![]() Due to animal welfare concerns, tail docking on a routine basis is prohibited by the European Union (EC, 2001). In addition, tail docking deals with the abnormal actions only by suppressing the behavior of tail biting it does not remove the underlying welfare problems that trigger the motivations of tail biting ( Brunberg et al., 2016). The long-term effect of tail docking may include formation of traumatic neuromas, which may increase sensitivity of the docked tail ( Herskin et al., 2015 Sandercock et al., 2016). Although tail docking reduces the incidence of tail biting, it is a painful procedure for the pig ( Herskin et al., 2016). Because tail biting is difficult to predict ( Ursinus et al., 2014a Larsen et al., 2016), currently, the most common prevention method for tail biting in the United States is tail docking. All of the risk factors can be present under confinement production conditions (barren environment with fully slatted floors). Lack of manipulable materials, slatted floors, and crowding at the feeder have been identified as major risk factors for tail biting ( EFSA, 2007 D'Eath et al., 2014). Tail biting is considered an abnormal behavior caused by stress and frustration in the pig ( EFSA, 2007 Brunberg et al., 2016) and can be triggered by multiple factors, including genetics, nutrition, environment, and management ( D'Eath et al., 2014). Tail biting is a common problem in swine production and can cause considerable economic losses for pork producers and major welfare complications for pigs ( Harley et al., 2014). More research is needed to test whether compromised immune functions predispose pigs to tail biting. Tail damage can cause inflammation and reduce the value of market pigs. Results of this study demonstrated that tail docking reduced tail damage in pigs kept in a confinement system. Compared with victimized pigs and nonvictimized pigs, tail biters had lower total serum protein ( P = 0.01) and IgG ( P = 0.01) concentrations, indicating that tail biters may experience poor immune functions. For victimized pigs, total serum protein and IgG concentrations were elevated 5 d after tails were injured, suggesting that tail damage can cause inflammation, which may lead to carcass abscesses and trim loss. Victimized pigs were more frequently ( P = 0.04) sold for less than full value and had a lower dressing percentage ( P < 0.001) compared with nonvictimized pigs. Victimized pigs tended to gain less weight ( P = 0.07) between 17 and 21 wk of age than other pigs when tail biting prevailed in this study. During the growing–finishing period, 48% of pigs with docked tails and 89% of pigs with intact tails experienced lesions on their tails, including 5% of docked pigs and 30% of intact pigs identified as victimized pigs that experienced puncture wounds with signs of infection on their tails or loss of tails ( P < 0.001). When pigs were marketed, carcass weights and the number of pigs with carcass trim loss were recorded. ![]() ![]() Blood samples were collected from focal tail biters, victimized pigs, and nonvictimized pigs for analysis of total serum protein, IgG, and substance P concentrations. Growth performance was monitored, and skin lesions on the tail, ears, and body were assessed. Tail biters and victimized pigs with damaged tails were identified during outbreaks of tail biting. Pigs were housed in 8 pens of 30 pigs in a confinement barn for 16 wk, with 4 pens each housing pigs of both sexes with docked or intact tails. Pigs ( n = 240 25.7 ± 2.9 kg average weight), including 120 pigs that were tail docked at birth and 120 pigs that remained with intact tails, were used. A study was conducted to evaluate the effect of tail docking on the welfare and performance of victimized pigs by tail biting and tail biters.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |