Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:45:43.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Which is the most preventive measure against tail damage in finisher pigs: tail docking, straw provision or lowered stocking density?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2017

M. L. V. Larsen ,
H. M.-L. Andersen  and
L. J. Pedersen
M. L. V. Larsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
H. M.-L. Andersen
Affiliation:
Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
L. J. Pedersen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

One challenge of intensive pig production is tail damage caused by tail biting, and farmers often decrease the prevalence of tail damage through tail docking. However, tail docking is not an optimal preventive measure against tail damage and thus, it would be preferable to replace it. The aim of the current study was to investigate the relative effect of three possible preventive measures against tail damage. The study included 112 pens with 1624 finisher pigs divided between four batches. Pens were randomly assigned to one level of each of three treatments: (1) tail-docked (n=60 pens) v. undocked (n=52 pens), (2) 150 g of straw provided per pig per day on the solid floor (n=56 pens) v. no straw provided (n=56 pens), (3) stocking density of 1.21 m2/pig (11 pig/pen; n=56 pens) v. 0.73 m2/pig (18 pigs/pen; n=56 pens). Tail damage was recorded three times per week throughout the finisher period by scoring the tail of each individual pig. A pen was recorded as a tail damage pen and no longer included in the study if at least one pig in a pen had a bleeding tail wound; thus, only the first incidence of tail damage on pen level was recorded. Data were analysed by a Cox regression for survival analysis assuming proportional hazards. Results are presented as hazards, and a higher hazard means that a pen has a higher risk of tail damage and of it happening earlier in the finisher period. Pens with undocked pigs had a 4.32-fold higher hazard of tail damage compared with pens with docked pigs (P<0.001). Pens with no straw provided had a 2.22-fold higher hazard of tail damage compared with pens with straw provided (P<0.01). No interactions was seen between the treatments, but the effect of tail docking was higher than the effect of straw provision (P<0.001). Stocking density did not have a significant effect on the hazard of tail damage (hazard rate ratios (HRR)=1.67; P=0.064). However, a combination of straw provision and lowered stocking density showed a similar hazard of tail damage as seen with only tail docking (HRR=1.58; P=0.39). In conclusion, tail docking and straw provision were preventive measures against tail damage, and tail docking reduced the risk more than straw provision. A combination of other preventive measures is necessary to reduce the risk of tail damage in undocked pigs to the same level as in docked pigs.

Keywords

finisher pigstail damagetail dockingstraw provisionstocking density
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 6 , June 2018 , pp. 1260 - 1267
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Bracke, M, Edwards, S, Geers, R, O’Connell, N, Pedersen, LJ and Valros, A 2011. Sub-report E - The risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking. In Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of weaned, growing and fattening pigs including aspects related to space allowance, floor types, tail biting and need for tail docking (ed. H Spoolder, M Bracke, C Mueller-Graf, and S Edwards), pp. 84–98. EFSA.Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM, De Lauwere, CC, Wind, SMM and Zonerland, JJ 2013. Attitudes of Dutch pig farmers towards tail biting and tail docking. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26, 847–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerlink, I, Ursinus, WW, Bijma, P, Kemp, B and Bolhuis, JE 2015. Indirect genetic effects for growth rate in domestic pigs alter aggressive and manipulative biting behaviour. Behavior Genetics 45, 117–126.Google Scholar
Chambers, C, Powell, L, Wilson, E and Green, LE 1995. A postal survey of tail biting in pigs in South-West England. Veterinary Record 136, 147–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cornale, P, Macchi, E, Miretti, S, Renna, M, Lussiana, C, Perona, G and Mimosi, A 2015. Effects of stocking density and environmental enrichment on behavior and fecal corticosteroid levels of pigs under commercial farm conditions. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 10, 569–576.Google Scholar
Di Martino, G, Capello, K, Scollo, A, Gottardo, F, Stefani, AL, Rampin, F, Schiavon, E, Marangon, S and Bonfanti, L 2013. Continuous straw provision reduces prevalence of oesophago-gastric ulcer in pigs slaughtered at 170 kg (heavy pigs). Research in Veterinary Science 95, 1271–1273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Martino, G, Scollo, A, Gottardo, F, Stefani, AL, Schiavon, E, Capello, K, Marangon, S and Bonfanti, L 2015. The effect of tail docking on the welfare of pigs housed under challenging conditions. Livestock Science 173, 78–86.Google Scholar
European Commission 2016. Commision staff working document on best practices with a view to the prevention of routine tail-docking and the provision of enrichment materials to pigs. Accompanying the document: Commision recommendation on the application of Council Directive 2008/. Retrieved on 16 May 2017 from https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/animals/docs/aw_practice_farm_pigs_stfwrkdoc_en.pdf.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. EFSA Journal 611, 1–13.Google Scholar
Goossens, X, Sobry, L, Ödberg, F, Tuyttens, F, Maes, D, De Smet, S, Nevens, F, Opsomer, G, Lommelen, L and Geers, R 2008. A population-based on-farm evaluation protocol for comparing the welfare of pigs between farms. Animal Welfare 17, 35–41.Google Scholar
Herskin, MS, Di Giminiani, P and Thodberg, K 2016a. Effects of administration of a local anaesthetic and/or an NSAID and of docking length on the behaviour of piglets during 5 h after tail docking. Research in Veterinary Science 108, 60–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herskin, MS, Jensen, HE, Jespersen, A, Forkman, B, Jensen, MB, Canibe, N and Pedersen, LJ 2016b. Impact of the amount of straw provided to pigs kept in intensive production conditions on the occurrence and severity of gastric ulceration at slaughter. Research in Veterinary Science 104, 200–206.Google Scholar
Herskin, MS, Thodberg, K and Jensen, HE 2015. Effects of tail docking and docking length on neuroanatomical changes in healed tail tips of pigs. Animal 9, 677–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, EJ, Jones, TA, Guise, HJ, Penny, RHC and Hoste, S 1999. Tail biting in pigs: the prevalence at six UK abattoirs and the relationship of tail biting with docking, sex and other carcass damage. Pig Journal 43, 18–32.Google 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. The Veterinary Journal 161, 72–79.Google Scholar
Hyun, Y, Ellis, M, Curtis, SE and Johnson, RW 2005. Environmental temperature, space allowance, and regrouping: Additive effects of multiple concurrent stressors in growing pigs. Journal of Swine Health and Production 13, 131–138.Google Scholar
Jensen, MB, Herskin, MS, Forkman, B and Pedersen, LJ 2015. Effect of increasing amounts of straw on pigs’ explorative behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 171, 58–63.Google Scholar
Kritas, SK and Morrison, RB 2004. An observational study on tail biting in commercial grower-finisher barns. Journal of Swine Health and Production 12, 17–22.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lahrmann, H, Busch, M, D’Eath, R, Forkman, B and Hansen, CF 2017. More tail lesions among undocked than tail docked pigs in a conventional herd. Animal 11, 1825–1831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, JJ, Sells, J, Harris, S and Hurst, RJ 1990. Cannibalism in growing pigs: effects of tail docking and housing systems on behaviour, performance and immune function. Technical Report no. T-5-283, Texas Technical University of Agricultural Science, pp. 69–71. Lubbock, Texas.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.CrossRefGoogle 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
Pedersen, LJ, Herskin, MS, Forkman, B, Halekoh, U, Kristensen, KM and Jensen, MB 2014. How much is enough? The amount of straw necessary to satisfy pigs’ need to perform exploratory behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 160, 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Herskin, MS, Forkman, B, Jensen, HE and Jensen, MB 2015. Increasing amounts of straw increase growing pig’s production and health. International conference on pig welfare: Improving pig welfare – what are the ways forward? (ed. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries of Denmark), pp. 1-68. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
R Core Team 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Schrøder-Petersen, DL and Simonsen, H 2001. Tail biting in pigs. The Veterinary Journal 162, 196–210.Google Scholar
Scollo, A, Contiero, B and Gottardo, F 2016. Frequency of tail lesions and risk factors for tail biting in heavy pig production from weaning to 170 kg live weight. The Veterinary Journal 207, 92–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scollo, A, Di Martino, G, Bonfanti, L, Stefani, AL, Schiavon, E, Marangon, S and Gottardo, F 2013. Tail docking and the rearing of heavy pigs: The role played by gender and the presence of straw in the control of tail biting. Blood parameters, behaviour and skin lesions. Research in Veterinary Science 95, 825–830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinisalo, A, Niemi, JK, Heinonen, M and Valros, A 2012. Tail biting and production performance in fattening pigs. Livestock Science 143, 220–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Therneau, T 2015. A package for survival analysis in S. version 2.38. Retrieved on 6 October 2017 from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival.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
Valros, A and Heinonen, M 2015. Save the pig tail. Porcine Health Management 1, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
Wallgren, T, Westin, R and Gunnarsson, S 2016. A survey of straw use and tail biting in Swedish pig farms rearing undocked pigs. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 58, 84.Google 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, 269–281.Google Scholar