Tag Archives: pigs

Ice blocks may vaccinate and enrich gestating sow welfare

An investigation of sow interaction with ice blocks on a farm with group-housed sows fed by electronic sow feeders

By M.K. Pierdon, A.M. John and T.D. Parsons. in: Journal of Swine Health and Production 24(6):309-314 · November 2016

Abstract

More gestating sows are being housed in pens where it is challenging to implement controlled exposure to pathogens for disease control (“feedback”). Ice blocks provide a possible vehicle for feedback material in pen gestation. Ice blocks were placed once weekly for 6 consecutive weeks in a pen of approximately 130 sows to test whether sows would interact with the blocks of ice. Sows were housed in a large, dynamic pre-implantation group fed with electronic sow feeders. Each ice block was video-recorded for 1 hour. All sows that contacted it were identified. The number of sows, their duration of contact, and amount of aggression were coded from the video. Median number of sows that interacted with the ice was 94, and increasing the number of ice blocks from two to four per pen increased the median number of sows to contact the ice and the median duration of an individual sow’s contact with the ice, and decreased the amount of aggression at each block. Our findings suggest ice blocks are a convenient vehicle for controlled exposure of feedback material to gestating sows housed in large pens. However, additional studies are needed to validate pathogen exposure with this method.

 

Just a nice picture of what a pig’s tail should look like

What do you see?

Please have a look at this pig’s tail. You may note that contrary to most EU pigs, this Finnish pig has a curly tail. In addition, please note that this pig does not only has a curly tail. Its tail also has a hairy plume. That is what a pig’s tail should look like: It is the pig’s welfare thermometer.

Curly tail as sign of melting pig-welfare iceberg

The FareWellDock project has accumulated scientific information directed at reducing the need for tail docking in Europe. In this way it has contributed to ending the progressive melting of the pig-welfare iceberg. But sometimes, a picture says more than a thousand words, for the pig’s tail is an iceberg indicator for pig welfare.

Culty pig tail with brush

Curly pig tail (© Mari Heinonen).

EC Webinar on Tail biting and Tail docking of Pigs

4-6th October 2016: Meeting and Webinar on Actions to Prevent Tailbiting and Reduce Tail docking of Pigs

Note: The presentations of the meeting can be accessed here. The video  recordings will be available for some time after the meeting via this link.

The European Commission Directorate General for Health and Food Safety is organising a three day meeting at the offices of its Health and Food Audit and Analysis Directorate in Ireland on actions to prevent tailbiting and reduce tail docking of pigs.

The programme includes a wide range of relevant topics. It is delivered by experts from industry, Member State Competent Authorities, research bodies, EU institutions and NGOs.  Case studies will facilitate the exchange of good practice and workshops will focus on better solutions for the future. The work of the EU FareWellDock project will also be presented at this meeting.

The meeting is aimed at the authorities of Member States, international organizations, scientists, industry and NGOs.

The Agenda can be found below.

Please note that proceedings from this meeting, apart from breakout groups, will be broadcast live on the Internet and can be followed by logging in to the following links:

  • 4 October: 14:00- 16:45 GMT.

https://webcast.ec.europa.eu/meeting-on-actions-to-prevent-tailbiting-and-reduce-tail-docking-of-pigs-4

  • 5 October: 09:00- 16:30 GMT.

https://webcast.ec.europa.eu/meeting-on-actions-to-prevent-tailbiting-and-reduce-tail-docking-of-pigs-5

  • 6 October: 09:45-15:00 GMT.

https://webcast.ec.europa.eu/meeting-on-actions-to-prevent-tailbiting-and-reduce-tail-docking-of-pigs-6

Please send any questions you may have on the presentations to the functional mailbox: SANTE-IRL-WEBINAR-REARING-PIGS-WITH-INTACT-TAILS@ec.europa.eu and we will endeavour to answer as many as we can during the time for questions at the end of each presentation. If we cannot answer your question during the webinar, we will forward your question to the presenter for response after the event.

Curly tail

Agenda

MEETING ON ACTIONS TO PREVENT TAILBITING AND REDUCE TAIL DOCKING OF PIGS*

4th-6th October 2016, Dir F, Grange, Ireland

Tuesday 4th Oct

14:00 Opening Address, Background and objectives Dir. F. T Cassidy
14:20 Policy perspective Dir G. D Simonin
14:40 Farewelldock project Overview & Immediate and long term consequences of tail docking and tail biting for pig welfare. S Edwards/P Di Giminiani
15:00 Farewelldock project – Use of straw to reduce tail-biting as an alternative to tail-docking. L J Pedersen
15:20 Farewelldock project – Early detection of tail biting and the role of health. C Munsterhjelm
15:40 COST action (GroupHouseNet) with activities related to Tailbiting. A Prunier
16:00 Coffee break
16:30 Overview Report of Study Visits on Rearing Pigs with intact tails
“Problems/Solutions”
Breakout group discussion on measuring on-farm performance of criteria listed in Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336. Dir F
18:00 Close of day 1 – Bus to Knightsbrook Hotel
Wednesday 5th Oct

08:30 Bus from Knightsbrook Hotel
09:00 Change- Recent Experience from the poultry sector. B Eivers /N O’Nuallain
09:20 Funding possibilities for changes to housing/management leading to lower stress pig production.  P G Solernou
09:50 Maintaining low stress pig production-rearing pigs with intact tails. R Weber
10:30 Coffee break
11:00 Maintaining low stress pig production-rearing pigs with intact tails. J Lindahl
11:40 Maintaining low stress pig production-rearing pigs with intact tails. T.Tirkkonen
12:30 Lunch
13:30 NGO perspectives on developing and implementing a Quality Assurance scheme for improving the rearing of pigs and phasing out tail docking.  Bert Van Den Berg
14:00 Actions to improve the productivity and welfare of pigs with the aim of reducing tail docking.  D L Schroder
14:30 Actions to improve the productivity and welfare of pigs with the aim of reducing tail docking.  H Van der Velde
15:00 Coffee break
15:30 Actions to improve the productivity and welfare of pigs with the aim of reducing tail docking. C Veit
16:00 Actions to improve the productivity and welfare of pigs with the aim of reducing tail docking.  M Chapman-Rose
16:30 MS Communication strategies for improving the productivity and welfare of pigs with the aim of reducing tail docking. F2
Breakout group discussion on benchmarking farms at national level on levels of tail biting, tail docking and provision of sufficient enrichment  materia
17:45 Close of day 2 – Bus to Knightsbrook Hotel

Thursday 6th Oct

08:30 Bus from Knightsbrook Hotel
09:00 Overview of MS’ Action Plans to implement the Commission Recommendations (EU) 2016/336 of 8 March 2016. Dir F
09:45 COM programme on actions to prevent tailbiting and reduce tail docking of pigs. Dir F
10:30 Coffee break
11:00 Industry Initiatives to improve the rearing of pigs and phasing out tail docking.  H P Lahrmann
11:30 Discussion
12:30 Lunch
13:30 Conclusions and future actions
15:00 Departure of bus for airport / Departure of bus to hotel
17:30 Departure of bus for Dublin
*   Please note that proceedings from this meeting, apart from breakout groups, will be broadcast live on the Internet.

Tail-in-mouth behaviour in weaned piglets

Can tail-in-mouth behaviour in weaned piglets be predicted by behaviour and performance? By Camilla Munsterhjelm, Mari Heinonen, Anna Valros. In: Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.

Abstract

This study aimed to identify characteristics of pigs performing tail-in-mouth behaviour (TIM; P, n =34), their recipients (R, n =23) and neutral penmates (N, n =31) at two occasions, the first being at weaning (4 weeks of age) before TIM was observed in the pen and the second being at 9 weeks of age when TIM had emerged, but no clinical tail lesions were observed. The groups (n =22) were formed by siblings, two gilts and two castrates. Behaviour was analysed as 24-hour time budgets and continuously sampled during 30minutes of the active part of the day. Category (P, R, N) effects were analysed at individual and (directed) dyad level. P was born significantly smaller than R, but the difference had disappeared at 4 weeks. Growth or sex distribution did not differ between categories. Category differences in performed behaviour were evident at 4 weeks of age, when P showed more overall activity and environmental exploration as compared to R, as well as more bouts of tail-nosing than N. Different aspects of behaviour changed in the different categories between 4 and 9 weeks of age. In P social activity increased significantly and went from no preference at 4 weeks to a significant preference for social actions for R over N at 9 weeks. N was socially passive at 9 weeks while receiving more social behaviour than the other categories. These differences in behaviour suggest that the categories represented different phenotypes of pigs.

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

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

By M.S. Herskin, P. Di Giminiani, K. Thodberg, 2016. Research in Veterinary Science 108: 60–67.

Highlights

  • Lidocain reduced signs of procedural pain during tail docking in piglets but did not affect behaviour during 5 h after the procedure.
  • Meloxicam had only very marginal effects on behaviour of the piglets during and up to 5 h after tail docking.
  • Tail docking led to behavioural changes throughout the 5 h observation period.
  • Tail docking length affected procedural and post-procedural behaviour of the piglets.

Abstract

In many countries, piglets are tail docked to prevent tail biting. The aim of this study was 1) to evaluate the efficacy of a local anaesthetic and/or NSAID to reduce pain caused by tail docking; and 2) to examine interactions with docking length. This was examined in 295 piglets docked by hot iron cautery 2–4 days after birth and based on behaviour during docking as well as the following 5 h. The study involved three main factors: local anaesthetic (Lidocain), NSAID (Meloxicam) and docking length. Either 100%, 75%, 50% or 25% of the tails were left on the body of the piglets. Irrespective of the tail length, tail docking led to signs of procedural pain, which could be reduced by administration of Lidocain. Preemptive use of Meloxicam did not affect the signs of procedural pain. The results show that tail docking led to behavioural changes throughout the 5 h observation period indicating that effects of this management routine are more persistent than earlier suggested, and suggesting that docking length may influence the post-surgical behaviour of piglets. By use of the present sites of injection and dosages, neither local anaesthetic nor NSAID had marked effects on post-surgical behavioural changes induced by tail docking. Hence, if tail docking is to be performed, more research is needed in order to develop practical methods for on-farm piglet pain relief.

Tail docking: The final cut?

Tail docking: The final cut? By Monique Pairis-Garcia. You can read the first part of this article here. For the second part see the original at the Pig Progress site (published August 8, 2016).

Tail docking is applied to young piglets to avoid a potential problem later of tail biting. However, should the root of the problem be looked at instead of using this preemptive measure?

Tail docking is routinely performed on farms as a means to decrease the prevalence of tail biting. Tail biting is an abnormal redirected exploratory behaviour that results in mild to severe injury of pen mate’s tails. Several factors have been associated with tail biting behaviour including environment, nutrition, gender, genetics and health status.

Tail docking of piglets has and continues to be highly criticised in both the US and Europe. This is primarily driven by the fact that tail docking is a painful procedure as indicated by changes to the physiology and behaviour of pigs who are tail docked.

Eliminate tail docking and control tail biting

Most recently, European countries have taken a stance to eliminate this management practice by managing the problems which lead to tail biting in the first place. Several research projects including FareWellDock have been established to provide scientific research to determine the best practices to eliminate tail docking and control tail biting. Although several factors can contribute to tail biting, research has consistently demonstrated that the absence of material for manipulation increases risk of tail biting. Several enrichment objects including chains, rubber hoses, car tires, straw and peat moss have shown to decrease tail biting but not necessarily eliminate the behaviour altogether.

Unlike the European approach, the US is nowhere near implementing the elimination of tail docking on farm. Tail docking is still performed routinely on commercial swine operations in the US. Farms which are not tail docking are either smaller farms which provide outdoor access to pigs or farms on specified animal welfare friendly programmes like Animal Welfare Approved, American Humane and Certified Humane.

For the second part of this article (on the probability of eliminating tail docking and the value of enrichment) see the original at the Pig Progress site (and see also the comment section).

 

Agent-based modelling in applied ethology: An exploratory case study of behavioural dynamics in tail biting in pigs

Agent-based modelling in applied ethology: An exploratory case study of behavioural dynamics in tail biting in pigs. By Iris J.M.M. Boumans, Gert Jan Hofstede, J. Elizabeth Bolhuis, Imke J.M. de Boer, Eddie A.M. Bokkers. 2016. Applied Animal Behaviour Science

Abstract

Understanding behavioural dynamics in pigs is important to assess pig welfare in current intensive pig production systems. Agent-based modelling (ABM) is an approach to gain insight into behavioural dynamics in pigs, but its use in applied ethology and animal welfare science has been limited so far. We used ABM in a case study on tail biting behaviour in pigs to explore the use of ABM in gaining more insight into emergent injurious pig behaviour and related welfare issues in intensive production systems. We developed an agent-based model in Netlogo 5.1.0 to simulate tail biting behaviour of pigs housed in conventional pens in groups of 10. Pigs in the model started as neutral pigs (not involved in biting incidents), but could change into a biter, victim, or both biter and victim. Tail biting behaviour could emerge when pigs were unable to fulfil their internal motivation to explore. The effects of a redirected exploratory motivation, behavioural changes in victims and preference to bite a lying pig on tail biting patterns were tested in our model. The simulations with the agent-based model showed that coincidence in development of a redirected exploratory motivation can lead to tail biting behaviour in pigs and can explain the strong variations in incidence of tail biting behaviour observed in conventionally housed pigs. Behavioural changes in victims and preference to bite a lying pig seem to be of minor importance in the causation of tail biting patterns. The behavioural time budget of a pig might be an important factor in predisposing pigs to or preventing them from becoming a tail biter or a victim. ABM showed to be useful in analysing behavioural dynamics and welfare issues. An advantage for ABM in applied ethology is the availability of data from empirical studies.

On-farm tail biting prevention in long-tailed pigs – results from a producer questionnaire in Finland

On-farm tail biting prevention in long-tailed pigs – results from a producer questionnaire in Finland. By Valros, A., C. Munsterhjelm, L. Hänninen, T. Kauppinen, M. Heinonen, 2016. Royal Dublin Society: Abstracts book of the 24th International Pig Veterinary Society (IPVS) Congress, Dublin, Republic of Ireland 7-10th June 2016. p. 144.

Abstract

Introduction: Tail biting is a serious welfare problem in pigs, causing substantial economic losses. In the majority of the EU countries, tail docking is used to reduce the incidence of tail biting. However, many of the risk factors for tail biting are related to suboptimal management, and tail biting can be reduced by corrective management decisions. There are few studies on which preventive measures producers themselves value as most important.

Materials and Methods: A questionnaire was distributed via slaughterhouse webpages in 2015. Producers were asked to score the importance of handling different tail-biting risk factors on their own farms, as well as about which manipulable materials they use, and find efficient. In addition, we asked about their opinions on tail biting and tail docking. A total of 70 producers replied, 54 of these replies were regarding fattening pigs, and 16 regarding weaned pigs. The size of the pig units varied between 100 and 6400 pigs, with an average of 1307 pigs. Finland banned tail docking in 2003, so all farms raised long-tailed pigs only.

Results: On average, the producers reported a prevalence of tail biting of 2,3% on their farms, which corresponds well with values reported at Finnish abattoirs. Most producers found tail biting not to be a big problem on their farms and 62% of the farmers found it very unlikely that they would raise tail docked pigs even if it was legal in Finland. The more tail biting reported on the farm, the more problematic the farmers found tail biting, and the more prone they were to say they would probably tail dock if they were allowed to. According to the Finnish producers, the most important factor to prevent tail biting is that there is enough feeding space for the pigs. Altogether, four feeding-related risk factors were included in the top-10 measures to prevent tail biting. Also pig health was considered very important, as well as a good quality of piglets, and controlling air movements in the pen. Straw, newspaper, hay and cardboard were considered the most efficient manipulable materials to prevent tail biting. If tail biting has already started in the pen, the producers ranked identifying and removing the tail biter from the pen as most important, followed by adding bedding-type manipulable materials.

Conclusion: The results are partly in accordance with experimental and epidemiological studies on risk factors for tail biting, but the high focus on feeding-related and health factors is interesting. Finnish farmers appear to handle the tail docking ban well, and do not, on average, find tail biting a very serious problem.

The perception of pain by pigs and implications for farm and veterinary practice

The perception of pain by pigs and implications for farm and veterinary practice. Edwards, S., 2016. Royal Dublin Society: Abstracts book of the 24th International Pig Veterinary Society (IPVS) Congress, Dublin, Republic of Ireland 7-10th June 2016. p. 13-17.

Abstract

“Freedom from pain, injury and disease” is one of the fundamental aspects of good animal welfare. However, in commercial pig production there are a number of situations where animals may experience pain. This may result from procedures carried out deliberately for management purposes, or from spontaneous health disorders. In order to make decisions on the ethical justification of procedures and the provision of pain alleviation by appropriate anaesthesia and analgesia, it is necessary to assess the intensity and duration of pain experienced by the animals. A number of behavioural, physiological and molecular methods now exist for such assessment but, since pain is a subjective experience which the individual may express in different ways, interpreting these measures can be a challenge. Better methods are required for the practical on-farm assessment of pain and the provision of analgesia when this occurs.

Paper available in the proceedings.

Traumatic neuroma development in tail docked piglets is not associated with long-term changes in spinal nociceptive processing

Traumatic neuroma development in tail docked piglets is not associated with long-term changes in spinal nociceptive processing. By Sandercock, D., S. Smith, J. Coe, P. Di Giminiani, S. Edwards, 2016. Royal Dublin Society: Abstracts book of the 24th International Pig Veterinary Society (IPVS) Congress, Dublin, Republic of Ireland 7-10th June 2016. p. 611.

Abstract

Introduction: Concerns exist over the long term consequences for tail stump pain experienced by piglets after docking, especially in relation to traumatic neuroma development in caudal nerves after docking injury. Neuroma formation may cause detrimental sensory changes in the tail due to altered axonal excitability leading to abnormal sensation or pain.

Aims: To characterize pig tail histopathology at time intervals up to 16 weeks after tail docking and to measure expression of key neuropeptides in caudal dorsal root ganglia and spinal cord neurons associated with (i) peripheral nerve regeneration; activating transcription factor-3 (ATF3), (ii) inflammatory pain; Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and (iii) the maintenance of chronic pain; N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) ionotropic glutamate receptor subtype 2B (GRIN2B) at the same time points after tail docking injury.

Materials and Methods: Thirty-two female piglets (Landrace/Large White x synthetic sireline) were used (16 docked/16 sham-docked). Piglets were tail docked (amputation of approx. 2/3 of the tail) on post-natal day 3 using a gas hot docking iron. Equivalent sham-docked piglets served as intact controls. Pigs were euthanized by barbiturate overdose 1, 4, 8 and 16 weeks after sham/tail docking. Tail stumps (2 cm) were collected post-mortem for histopathological assessment. Caudal dorsal root ganglia (Ca1-Ca4+) and associated spinal cord were collected for gene expression analysis by real-time quantitative PCR of mRNA.

Results: Non-specific epidermal and dermal changes associated with healing were observed after tail docking. Mild inflammation, ulceration and oedema were present at 1 week. Traumatic neuroma development was a consistent feature from 4 weeks after tail docking. Neuroma axonal dispersion in the tail stump was on-going 16 weeks after tail docking. ATF-3 mRNA was significantly upregulated in caudal DRGs up to 8 weeks after tail docking, but did not differ at 16 weeks compared with sham controls. Both CGRP and GRIN2B mRNA expression was significantly upregulated 1 week after tail docking in caudal spinal cord neurons but were not significantly different from sham-docked pigs thereafter.

Conclusion: Histopathological lesions that occur shortly after tail docking (beyond 1 week) are not likely to induce or maintain pain. The effects of tail docking on peripheral nerve axonal proliferation and dispersion are relatively short-lived and, although still present, are attenuated by 16 weeks after tail docking injury. Changes in peripheral and spinal nociceptive processing associated with possible inflammatory and chronic pain appear to resolve by 4 weeks after tail docking injury.

Poster Sandercock IPVS