Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T09:21:18.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rope test may indicate efficacy of tail-biting treatments in growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

MBM Bracke
MBM Bracke*
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group of Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
*
email: [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 is a most serious welfare problem in pigs raised for slaughter. In instances of an outbreak of tail biting, scientists have recommended that farmers take measures such as removal of affected animals, provision of enrichment materials and application of repellents to the pigs’ tails. However, no scientific study has ever confirmed the efficacy of any of these suggestions in counteracting an ongoing outbreak. Here, the efficacy of two repellent ointments, Dippel's oil and Stockholm tar, were examined in a tail-chew test. For this, a novel piece of nylon rope was used as a tail model to measure biting behaviour semi-automatically in 24 single-sex groups of growing pigs (total 264 pigs). Repeated measures analysis showed no effect of time, gender or unit (12 pens per unit), but a highly significant effect of treatment, in that both Stockholm tar and Dippel's oil significantly reduced rope manipulation compared to controls. These results suggest that Stockholm tar and Dippel's oil may be effective in reducing tail biting. The approach taken may be valuable in further testing of strategies to reduce tail biting and improving pig welfare.

Keywords

animal welfareenvironmental enrichmentmodelpigstail bitingtreatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , August 2009 , pp. 263 - 266
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anonymous 2001 Scientists’ assessment of the impact of housing and management on animal welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4: 3–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arey, DS 1991 Tail-biting in pigs. Farm Building Progress 105: 20–23Google Scholar
Beattie, VE, Breuer, K, O’Connell, NE, Sneddon, A, Mercer, JT, Rance, KA, Sutcliffe, MEM and Edwards, SA 2005 Factors identifying pigs predisposed to tail biting. Animal Science 80: 307–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM 2007 Multifactorial testing of enrichment criteria: pigs ‘demanded’ hygiene and destructibility more than sound. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107: 208–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM and Spoolder, HAM 2008 Novel object test can detect marginal differences in environmental enrichment in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109: 39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuer, K, Sutcliffe, MEM, Mercer, JT, Rance, KA, Beattie, VE, Sneddon, IA and Edwards, SA 2003 The effect of breed on the expression of adverse social behaviour in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 59–74Google Scholar
EFSA 2007 Scientific report 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 (Question No EFSA-Q-2006-029). The EFSA Journal 611: 2–98. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178672658201.htmGoogle Scholar
Feddes, JJ, Fraser, D, Buckley, DJ and Poirier, P 1993 Electronic sensing of non-destructive chewing by growing pigs. Transactions of the ASAE 36: 955–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feddes, JJ and Fraser, D 1994 Non-nutritive chewing by pigs: implications for tail-biting and behavioral enrichment. Transactions of the ASAE 37: 947–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1987a Mineral-deficient diets and the pig's attraction to blood: implications for tail-biting. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 6: 909–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1987b Attraction to blood as a factor in tail-biting by pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17: 61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GenStat Committee 2000 The Guide to GenStat. VSN Int: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH 1992 Behavioural Problems. In: Leman, AD, Straw, BE, Mengeling, WL, D’Allaire, S and Taylor, DJ (eds) Diseases of Swine pp 653–659. Wolfe Publishing Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
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
McIntyre, J and Edwards, SA 2002a An investigation into the effect of different protein and energy intakes on model tail chewing behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77: 93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, J and Edwards, SA 2002b An investigation into the effect of tryptophan on tail chewing behaviour of growing pigs. Proceedings of BSAS: 34Google Scholar
McIntyre, J and Edwards, SA 2002c Preference for blood and behavioural measurements of known tail biting pigs compared to control penmates. In: Koene, P (ed) Proceedings of the 36th International Congress of the ISAE p 93. 7-10 August 2002, Egmond aan Zee, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Schr⊘der-Petersen, DL and Simonsen, HB 2001 Tail biting in pigs. Veterinary Journal 162: 196–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallgren, P and Lindahl, E 1996 The influence of tail biting on performance of fattening pigs. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 37: 453–460Google ScholarPubMed
Zonderland, JJ, Vermeer, HM, Vereijken, PFG and Spoolder, HAM 2003 Measuring a pig's preference for suspended toys by using an automated recording technique. CIGR Ejournal V: 1-11Google Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Wolthuis-Fillerup, M, van Reenen, CG, Bracke, MBM, Kemp, B, den Hartog, LA and Spoolder, HAM 2008 Prevention and treatment of tail biting in weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110: 269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar