Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:32:48.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tail lesions in fattening pigs: relationships with postmortem meat inspection and influence of a tail biting management tool

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2018

A. L. vom Brocke ,
C. Karnholz ,
D. Madey-Rindermann ,
M. Gauly ,
C. Leeb ,
C. Winckler ,
L. Schrader  and
S. Dippel
A. L. vom Brocke
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Dörnbergstr. 25/27, 29223 Celle, Germany
C. Karnholz
Affiliation:
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Division of Livestock Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Gregor-Mendel-Straße 33, 1180Vienna, Austria
D. Madey-Rindermann
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Dörnbergstr. 25/27, 29223 Celle, Germany
M. Gauly
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Division of Livestock Production Systems, Georg-August-University, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, 37075Göttingen, Germany
C. Leeb
Affiliation:
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Division of Livestock Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Gregor-Mendel-Straße 33, 1180Vienna, Austria
C. Winckler
Affiliation:
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Division of Livestock Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Gregor-Mendel-Straße 33, 1180Vienna, Austria
L. Schrader
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Dörnbergstr. 25/27, 29223 Celle, Germany
S. Dippel*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Dörnbergstr. 25/27, 29223 Celle, Germany
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Tail biting is a major welfare and economic problem in intensive pig production. The objectives of this study were to (1) determine tail lesion prevalence at a German abattoir, (2) test for associations between meat inspection findings and tail lesions, (3) assess the agreement between tail necrosis recorded during meat inspection and scored from pictures and (4) test whether the tail biting management tool ‘Schwanzbeiß-Interventions-Programm’ (SchwIP) had an effect on tail lesion prevalence. A total of three observers scored tail lesions from pictures of 43 328 pigs from 32 farms where SchwIP had been applied, and of 36 626 pigs from 32 control farms. Tail lesions were classified as score 0: no visible lesion, score 1: mild lesion, score 2: severe lesion and score 3: necrosis. In addition, complete loss of tail (CL) was recorded. Tail necrosis was the only tail-related carcase finding recorded by meat inspectors. (1) Tail lesion prevalences in pigs from control farms were 23.6% for score 1, 1.02% for score 2, 0.55% for score 3 and 0.41% for CL. The combined prevalence of any lesion and/or CL was 25.4%. (2) Pleurisy, lung findings, signs of inflammation in the legs, arthritis and abscesses were the most frequent meat inspection findings (prevalences of 8.46%, 8.09%, 2.99%, 0.83% and 0.23%, respectively; n=79 954 pigs). Leg inflammation, arthritis and abscesses were more prevalent in pigs with tail lesions of any degree compared with pigs without tail lesions (3.39% v. 2.83%, 1.06% v. 0.75% and 0.39% v. 0.17%, respectively; all P<0.001, n=79 954 pigs). Pigs with severe tail lesions also had more lung findings (2.00% v. 0.17%, P<0.001). (3) Tail necrosis scored during meat inspection resulted in lower prevalence than scored from pictures (0.22% v. 0.69%; n=79 954 SchwIP and control farm pigs). (4) Although tail lesion prevalence was significantly higher in pigs from SchwIP than in pigs from control farms during the first 3 months (32.2% v. 23.8%, P=0.015), it was not significantly higher during the remainder of the year (22.6 v. 26.9, 24.4 v. 21.4 and 24.0 v. 28.0, second, third and fourth quarters, respectively). In conclusion, meat inspection results in much lower tail lesion prevalences than tail lesion assessment from pictures, even if only the category ‘necrosis’ is compared. Advising farms on tail biting using the management tool SchwIP helped to decrease the prevalence of tail lesions on problem farms.

Keywords

slaughter findingsabattoiragreementinterventionnecrosis
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , April 2019 , pp. 835 - 844
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.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: Animal Production, Chamber of Agriculture North-Rhine Westphalia, Ostinghausen, 59505 Bad Sassendorf, Germany.

b

Present address: Veterinärgesellschaft im BHZP, An der Wassermühle 8, 24368 Dahlenburg-Ellringen, Germany.

c

Present address: Faculty of Science and Technology, Animal Science, Free University of Bolzano, 39100 Bozen, Italy.

References

Benard, M, Schuitmaker, TJ and Cock Buning, T 2014. Scientists and Dutch pig farmers in dialogue about tail biting: unravelling the mechanism of multi-stakeholder learning. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 3, 431–452.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, JK 1981. Some behavioral-deviations in weaned domestic pigs – persistent inguinal nose thrusting, and tail and ear biting. Animal Production 33, 325–332.Google Scholar
Blocks, GH, Vernooy, JC and Verheijden, JH 1994. Integrated quality control project: relationships between pathological findings detected at the slaughterhouse and information gathered in a veterinary health scheme at pig farms. Veterinary Quarterly 16, 123–127.Google Scholar
Brocke, ALv 2014. A step to reducing tail biting in finisher pigs: can a management tool help pigs and farmers? PhD thesis, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar
Byrt, T, Bishop, J and Carlin, JB 1993. Bias, prevalence and kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 46, 423–429.Google Scholar
Carroll, GA, Boyle, LA, Teixeira, DL, Van Staaveren, N, Hanlon, A and O’Connell, NE 2016. Effects of scalding and dehairing of pig carcasses at abattoirs on the visibility of welfare-related lesions. Animal 10, 460–467.Google Scholar
Dohoo, I, Martin, W and Stryhn, H 2012. 2.11 sample-size determination In Methods in epidemiologic research ed. SM Mc Pike pp. 48–55. VER Inc., Charlottetown, Canada.Google Scholar
Edwards, SA 2006. Tail biting in pigs: understanding the intractable problem. The Veterinary Journal 171, 198–199.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority 2007. Scientific opinion of the panel on animal health and welfare on a request from commission on the risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems. The EFSA Journal 611, 1–13.Google Scholar
Elbers, ARW, Tielen, MJM, Snijders, JMA, Cromwijk, WAJ and Hunneman, WA 1992. Epidemiological studies on lesions in finishing pigs in the Netherlands. I. Prevalence, seasonality and interrelationship. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 14, 217–231.Google Scholar
Fleiss, JL, Levin, B and Paik, MC 2003. The measurement of interrater agreement In Statistical methods for rates and proportions ed. JL Fleiss, B Levin and MC Paik pp. 598–626. Wiley Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
Guise, HJ and Penny, RHC 1998. Tail-biting and tail-docking in pigs. The Veterinary Record 142, 46.Google 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
Harley, S, More, SJ, O’Connell, NE, Hanlon, A, Teixeira, D and Boyle, L 2012. Evaluating the prevalence of tail biting and carcase condemnations in slaughter pigs in the Republic and Northern Ireland, and the potential of abattoir meat inspection as a welfare surveillance tool. Veterinary Record 171, 621–627.Google Scholar
Hoischen-Taubner, S, Blaha, T, Werner, C and Sundrum, A 2011. Repeatability of anatomical-pathological findings at the abattoir for characteristics of animal health. Archiv für Lebensmittelhygiene 62, 82–87.Google Scholar
Huey, RJ 1996. Incidence, location and interrelationships between the sites of abscesses recorded in pigs at a bacon factory in Northern Ireland. Veterinary Record 138, 511–514.Google Scholar
Hunter, EJ, Jones, TA, Guise, HJ, Penny, RHC and Hoste, S 1999. Tail biting in pigs 1: The prevalence at six UK abattoirs and the relationship of tail biting with docking, sex and other carcass damage. The Pig Journal 43, 18–32.Google Scholar
Keeling, LJ, Wallenbeck, A, Larsen, A and Holmgren, N 2012a. Scoring tail damage in pigs: an evaluation based on recordings at Swedish slaughterhouses. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 54 32.Google Scholar
Kongsted, H and Sørensen, JT 2017. Lesions found at routine meat inspection on finishing pigs are associated with production system. The Veterinary Journal 223, 21–26.Google 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
Madey, DP 2014. Evaluation of a software-based intervention tool for the reduction of tail biting in German fattening pigs. PhD thesis, University of Veterinary Medicine Hanover, Hannover, Germany.Google Scholar
Marques, BMFPP, Bernardi, ML, Coelho, CF, Almeida, M, Morales, OE, Mores, TJ, Borowski, SM and Barcellos, DESN 2012. Influence of tail biting on weight gain, lesions and condemnations at slaughter of finishing pigs. Pesquisa Veterinaria Brasileira 32, 967–974.Google Scholar
Moinard, C, Mendl, M, Nicol, CJ and Green, LE 2003. A case control study of on-farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 333–355.Google Scholar
Munsterhjelm, C, Simola, O, Keeling, L, Valros, A and Heinonen, M 2013. Health parameters in tail biters and bitten pigs in a case-control study. Animal 7, 814–821.Google Scholar
Penny, RH and Hill, FW 1974. Observations of some conditions in pigs at the abattoir with particular reference to tail biting. Veterinary Record 94, 174–180.Google Scholar
Sanchez-Vazquez, MJ, Nielen, M, Edwards, SA, Gunn, GJ and Lewis, FI 2012. Identifying associations between pig pathologies using a multi-dimensional machine learning methodology. BMC Veterinary Research 8, 151.Google Scholar
Stärk, KDC, Alonso, S, Dadios, N, Dupuy, C, Ellerbroek, L, Georgiev, M, Hardstaff, J, Huneau-Salaün, A, Laugier, C, Mateus, A, Nigsch, A, Afonso, A and Lindberg, A 2014. Strengths and weaknesses of meat inspection as a contribution to animal health and welfare surveillance. Food Control 39, 154–162.Google Scholar
Taylor, NR, Main, DCJ, Mendl, M and Edwards, SA 2010. Tail-biting: a new perspective. The Veterinary Journal 186, 137–147.Google Scholar
Taylor, NR, Parker, RMA, Mendl, M, Edwards, SA and Main, DCJ 2012. Prevalence of risk factors for tail biting on commercial farms and intervention strategies. The Veterinary Journal 194, 77–83.Google Scholar
Teixeira, DL, Harley, S, Hanlon, A, O’Connell, NE, More, SJ, Manzanilla, EG and Boyle, LA 2016. Study on the association between tail lesion score, cold carcass weight, and viscera condemnations in slaughter pigs. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 3, 24.Google Scholar
Valros, A, Ahlstrom, S, Rintala, H, Hakkinen, 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
van Staaveren, N, Teixeira, DL, Hanlon, A and Boyle, LA 2017. Pig carcass tail lesions: the influence of record keeping through an advisory service and the relationship with farm performance parameters. Animal 11, 140–146.Google Scholar
van Staaveren, N, Vale, AP, Manzanilla, EG, Teixeira, DL, Leonard, FC, Hanlon, A and Boyle, LA 2016. Relationship between tail lesions and lung health in slaughter pigs. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 127, 21–26.Google Scholar
Wallgren, P and Lindahl, E 1996. The influence of tail biting on performance of fattening pigs. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 37, 453–460.Google Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Bosma, B and Hoste, R 2011. Report on the financial consequences of tail damage due to tail biting among pigs in conventional pig farms in the Netherlands [Financiële consequenties van staartbijten bij varkens]. Rapport 543, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar