Category Archives: Pigs

PhD defence on preventing tail biting in pigs online Monday April 9, 2018

Dear all,

I will defend my PhD on Monday, April 9 at 13.00 (UTC +2, due to summertime CEST).

The title is “Two strategies to prevent tail damage in finishers: removal of risk factors and early detection”.

The defence will be in English.

It will begin with a 45 min lecture, a short break and then continue with questions from the opponents until latest 16.00.

The opponents are Emerita Professor Sandra Edwards and Dr. Rick D’Eath.

I have arranged that the defence will be live streamed. It is possible for everyone to join and it is very easy:

  • You will need Java, Adobe Flash Player and do not use the web browser Google Chrome for this
  • Go to vc.au.dk
  • Choose “Live Videos
  • Choose the one named “Foulum Auditorium
  • Now you should be connected and be able to choose between seeing the room, the power point presentation more closely or a combination if you wish

Also, if you know of anyone that could be interested, please just forward this email. Everyone is welcome!

Looking forward to seeing all of you in the future!

Best wishes,

Mona Lilian Vestbjerg Larsen

Curious pigs

A review of tail docking in farm animals

The long and short of it: A review of tail docking in farm animals
Mhairi A. Sutherland, Cassandra B. Tucker, 2011. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135: 179-191

Abstract

Tail docking involves amputating a portion of the tail for a variety of reasons. We review the scientific evidence for the rationale for tail docking, a description of the different methods used, the pain response to the procedure and the effectiveness of pain alleviation, and, finally, the alternatives to tail docking and policy regarding the practice. We focus on the three main agricultural species that are tail docked as a management practice: pigs, sheep, and dairy cattle. Methods of tail docking include cutting with a knife or scalpel, cutting with a hot docking iron, or application of a constrictive rubber ring. All methods are commonly performed without analgesia or anaesthesia, and all likely result in some degree of pain. As with any procedure that alters the integrity of an animal, it is important to consider the rationale behind docking in order to evaluate if it is necessary. Tail docking in pigs is routinely conducted on commercial swine farms because it can reduce the incidence of tail biting, an injurious and undesirable behaviour. Both behavioural and physiological changes indicate that tail docking is painful in pigs, but until robust and consistent methods for preventing tail biting are identified, this procedure is likely to continue as a management practice. This approach is reflected in public policy about the procedure. There is both behavioural and physiological evidence that tail docking is painful for sheep; both responses are reduced when pain relief is provided. Prevention of fly strike is the primary reason given for tail docking sheep, but the scientific evidence to support this rationale is surprisingly sparse. Further research is required to justify tail docking of sheep as a routine practice. Dairy cattle are docked because this practice is thought to improve cow cleanliness and udder health, however, there is no scientific evidence supporting this rationale. Tail docking cattle results in relatively few behavioural or physiological indicators of pain, but docked cows are unable to effectively remove flies from their hind end. The practice of tail docking dairy cattle is banned, discouraged or declining in most industrialized countries except the US. The long-term pain associated with tail docking is not well understood in pigs, sheep or cattle. In cases where tail docking may be justified by demonstrated benefits for the animal (possibly in case of pigs and sheep), further research is needed to find either practical alternatives or ways to alleviate the pain associated with this procedure.

Indirect Genetic Effects for Growth Rate in Domestic Pigs Alter Aggressive and Manipulative Biting Behaviour

Indirect Genetic Effects for Growth Rate in Domestic Pigs Alter Aggressive and Manipulative Biting Behaviour
By Irene Camerlink, Winanda W. Ursinus, Piter Bijma, Bas Kemp, J. Elizabeth Bolhuis. 2015. Behavior Genetics 45: 117–126.

Indirect genetic effects (IGEs) are heritable effects of an individual on phenotypic values of others, and may result from social interactions. We determined the behavioural consequences of selection for IGEs for growth (IGEg) in pigs in a G × E treatment design. Pigs (n = 480) were selected for high versus low IGEg with a contrast of 14 g average daily gain and were housed in either barren or straw-enriched pens (n = 80). High IGEg pigs showed from 8 to 23 weeks age 40 % less aggressive biting (P = 0.006), 27 % less ear biting (P = 0.03), and 40 % less biting on enrichment material (P = 0.005). High IGEg pigs had a lower tail damage score (high 2.0; low 2.2; P = 0.004), and consumed 30 % less jute sacks (P = 0.002). Selection on high IGEg reduced biting behaviours additive to the, generally much larger, effects of straw-bedding (P < 0.01), with no G × E interactions. These results show opportunities to reduce harmful biting behaviours in pigs.

Two-level pen may be feasible option to increase space allowance and to create functional areas in a piglet pen

Use of space and behavior of weaned piglets kept in enriched two-level housing system
By Michaela Fels, Franziska Lüthje, Alice Faux-Nightingale & Nicole Kemper. 2018 Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science

In this study, the possibility of introducing an elevated platform to a piglet pen was explored as a way of increasing available space and creating functional areas. On the platform, nine different manipulable materials were offered. In four batches, 40 weaned piglets were kept for five weeks in the two-level pen. Video recordings were taken two days per week. In the afternoon, more piglets were on the platform than in the morning or at night (7.2 ± 0.1 vs. 4.9 ± 0.1 vs. 0.6 ± 0.1 piglets/5 minutes; p < .05). The area under the platform was preferred more in the morning and at night than in the afternoon (18.5 ± 0.1 vs. 21.6 ± 0.2 vs. 12.5 ± 0.1 piglets/5 minutes; p < .05). Up to 36 piglets were counted there simultaneously, mainly in the recumbent position. On and under the platform, air velocity and ammonia concentration were within the recommended ranges. The study concluded that a two-level pen is a feasible option to increase space allowance and to create functional areas in a piglet pen.

Weaned littermate piglets seem less socially connected and prone to becoming tail-biting victims

Understanding Tail-Biting in Pigs through Social Network Analysis

By Yuzhi Li, Haifeng Zhang, Lee. Johnston and Wayne Martin 2018. Animals 2018, 8(1), 13

The objective of this study was to investigate the association between social structure and incidence of tail-biting in pigs. Pigs (n = 144, initial weight = 7.2 ± 1.57 kg, 4 weeks of age) were grouped based on their litter origin: littermates, non-littermates, and half-group of littermates. Six pens (8 pigs/pen) of each litter origin were studied for 6 weeks. Incidence of tail injury and growth performance were monitored. Behavior of pigs was video recorded for 6 h at 6 and 8 weeks of age. Video recordings were scanned at 10 min intervals to register pigs that were lying together (1) or not (0) in binary matrices. Half weight association index was used for social network construction. Social network analysis was performed using the UCINET software. Littermates had lower network density (0.119 vs. 0.174; p < 0.05), more absent social ties (20 vs. 12; p < 0.05), and fewer weak social ties (6 vs. 14, p < 0.05) than non-littermates, indicating that littermates might be less socially connected. Fifteen percent of littermates were identified as victimized pigs by tail-biting, and no victimized pigs were observed in other treatment groups. These results suggest that littermates might be less socially connected among themselves which may predispose them to development of tail-biting.

Curly pig tail farming in Finland and Italy (two EC videos)

EU legislation on the welfare of pigs (Council Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs) does not allow routine tail-docking and requires farmers to provide to their pigs “manipulable material” such as straw, hay or sawdust.
To better inform farmers how to prevent routine tail docking, the Commission developed educational materials. The two videos present success stories in achieving the goal of rearing not-tailed pigs.

A Finnish farming with an intensive system rearing piglets with intact, curly tails.

An Italian farmer proud of rearing curly tails on straw

Tool for scoring tail, ear and skin lesions in pigs

Deutscher Schweine Bonitur Schlüssel (Geman pig evaluation key, in English)

The ‘key’ provides a standardised classification for recording skin lesions.

In the course of numerous recent tail biting projects, German investigators developed a common tail and ear lesion scoring key in order to make results more comparable. The key now has a composite nature. Depending on the background of the study, lesions can be scored in different levels of detail which can be combined in order to allow analyses across projects. The provided documents include a summary key, descriptions of scores and exemplary pictures (follow this link for the document in English).

PS German guidelines for the on-farm assessment of farm animal welfare (cattle, pigs and poultry) can be found here (in German).

New book: Advances in Pig Welfare

New book: Advances in Pig Welfare
1st Edition
Editors: Marek Špinka
Hardcover ISBN: 9780081010129
Imprint: Woodhead Publishing (Elsevier)
Published Date: 10th November 2017
Page Count: 506

Table of Contents

Part One: Pig Welfare Hotspots
1. Overview of commercial pig production systems and their main welfare challenges* – Lene Juul Pedersen
2. Sow welfare in the farrowing crate and alternatives*
3. Piglet mortality and morbidity: inevitable or unacceptable?*
4. Lifetime consequences of the early physical and social environment of piglets* – Helena Telkänranta, Sandra Edwards
5. Tail biting* – Anna Valros
6. Manipulable materials* – Marc Bracke
7. Mitigating hunger in pregnant sows*
8. Aggression in group housed sows and fattening pigs
9. Handling and transport of pigs
10. Slaughter of pigs

Part Two: Pig Welfare Emerging Topics
11. The pain-sensitive pig* – Mette S Herskin, Pierpaolo Di Giminiani
12. On-farm and post-mortem pig health status assessment
13. Pig-human interactions: Pig-human interactions: creating a positive perception of humans to ensure pig welfare*
14. Breeding for pig welfare; opportunities and challenges*
15. Positive pig welfare
16. Pigs as laboratory animals* – Jeremy Marchant-Forde, Mette S. Herskin

Chapters marked with * have (co-)authors involved in FareWellDock. Chapters with stated authors only have FareWellDock partners as (co-)authors.

Description

Advances in Pig Welfare analyzes current topical issues in the key areas of pig welfare assessment and improvement. With coverage of both recent developments and reviews of historical welfare issues, the volume provides a comprehensive survey of the field.
The book is divided into two sections. Part One opens with an overview of main welfare challenges in commercial pig production systems and then reviews pig welfare hot spots from birth to slaughter. Part Two highlights emerging topics in pig welfare, such as pain and health assessment, early socialization and environmental enrichment, pig-human interactions, breeding for welfare, positive pig welfare and pigs as laboratory animals.
This book is an essential part of the wider ranging series Advances in Farm Animal Welfare, with coverage of cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry.
With its expert editor and international team of contributors, Advances in Pig Welfare is a key reference tool for welfare research scientists and students, veterinarians involved in welfare assessment, and indeed anyone with a professional interest in the welfare of pig. View less >

Key Features
•Provides in-depth reviews of emerging topics, research, and applications in pig welfare
•Analyzes on-farm assessment of pig welfare, an extremely important marker for the monitoring of real welfare impacts of any changes in husbandry systems
•Edited by a leader in the field of pig welfare, with contributing experts from veterinary science, welfare academia, and practitioners in industry

Readership
Animal Welfare research scientists, Postgraduate students, Policy makers and stakeholders, R&D managers

The book may be ordered here.

Pig enrichment affects immune response to disease

Effect of enriched housing on levels of natural (auto-)antibodies in pigs co-infected with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) and Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae.
Lu Luo, Ingrid Daniëlle Ellen van Dixhoorn, Inonge Reimert, Bas Kemp, Jantina Elizabeth Bolhuis and Hendrik Karel Parmentier 2017. Vet Res (2017) 48:75.

Abstract

Housing of pigs in barren, stimulus-poor housing conditions may influence their immune status, including antibody
responses to (auto-)antigens, and thus affect immune protection, which will influence the onset and outcome of
infection. In the present study, we investigated the effects of environmental enrichment versus barren housing on the
level of natural (auto-)antibodies (NA(A)b) and their isotypes (IgM and IgG) binding keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH),
myelin basic protein (MBP), and phosphorycholine conjugated to bovine serum albumin (PC-BSA) in pigs co-infected
with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV ) and Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae (A. pleuro-pneumoniae). Pigs (n= 56) were housed in either barren or enriched pens from birth to 54 days of age. They were infected with PRRSV on 44 days of age, and with A. pleuropneumoniae 8 days later. Blood samples were taken on 7 dif-ferent sampling days. Housing significantly affected the overall serum levels of NA(A)b binding KLH, MBP and PC-BSA, and before infection barren housed pigs had significantly higher levels of NA(A)b than enriched housed pigs, except for KLH-IgM and PC-BSA-IgG. Infection only affected the IgM, but not the IgG isotype. Moreover, changes in MBP-IgM and PC-BSA-IgM following infection were different for enriched and barren housed pigs. These results suggest that the effect of infection on NA(A)b is influenced by housing conditions and that NA(A)b, especially IgM may be affected by infection.