Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:36:13.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tear staining in pigs: a potential tool for welfare assessment on commercial farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2015

H. Telkänranta ,
J. N. Marchant-Forde  and
A. Valros
H. Telkänranta*
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, 00014 University of Helsinki, PO Box 57, Helsinki, Finland
J. N. Marchant-Forde
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, LBRU, 125S Russell Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
A. Valros
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, 00014 University of Helsinki, PO Box 57, Helsinki, Finland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Tear staining or chromodacryorrhea refers to a dark stain below the inner corner of the eye, caused by porphyrin-pigmented secretion from the Harderian gland. It has been shown to be a consistent indicator of stress in rats and to correlate with social stress and a barren environment in pigs. The current study was, to our knowledge, the first to test it on commercial pig farms as a potential welfare indicator. The study was carried out on three commercial farms in Finland, in connection to a larger study on the effects of different types of manipulable objects on tail and ear biting and other behavioural parameters. Farm A was a fattening farm, on which 768 growing-finishing pigs were studied in 73 pens. Farm B had a fattening unit, in which 656 growing-finishing pigs were studied in 44 pens, and a farrowing unit, in which 29 sows and their litters totalling 303 piglets were studied in 29 pens. Farm C was a piglet-producing farm, on which 167 breeder gilts were studied in 24 pens. Data collection included individual-level scoring of tear staining; scoring of tail and ear damage in the growing-finishing pigs and breeder gilts; a novel object test for the piglets; and a novel person test for the growing-finishing pigs on Farm B and the breeder gilts on Farm C. On Farm A, tear staining was found to correlate with tail damage scores (n=768, rs=0.14, P<0.001) and ear damage scores (n=768, rs=0.16, P<0.001). In the growing-finishing pigs on Farm B, tear staining of the left eye correlated with tail damage (n=656, rs=0.12, P<0.01) and that of the right eye correlated with ear damage (n=656, rs=0.10, P<0.01). On Farm A, tear-staining sores were lower in the treatment with three different types of manipulable objects as compared with controls (mean scores 3.3 and 3.9, respectively, n=31, F29=4.2, P<0.05). In the suckling piglets on Farm B, tear staining correlated with the latency to approach a novel object (n=29, rp=0.41, P<0.05). Although correlations with tail and ear damage were low, it was concluded that tear staining has promising potential as a new, additional welfare indicator for commercial pig farming. Further research is needed on the mechanisms of tear staining.

Keywords

pigtear stainingtail bitingear bitingenrichment
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , February 2016 , pp. 318 - 325
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Andreasen, SN, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2014. Can animal-based welfare assessment be simplified? A comparison of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle and the simpler and less time-consuming protocol developed by the Danish Cattle Federation. Animal Welfare 23, 81–94.Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Bonde, M, Butterworth, A, Perny, P, Bracke, MBM, Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2007. Aggregation of measures to prodice an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 1: a review of existing methods. Animal 1, 1179–1187.Google Scholar
Buzzell, GR, Menedez-Pelaez, A, Blank, JL, Nonaka, KO and Reiter, RJ 1991. Effects of gender, age and castration on porphyrin concentration and melatonin synthesis in the Harderian glands of the Mongolian gerbil, Meriones unguiculatus . Canadian Journal of Zoology 69, 151–155.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeBoer, SP, Garner, JP, McCain, RR, Lay, DC Jr, Eicher, SD and Marchant-Forde, JN 2015. An initial investigation into the effects of social 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, SP and Marchant-Forde, JN 2013. Tear staining as a potential welfare indicator in pigs. The Proceedings of the 47th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Florianopolis, Brazil, 125 pp.Google Scholar
Gruber, T 2002. Housing, feeding, hygienic conditions, health and management of finishing pigs in organic farming units. PhD thesis, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Harkness, JE and Ridgway, MD 1980. Chromodacryorrhea in laboratory rats (Rattus norvegicus); etiologic considerations. Laboratory Animal Science 30, 841–844.Google Scholar
Jackson, PGG and Cockroft, PD 2007. Handbook of pig medicine. Saunders, London, UK.Google Scholar
Leliveld, LMC, 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
Marchant-Forde, AEM and Marchant-Forde, JN 2014. Social status and tear staining in nursery pigs. The Proceedings of the 48th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, 145 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G, Wilson, D, Hampton, C and Wurbel, H 2004. Non-invasively assessing disturbance and stress in laboratory rats by scoring chromodacryorrhoea. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 32, 153–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCafferty, RE and Pinkstaff, CA 1970. A study of sexual dimorphism in Harderian glands of the miniature pig. Anatomical Record 166, 340.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.Google Scholar
OIE 2012. Manual of diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals, vol. 2, 7th edition. OIE, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Park, SH, Satoh, Y, Kumagai, S and Seyama, Y 1996. Localization of porphyrin in mouse Harderian glands. Archives of Histology and Cytology 59, 189–195.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, C, Menedez-Pelaez, A, Howes, K and Reiter, RJ 1992. Age and food restriction alter the porphyrin concentration and mRNA levels for 5-aminoevulinate synthase in rat Harderian gland. Life Sciences 51, 1891–1897.Google Scholar
Smulders, D, Hautekiet, V, Verbeke, G and Geers, R 2008. Tail and ear biting lesions in pigs: an epidemiological study. Animal Welfare 17, 61–69.Google Scholar
Straw, BE, Dewey, CE and Wilson, MR 2006. Differential diagnosis of disease. In Diseases of swine, 9th edition (eds Straw BE, Zimmerman JJ, D’Allaire S and Taylor DJ), pp. 241–286. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.Google 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, DCJ, Mendl, M and Edwards, SA 2010. Tail-biting: a new perspective. The Veterinary Journal 186, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Telkänranta, H, Bracke, MBM and Valros, A 2014a. Fresh wood reduces tail and ear biting and increases exploratory behaviour in finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 161, 51–59.Google Scholar
Telkänranta, H, Bracke, MBM and Valros, A 2014b. Fresh wood, plastic pipe or metal chain – which objects reduce tail and ear biting on commercial pig farms? The Proceedings of the 48th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, 282 pp.Google Scholar
Telkänranta, H, Bracke, MBM and Valros, A 2014c. Reducing oral-nasal manipulation on commercially farmed pigs: fresh wood enhances the efficacy of straw. The Proceedings of the VII European Conference on Behavioural Biology, Prague, Czech Republic, 221 pp.Google Scholar
Vallortigara, G and Rogers, L 2005. Survival with an asymmetrical brain: advantages and disadvantages of cerebral lateralization. Behavioral Brain Sciences 28, 575–589.Google Scholar
Valros, A, Munsterhjelm, C, Puolanne, E, Ruusunen, M, Heinonen, M, Peltonemi, O and Pösö, R 2013. Tail bitten slaughter pigs show alterations in stress physiology and carcass characteristics. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 55, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetterberg, L, Yuwiler, A, Geller, E and Schapiro, S 1970. Harderian gland: development and influence of early hormonal treatment on porphyrin content. Science 168, 996–998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whay, HR, Leeb, C, Main, DJC, Green, LE and Webster, JF 2007. Preliminary assessment of finishing pig welfare using animal-based measurements. Animal Welfare 16, 209–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, AJ 2012. Animal welfare assessment in veterinary education: its theory and practical application to domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domestica). PhD thesis, University of London, London, UK.Google Scholar