Some behavioural deviations in weaned domestic pigs: persistent inguinal nose thrusting, and tail and ear biting

Health in relation to tail-biting behaviour was investigated on a problem farm. Quartets (n 5 16) of age-and gender-matched fattening pigs including a tail biter (TB, n 5 16), a victim (V, n 5 16), a control in the same pen (C tb , n 5 10) and a control in a pen where no tail biting was observed (C no , n 5 14) were chosen by direct behavioural observation. Haematological and clinicochemical analyses, autopsy and histological examination of 16 different tissues were carried out. Tail lesion severity was evaluated both macroscopically, on the basis of inspection, and histologically, in the sagittally cut tail. Category effects were tested using Friedman's ANOVA by Ranks, Cochran's Q or a repeated-measure GLM and, if significant, pair-wise tests were conducted using Wilcoxon Signed Ranks or McNemar's Test. The number of received tail bites correlated better with histological than with macroscopic tail lesion scoring because of deep inflammation beneath healthy skin in some cases. Most individuals had mild inflammatory lesions in internal organs suggestive of generalized activation of the immune system, and 30% of the animals were anaemic, possibly because of systemic spread of infectious agents. V had more severe respiratory organ lesions and higher serum protein concentrations than all other categories of pigs. Liver-and muscle-specific enzymes (alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase and creatine kinase) differed between categories. In conclusion, most animals had signs of generalized activation of the immune system, possibly because of systemic spread of infectious agents. V pigs suffered from more severe inflammatory lesions than TB, C tb or C no . Deep infections may exist under healthy skin in the tail of bitten pigs.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health parameters in tail biters and bitten pigs in a case–control study

Munsterhjelm

Simola

Keeling

et al. 2013

“…Tail biting occurs in outbreaks Damaging tail biting occurs in a sporadic way, in unpredictable 'outbreaks', rather like an infectious disease (Blackshaw, 1981). For example, in one study using abattoir data, 'high incidence farms' were identified at one point in time, but when a similar 'high incidence' list was made a few months later, most of the farms were different -although there were a few farms with a persistent problem .…”

Section: Tail Biting: Why It Remains An Intractable Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Over time, biting pigs may continue or escalate their biting of existing victims, but also begin biting other pigs in the group (Niemi et al, 2011). Additionally, other pigs in an affected pen begin tail biting too, perhaps because they copy the behaviour (social facilitation; Blackshaw, 1981) or the D'Eath, Arnott, Turner, Jensen, Lahrmann, Busch, Niemi, Lawrence and Sandøe bitten tails might stimulate investigation and biting (stimulus enhancement; Fraser, 1987a). Although never formally studied, there appears to be considerable variation in the rate at which a pig increases its tail biting behaviour, and in the rate of spread to new biters.…”

Section: Tail Biting: Why It Remains An Intractable Problemmentioning

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

151

143

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.

“…These include belly-nosing, tail-and ear-biting (Blackshaw, 1981;Breuer et al, 2005), aggression (Andersen et al, 2000) and mounting behaviour performed by entire males (Boyle and Bjorklund, 2007;Conte et al, 2010). These behaviours can directly result in injury, lameness, infection and abscessation (Wallgren and Lindahl, 1996;Rhydmer et al, 2004;Turner et al, 2006) and are often associated with chronic stress (de Jong et al, 2000) and immunosuppression (de Groot et al, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of a magnesium-rich marine extract on behaviour, salivary cortisol levels and skin lesions in growing pigs

O’Driscoll¹,

O׳Gorman²,

Taylor³

et al. 2013

Growing pigs can display undesirable behaviours, reflecting or causing poor welfare. Addition of magnesium (Mg) to the diet could reduce these, as Mg supplementation has been associated with improved coping ability in response to stress. This study examined the effect of supplementation with a Mg-rich marine extract-based product (Supplement) on the behaviour, skin and tail lesion scores and salivary cortisol concentrations of growing pigs. At weaning (28 days), 448 piglets were assigned to either Control or Supplement (0.05%) diets in single-sex groups of 14. Four weeks later (c. 17 kg), pigs were blocked according to weight and back test scores. Seven piglets from each pen were mixed with seven from another pen of the same sex and dietary treatment to yield the following groups: control male, Supplement male, control female and Supplement female (n 5 4 of each). This marked the start of the 9-week experimental period. Instances of the following behaviours were recorded in each pen for 8 3 2 min periods 1 day/week: aggression (fight, head-knock and bite); harmful (tail-in-mouth, ear-chewing and belly-nosing); and sexual/ mounting behaviour. Four focal pigs were selected from each pen, and their behaviour was continuously recorded for 2 3 5 min periods on the same day. Saliva was collected once per week at 1000 h by allowing pigs to chew on a cotton bud for c. 1 min. Salivary cortisol was analysed in duplicate by an enzyme immunoassay. Skin and tail lesions were scored according to severity 1 day/week. There were fewer aggressive incidents in Supplement pens ( P , 0.01), and mounting behaviour (performed only by males) was almost three times lower in Supplement than in control pens ( P , 0.01). However, there was no effect of Supplement on the incidence of each of the harmful behaviours. Behaviour of the focal pigs showed no treatment effect on the duration or incidence of aggressive behaviour. However, Supplement pigs spent less time performing harmful behaviours compared with control pigs ( P , 0.001). Supplement had no effect on the occurrence or severity of tail-biting outbreaks or on tail lesion scores. However, Supplement females had lower skin lesion scores, in particular in the ears and shoulders ( P , 0.01). Finally, Supplement pigs had lower salivary cortisol concentrations ( P , 0.01). Mounting is a major welfare concern in uncastrated pigs, and therefore this represents an important welfare benefit of Supplement. Reduced salivary cortisol, in conjunction with reduced skin lesion scores in supplemented females, suggests that addition of a Mg-rich marine extract improved pig welfare in this system.