Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T08:19:04.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tear staining in finisher pigs and its relation to age, growth, sex and potential pen level stressors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2019

M. L. V. Larsen Open the ORCID record for M. L. V. Larsen [Opens in a new window] ,
A. Gustafsson ,
J. N. Marchant-Forde  and
A. Valros
M. L. V. Larsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, Tjele 8830, Denmark
A. Gustafsson
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Animal Welfare, Department of Production Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, P.O. Box 57, University of Helsinki, Helsinki 00014, Finland
J. N. Marchant-Forde
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Livestock Behavior Research Unit, 270S Russell St., West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
A. Valros
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Animal Welfare, Department of Production Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, P.O. Box 57, University of Helsinki, Helsinki 00014, Finland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Tear staining (TS) in the pig has been related to different stressors and may be a useful tool for assessing animal welfare on farm. The aim of the current study was to investigate TS across the finisher period and its possible relation to age, growth, sex and experimentally induced stressors. The study included 80 finisher pens divided between three batches. Within each batch, the pens either included pigs with docked or undocked tails, had straw provided (150 g/pig/day) or not and had a low (1.21 m2/pig, 11 pigs) or high stocking density (0.73 m2/pig, 18 pigs). Tear staining (scores 1 to 4; from smaller to larger tear stain area, respectively) and tail damage were scored on each individual pig three times per week over the 9-week study period, and the individual maximum TS score within each week was chosen for further analysis. Data were analysed using logistic regression separately for each of the four possible TS score levels. The TS scores 1 and 2 decreased with weeks into the study period and were negatively related to the average daily gain (ADG) of the pigs, whereas the TS score 4 increased with weeks into the study period and was positively related to ADG. None of the TS scores differed between females and castrated males, and neither straw provision nor lowering the stocking density affected the TS scores. However, the TS score 1 decreased the last week before an event of tail damage (at least one pig in the pen with a bleeding tail wound), whereas the TS score 4 increased. The results of the current study advocates for a relation between TS and the factors such as age, growth and stress in the pig, while no relation was found between TS and the environmental factors straw provision and lowered stocking density. The relations to age and growth are important to take into consideration if using TS as a welfare assessment measure in the pig in the future.

Keywords

slaughter pigsanimal welfaredevelopmentstresstail damage
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 8 , August 2019 , pp. 1704 - 1711
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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

Baccari, GC, Monteforte, R, de Lange, P, Raucci, F, Farina, P and Lanni, A 2004. Thyroid hormone affects secretory activity and uncoupling protein-3 expression in rat Harderian gland. Endocrinology 145, 3338–3345.Google Scholar
Bates, D, Maechler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, S 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1–48.Google Scholar
Baumans, V 2004. Methods for evaluation of laboratory animal well-being. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals: ATLA 32, 161–162.Google Scholar
Buzzell, GR 1996. Sexual dimorphism in the Harderian gland of the Syrian hamster is controlled and maintained by hormones, despite seasonal fluctuations in hormone levels: functional implications. Microscopy Research and Technique 34, 133–138.Google Scholar
Cabello, G and Wrutniak, C 1989. Thyroid hormone and growth: relationships with growth hormone effects and regulation. Reproduction Nutrition Development 29, 387–402.Google Scholar
Chieffi, G, Baccari, GC, Di Matteo, L, d’Istria, M, Minucci, S and Varriale, B 1996. Cell biology of the Harderian gland. International Review of Cytology 168, 1–80.Google 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.Google Scholar
DeBoer, S, Garner, J, McCain, R, Lay, D Jr, Eicher, S and Marchant-Forde, J 2015. An initial investigation into the effects of isolation and enrichment on the welfare of laboratory pigs housed in the PigTurn® system, assessed using tear staining, behaviour, physiology and haematology. Animal Welfare 24, 15–27.Google Scholar
DeBoer, S and Marchant-Forde, J 2013. Tear staining as a potential welfare indicator in pigs. In Proceedings of the 47th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, 2–6 June 2013, Florianopolis, Brazil, 125 pp.Google Scholar
Di Giminiani, P, Edwards, SA, Malcolm, EM, Leach, MC, Herskin, MS and Sandercock, DA 2017. Characterization of short-and long-term mechanical sensitisation following surgical tail amputation in pigs. Scientific Reports 7, 4827.Google Scholar
Drummond, JG, Curtis, SE, Simon, J and Norton, HW 1980. Effects of aerial ammonia on growth and health of young pigs. Journal of Animal Science 50, 1085–1091.Google Scholar
Elgayar, SA, Abou-Elghait, AT and Sayed, AA 2015. Morphology of female guinea pig Harderian gland during postnatal development-secretory endpieces. European Journal of Anatomy 19, 15–26.Google Scholar
Hoffman, RA, Habeeb, P and Buzzell, GR 1990. Further studies on the regulation of the Harderian glands of golden hamsters by the thyroid gland. Journal of Comparative Physiology B 160, 269–275.Google Scholar
Hussein, OA, Elgamal, DA and Elgayar, SA 2015. Structure of the secretory cells of male and female adult guinea pigs Harderian gland. Tissue and Cell 47, 323–335.Google Scholar
Hyun, Y, Ellis, M and Johnson, R 1998. Effects of feeder type, space allowance, and mixing on the growth performance and feed intake pattern of growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 76, 2771–2778.Google Scholar
Larsen, MLV, Andersen, H-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
Larsen, MLV, Bertelsen, M and Pedersen, LJ 2017. How do stocking density and straw provision affect fouling in conventionally housed slaughter pigs? Livestock Science 205, 1–4.Google Scholar
Leliveld, LM, Langbein, J and Puppe, B 2013. The emergence of emotional lateralization: evidence in non-human vertebrates and implications for farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 145, 1–14.Google Scholar
López, JM, Tolivia, J and Alvarez‐Uría, M 1992. Postnatal development of the Harderian gland in the Syrian golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus): a light and electron microscopic study. The Anatomical Record 233, 597–616.Google Scholar
Marchant-Forde, A and Marchant-Forde, J 2014. Social status and tear staining in nursery pigs. In Proceedings of the 48th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, 29 July – 2 August 2014, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, 145 pp.Google Scholar
McCafferty, R and Pinkstaff, C 1970. A study of sexual dimorphism in Harderian glands of the miniature pig. Anatomical Record 166, 340.Google Scholar
Monteforte, R, Santillo, A, Lanni, A, D’Aniello, S and Baccari, GC 2008. Morphological and biochemical changes in the Harderian gland of hypothyroid rats. Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 606–612.Google Scholar
Munkeby, BH, Smith, HJ, Winther‐Larssen, EH, Bjørnerud, A and Bjerkås, I 2006. Magnetic resonance imaging of the Harderian gland in piglets. Journal of Anatomy 209, 699–705.Google Scholar
Payne, A 1994. The Harderian gland: a tercentennial review. Journal of Anatomy 185, 1–49.Google Scholar
R Core Team 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Schmitt, O, Baxter, E, Boyle, L and O’Driscoll, K 2018. Nurse sow strategies in the domestic pig: I. Consequences for selected measures of sow welfare. Animal. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173111800160X.Google Scholar
Sutherland, M, Niekamp, S, Rodriguez-Zas, S and Salak-Johnson, J 2006. Impacts of chronic stress and social status on various physiological and performance measures in pigs of different breeds. Journal of Animal Science 84, 588–596.Google Scholar
Telkänranta, H, Marchant-Forde, JN and Valros, A 2016. Tear staining in pigs: a potential tool for welfare assessment on commercial farms. Animal 10, 318–325.Google Scholar
Valros, A 2018. Tail biting. In Advances in pig welfare (ed. M Spinka), pp. 137–166. Woodhead Publishing, Elsevier, Cambridge, UK.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, JJ, Kemp, B, Bracke, MBM, den Hartog, LA and Spoolder, HAM 2011. Individual piglets’ contribution to the development of tail biting. Animal 5, 601–607.Google Scholar