Postnatal piglet husbandry practices and well-being: The effects of alternative techniques delivered separately1,2

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate stress responses evoked by 2 alternative methods for performing the following processing procedures: 1) teeth resection-clipping vs. grinding; 2) tail docking-cold vs. hot clipping; 3) identification-ear notch vs. tag; 4) iron administration-injection vs. oral; 5) castration-cords cut vs. torn. Eight to 10 litters of 8-, 2-, and 3-d-old piglets were assigned to each procedure. Within each litter, 2 piglets were assigned to 1 of 4 possible procedures: the 2 alternative methods, a sham procedure, and a sham procedure plus blood sampling. Blood was sampled before processing and at 45 min, 4 h, 48 h, 1 wk, and 2 wk postprocedure and assayed for cortisol and beta-endorphin. Procedures were videotaped and analyzed to evaluate the time taken to perform the procedure and the number of squeals, grunts, and escape attempts. Vocalizations were analyzed to determine mean and peak frequencies and duration. Piglets were weighed before the procedure and at 24 h, 48 h, 1 wk, and 2 wk afterward. Lesions were scored on a scale of 0 to 5 on pigs in the identification, tail docking, and castration treatments at 24 h, 1 wk, and 2 wk postprocedure. For teeth resection, grinding took longer than clipping and resulted in greater cortisol concentration overall, poorer growth rates, and longer vocalizations compared with pigs in the control treatment (P<0.05). For tail docking, hot clipping took longer, and hot-clipped piglets grew slower than cold-clipped piglets (P<0.05). Hot clipping also resulted in longer and higher frequency squealing compared with pigs in the control treatment (P<0.01). For identification, ear notching took longer than tagging, and ear-notched piglets had worse wound scores than tagged piglets (P<0.05). Cortisol concentrations at 4 h also tended to be greater for ear-notched piglets (P<0.10). Ear notching evoked calls with higher peak frequencies than the control treatments. For iron administration, oral delivery took numerically longer than injecting, but there were no significant differences between injecting and oral delivery for any of the measures. For castration, tearing took longer than cutting the cords (P<0.05), but beta-endorphin concentrations at 45 min postprocedure were greater for cut piglets. When measures of behavior, physiology, and productivity were used, the responses to teeth resection, tail docking, and identification were shown to be altered by the procedural method, whereas responses to iron administration and castration did not differ. The time taken to carry out the procedure would appear to be an important factor in the strength of the stress response.

Ear tagging in piglets: the cortisol response with and without analgesia in comparison with castration and tail docking

“…The different ways to perform the procedure have already been described in order to identify the least stressful method (Sutherland and Tucker, 2011). Marchant-Forde et al (2009) found no effect of treatment on cortisol, but cauterisation produced greater vocalisations and poorer growth rates than cold clipping with side cutting pliers. In Sutherland et al (2008) the blunt trauma cutter group and the cauterisation group equalled at 30 min.…”

The effect of local or general anesthesia on the physiology and behavior of tail docked pigs

“…The occurrence of tail jamming and tail wagging (Noonan et al, 1994) were greater in tail docked compared with control-handled pigs for up to 90 s after docking. Furthermore, tail docked pigs produced more grunts (Noonan et al, 1994) and higher peak vocal frequencies during tail docking (Marchant-Forde et al, 2009) compared with control-handled pigs. These results suggest that pigs experience pain during and in the hours following tail docking.…”

“…It is hard to accurately measure behaviors that are performed infrequently using scan sampling methodologies (Mitlohner et al, 2001). Previous studies have recorded pig behavior and vocalizations during processing in response to different tail docking methods (Noonan et al, 1994;Marchant-Forde et al, 2009). Pain-like behaviors, including tail jamming and tail wagging (Noonan et al, 1994) and vocalizations, including grunts and high-peak vocal frequencies (Marchant-Forde et al, 2009) were greater in tail docked compared with control-handled pigs.…”

“…Previous studies have recorded pig behavior and vocalizations during processing in response to different tail docking methods (Noonan et al, 1994;Marchant-Forde et al, 2009). Pain-like behaviors, including tail jamming and tail wagging (Noonan et al, 1994) and vocalizations, including grunts and high-peak vocal frequencies (Marchant-Forde et al, 2009) were greater in tail docked compared with control-handled pigs. In this study, the percentage of stress vocalizations was greater in pigs during docking compared with pre-docking values, but pigs that were anesthetised with CO 2 or given an injection of local anesthetic before tail docking produced similar stress vocalizations before and during processing, suggesting that these two anesthetic treatments may have provided some pain relief during docking.…”

“…Injecting local anesthetic subcutaneously into the tail reduced the cortisol response to ring docking in lambs (Graham et al, 1997;Kent et al, 1998). One disadvantage of using local anesthesia is the necessity to repeatedly handle the animal; once to administer the local anesthetic and the second time to perform the painful procedure, possibly leading to increased stress experienced by the animal (Marchant-Forde et al, 2009). Therefore, it would probably be advantageous to the animal if the anesthetic drug could be administered immediately before docking and still be effective in providing pain relief for this procedure.…”