Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:14:50.034Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of method of tail docking on tail-biting behaviour and welfare of pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

MA Sutherland ,
PJ Bryer ,
N Krebs  and
JJ McGlone
MA Sutherland*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Animal and Food Sciences Building, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
PJ Bryer
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Animal and Food Sciences Building, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
N Krebs
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Animal and Food Sciences Building, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
JJ McGlone
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Animal and Food Sciences Building, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The objective of this study was to explore the effects of tail docking and tail biting on pig welfare through an assessment of physiology and behaviour. In experiment 1, piglets were either tail docked using hot cautery iron (CAUT), blunt trauma cutters (BT), or their tails were left intact (CON). Blood samples were taken from pigs at 3 and 7 weeks of age to measure C-reactive protein (CRP). Tail-biting lesions were scored at 3, 5, and 7 weeks of age. Behaviour was recorded for 72 h when tail biting was observed in 7-week old pigs. Tail-biting lesion scores were similar among treatments at 3 and 5 weeks of age, however at 7 weeks lesion scores were greater among CON compared with CAUT and BT pigs. Bodyweights were lower among CON compared with CAUT or BT pigs and CRP was elevated among CON compared with CAUT and BT pigs at 7 weeks of age. In experiment 2, piglets were tail docked at a length of 2 cm (Short) or 5 cm (Long). Tail-biting lesions were scored every 2 weeks until the end of finishing. Tail-biting lesion scores were greater among Long compared with Short pigs. Compromised welfare of tail-bitten pigs was indicated by severity of lesion, level of CRP, and reduced pig bodyweights. More research is needed into understanding the causative factors behind tail biting in pigs, so that preventative measures can be adopted on farms to prevent this behaviour.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourpigstail bitingtail dockingwound healing
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 18 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2009 , pp. 561 - 570
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Beattie, VE, Breuer, K, O’Connell, NE, Sneddon, IA, Mercer, JT, Rance, KA, Sutcliffe, E and Edwards, SA 2005 Factors identifying pigs predisposed to tail biting. Animal Science 80: 307–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckersall, PD, Saini, PK and McComb, C 1996 The acute phase response of acid soluble glycoprotein, α1-acid glycoprotein, ceruloplasmin, haptoglobin and c-reactive protein, in the pig. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 51: 377–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eicher, SD, Cheng, HW, Sorrells, AD and Schutz, MM 2006 Behavioral and physiological indicators of sensitivity or chronic pain following tail docking. Journal of Dairy Science 89: 3047–3051CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Federation of Animal Science Societies 1999 Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agriculture and Teaching, First Revised Edition. FASS: Savoy, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1987 Mineral deficient diets and the pig's attraction to blood: implications to tail biting. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67: 909–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D and Rushen, J 1987 Attraction to blood as a factor in tail biting by pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17: 61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geers, R, Berckmans, D, Goedseels, V, Maes, F, Soontjens, J and Mertens, J 1985 Relationships between physical characteristics of the pig house, the engineering and control systems of the environment, and production parameters of growing pigs. Annales de Zootechnies 34: 11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, MJ, Kent, JE and Molony, V 1997 Effects of four analgesic treatments on the behavioural and cortisol response of 3-week-old lambs to tail docking. The Veterinary Journal 153: 87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, JH, Rowlinson, P, Chadwick, JP and Ellis, M 2002 Behaviour of two genotypes of growing-finishing pig in three different housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75: 193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haske-Cornelius, H, Von Bogner, H and Pescheke, W 1979 Untersuchungen zum verhalten von mastschweinen in verschiedene stallsystemen unterbesonderer berucksichtigung des schwanz-undohrenbeissens. Bayerisches Landwirtschaftliches Jahebuch 56: 162–200Google Scholar
Heinonen, MH, Orro, T, Kokkonen, T, Munsterhjelm, C, Valros, T and Peltoniemi, OAT 2006 The effect of tail biting on acute phase protein concentrations in finishing pigs. Proceedings of the 19th IPVS Congress pp 609. 16-19th July 2006, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Hunter, EJ, Jones, TA, Guise, HJ, Penny, RHC and Hoste, S 2001 The relationship between tail biting in pigs, docking procedure and other management practices. The Veterinary Journal 161: 72–79CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jankevicius, ML and Widowski, TM 2003 Does balancing for color affect pigs’ preference for different flavored tail-models? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 159–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankevicius, ML and Widowski, TM 2004 The effect of ACTH on pigs’ attraction to salt or blood-flavored tail-models. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87: 55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, JJ, Sells, J, Harris, S and Hurst, RJ 1990 Cannibalism in growing pigs: effects of tail docking and housing system on behavior, performance and immune function. Agricultural Sciences Technical Report T-5-283, Texas Tech University. TX, USAGoogle Scholar
McGlone, JJ and Nicholson, RI 1992 Effects of limited floor and feeder space on pig performance and tail biting. Agricultural Sciences Technical Report T-5-317, Texas Tech University, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
NRC 1998 Nutrition Requirements of Swine. National Academy Press: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Prunier, A, Mounier, AM and Hay, M 2005 Effects of castration, tooth resection, or tail docking on plasma metabolites and stress hormones in young pigs. Journal of Animal Science 83: 216–222CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rasmussen, OG, Banks, EM, Berry, TH and Becker, DE 1962 Social dominance in gilts. Journal of Animal Science 21: 520–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sambraus, HH 1985 Mouth-based anomalous syndromes. World Animal Science, A5, Ethology of Farm Animals. A Comprehensive Study of the Behavioral Features of Common Farm Animals pp 391–422 Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Schr⊘der-Petersen DL and Simonsen 2001 Tail biting in pigs. The Veterinary Journal 162: 196–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonsen, HB, Klinken, L and Bindseil, E 1991 Histopathology of intact and docked pigtails. British Veterinary Journal 147: 407–412CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutherland, MA, Bryer, PJ, Krebs, N and McGlone, JJ 2008 Tail docking in pigs: acute physiological and behavioral responses. Animal 2: 292–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, PK and Bilkei, G 2006 Tail-biting in outdoor pig production. The Veterinary Journal 171: 367–369CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zonderland, JJ, Fillerup, M, van Reenen, CG, Hopster, H and Spoolder, HAM 2003 Prevention and treatment of tail biting in weaned piglets. PV report Pigs 18, RIAH, Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar