Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:15:50.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

More tail lesions among undocked than tail docked pigs in a conventional herd

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2017

H. P. Lahrmann ,
M. E. Busch ,
R. B. D’Eath ,
B. Forkman  and
C. F. Hansen
H. P. Lahrmann
Affiliation:
SEGES, Danish Pig Research Centre, Axeltorv 3, 1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark
M. E. Busch
Affiliation:
SEGES, Danish Pig Research Centre, Axeltorv 3, 1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark
R. B. D’Eath
Affiliation:
SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
B. Forkman
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark
C. F. Hansen*
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark
*
†E-mail: cfh@sund.ku.dk
Get access

Abstract

The vast majority of piglets reared in the European Union (EU) and worldwide is tail docked to reduce the risk of being tail bitten, even though EU animal welfare legislation bans routine tail docking. Many conventional herds experience low levels of tail biting among tail docked pigs, however it is not known, what the prevalence would have been had the pigs not been tail docked. The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of tail lesions between docked and undocked pigs in a conventional piggery in Denmark with very low prevalence of tail biting among tail docked pigs. The study included 1922 DanAvl Duroc×(Landrace×Large White) female and castrated male pigs (962 docked and 960 undocked). Docked and undocked pigs were housed under the same conditions in the same room but in separate pens with 20 (±0.03) pigs/pen. Pigs had ad libitum access to commercial diets in a feed dispenser. Manipulable material in the form of chopped straw was provided daily on the floor (~10 g/pig per day), and each pen had two vertically placed soft wood boards. From weaning to slaughter, tail wounds (injury severity and freshness) were scored every 2nd week. No clinical signs of injured tails were observed within the tail docked group, whereas 23.0% of the undocked pigs got a tail lesion. On average, 4.0% of the pigs with undocked tails had a tail lesion on tail inspection days. More pens with tail lesions were observed among pigs weighing 30 to 60 kg (34.3%; P<0.05) than in pens with pigs weighing 7 to 30 kg (13.0%) and 60 to 90 kg (12.8%). Removal of pigs to a hospital pen was more likely in undocked pens (P<0.05, 47.7% undocked pens and 22.9% docked pens). Finally, abattoir meat inspection data revealed more tail biting remarks in undocked pigs (P<0.001). In conclusion, this study suggests that housing pigs with intact tails in conventional herds with very low prevalence of tail biting among tail docked pigs, will increase the prevalence of pigs with tail lesions considerably, and pig producers will need more hospital pens. Abattoir data indicate that tail biting remarks from meat inspection data severely underestimate on-farm prevalence of tail lesions.

Keywords

pigstail bitingtail dockinghousingbehaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 10 , October 2017 , pp. 1825 - 1831
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

Alban, L, Petersen, JV and Busch, ME 2015. A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions. Porcine Health Management 1, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beattie, VE, Sneddon, IA, Walker, N and Weatherup, RN 2001. Environmental enrichment of intensive pig housing using spent mushroom compost. Animal Science 72, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Lauwere, CCd, Wind, SMM and Zonderland, JJ 2013. Attitudes of Dutch pig farmers towards tail biting and tail docking. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 26, 847–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cagienard, A, Regula, G and Danuser, J 2005. The impact of different housing systems on health and welfare of grower and finisher pigs in Switzerland. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 68, 49–61.Google Scholar
D’Eath, RB, Arnott, G, Turner, SP, Jensen, T, Lahrmann, HP, Busch, ME, Niemi, JK, Lawrence, AB and Sandoe, P 2014. Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking? Animal 8, 1479–1497.Google Scholar
D’Eath, RB, Niemi, JK, Ahmadi Vosough, B, Rutherford, KMD, Ison, SH, Turner, SP, Anker, HT, Jensen, T, Busch, ME, Jensen, KK, Lawrence, AB and Sandøe, P 2016. Why are most EU pigs tail docked? Economic and ethical analysis of four pig housing and management scenarios in the light of EU legislation and animal welfare outcomes. Animal 10, 687–699.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle 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. Retrieved on 23 June 2016 from http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/611.pdf.Google Scholar
EFSA 2014. Scientific opinion concerning a Multifactorial approach on the use of animal and non-animal-based measures to assess the welfare of pigs. Retrieved on 23 June 2016 from http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3702.pdf.Google Scholar
Harley, S, More, SJ, O’Connell, N, Hanion, A, Teixeira, D and Boyle, L 2012. Evaluating the prevalence of tail biting and carcase condemnations in slaughter pigs in the Republic and Northern Ireland, and the potential of abattoir meat inspection as a welfare surveillance tool. Veterinary Record 171, 621.Google Scholar
Keeling, LJ, Wallenbeck, A, Larsen, A and Holmgren, N 2012. Scoring tail damage in pigs: an evaluation based on recordings at Swedish slaughterhouses. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavia 54, 1–6.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
Lahrmann, HP, Oxholm, LC, Steinmetz, H, Nielsen, MBF and DÉath, R 2014. The effect of long or chopped straw on pig behaviour. Animal 9, 862–870.Google ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, K, O’Gorman, DM, Taylor, S and Boyle, LA 2013. The influence of a magnesium-rich marine extract on behaviour, salivary cortisol levels and skin lesions in growing pigs. Animal 7, 1017–1027.Google Scholar
Oxholm, LC, Steinmetz, HV, Lahrmann, HP, Nielsen, MBF, Amdi, C and Hansen, CF 2014. Behaviour of liquid-fed growing pigs provided with straw in various amounts and frequencies. Animal 8, 1889–1897.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schrøder-Petersen, DL and Simonsen, HB 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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Sinisalo, A, Niemi, JK, Heinonen, M and Valros, A 2012. Tail biting and production performance in fattening pigs. Livestock Science 143, 220–225.Google Scholar
Sutherland, MA, Bryer, PJ, Krebs, N and McGlone, JJ 2009. The effect of method of tail docking on tail-biting behaviour and welfare of pigs. Animal Welfare 18, 561–570.Google Scholar
Sutherland, MA and Tucker, CB 2011. The long and short of it: a review of tail docking in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135, 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, NR, Main, DCJ, Mendl, M and Edwards, SA 2010. Tail-biting: a new perspective. The Veterinary Journal 186, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, NR, Parker, RM, Mendl, M, Edwards, SA and Main, DC 2012. Prevalence of risk factors for tail biting on commercial farms and intervention strategies. Veterinary Journal 194, 77–83.Google Scholar
Tybirk, P, Sloth, NM, Kjeldsen, NJ and Shooter, L 2016. Normer for næringsstoffer. SEGES, Videncenter for Svineproduktion, Danish Pig Research Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved on 23 June 2016 from http://vsp.lf.dk/Viden/Foder/Naeringsstoffer/Normer%20for%20naeringsstoffer.aspx.Google Scholar
Ursinus, WW, Van Reenen, CG, Kempa, B and Bolhuis, E 2014. Tail biting behaviour and tail damage in pigs and the relationship with general behaviour: predicting the inevitable? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 156, 22–36.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 54, 213–219.Google Scholar
Valros, A and Heinonen, M 2015. Save the pig tail. Porcine Health Management 1, 1–7.Google Scholar
Valros, A, Munsterhjelm, C, Hänninen, L, Kauppinen, T and Heinonen, M 2016. Managing undocked pigs – on-farm prevention of tail biting and attitudes towards tail biting and docking. Porcine Health Management 2, 1–11.Google Scholar
Wallgren, P and Lindahl, E 1996. The influence of tail biting on performance of fattening pigs. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 37, 453–460.Google Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Bosma, B and Hoste, R 2011a. Financiële consequenties van staartbijten bij varkens. Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Lelystad, The Netherlands, pp. 1–109.Google Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Bracke, MBM, Hartog, LAd, Kemp, B and Spoolder, HAM 2010. Gender effects on tail damage development in single- or mixed-sex groups of weaned piglets. Livestock Science 129, 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Kemp, B, Bracke, MBM, den Hartog, LA and Spoolder, HAM 2011b. Individual piglets’ contribution to the development of tail biting. Animal 5, 601–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Wolthuis-Fillerup, M, Reenen, CGV, Bracke, MBM, Kemp, B, Hartog, LAd and Spoolder, HAM 2008. Prevention and treatment of tail biting in weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110, 269–281.Google Scholar