormonal and immunological aberrations (27). Several investigators have shown that the immune response is altered by stressors, including climatic stressors, and is subject to regulation or modulation by the brain (1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%