Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:52:04.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual piglets’ contribution to the development of tail biting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2010

J. J. Zonderland ,
B. Kemp ,
M. B. M. Bracke ,
L. A. den Hartog  and
H. A. M. Spoolder
J. J. Zonderland*
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
B. Kemp
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Adaptation Physiology Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
M. B. M. Bracke
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
L. A. den Hartog
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
H. A. M. Spoolder
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: Johan.Zonderland@wur.nl
Get access

Abstract

Conflicting hypotheses exist about the contribution of individual pigs to the development of a tail-biting outbreak, but there is limited quantitative information to support or dismiss them. This study aims to quantify the development of tail-biting behaviour at pen and individual piglet level, before and after the first visible tail damage. Video recordings of 14 pens with tail-biting outbreaks and individually marked weaned piglets were used to observe tail-biting incidents (TBIs; piglet biting a penmate’s tail). When visible tail damage was first observed in a pen (i.e. day of tail biting outbreak; D0), the video recordings of the previous 6 (till D−6) and the following 6 days (till D6) were analysed every other day for TBIs and the identities of the biter and bitten piglet were recorded. The average TBIs per individual piglet (within each pen) per observation day were analysed to quantify the development of tail-biting behaviour and to identify pronounced biters and/or bitten piglets. The (absence of) coherence for TBIs in a pen was used to test whether biters preferred a specific penmate. There was an exponential increase in the intensity (linear on log scale) of the TBIs from an average of 0.7 bites/h at D−6 to 2.3 bites/h at D6. An additional negative quadratic component suggests that a plateau for tail-biting behaviour was reached by the end of the observation period. Before any visible tail damage was observed (i.e. before D0), 82% of the piglets performed and 96% of them received tail bites. After D0, the figures were 99% and 100%, respectively. One or a few pronounced biters could be identified in almost all pens. These biters already showed more tail biting at D−6 than their penmates. Furthermore, these biters showed a greater increase in tail-biting behaviour during the observation period than the average scores of their penmates. In contrast, there was no apparent increase in the receipt of bites among the piglets that had already been bitten more than their penmates at D−6. Finally, there was no significant coherence between biters and bitten piglets, indicating that biters showed no preference for biting particular penmates, even when some of them had a damaged tail. These results show that, by using observations of TBIs, possible biters or bitten piglets can already be identified 6 days before tail damage is first apparent in a pen.

Keywords

pigswelfaretail bitingdevelopment
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , 23 February 2011 , pp. 601 - 607
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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

Beattie, VE, Breuer, K, O’ Connell, NE, Sneddon, IA, Mercer, JT, Rance, KA, Sutcliffe, MEM, Edwards, SA 2005. Factors identifying pigs predisposed to tail biting. Animal Science 80, 307–312.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Hulsegge, B, Keeling, L, Blokhuis, HJ 2004a. Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs: 1. Modelling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Hulsegge, B, Keeling, L, Blokhuis, HJ 2004b. Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs: 2. Validation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA 2006. Tail biting in pigs: understanding the intractable problem. Veterinary Journal 171, 198–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. The EFSA Journal 611, 1–98.Google Scholar
Feddes, JJ, Fraser, D, Buckley, DJ, Poirier, P 1993. Electronic sensing of non-destructive chewing by growing pigs. Transactions of the ASAE 36, 955–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1987. Attraction to blood as a factor in tail-biting by pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koolhaas, JM, Korte, SM, De Boer, SF, Van Der Vegt, BJ, Van Reenen, CG, Hopster, H, De Jong, IC, Ruis, MAW, Blokhuis, HJ 1999. Coping styles in animals: current status in behavior and stress physiology. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 23, 925–935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penny, RHC, Walters, JR, Tredget, SJ 1981. Tail-biting in pigs: a sex frequency between boars and gilts. Veterinary Record 108, 35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sambraus, HH 1985. Mouth-based anomalous syndromes. Ethology of farm animals. World Animal Science 5, 391–472.Google Scholar
Schrøder-Petersen, DL 2005. The ontogeny of tail-in-mouth (TIM) – the presumed precursor of tail biting in pigs. PhD, The Danish Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University.Google Scholar
Schrøder-Petersen, DL, Simonsen, HB 2001. Tail biting in pigs. Veterinary Journal 162, 196–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schrøder-Petersen, DL, Simonsen, HB, Lawson, LG 2003. Tail-in-mouth behaviour among weaner pigs in relation to age, gender and group composition regarding gender. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 53, 29–34.Google Scholar
Taylor, NR, Main, DCJ, Mendl, M, Edwards, SA 2010. Tail-biting: a new perspective. Veterinary Journal, doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.08.028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Putten, G 1968. Een onderzoek naar staarbijten bij mestvarkens. PhD thesis. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Van Putten, G 1969. An investigation into tail-biting among fattening pigs. British Veterinary Journal 125, 511–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zonderland, JJ, Wolthuis-Fillerup, M, van Reenen, CG, Bracke, MBM, Kemp, B, den Hartog, LA, Spoolder, HAM 2008. Prevention and treatment of tail biting in weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110, 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, van Riel, JW, Bracke, MBM, Kemp, B, den Hartog, LA, Spoolder, HAM 2009. Tail posture predicts tail damage among weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 165–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar