Category Archives: Tail biting

Risk factors for tail lesions in weaner pigs

Pigs, Straw, Tail biting, Tail docking, Welfare

Factors influencing the risk for tail lesions in weaner pigs (Sus scrofa). by Angelika Grümpel, Joachim Krieter, Christina Veit, Sabine Dippel, 2018. Livestock science 216: 219-226.

Highlights

We identified five factors influencing the risk for tail lesions in weaner pigs.•

We can recommend regression tree analysis for describing tail lesion risk factors.•

Data interpretation should include information on correlations between variables.

Abstract

Tail biting is a behavioural disorder in pigs which results in tail lesions. Many factors must be considered to reduce the risk for tail biting due to the multifactorial character of this behaviour. We developed a software-based tail biting management tool called “SchwIP” for analysing farm individual risk factors for tail biting in weaner pigs. SchwIP was applied on 25 conventional farms throughout Germany who kept weaner pigs in closed barns (median 1,800 weaning places). The farms were visited up to three times between August 2016 and November 2017 and a total of 368 pens were assessed. Data regarding enrichment, pen environment, feed, water, climate, health, farm management, transport and regrouping were analysed with regression tree analysis (RT) using pen level prevalence of tail lesions (%) as the outcome variable. There were five primary influencing factors for tail lesions: docking status, stocking density, daily weight gain, suckling piglet losses and number of litters mixed during weaning. The correlation between observed and predicted prevalence of tail lesions across all pens was 0.6. Most of the factors may represent combinations of influences on a farm which agree with the multifactorial nature of the problem. Even though weight gain may also be influenced by tail biting behaviour and thus be a parallel outcome, it could be used by farmers as an indicator for initiating closer examination and intervention. The use of RT for visualising complex risk factor analyses is recommendable, though their analytical suitability for clustered data should further be evaluated.


Early indicators of tail biting in pigs

Enrichment, Pigs, Tail biting

Early indicators of tail biting outbreaks in pigs. By Maya Wedin, Emma M. Baxter, Mhairi Jack, Agnieszka Futro, Richard B. D’Eath.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science: 208: 7-12

Highlights

Tail biting in pigs is unpredictable so early indicators could help farmers.•

Behaviour of tail biting vs no tail biting groups observed for 1 week pre-outbreak.•

Outbreak groups had fewer curly tails and more tucked tails.•

Activity pre-outbreak was no different in outbreak groups.•

Day and time of day had little or no effect on these findings.

Abstract

Tail biting outbreaks in pig farming cause suffering through pain and stress, and producers lose revenue due to carcass condemnation. Reliable behavioural indications of when an outbreak is imminent would provide farmers with tools for mitigating the outbreak in advance. This study investigated changes in body and tail posture in the 7 days pre-outbreak.

Pigs in 15 groups with a mean (±s.d.) group size of 27.5 (±2.6; 427 in total) were raised from birth under intensive commercial conditions and with tails intact. Twice daily inspections were made, and a tail biting outbreak was identified (and treated) if 3 or more pigs had fresh tail injuries, or any pig was seen with a freshly bleeding tail or vigorously biting a tail. Video footage was recorded continuously to allow pre-outbreak behaviour recording of body posture (lying laterally, lying ventrally, sitting, standing) and tail posture (curled or uncurled (high, low, tucked)). Pigs were not individually marked, thus observations were made at pen level by group scan sampling 12 times per day on day -1, -3, -5 and -7 pre-outbreak. Each outbreak group was paired with a non-outbreak group of the same age and kept at the facility at the same time which served as a control. A total of 12 pairs were used. Outbreak pigs had fewer curled tails (P = 0.013) and more uncurled (P = 0.008) and tucked tails (P < 0.001) than control pigs overall, but particularly on day -1. Outbreak groups had more tucked tails compared to control on day -7 (P = 0.001). Tail posture did not vary over days, or with time of day. Body posture was not different between outbreak and control groups, and although it was affected by time of day, there was no interaction between outbreak vs. control condition and day, or time of day. Synchrony of behaviour between pigs (more pigs in the pen showing the same body posture) was not reduced in outbreak groups. In conclusion, this study supports other recent findings showing that an increase in tucked tails, and reduced curled tails is an advance indicator of a tail biting outbreak giving at least 7 days warning, and it does not matter what time of day tails are observed. Pig farmers could take note of tail posture changes to identify high risk pens. Considerable variability between pens, and in the timing and magnitude of change means that technology to automate tail posture detection will be of benefit.

Optical flow to monitor tail biting outbreaks in pigs.

Pigs, Tail biting, Tail docking

Utilization of optical flow to monitor development of tail biting outbreaks in pigs. By Y Li, H Zhang, L Johnston, M Dawkins, 2018. Journal of Animal Science 96: 519.

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate activity changes in pigs associated with outbreaks of tail biting using an optical flow platform. Pigs (n=240, 24.9 ± 2.9 kg, 9-wk old) were housed in 8 pens of 30 pigs on slatted floors for 16 weeks. Four pens housed pigs with tails docked and the other 4 pens housed pigs with tails intact. Pigs were assessed for tail scores (0=no injury to 4=severe injury) once weekly. Behaviors of pigs were video-recorded twice weekly. One-hour video segments during morning, noon, and afternoon of each recording day were analyzed for optical flow using the OPTICFLOCK platform which measures movements of pigs in each pen. The same video segments were scanned at 5-min intervals to estimate time budget for standing/walking, lying, eating, drinking, and tail biting. Compared with docked pigs, intact pigs had higher tail scores (0.5 ± 0.29 vs. 0.1 ± 0.01; P < 0.001) and higher optical flow (8.2 vs. 6.9; SE=0.42; P < 0.05), suggesting more tail injuries and higher activity levels. Intact pigs spent less time lying (P < 0.001) and more time eating (P < 0.01) and tail biting (P < 0.01), and tended to spend more time standing/walking (P=0.08) than docked pigs, which support the optical flow data. During outbreaks of tail biting, intact pigs had higher optical flow during the first outbreak (14.59, SE=0.73; P < 0.05) compared to before (5.44) and after (10.54) the outbreak, suggesting activity changes during the development of tail biting outbreaks. Across tail docking treatments and observation days, pigs had lower optical flow at noon (6.9, SE=0.33; P < 0.001) compared to morning (7.8) and afternoon (7.9), suggesting that pigs were less active at noon which was supported by the behavioral time budgets. These results suggest that optical flow might be a promising tool for monitoring activity changes in pigs during the development of tail biting.

Webcast Rearing pigs with intact tails -Expert meeting November 27-28, 2018 Grange

Meeting, Pigs, Straw, Tail biting, Tail docking, , ,

Animal Welfare: Event about progress on rearing pigs with intact tails

[Original text taken from the EU site]
Tuesday 27 – Wednesday 28 November

Dunsany, C15DA39, Ireland (live streaming available)

The European Commission is organising a two day meeting from 27 to 28 November 2018, sharing valuable insights from top EU experts on progress with rearing pigs with intact tails and thus improving their welfare.

The meeting, which will take place at the Commission’s Health and Food audit and analysis Directorate in Ireland, will be available via web streaming (see web-links below).

The topics presented are especially of interest for industry stakeholders, authorities in EU Member States, researchers, and NGOs interested in the welfare of pigs, as they focus on ongoing work to improve rearing conditions on farms to assist in the phasing out of routine tail-docking of pigs and managing the risk factors relating to tail biting.

The group of expert speakers include pig farmers and industry representative organisations, EU Member State competent authorities, research bodies, NGOs and EU institutions.  Discussions will focus on what has been done, and what remains to be done, to get better solutions for the future. The work of the newly created EU Reference Centre for Animal Welfare, focussing initially on pigs, will also be presented at this meeting. A more detailed agenda will be uploaded once all speakers have been confirmed.

Please note: The proceedings of this meeting, apart from table discussions, will be broadcast live and can be followed via the following links:

Day 1 – 27 November 2018 – 09:00-18:00

Day 2 – 28 November 2018 – 09:00-15:00

The presentations can be viewed here.

Tail posture as a detector of tail damage and an early detector of tail biting in finishing pigs

Pigs, Tail biting, ,

Tail posture as a detector of tail damage and an early detector of tail biting in finishing pigs
By Mona Lilian Vestbjerg Larsen, Heidi Mai-Lis Andersen, Lene Juul Pedersen
Applied Animal Behaviour Science

Highlights
• A tucked tail worked as a detector of tail damage in finishing pigs.
• Tail posture seemed promising as an early detector of tail biting in finishing pigs.
• Tail posture was affected by risk factors of tail damage.

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the relation between the tail posture of finishing pigs and tail damage with the aims to use tail posture as (1) a detector of tail damage, (2) an early detector of tail biting to possibly predict and prevent bleeding tail damage. Tails of each individual pig (from 112 finishing pigpens) were scored three times per week for the full study period of 10 weeks. For the first aim, tail posture was observed directly in the stable three times per week, just prior to tail scoring, and pigs with a tucked tail were related to their tail scoring. The odds of being scored with a tail wound (both bleeding and non-bleeding) increased by almost sixfold if the pig was also observed with a tucked tail on the same day. More precisely, 28% of the pigs with a tucked tail were also scored with a tail wound, whereas this was only the case for 5% of the pigs with a different tail posture. This relation between a tucked tail and tail damage was larger than previously found in weaners and suggests that a tucked tail could be used as a detector of tail damage, although with the risk of many false identifications of tail damage. For the second aim, tail posture was observed from video the last 3 days prior to bleeding tail damage for case pens (n = 20; at least one pig with a bleeding tail wound) and their matched controls (n = 20). The number of pigs with lowered tails (below the tail root) was observed by scan sampling during 6 h per day. A generally higher probability of having a lowered tail was seen in the case pens compared to the control pens, but the probability of having a lowered tail did not increase prior to bleeding tail damage. Thus, the results indicate that tail posture is a promising early detector of tail biting in finishing pigs, but observations going further back than 3 days from bleeding tail damage are needed to find out when the difference in tail posture arises. Alternatively, a less severe definition of tail damage could be used. Further, the differences found were relatively small, and thus to be able to predict pens in future risk of tail damage from changes in tail posture would probably demand the development of an automatic recording method for the number of lowered tails at pen level.

An animal‐based screening method for sufficient amount of straw to fulfil the need for exploration and manipulation

Pigs, Straw, Tail biting, Tail docking, , , , ,

An animal‐based screening method for sufficient amount of straw to fulfil the need for exploration and manipulation

By Margit Bak Jensen and Lene Juul Pedersen, October 19, 2018

This document describes a screening method to assess if pigs are supplied with a sufficient amount of straw to fulfil their need for exploration and manipulation through collection of data on the availability of straw, pigs’ exploratory behaviour and lesion scoring.

Read more: An animal‐based screening method for sufficient amount of straw to fulfil the need for exploration and manipulation

Early intervention with enrichment can prevent tail biting outbreaks in weaner pigs

Enrichment, Pigs, Tail biting, , , ,

Early intervention with enrichment can prevent tail biting outbreaks in weaner pigs
Lahrmann et al. 2018. Livestock Science.

Highlights

• Providing extra enrichment as an early intervention reduced tail biting outbreaks.
• Tail damage was observed among weaner pigs with intact tails in 58 of 60 pens.
• Solitary tail damage did occur without escalating into tail biting outbreaks.

Abstract

Tail biting is a serious animal welfare problem in the modern pig production. A frequently studied preventive measure is enrichment materials, and increasing levels of enrichment materials, especially litter materials, reduces the risk of tail biting. However, permanent access to litter materials, can cause blockage of the slurry system and increase production cost. The aim of the present study was, therefore, to investigate if providing extra enrichment material, when observing the first tail damage could reduce the prevalence of tail biting outbreaks. The study included 1804 weaner pigs from 7 to 30 kg distributed in 60 pens with intact tails. As basic enrichment material, pens were equipped with two wooden sticks and daily provided with approximately 400 g of fine chopped straw. From outside the pen pigs were checked for tail damages three times weekly. When the first tail damage (fresh or scabbed) was recorded, the pen was assigned to one of four treatments; chopped straw (approximately 200 g/pen) on the floor (straw), haylage in a spherical cage (haylage), hanging rope with a sweet block (rope) or no extra material (control). From first treatment day and until a tail biting outbreak, tails were scored three times weekly. A tail biting outbreak occurred when four pigs in a pen had a tail damage, irrespective of wound freshness. The experiment was designed to compare the prevalence of tail biting outbreaks in each of the extra material group with the control group. A treatment was carried out in 44 of the 60 pens: 10 pens with straw, 8 pens with haylage, 7 pens with rope and 19 control pens. The risk of a tail biting outbreak was significantly lower in pens with haylage and straw compared with control pens (P < 0.05), and there tended to be fewer tail biting outbreaks in rope-pens compared with control pens (P = 0.08). The results should, though, be interpreted with caution due to the relatively small sample size. In control pens with no intervention, a tail biting outbreak developed in 42% of the pens within two to five days after the first tail damage was observed, whereas a tail biting outbreak did not occur in 32% of the control pens. In conclusion, a regular tail inspection and the use of extra enrichment material, when the first minor tail damage occur, could be one way to reduce the prevalence of tail biting outbreaks.

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

Pigs, Tail biting, , , ,

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

Pigs, Tail biting, Tail docking

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.

Prophylactic use of antibiotics affects piglet welfare

Tail biting, , ,

Do weaner pigs need in-feed antibiotics to ensure good health and welfare?
By Alessia Diana, Edgar G. Manzanilla, Julia A. Calderon Diaz, Finola C. Leonard,
Laura A. Boyle. 2017. PlosOne.

Abstract

Antibiotics (AB) are used in intensive pig production systems to control infectious diseases
and they are suspected to be a major source of antibiotic resistance. Following the ban on
AB use as growth promoters in the EU, their prophylactic use in-feed is now under review.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of removing prophylactic in-feed AB on pig
health and welfare indicators. Every Monday for six weeks, a subset of 70 pigs were
weaned, tagged and sorted into two groups of 35 pigs according to weight (9.2 ± 0.6 kg). AB
were removed from the diet of one group (NO, n = 6) and maintained in the other group (AB,
n = 6) for nine weeks. Ten focal pigs were chosen per group. After c. five weeks each group
was split into two pens of c.17 pigs for the following 4 weeks. Data were recorded weekly.
Skin, tail, ear, flank and limb lesions of focal pigs were scored according to severity. The
number of animals per group affected by health deviations was also recorded. The number
of fights and harmful behaviours (ear, tail bites) per group was counted during 3×5min
observations once per week. Data were analysed using mixed model equations and binomial
logistic regression. At group level, AB pigs were more likely to have tail (OR = 1.70; P =
0.05) but less likely to have ear lesions than NO pigs (OR = 0.46; P<0.05). The number of
ear bites (21.4±2.15 vs. 17.3±1.61; P<0.05) and fights (6.91±0.91 vs. 5.58±0.72; P = 0.09)
was higher in AB than in NO pigs. There was no effect of treatment on health deviations and
the frequency of these was low. Removing AB from the feed of weaner pigs had minimal
effects on health and welfare indicators.