Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T07:27:12.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behavioural differences between weaner pigs with intact and docked tails

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

MA Paoli ,
HP Lahrmann ,
T Jensen  and
RB D’Eath
MA Paoli*
Affiliation:
Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, Easter Bush, Roslin EH25 9RG, UK
HP Lahrmann
Affiliation:
Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Pig Research Centre, Axelborg, Axeltorv 3, DK-1609 Kbh V, Denmark
T Jensen
Affiliation:
Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Pig Research Centre, Axelborg, Axeltorv 3, DK-1609 Kbh V, Denmark
RB D’Eath
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour & Welfare, Animal and Veterinary Sciences Research Group, SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
* 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.

Tail-biting in pigs (Sus scrofa) reduces welfare and production. Tail-docking reduces (but does not eliminate) tail-biting damage. The reason tail-docking reduces tail damage is unknown. It may reduce pigs’ attraction to tails (H1), or increase tails’ sensitivity to investigation (H2). To investigate these hypotheses, behavioural differences between 472 individually marked grower pigs with intact tails (nine groups of 25-34 pigs) or docked tails (nine groups of 22-24 pigs) were observed from 5-8 weeks of age on a commercial farm in Denmark. Pens had part-slatted floors, dry feeding and two handfuls of straw per day, and enrichment objects were provided. Behavioural sampling recorded actor and recipient for tail-directed (tail interest, tail in mouth, tail reaction) and investigatory behaviours (belly-nosing, ear-chewing, interaction with enrichment). Scan sampling recorded pig posture/activity and tail posture. Intact-tail pigs performed more overall investigatory behaviours but tail type did not affect the amount of tail-directed behaviours. Larger pigs performed more investigatory and tail-directed behaviours than smaller pigs and females performed slightly more tail investigation. Tail-directed behaviours were not consistent over time at the individual or group level. However, ear-chewing was consistent at the group level. One group with intact tails was affected by a tail-biting outbreak in the final week of the study (evidenced by tail-damage scores) and showed an increase over time in tail posture (tail down) and tail-directed behaviour but not activity. Overall, there were few behavioural differences between docked and undocked pigs: no evidence of reduced tail investigation (H1) or an increased reaction to tail investigation (H2) in docked pigs, and yet docked pigs had less tail damage. We propose that docking might be effective because longer tails are more easily damaged as pigs are able to bite them with their cheek teeth.

Keywords

abnormal behaviouranimal welfareintact tailpigstail-bitingtail-docking
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 287 - 296
Copyright
© 2016 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anonymous 2003 Executive Order No 324 on Tail docking and Castration of Animals of 6th May 2003. Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, JK 1981 Some behavioural deviations in weaned domestic pigs: persistent inguinal nose thrusting, and tail and ear biting. Animal Production 33: 325–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000335610003172XGoogle Scholar
Breuer, K, Sutcliffe, MEM, Mercer, JT, Rance, KA, O’Connell, NE, Sneddon, IA and Edwards, SA 2005 Heritability of clinical tail-biting and its relation to performance traits. Livestock Production Science 93: 87–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.11.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB, Arnott, G, Turner, SP, Jensen, T, Lahrmann, HP, Busch, ME, Niemi, JK, Lawrence, AB and Sandøe, P 2014 Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking? Animal 8: 1479–1497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114001359CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Done, SH, Guise, J and Chennels, D 2003 Tail biting and tail docking in pigs. The Pig Journal 51: 136–154Google Scholar
FAWC 2009 Farm animal welfare in Great Britain: past, present and future. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Feddes, JJR and Fraser, D 1994 Non-nutritive chewing by pigs; implications for tail-biting and behavioural enrichment. Transactions of the ASAE 37: 947–950. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.28163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1987 Mineral-deficient diets and the pigs’ attraction to blood - implications for tail-biting. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67: 909–918. http://dx.doi.org/10.4141/cjas87-096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goossens, X, Sobry, L, Ödberg, F, Maes, D, De Smet, S, Nevens, F, Opsomer, G, Lommelen, F and Geers, R 2008 A population-based on-farm evaluation protocol for comparing the welfare of pigs between farms. Animal Welfare 17: 35–41Google Scholar
Hansen, LL, HagelsØ, AM and Madsen, A 1982 Behavioural results and performance of bacon pigs fed ad libitum from one or several self-feeders. Applied Animal Ethology 8: 307–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(82)90065-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herskin, MS, Holm, B, Waag, R, Thodberg, K and Jensen, HE 2010 Effects of pig tail docking and docking length on the for-mation of neuromas. In: Kehlet, H, Jensen, TS, Svejgaard, A and Krogsgaard-Larsen, P (eds) Acute Pain-Pathophysiology and Risk Factors for Chronification p 9. Benzon Symposium no 57, Copenhagen, Denmark. Available at www.benzon-foundation.dk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/s57-abstracts.pdfGoogle 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. Veterinary Journal 161: 72–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/tvjl.2000.0520CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kritas, SK and Morrison, RB 2004 An observational study on tail biting in commercial grower-finisher barns. Journal of Swine Health and Production 12(1): 17–22Google 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.160.5.149CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchant-Forde, JN, Lay, DC, McMunn, KA, Cheng, HW, Pajor, EA and Marchant-Forde, RM 2009 Postnatal piglet hus-bandry practices and well-being: the effects of alternative techniques delivered separately. Journal of Animal Science 87: 1479–1492. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, JJ, Sells, J, Harris, S and Hurst, RJ 1992 Cannibalism in growing pigs: effects of tail docking and housing system on behaviour, per-formance and immune function pp 69–71. Texas Technical University Agricultural Science Technical Report No T-5-283, 99, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
Noonan, GJ, Rand, JS, Priest, J, Ainscow, J and Blackshaw, JK 1994 Behavioural observations of piglets undergoing tail docking, teeth clipping and ear notching. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 203–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(94)90156-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penny, RHC, Walters, SJ and Tredget, SJ 1981 Tail-biting in pigs: a sex frequency between boars and gilts. Veterinary Record 108: 35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.108.2.35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sambraus, HH 1985 Mouth-based anomalous syndromes. World Animal Science, A5, Ethology of Farm Animals. A Comprehensive Study of the Behavioural Features of Common Farm Animals pp 391–422. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Schrøder-Petersen, DL and Simonsen, HB 2001 Tail biting in pigs. Veterinary Journal 162: 196–210CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schrøder-Petersen, DL, Simonsen, HB and Lawson, LG 2003 Tail-in-mouth behaviour among weaner pigs in relation to age, gender and group composition regarding gender. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica A Animal Science 53(1): 29–34Google Scholar
Simonsen, HB, Klinken, L and Bindseil, E 1991 Histopathology of intact and docked pigtails. British Veterinary Journal 147: 407–412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0007-1935(91)90082-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinisalo, A, Niemi, JK, Heinonen, M and Valros, A 2012 Tail biting and production performance in fattening pigs. Livestock Science 143: 220–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.09.019.CrossRefGoogle 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.09.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinmetz, HV and Pedersen, ML 2009 Kønsvis opstaldnings betyd-ning for forekomsten af halebid. Meddelelse nr. 845. Videncenter for Svineproduktion. http://vsp.lf.dk/Publikationer/Kilder/lu_medd/2009/845.aspx?full=1. [Title translation: Single sex housing, its importance for tail-biting]Google Scholar
Sutherland, MA, Bryer, PJ, Krebs, N and McGlone, JJ 2008 Tail docking in pigs: acute physiological and behavioural responses. Animal 2: 292–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731107001450CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutherland, MA, Bryer, PJ, Krebs, N, and McGlone, JJ 2009 The effect of method of tail docking on tail-biting behaviour and welfare of pigs. Animal Welfare 18: 561–570Google Scholar
Sutherland, MA and Tucker, CB 2011 The long and short of it: A review of tail docking in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135: 179–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2011.10.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, NR, Main, DCJ, Mendl, M and Edwards, SA 2010 Tail-biting: a new perspective. Veterinary Journal 186: 137–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.08.028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Council of The European Union 2008 Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum stan-dards for the protection of pigs. The Official Journal L47: 6Google Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, Breuer, K and Edwards, SA 2006 Effects of species-relevant environmental enrichment on the behaviour and productivity of finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99: 230–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.10.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL and Edwards, SA 2005 The development of harmful social behaviour in pigs with intact tails and different enrichment backgrounds in two housing systems. Animal Science 80: 289–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/ASC40450289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Bracke, MBM, de Hartog, LA, Kemp, B and Spoolder, HAM 2010 Gender effects on tail damage development in single- or mixed-sex groups of weaned piglets. Livestock Science 129: 151–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.01.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, van Riel, JW, Bracke, MBM, Kemp, B, den Hartog, LA and Spoolder, HAM 2009 Tail posture predicts tail damage among weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121: 165–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zupan, M, Janczak, AM, Framstad, T and Zanella, AJ 2012 The effect of biting tails and having tails bitten in pigs. Physiology and Behaviour 106: 638–644. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phys-beh.2012.04.025CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed