Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:24:02.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in activity and object manipulation before tail damage in finisher pigs as an early detector of tail biting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2018

M. L. V. Larsen Open the ORCID record for M. L. V. Larsen [Opens in a new window] ,
H. M.-L. Andersen  and
L. J. Pedersen
M. L. V. Larsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
H. M.-L. Andersen
Affiliation:
Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
L. J. Pedersen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Tail damage within the production of finisher pigs is an animal welfare problem. Recent research suggests that removal of known risk factors may not be enough to eliminate tail biting, especially in undocked pigs, thus a different strategy is worth investigating. This could be early detection of tail biting, using behavioural changes observed before tail damage. If these early stages of tail biting can be detected before tail damage occurs, then tail damage could be prevented by early interventions. The first step in developing such a strategy is to identify the types of behaviour changes that emerge during early stages of tail biting. Thus, the aim of the current study was to investigate whether pen level activity and object manipulation evolved differently during the last 7 days before the scoring of tail damage (day 0) for pens scored with tail damage (tail damage pens) and pens not scored with tail damage (matched control pens). The study included video recordings for twenty-four tail damage pens and thirty-two matched control pens. Activity level and object manipulation were observed the last 7 days before day 0 during the morning (0600 to 0800 h), afternoon (1600 to 1800 h) and evening (2200 to 2400 h, only activity level). Both activity level and object manipulation were analysed using generalised linear mixed effects models with a binomial distribution for activity level and a negative binomial distribution for object manipulation. The probability of being active was higher in tail damage pens compared to control pens during the afternoon the last 5 days before day 0 (P<0.001). This was seen due to a decrease in activity level in the control pens, which makes it difficult to identify future tail damage pens from this difference. Object manipulation was lower in tail damage pens compared to the control pens on all 7 days before day 0, but only in pens with undocked pigs (P<0.01). Thus, it is still unknown when this difference in object manipulation initiated. It was concluded that both activity level and object manipulation seemed related to ongoing tail biting and should be investigated through more detailed observations and for a longer time to establish the normal behaviour pattern for a particular pen. Thus, it is suggested that future research focusses on developing automatic monitoring methods for pen level activity and object manipulation and applies algorithms that establish and detect deviations from the normal behaviour pattern of the pen before tail damage.

Keywords

pig productionprecision livestock farmingbehavioural changesactivity levelmanipulative behaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 5 , May 2019 , pp. 1037 - 1044
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, HML, Jorgensen, E, Dybkjaer, L and Jorgensen, B 2008. The ear skin temperature as an indicator of the thermal comfort of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113, 43–56.10.1016/j.applanim.2007.11.003Google Scholar
Bates, D, Maechler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, W 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1–48.10.18637/jss.v067.i01Google Scholar
Feddes, JJR, Fraser, D, Buckley, DJ and Poirier, P 1993. Electronic sensing of nondestructive chewing by growing pigs. Transactions of the Asae 36, 955–958.10.13031/2013.28421Google Scholar
Harley, S, Boyle, LA, O’Connell, NE, More, SJ, Teixeira, DL and Hanlon, A 2014. Docking the value of pigmeat? Prevalence and financial implications of welfare lesions in Irish slaughter pigs. Animal Welfare 23, 275–285.Google Scholar
Heinonen, M, Orro, T, Kokkonen, T, Munsterhjelm, C, Peltoniemi, O and Valros, A 2010. Tail biting induces a strong acute phase response and tail-end inflammation in finishing pigs. The Veterinary Journal 184, 303–307.10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.02.021Google Scholar
Huey, RJ 1996. Incidence, location and interrelationships between the sites of abscesses recorded in pigs at a bacon factory in Northern Ireland. The Veterinary Record 138, 511–514.10.1136/vr.138.21.511Google Scholar
Kritas, SK and Morrison, RB 2007. Relationships between tail biting in pigs and disease lesions and condemnations at slaughter. Veterinary Record 160, 149–152.Google Scholar
Lahrmann, HP, Hansen, CF, D’Eath, R, Busch, ME and Forkman, B 2018. Tail posture predicts tail biting outbreaks at pen level in weaner pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 200, 29–35.10.1016/j.applanim.2017.12.006Google Scholar
Larsen, MLV, Andersen, HM-L and Pedersen, LJ 2016. Can tail damage outbreaks in the pig be predicted by behavioural change? The Veterinary Journal 209, 50–56.10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.12.001Google Scholar
Larsen, MLV, Andersen, HM-L and Pedersen, LJ 2018. Which is the most preventive measure against tail damage in finisher pigs: tail docking, straw provision or lowered stocking density? Animal 12, 1260–1267.Google Scholar
Lee, H-J, Roberts, SJ, Drake, KA and Dawkins, MS 2010. Prediction of feather damage in laying hens using optical flows and Markov models. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 8, rsif20100268.Google Scholar
Munsterhjelm, C, Brunberg, E, Heinonen, M, Keeling, L and Valros, A 2013. Stress measures in tail biters and bitten pigs in a matched case-control study. Animal Welfare 22, 331–338.10.7120/09627286.22.3.331Google Scholar
Nasirahmadi, A, Edwards, SA and Sturm, B 2017. Implementation of machine vision for detecting behaviour of cattle and pigs. Livestock Science 202, 25–38.10.1016/j.livsci.2017.05.014Google Scholar
Paoli, M, Lahrmann, H, Jensen, T and D’Eath, R 2016. Behavioural differences between weaner pigs with intact and docked tails. Animal Welfare 25, 287–296.Google Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Herskin, MS, Forkman, B, Halekoh, U, Kristensen, KM and Jensen, MB 2014. How much is enough? The amount of straw necessary to satisfy pigs’ need to perform exploratory behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 160, 46–55.10.1016/j.applanim.2014.08.008Google Scholar
R Core Team 2017. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Sinisalo, A, Niemi, JK, Heinonen, M and Valros, A 2012. Tail biting and production performance in fattening pigs. Livestock Science 143, 220–225.Google Scholar
Statham, P, Green, L, Bichard, M and Mendl, M 2009. Predicting tail-biting from behaviour of pigs prior to outbreaks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 157–164.10.1016/j.applanim.2009.09.011Google Scholar
Studnitz, M, Jensen, MB and Pedersen, LJ 2007. Why do pigs root and in what will they root? A review on the exploratory behaviour of pigs in relation to environmental enrichment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107, 183–197.Google Scholar
Taylor, NR, Main, DC, Mendl, M and Edwards, SA 2010. Tail-biting: a new perspective. The Veterinary Journal 186, 137–147.10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.08.028Google Scholar
Ursinus, WW, Van Reenen, CG, Kemp, B and Bolhuis, JE 2014. Tail biting behaviour and tail damage in pigs and the relationship with general behaviour: predicting the inevitable? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 156, 22–36.Google Scholar
Valros, A, Ahlström, S, Rintala, H, Häkkinen, T and Saloniemi, H 2004. The prevalence of tail damage in slaughter pigs in Finland and associations to carcass condemnations. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A-Animal Science 54, 213–219.Google Scholar
Zonderland, J, Vermeer, H, Vereijken, P and Spoolder, H 2003. Measuring a pig’s preference for suspended toys by using an automated recording technique. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Journal of Scientific Research and Development 5, 1–11.Google Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Schepers, F, Bracke, MBM, den Hartog, LA, Kemp, B and Spoolder, HAM 2011. Characteristics of biter and victim piglets apparent before a tail-biting outbreak. Animal 5, 767–775.10.1017/S1751731110002326Google Scholar