Behavioural differences between weaner pigs with intact and docked tails

MA Paoli, HP Lahrmann, T Jensen, RB D'Eath

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)
5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Tail-biting in pigs (Sus scrofa) reduces welfare and production. Tail-docking reduces (but does not eliminate) tail-biting damage. The reason tail-docking reduces tail damage is unknown. It may reduce pigs’ attraction to tails (H1), or increase tails’ sensitivity to investigation (H2). To investigate these hypotheses, behavioural differences between 472 individually marked grower pigs with intact tails (nine groups of 25–34 pigs) or docked tails (nine groups of 22–24 pigs) were observed from 5–8 weeks of age on a commercial farm in Denmark. Pens had part-slatted floors, dry feeding and two handfuls of straw per day, and enrichment objects were provided. Behavioural sampling recorded actor and recipient for tail-directed (tail interest, tail in mouth, tail reaction) and investigatory behaviours (belly-nosing, ear-chewing, interaction with enrichment). Scan sampling recorded pig posture/activity and tail posture. Intact-tail pigs performed more overall investigatory behaviours but tail type did not affect the amount of tail-directed behaviours. Larger pigs performed more investigatory and tail-directed behaviours than smaller pigs and females performed slightly more tail investigation. Tail-directed behaviours were not consistent over time at the individual or group level. However, ear-chewing was consistent at the group level. One group with intact tails was affected by a tail-biting outbreak in the final week of the study (evidenced by tail-damage scores) and showed an increase over time in tail posture (tail down) and tail-directed behaviour but not activity. Overall, there were few behavioural differences between docked and undocked pigs: no evidence of reduced tail investigation (H1) or an increased reaction to tail investigation (H2) in docked pigs, and yet docked pigs had less tail damage. We propose that docking might be effective because longer tails are more easily damaged as pigs are able to bite them with their cheek teeth.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)287 - 296
Number of pages10
JournalAnimal Welfare
Volume25
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusFirst published - 1 May 2016

Fingerprint

feeder pigs
tail
swine
posture
tail docking
mastication

Bibliographical note

1030395
62100072

Keywords

  • Abnormal behaviour
  • Animal welfare
  • Intact tail
  • Pigs
  • Tail-biting
  • Tail-docking

Cite this

Paoli, MA ; Lahrmann, HP ; Jensen, T ; D'Eath, RB. / Behavioural differences between weaner pigs with intact and docked tails. In: Animal Welfare. 2016 ; Vol. 25, No. 2. pp. 287 - 296.
@article{f0c946870c5b406ab59590efc516058a,
title = "Behavioural differences between weaner pigs with intact and docked tails",
abstract = "Tail-biting in pigs (Sus scrofa) reduces welfare and production. Tail-docking reduces (but does not eliminate) tail-biting damage. The reason tail-docking reduces tail damage is unknown. It may reduce pigs’ attraction to tails (H1), or increase tails’ sensitivity to investigation (H2). To investigate these hypotheses, behavioural differences between 472 individually marked grower pigs with intact tails (nine groups of 25–34 pigs) or docked tails (nine groups of 22–24 pigs) were observed from 5–8 weeks of age on a commercial farm in Denmark. Pens had part-slatted floors, dry feeding and two handfuls of straw per day, and enrichment objects were provided. Behavioural sampling recorded actor and recipient for tail-directed (tail interest, tail in mouth, tail reaction) and investigatory behaviours (belly-nosing, ear-chewing, interaction with enrichment). Scan sampling recorded pig posture/activity and tail posture. Intact-tail pigs performed more overall investigatory behaviours but tail type did not affect the amount of tail-directed behaviours. Larger pigs performed more investigatory and tail-directed behaviours than smaller pigs and females performed slightly more tail investigation. Tail-directed behaviours were not consistent over time at the individual or group level. However, ear-chewing was consistent at the group level. One group with intact tails was affected by a tail-biting outbreak in the final week of the study (evidenced by tail-damage scores) and showed an increase over time in tail posture (tail down) and tail-directed behaviour but not activity. Overall, there were few behavioural differences between docked and undocked pigs: no evidence of reduced tail investigation (H1) or an increased reaction to tail investigation (H2) in docked pigs, and yet docked pigs had less tail damage. We propose that docking might be effective because longer tails are more easily damaged as pigs are able to bite them with their cheek teeth.",
keywords = "Abnormal behaviour, Animal welfare, Intact tail, Pigs, Tail-biting, Tail-docking",
author = "MA Paoli and HP Lahrmann and T Jensen and RB D'Eath",
note = "1030395 62100072",
year = "2016",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.7120/09627286.25.2.287",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "287 -- 296",
journal = "Animal Welfare",
issn = "0962-7286",
publisher = "Universities Federation for Animal Welfare",
number = "2",

}

Behavioural differences between weaner pigs with intact and docked tails. / Paoli, MA; Lahrmann, HP; Jensen, T; D'Eath, RB.

In: Animal Welfare, Vol. 25, No. 2, 01.05.2016, p. 287 - 296.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Behavioural differences between weaner pigs with intact and docked tails

AU - Paoli, MA

AU - Lahrmann, HP

AU - Jensen, T

AU - D'Eath, RB

N1 - 1030395 62100072

PY - 2016/5/1

Y1 - 2016/5/1

N2 - Tail-biting in pigs (Sus scrofa) reduces welfare and production. Tail-docking reduces (but does not eliminate) tail-biting damage. The reason tail-docking reduces tail damage is unknown. It may reduce pigs’ attraction to tails (H1), or increase tails’ sensitivity to investigation (H2). To investigate these hypotheses, behavioural differences between 472 individually marked grower pigs with intact tails (nine groups of 25–34 pigs) or docked tails (nine groups of 22–24 pigs) were observed from 5–8 weeks of age on a commercial farm in Denmark. Pens had part-slatted floors, dry feeding and two handfuls of straw per day, and enrichment objects were provided. Behavioural sampling recorded actor and recipient for tail-directed (tail interest, tail in mouth, tail reaction) and investigatory behaviours (belly-nosing, ear-chewing, interaction with enrichment). Scan sampling recorded pig posture/activity and tail posture. Intact-tail pigs performed more overall investigatory behaviours but tail type did not affect the amount of tail-directed behaviours. Larger pigs performed more investigatory and tail-directed behaviours than smaller pigs and females performed slightly more tail investigation. Tail-directed behaviours were not consistent over time at the individual or group level. However, ear-chewing was consistent at the group level. One group with intact tails was affected by a tail-biting outbreak in the final week of the study (evidenced by tail-damage scores) and showed an increase over time in tail posture (tail down) and tail-directed behaviour but not activity. Overall, there were few behavioural differences between docked and undocked pigs: no evidence of reduced tail investigation (H1) or an increased reaction to tail investigation (H2) in docked pigs, and yet docked pigs had less tail damage. We propose that docking might be effective because longer tails are more easily damaged as pigs are able to bite them with their cheek teeth.

AB - Tail-biting in pigs (Sus scrofa) reduces welfare and production. Tail-docking reduces (but does not eliminate) tail-biting damage. The reason tail-docking reduces tail damage is unknown. It may reduce pigs’ attraction to tails (H1), or increase tails’ sensitivity to investigation (H2). To investigate these hypotheses, behavioural differences between 472 individually marked grower pigs with intact tails (nine groups of 25–34 pigs) or docked tails (nine groups of 22–24 pigs) were observed from 5–8 weeks of age on a commercial farm in Denmark. Pens had part-slatted floors, dry feeding and two handfuls of straw per day, and enrichment objects were provided. Behavioural sampling recorded actor and recipient for tail-directed (tail interest, tail in mouth, tail reaction) and investigatory behaviours (belly-nosing, ear-chewing, interaction with enrichment). Scan sampling recorded pig posture/activity and tail posture. Intact-tail pigs performed more overall investigatory behaviours but tail type did not affect the amount of tail-directed behaviours. Larger pigs performed more investigatory and tail-directed behaviours than smaller pigs and females performed slightly more tail investigation. Tail-directed behaviours were not consistent over time at the individual or group level. However, ear-chewing was consistent at the group level. One group with intact tails was affected by a tail-biting outbreak in the final week of the study (evidenced by tail-damage scores) and showed an increase over time in tail posture (tail down) and tail-directed behaviour but not activity. Overall, there were few behavioural differences between docked and undocked pigs: no evidence of reduced tail investigation (H1) or an increased reaction to tail investigation (H2) in docked pigs, and yet docked pigs had less tail damage. We propose that docking might be effective because longer tails are more easily damaged as pigs are able to bite them with their cheek teeth.

KW - Abnormal behaviour

KW - Animal welfare

KW - Intact tail

KW - Pigs

KW - Tail-biting

KW - Tail-docking

U2 - 10.7120/09627286.25.2.287

DO - 10.7120/09627286.25.2.287

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 287

EP - 296

JO - Animal Welfare

JF - Animal Welfare

SN - 0962-7286

IS - 2

ER -