How much is enough? The amount of straw necessary to satisfy pigs’ need to perform exploratory behaviour

Use of organic material provided by an automatic enrichment device by weaner pigs and its influence on tail lesions

Providing pigs with organic enrichment material is important for satisfying pigs' natural explorative behavior to prevent injurious tail biting and thus increase animal welfare in general. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of automatically supplied enrichment material of three different types (alfalfa pellets, oat bran pellets, or a mixture of both) and different enrichment frequencies (2, 4, or 6 supplies/day) on the behavior, the occurrence of tail biting, and daily weight gains of weaner pigs. The results showed significant effects and interactions of enrichment material, frequency and the time of day on the exploratory behavior, the occurrence of tail biting, and daily weight gains. Higher probabilities for pigs using the enrichment material were observed for groups provided with only two supplies/day or receiving oat bran pellets. Additionally, more pigs explored the material when supplied in the afternoon compared to the morning. Tail lesions began to increase in week 4 of the rearing period. Higher probabilities of having a tail lesion were recorded in groups provided with two supplies/day compared to four or six supplies per day. Furthermore, the highest probabilities for pigs having a tail length loss at the end of the rearing period were shown by groups receiving two supplies/day, with 0.170 for alfalfa pellets, 0.342 for mixture, and 0.486 for oat bran pellets. For daily weight gains, only alfalfa groups differed significantly from mixture groups in the case of two supplies/day. No differences were observed for the other factor combinations. These results showed the potential of an automatic enrichment device supporting pigs in performing their natural exploratory behavior in a conventional housing system. Higher numbers of daily enrichment supplies show beneficial effects to reduce the occurrence of tail biting and tail length losses.

How do different amounts of straw as well as compost in the home pen affect the rooting motivation of growing-finishing pigs?

Rooting is a strongly motivated, species-specific behaviour of pigs. Most housing systems do not provide appropriate materials that enable the full expression of this behaviour, and it remains unclear whether straw is suitable to entirely fulfil the rooting motivation of pigs. We therefore investigated the suitability of small (minimal) and large (deep) amounts of straw as well as large amounts of compost to satisfy rooting motivation in pigs. Fifty-seven growing-finishing pigs were housed in three pens, each providing permanent access to one of the three treatment substrates. Eight pigs per group were tested individually in a classical preference test (PT) and another eight pigs in a conditioned place preference test (CPPT). In the tests, pigs could show their preference to consume freely available feed ("feed") or feed hidden in sawdust ("root"). In the CPPT, feed was only present during training but not during testing. Pigs were exposed to the test situation twice, with approximately 72 kg and 115 kg BW. In both tests, the following variables were measured and used as outcome variables in linear mixed effect models: first decision to choose one of the two stimuli ("feed" or "root"), duration of time spent in proximity to "root", number of changes between stimuli, and latency to the first decision. Overall, the pigs' first decision (by tendency; P = 0.076) and the duration in proximity to "root" (P = 0.034) varied among treatments: Pigs housed with minimal straw tended to be more likely to choose "root" first (posthoc comparison; P = 0.090) and spent more time in proximity to "root" (P = 0.030) than pigs housed with compost, whereas pigs housed with deep straw were intermediate. Interestingly, the patterns of response to the treatment differed depending on the behavioural tests for both, first decision (interaction; P = 0.032) and duration in proximity to "root" (interaction; by tendency; P = 0.006). In addition, pigs in the PT changed more often between stimuli than pigs in the CPPT (P < 0.001). There was a tendency for an interactive effect between test and treatment for latency to first decision (interaction; P = 0.082), though pairwise comparisons did not reveal any differences. We concluded that in this study housing with permanent access to compost satisfied rooting motivation in pigs more than housing with minimal amounts of straw.

Access to bedding and outdoor runs for growing-finishing pigs: is it possible to improve welfare without increasing environmental impacts?

Providing bedding or access to an outdoor run are husbandry aspects intended to improve pig welfare, which is currently financially supported through animal welfare schemes in several European countries. However, they may significantly affect the environment through changes in feed efficiency and manure management. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to compare farms differing in animal welfare relevant husbandry aspects regarding (1) the welfare of growing-finishing pigs and (2) environmental impact categories such as global warming (GW), acidification (AC), and freshwater (FE) and marine eutrophication (ME), by employing an attributional Life Cycle Assessment. We collected data on 50 farms with growing-finishing pigs in seven European countries. Ten animal-based welfare indicators were aggregated into three pig welfare indices using principal component analysis. Cluster analysis of farms based on husbandry aspects resulted in three clusters: NOBED (31 farms without bedding or outdoor run), BED (11 farms with bedding only) and BEDOUT (eight farms with bedding and outdoor run). Pigs on farms with bedding (BED and BEDOUT) manipulated enrichment more often (P < 0.001), pen fixtures less frequently (P = 0.003) and showed fewer oral stereotypies (P < 0.001) than pigs on NOBED farms. There were fewer pigs with a short(er) tail on farms with than without bedding (P < 0.001). Acidification of BEDOUT and BED farms was significantly higher (compared to NOBED farms P = 0.002) due to higher ammonia emissions related to farmyard manure. Also, BEDOUT farms had higher ME than NOBED farms (P = 0.035). There were no significant differences regarding GW and FE between husbandry clusters, due to the large variability within clusters regarding feed composition and conversion. Therefore, both husbandry aspects associated with improved animal welfare have a significant influence on some environmental impacts, such as acidification and marine eutrophication. Nevertheless, the large variation within clusters suggests that trade-offs may be minimised through e.g. AC and ME.

Impact of feed, light and access to manipulable material on tail biting in pigs with intact tails

BACKGROUND

Tail biting (TB) is a welfare issue with economic consequences due to infections and ill-thrift. This study aimed to reduce tail injuries in a high-performing non-tail-docking pig herd.

RESULTS

During eleven years preceding the trial, the annual incidence of tail injuries registered at slaughter in pigs from the herd increased from 3% (equivalent to the national mean) to 10%. It was positively correlated to a high weight gain and negatively correlated to daylight length. The overall incidence of tail injuries during the four years preceding the trial was 9.2% with significant differences between four identically structured buildings for fatteners (I < II < III < IV). The feed was enriched with amino acids, minerals and fibres. The buildings used different illumination strategies, I: standard fluorescent tubes with an invisible flickering light of 30-40% for 14 h daily, II: non-flickering led light for 14 h daily, III (control) and IV: standard fluorescent tubes for 2 h daily. IV had free access to manipulable material (hay-silage), while I-III was offered 100-200 g daily. During the adaptation period (6 months), the incidence of tail injuries decreased significantly in all buildings to a mean of 5.4%. The largest decrease (from 11.4 to 4.3%) was obtained in IV. During the trial period (12 months), the mean incidence of tail injuries decreased in all groups to a mean of 3.0%. There were no differences in treatment incidences of individual pigs due to TB between groups, but the use of enriched pellets due to TB in pens was lowest in II. The low incidence of tail injuries was retained during the post-trial period (6 months) when all buildings used artificial illumination for two hours per day.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of TB in fast growing non-tail-docked pigs in the herd was successfully reduced by supplementing the feed with amino acids, minerals, vitamins and fibres. Additional manipulable material accelerated that process and non-flickering illumination may have had an impact in preventing TB. The results obtained do not support the need for tail-docking of pigs, provided that the needs of the pigs in terms of feed ingredients, stocking density and access to manipulable materials are fulfilled.

Welfare of pigs on farm

This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of pigs on farm, and is based on literature and expert opinion. All pig categories were assessed: gilts and dry sows, farrowing and lactating sows, suckling piglets, weaners, rearing pigs and boars. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal-based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. Recommendations are also provided on quantitative or qualitative criteria to answer specific questions on the welfare of pigs related to tail biting and related to the European Citizen's Initiative 'End the Cage Age'. For example, the AHAW Panel recommends how to mitigate group stress when dry sows and gilts are grouped immediately after weaning or in early pregnancy. Results of a comparative qualitative assessment suggested that long-stemmed or long-cut straw, hay or haylage is the most suitable material for nest-building. A period of time will be needed for staff and animals to adapt to housing lactating sows and their piglets in farrowing pens (as opposed to crates) before achieving stable welfare outcomes. The panel recommends a minimum available space to the lactating sow to ensure piglet welfare (measured by live-born piglet mortality). Among the main risk factors for tail biting are space allowance, types of flooring, air quality, health status and diet composition, while weaning age was not associated directly with tail biting in later life. The relationship between the availability of space and growth rate, lying behaviour and tail biting in rearing pigs is quantified and presented. Finally, the panel suggests a set of ABMs to use at slaughter for monitoring on-farm welfare of cull sows and rearing pigs.

The Effects of Refilling Additional Rooting Material on Exploration Duration and Tail Damages in Rearing and Fattening Pigs

Pigs housed in commercial barns with slatted floors cannot fully perform their natural behavioral needs such as rooting or exploring. Enrichment materials can stimulate these behaviors in pigs. Here, we investigated whether exploration can be stimulated by offering additional enrichment material, i.e., chopped straw, once compared to four times daily. In two replicates each with four rearing and eight fattening pens, a total of 192 pigs with undocked tails continuously received chopped straw from a dispenser, while a stimulus to explore was given by filling the rooting area of the dispenser either once (R1) or four times (R4) daily with additional chopped straw. The dispensers were equipped with an ultra-high-frequency radio-frequency-identification (UHF-RFID) system in order to record the exploration durations of each individual pig at the dispenser. At four times throughout rearing and fattening, pigs were weighted and tail injuries and length losses were assessed. This resulted in three temporal sections within each replicate, for each of which the difference in tail length to the previous section (Δ-tail length) was calculated. Exploration durations did not change in long-term but increased from rearing throughout fattening. The refillings in which additional chopped straw was offered (R1 vs. R4) did not affect the overall exploration duration during rearing (linear mixed effects model (LME), P = 0.85) or fattening (LME, P = 0.66). However, descriptive evaluations showed that exploration durations decreased within the first 10-min sequences within the hour after refilling the rooting area with additional chopped straw in both treatments (R1 and R4). Exploration durations were affected by week, day, and hour within day during rearing (LME, all factors, P &lt; 0.0001) and fattening (LME, all factors, P &lt; 0.0001). Neither tail injuries nor length losses were affected by the refilling treatment (R1 vs. R4) during rearing (GLMM, both P &gt; 0.1) or fattening (GLMM, both P &gt; 0.1). Offering additional straw four times compared to once a day had no advantage in the present setting with regard to exploration duration and tail damages of pigs. However, refilling the rooting area with additional chopped straw triggered a short-term increase of exploration that decreased within 1 h, thus, exploration was more spread over the day.

Interactive Rooting Towers and Behavioural Observations as Strategies to Reduce Tail Biting on Conventional Pig Fattening Farms

Eight pens (25 pigs/pen; n = 200) provided with an interactive straw-filled rooting tower (experimental group) and five pens (25 pigs/pen; n = 125) with a stationary (fixed) tower without straw (control group) were compared within three fattening periods on a conventional farm with fully slatted flooring. The effectiveness of the tower to trigger favourable behaviour in feeding and outside feeding periods was assessed. The incidence of deep tail injuries was lower in the experimental group (experimental group: Odds Ratio 0.3, p < 0.001) and was influenced by the batch (Odds Ratio: 2.38, p < 0.001) but not by pen and sex. In spring, most pens were excluded due to severe tail biting. Tail injury scores were more severe in the control group in weeks 5, 6 and 7 compared to the experimental group (p = 0.002, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). Tower manipulation was more frequent during feeding compared to outside feeding time (p = 0.002). More head than tail manipulation occurred in the experimental group (p = 0.03). The interactive tower as the only measure was not appropriate to reduce tail biting sufficiently in pigs with intact tails on a conventional fattening farm. Of high priority to prevent tail biting outbreaks was the early detection of biting pigs.

Tail-Biting in Pigs: A Scoping Review

Tail-biting is globally recognized as a welfare concern for commercial swine production. Substantial research has been undertaken to identify risk factors and intervention methods to decrease and understand this vice. Tail-biting appears to be multifactorial and has proven difficult to predict and control. The primary objective of the scoping review was to identify and chart all available literature on the risk factors and interventions associated with tail-biting in pigs. A secondary objective was to identify gaps in the literature and identify the relevance for a systematic review. An online literature search of four databases, encompassing English, peer-reviewed and grey literature published from 1 January 1970 to 31 May 2019, was conducted. Relevance screening and charting of included articles were performed by two independent reviewers. A total of 465 citations were returned from the search strategy. Full-text screening was conducted on 118 articles, with 18 being excluded in the final stage. Interventions, possible risk factors, as well as successful and unsuccessful outcomes were important components of the scoping review. The risk factors and interventions pertaining to tail-biting were inconsistent, demonstrating the difficulty of inducing tail-biting in an experimental environment and the need for standardizing terms related to the behavior.

Effect of Straw Provision in Racks on Tail Lesions, Straw Availability, and Pen Hygiene in Finishing Pigs

Unfulfilled exploratory behavior in pigs has been linked to tail biting, which causes reduced performance and welfare. Provision of straw can reduce tail biting, but large straw rations can cause poor hygiene in pens. This study examined whether provision of straw in racks, rather than on the pen floor, can enable larger straw rations without compromising hygiene. The study was conducted on a commercial farm with 458 undocked pigs in 42 pens provided with straw in racks or on the floor. Available straw and manual cleaning requirement were assessed daily, and presence of tail lesions was assessed weekly. Both treatments had a low requirement for manual cleaning (Floor: 1.7%, Rack: 1.8%). Pigs in the rack treatment had a higher incidence of lesions early in the production period, which coincided with these pigs initially not consuming straw from the rack, leading to low straw access. Late in the production period, these pigs had learned how to use the rack and had a lower incidence of lesions than pigs in the floor treatment. Delayed use of the rack may have been linked to undeveloped spatial skills in the pigs, which needs further research.

A High Enrichment Replenishment Rate Reduces Damaging Behaviors and Increases Growth Rate in Undocked Pigs Kept in Fully Slatted Pens

One of the difficulties in complying with the prohibition of routine tail docking is a lack of effective alternative solutions to prevent tail biting, especially in fully slatted systems. This study compared three slat-compatible enrichment replenishment strategies for pigs. Forty-eight mixed-sex pens (six males and six females/pen) of undocked pigs were followed from birth to slaughter. Pre-weaning, half the pigs were provided with enrichment materials (a cardboard cup, rubber toy, hessian cloth and bamboo), in addition to a rope for the sows, in all farrowing crates. Post-weaning, all pens were enriched with eight identical items, including an elevated rack supplied with fresh-cut grass, and objects of wooden, bamboo, rubber, and fabric materials presented in various ways. However, three different replenishment frequencies were applied: "Low" (replenished on Monday/Wednesday/Friday), "Medium" (replenished once daily), and "High" (replenished ad libitum). Individual pigs were weighed on days 0, 49, 91, and 113 post-weaning. Direct behavior observations were conducted twice weekly at pen level (10 min/day/pen), and tail and ear lesion scores of individual pigs were also recorded every other week. These measurements were taken during the post-weaning period. The cost of all enrichment materials used was calculated. Pre-weaning enrichment only contributed to a lower ear lesion score (P = 0.04). No difference in lesion scores was found between post-weaning treatments. "Low" replenishment rate pigs performed more damaging behaviors (tail/ear biting, belly-nosing, mounting, other biting, and aggressive behaviors combined) than "High" and "Medium" pigs (P < 0.01). The average daily gain in the finishing stage was higher in "High" than "Low" pigs (P < 0.05). Although sporadic tail biting occurred, only 0.69% of the pigs had their tails bitten severely enough that they became shorter than half of a normal undocked tail. The average enrichment cost for the post-weaning period was <€2 per pig. In conclusion, the high enrichment replenishment rate increased growth and reduced damaging behaviors compared to the low replenishment rate pigs. Overall, these findings show that the provision and regular replenishment of multiple, slat-compatible, enrichment sources can reduce tail damage to manageable levels without the need for tail docking.

Impact of amount of straw on pig and pen hygiene in partly slatted flooring systems

BACKGROUND

Straw is a beneficial enrichment material for pigs, shown to improve welfare through reducing tail biting. Straw has previously been identified as one of the means of how to raise pigs without tail docking, through improving natural exploratory behaviour. Straw has however been linked to poor pen hygiene, making farmers reluctant to use straw and has largely not been implemented in commercial farming worldwide. Straw is a beneficial enrichment material for pigs, shown to improve welfare and reduce abnormal behaviour such as tail biting.

RESULTS

This study investigates the impact of straw on pig and pen hygiene in pens with partly slatted floor in three grower and four finishing pig batches on five commercial farms (2329 pigs, 211 pens) in Sweden which were providing straw daily. Each batch was divided into two treatments; Control: 50-600 g straw/pen/day based on the farm normal straw ration; and Extra straw; (=doubled Control ration). The pens were scored based on cleanliness of the pigs, solid and slatted pen floor every second week. The pig and pen hygiene were mostly scored as clean in both treatments, overall around 1% of the observations were considered dirty/soiled.

CONCLUSIONS

As very few pens or pigs were considered dirty, it was concluded that straw provision is possible without risking poor pig and pen hygiene. Few observations in this study were considered dirty regardless of amount of straw that was provided, and had likely to do with other factors in the production rather than straw ration. These results implies that straw could be used in partly slatted pens in order to improve pig environment but more research is needed to quantify the impact of other external factors related to climate (e.g. temperature, humidity, velocity).

Utilization of Optical Flow Algorithms to Monitor Development of Tail Biting Outbreaks in Pigs

A study was conducted to evaluate activity changes in pigs associated with the development of tail-biting outbreaks using optical flow algorithms. Pigs (n = 120; initial body weight = 25 ± 2.9 kg) housed in four pens of 30 pigs were studied for 13 weeks. Outbreaks of tail biting were registered through daily observations. Behavior of pigs in each pen was video-recorded. Three one-hour video segments, representing morning, noon, and afternoon on days 10, 7, and 3 before and during the first outbreak of tail biting were scanned at 5-min intervals to estimate time budget for lying, standing, eating, drinking, pig-directed behavior, and tail biting. The same video segments were analyzed for optical flow. Mean optical flow was higher three days before and during the tail-biting outbreak, compared to 10 days before the outbreak (p < 0.05), suggesting that pigs may increase their activity three days before tail-biting outbreaks. All optical flow measures (mean, variance, skewness, and kurtosis) were correlated (all p < 0.01) with time spent standing, indicating that movement during standing may be associated with optical flow measures. These results suggest that optical flow might be a promising tool for automatically monitoring activity changes to predict tail-biting outbreaks in pigs.

Effect of straw amount on feed intake and weight gain in growing pigs housed in pens with partly slatted floor

The provision of straw to pigs kept in conventional pens with concrete floor improves animal welfare, but the effects of straw on pigs' performance are unclear. In two steps, we investigated the relationship between amount of straw provided to pigs and measures of performance in a set-up maintaining constant space allowance and controlled room temperature. From approximately 30- to 85-kg BW, pigs were housed in groups of 18 in pens (5.48 m × 2.48 m) with concrete floor (1/3 solid, 1/3 drained and 1/3 slatted). The pens were cleaned manually twice a week, and the designated amount of fresh uncut wheat straw was provided daily onto the solid part of the floor. In the first step, 48 pens were assigned to 10-, 500- or 1000-g straw per pig per day, while in the second step, 90 pens were assigned to 10-, 80-, 150-, 220-, 290-, 360-, 430- or 500-g straw per pig per day. Pigs were weighed at the start of the experimental period at approximately 30 kg and again at approximately 85-kg BW. The average daily gain increased 8.1 g (SEM 17) for every extra 100-g straw added daily (P < 0.001) resulting in 40 g higher average daily gain with 500 compared to 10-g straw per pig per day. The feed conversion ratio was not affected by the amount of straw provided, as the feed intake tended to be higher with increasing amounts of straw. Thus, between 10 and 500 g, the more straw provided, the higher the daily weight gain. As the nutritional value of straw is considered minimal, this result is likely due to improved gut health from the increasing amounts of straw ingested and increased feed intake due to increased stimulation of exploratory behaviour with increasing amounts of straw available, or a combination of these. The observed tendency for a higher feed intake supports this suggestion, but studies are needed to establish the impact of these two contributing factors.

Effect of pen design on tail biting and tail-directed behaviour of finishing pigs with intact tails

Tail biting is a welfare and economical concern in modern pig production. One common preventive measure used throughout the world is tail docking, which is generally considered one of the most effective methods for limiting tail biting. However, tail docking is a painful mutilation and systematic tail docking is not allowed in the EU. Therefore, the aim was to compare pig behaviour and the prevalence of tail biting in finishing pigs with intact tails housed in two different pen designs under Danish commercial conditions. PEN1 was a traditional Danish pen and PEN2 was inspired by Swedish finisher pen design and had a larger proportion of solid floor area (PEN1: 1/3 and PEN2: 2/3), reduced group size (PEN1: 15 and PEN2: 12), increased space allowance per head (PEN1: 0.7 m2 and PEN2: 0.89 m2) and straw allocated on the floor (PEN2) whereas straw was provided in a straw rack in PEN1. Tail damage observations were carried out daily by the stockperson and every 2 weeks one trained research technician assessed tail damages according to a tail scoring system. Tail lesions were observed in 51% of PEN1 and in 11% of PEN2 (P < 0.001). PEN1 had higher prevalence of tail damages than PEN2 (23% v. 5%, P < 0.001). Behavioural observations were carried out by the use of video recordings. Pigs in PEN2 tended to spend more time on tail-directed behaviour than pigs in PEN1 (P = 0.07), whereas pigs in PEN1 tended to spend more time on ear-directed behaviour (P = 0.08). Pigs in PEN2 spent more time on straw-directed behaviour compared to pigs in PEN1 (P < 0.001). Pen design did not affect time spent on other penmate-directed behaviour. In addition, the level of welfare between the two pen designs was compared using the Welfare Quality® protocol. PEN2 received an overall score of 'excellent' while PEN1 scored 'enhanced'. PEN2 scored higher on all principles besides 'good health', where PEN1 scored better on lameness and wounds. The main measurements accounting for the differences were water supply, huddling, tail biting, social behaviour and fear of humans. In conclusion, the combination of increased space allowance, increased area of solid flooring, straw allocated onto the floor and reduced group size (PEN2) resulted in fewer tail damaged pigs and a better overall welfare assessment, despite a tendency for more tail-directed behaviour.

The effect of docking length on the risk of tail biting, tail-directed behaviour, aggression and activity level of growing pigs kept under commercial conditions

Tail biting in domestic pigs relates to a range of risk factors, primarily in the pigs' environment. Preventive tail docking is widely used, and various experimental approaches suggest that docking reduces the risk of tail biting. However, whether the docking length affects the prevalence of tail biting outbreaks is less studied, as is how a shortened tail will affect pigs' social behaviour. The aim of this study was to investigate how three different tail docking lengths, measured at docking, as well as retained intact tails (Short: 2.9 cm; Medium: 5.7 cm; Long: 7.5 cm; and Undocked) affected tail biting risk and behaviour directed at other finisher pigs with the same docking length treatment. Tail lesions were scored weekly, as was behaviour at pen level after introduction to finisher pens and until a potential outbreak of tail biting or slaughter. Pigs from four commercial herds (258 litters) entered the study. Before the pigs entered the finisher section and data collection started, some pigs were excluded, mainly due to tail biting outbreaks in the weaner section. The risk of a tail biting outbreak differed significantly between treatments (P=0.001), with a lowered risk of a tail biting outbreak in Short pens compared with Undocked (P<0.001) and Medium (P<0.05), and was affected by herd as well (P<0.001). Pens in the Long and Undocked treatments were pooled for the behavioural analysis due to low representation, especially in the Undocked treatment. The probability of tail contacts, where a pig interacted with a pen mate's tail, differed between docking length treatments and was highest in the Long/Undocked compared with the Short treatment (P<0.01), but docking length did not affect aggressive behaviour. Docking length affected the risk of a tail biting outbreak and the frequency of tail-directed behaviour in our participating herds, of which three reported a high prevalence of tail biting problems. Only the shortest docking length treatment (Short) reduced the tail biting risk, but did not completely prevent tail biting outbreaks.

Which is the most preventive measure against tail damage in finisher pigs: tail docking, straw provision or lowered stocking density?

One challenge of intensive pig production is tail damage caused by tail biting, and farmers often decrease the prevalence of tail damage through tail docking. However, tail docking is not an optimal preventive measure against tail damage and thus, it would be preferable to replace it. The aim of the current study was to investigate the relative effect of three possible preventive measures against tail damage. The study included 112 pens with 1624 finisher pigs divided between four batches. Pens were randomly assigned to one level of each of three treatments: (1) tail-docked (n=60 pens) v. undocked (n=52 pens), (2) 150 g of straw provided per pig per day on the solid floor (n=56 pens) v. no straw provided (n=56 pens), (3) stocking density of 1.21 m2/pig (11 pig/pen; n=56 pens) v. 0.73 m2/pig (18 pigs/pen; n=56 pens). Tail damage was recorded three times per week throughout the finisher period by scoring the tail of each individual pig. A pen was recorded as a tail damage pen and no longer included in the study if at least one pig in a pen had a bleeding tail wound; thus, only the first incidence of tail damage on pen level was recorded. Data were analysed by a Cox regression for survival analysis assuming proportional hazards. Results are presented as hazards, and a higher hazard means that a pen has a higher risk of tail damage and of it happening earlier in the finisher period. Pens with undocked pigs had a 4.32-fold higher hazard of tail damage compared with pens with docked pigs (P<0.001). Pens with no straw provided had a 2.22-fold higher hazard of tail damage compared with pens with straw provided (P<0.01). No interactions was seen between the treatments, but the effect of tail docking was higher than the effect of straw provision (P<0.001). Stocking density did not have a significant effect on the hazard of tail damage (hazard rate ratios (HRR)=1.67; P=0.064). However, a combination of straw provision and lowered stocking density showed a similar hazard of tail damage as seen with only tail docking (HRR=1.58; P=0.39). In conclusion, tail docking and straw provision were preventive measures against tail damage, and tail docking reduced the risk more than straw provision. A combination of other preventive measures is necessary to reduce the risk of tail damage in undocked pigs to the same level as in docked pigs.

Provision of straw by a foraging tower -effect on tail biting in weaners and fattening pigs

BACKGROUND

Straw is one of the most effective rooting materials to reduce tail biting in pigs. A so-called foraging-tower (FT) provides only small quantities of straw compatible with liquid manure systems. The focus of the present study was on the effect of providing straw by FT in order to prevent tail biting in tail docked pigs. Four consecutive batches of 160 pigs, randomly divided into a straw (SG) and a control group (CG) were followed up from weaning to slaughter.

RESULTS

Tail wounds (Score ≥ 2) were detected in 104 out of 12,032 single observations (SG n = 48; CG n = 56) in 9 pens (SG n = 4/32; CG n = 5/32) mainly focused on the fattening period of batch 2 due to a failure in the ventilation system. No significant differences concerning the distribution of Score ≥ 2 in pens of the SG and CG could be identified. Bite marks (Score 1) were documented in 395 observations at animal level (SG n = 197, CG n = 198) in all batches. In the nursery period, the air velocity significantly increased the chance that at least one pig per pen and week showed a tail lesion score ≥1 (p = 0.024). In the fattening period ammonia concentration was positively associated with tail lesions (p = 0.007). The investigation of blood samples revealed infections with Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae in all batches and a circulation of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (NA-vaccine strain) and Porcine Circovirus Type 2 in two batches each. The average daily straw consumption was 3.5 g/pig (standard deviation (SD) = 1.1) during the rearing period and 31.9 g/pig (SD = 7.7) during the fattening period.

CONCLUSION

Due to the low prevalence of tail biting in all batches the effect of the FT tower could not be evaluated conclusively. The operation of the FT with an average daily straw consumption of 3.5 g/pig (SD = 1.1) during the rearing period and 31.9 g/pig (SD = 7.7) during the fattening period did not affect the weight gain. Exploratory behaviour seems to cause bite marks (score 1), which do not necessarily result in tail biting. The main outbreak of tail biting was probably triggered by a failure of the ventilation system, which resulted in a number of climatic and air quality changes including higher ammonia concentrations and sudden temperature changes.

A survey of straw use and tail biting in Swedish pig farms rearing undocked pigs

Background

Tail biting is a common problem in intensive pig farming, affecting both welfare and production. Although routine tail docking is banned within the EU, it remains a common practice to prevent tail biting. Straw as environmental enrichment has been proposed as an alternative to tail docking, but its effectiveness against tail biting and function in manure handling systems have to be considered. The aim of the study was to survey how pigs with intact tails are raised and how tail biting is handled in Sweden, where tail docking is banned through national legislation. The study emphasises straw usage and its association with tail biting pigs and problems in the manure handling system. The expectation is that this information could be conveyed to the rest of the EU to reduce the need for tail docking.

Results

In a telephone survey of randomly selected Swedish pig farmers (46 nursery and 43 finishing pig units) with at least 50 sows or 300 finishing places, it was found that straw was used by 98% of the farmers. The median daily straw ration provided was 29 g/pig for nursery and 50 g/pig for finishing pigs in systems with partly slatted flooring. The reported prevalence of tail biting was 1.6% at slaughter. The majority of farmers reported that they never had manure handling problems caused by straw (56% of nursery units and 81% of finishing pig units). A proportion of farmers (37%) also provided with additional material apart from straw on some occasions, which may have affected tail biting prevalence and manure handling problems.

Conclusions

Swedish farmers rear undocked pigs without large problems with tail biting. Straw is the main manipulable material used, and additional manipulable material is used to various extents. The low incidence of straw obstructing the manure handling systems implies that it is indeed possible to use straw in partly slatted flooring systems, reducing the need for tail docking. The impact of using additional manipulable material is unknown and requires more investigation to separate the impact of such material from the impact of straw.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13028-016-0266-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

CONDITIONING METHODS FOR ANIMALS IN AGRICULTURE: A REVIEW

Abstract This article briefly describes different conditioning techniques used to help understand learning in farm livestock and economically important animals. A basic overview of conditioning is included along with the importance of different conditioning methods, associative and non-associative learning, and how these principles apply to chickens, horses, cows, goats, pigs, and sheep. Additional information on learning theory specific for each animal is also provided.

Impact of the amount of straw provided to pigs kept in intensive production conditions on the occurrence and severity of gastric ulceration at slaughter

This study examined effects of the amount of straw offered on occurrence and severity of gastric lesions in pigs kept in pens (18 pigs, 0.7 m(2)/pig) with partly slatted flooring and 10, 500 or 1000 g straw/pig/day from 30 kg live weight. The pigs had ad libitum access to dry feed. Forty-five pigs were used, three from each of 15 pens. After euthanization, the dimension of the non-glandular region of the stomach was measured. Lesions were characterized and scored. Irrespective of straw provided, 67% of the pigs showed signs of gastric pathology. Pigs provided with 500 or 1000 g straw were pooled as 'permanent access'. The proportion of pigs with ulcerations was reduced by permanent access to straw (7 vs. 33%; P<0.05), suggesting that permanent access to straw may improve animal health, and be considered as one possible strategy to limit gastric ulceration in pigs.

Can tail damage outbreaks in the pig be predicted by behavioural change?

Tail biting, resulting in outbreaks of tail damage in pigs, is a multifactorial welfare and economic problem which is usually partly prevented through tail docking. According to European Union legislation, tail docking is not allowed on a routine basis; thus there is a need for alternative preventive methods. One strategy is the surveillance of the pigs' behaviour for known preceding indicators of tail damage, which makes it possible to predict a tail damage outbreak and prevent it in proper time. This review discusses the existing literature on behavioural changes observed prior to a tail damage outbreak. Behaviours found to change prior to an outbreak include increased activity level, increased performance of enrichment object manipulation, and a changed proportion of tail posture with more tails between the legs. Monitoring these types of behaviours is also discussed for the purpose of developing an automatic warning system for tail damage outbreaks, with activity level showing promising results for being monitored automatically. Encouraging results have been found so far for the development of an automatic warning system; however, there is a need for further investigation and development, starting with the description of the temporal development of the predictive behaviour in relation to tail damage outbreaks.

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

Tail biting is a serious animal welfare and economic problem in pig production. Tail docking, which reduces but does not eliminate tail biting, remains widespread. However, in the EU tail docking may not be used routinely, and some 'alternative' forms of pig production and certain countries do not allow tail docking at all. Against this background, using a novel approach focusing on research where tail injuries were quantified, we review the measures that can be used to control tail biting in pigs without tail docking. Using this strict criterion, there was good evidence that manipulable substrates and feeder space affect damaging tail biting. Only epidemiological evidence was available for effects of temperature and season, and the effect of stocking density was unclear. Studies suggest that group size has little effect, and the effects of nutrition, disease and breed require further investigation. The review identifies a number of knowledge gaps and promising avenues for future research into prevention and mitigation. We illustrate the diversity of hypotheses concerning how different proposed risk factors might increase tail biting through their effect on each other or on the proposed underlying processes of tail biting. A quantitative comparison of the efficacy of different methods of provision of manipulable materials, and a review of current practices in countries and assurance schemes where tail docking is banned, both suggest that daily provision of small quantities of destructible, manipulable natural materials can be of considerable benefit. Further comparative research is needed into materials, such as ropes, which are compatible with slatted floors. Also, materials which double as fuel for anaerobic digesters could be utilised. As well as optimising housing and management to reduce risk, it is important to detect and treat tail biting as soon as it occurs. Early warning signs before the first bloody tails appear, such as pigs holding their tails tucked under, could in future be automatically detected using precision livestock farming methods enabling earlier reaction and prevention of tail damage. However, there is a lack of scientific studies on how best to respond to outbreaks: the effectiveness of, for example, removing biters and/or bitten pigs, increasing enrichment, or applying substances to tails should be investigated. Finally, some breeding companies are exploring options for reducing the genetic propensity to tail bite. If these various approaches to reduce tail biting are implemented we propose that the need for tail docking will be reduced.