Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Individual piglets’ contribution to the development of tail biting

  • J. J. Zonderland (a1), B. Kemp (a2), M. B. M. Bracke (a1), L. A. den Hartog (a3) and H. A. M. Spoolder (a1)...
Abstract

Conflicting hypotheses exist about the contribution of individual pigs to the development of a tail-biting outbreak, but there is limited quantitative information to support or dismiss them. This study aims to quantify the development of tail-biting behaviour at pen and individual piglet level, before and after the first visible tail damage. Video recordings of 14 pens with tail-biting outbreaks and individually marked weaned piglets were used to observe tail-biting incidents (TBIs; piglet biting a penmate’s tail). When visible tail damage was first observed in a pen (i.e. day of tail biting outbreak; D0), the video recordings of the previous 6 (till D−6) and the following 6 days (till D6) were analysed every other day for TBIs and the identities of the biter and bitten piglet were recorded. The average TBIs per individual piglet (within each pen) per observation day were analysed to quantify the development of tail-biting behaviour and to identify pronounced biters and/or bitten piglets. The (absence of) coherence for TBIs in a pen was used to test whether biters preferred a specific penmate. There was an exponential increase in the intensity (linear on log scale) of the TBIs from an average of 0.7 bites/h at D−6 to 2.3 bites/h at D6. An additional negative quadratic component suggests that a plateau for tail-biting behaviour was reached by the end of the observation period. Before any visible tail damage was observed (i.e. before D0), 82% of the piglets performed and 96% of them received tail bites. After D0, the figures were 99% and 100%, respectively. One or a few pronounced biters could be identified in almost all pens. These biters already showed more tail biting at D−6 than their penmates. Furthermore, these biters showed a greater increase in tail-biting behaviour during the observation period than the average scores of their penmates. In contrast, there was no apparent increase in the receipt of bites among the piglets that had already been bitten more than their penmates at D−6. Finally, there was no significant coherence between biters and bitten piglets, indicating that biters showed no preference for biting particular penmates, even when some of them had a damaged tail. These results show that, by using observations of TBIs, possible biters or bitten piglets can already be identified 6 days before tail damage is first apparent in a pen.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Individual piglets’ contribution to the development of tail biting
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Individual piglets’ contribution to the development of tail biting
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Individual piglets’ contribution to the development of tail biting
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
E-mail: Johan.Zonderland@wur.nl
References
Hide All
Beattie, VE, Breuer, K, O’ Connell, NE, Sneddon, IA, Mercer, JT, Rance, KA, Sutcliffe, MEM, Edwards, SA 2005. Factors identifying pigs predisposed to tail biting. Animal Science 80, 307312.
Blackshaw, JK 1981. Some behavioural deviations in weaned domestic pigs: persistent inguinal nose thrusting, and tail and ear biting. Animal Production 33, 325332.
Bracke, MBM, Hulsegge, B, Keeling, L, Blokhuis, HJ 2004a. Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs: 1. Modelling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 3144.
Bracke, MBM, Hulsegge, B, Keeling, L, Blokhuis, HJ 2004b. Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs: 2. Validation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 4554.
Edwards, SA 2006. Tail biting in pigs: understanding the intractable problem. Veterinary Journal 171, 198199.
EFSA 2007. Scientific Report on the risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems. The EFSA Journal 611, 198.
Feddes, JJ, Fraser, D, Buckley, DJ, Poirier, P 1993. Electronic sensing of non-destructive chewing by growing pigs. Transactions of the ASAE 36, 955958.
Fraser, D 1987. Attraction to blood as a factor in tail-biting by pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17, 12.
Koolhaas, JM, Korte, SM, De Boer, SF, Van Der Vegt, BJ, Van Reenen, CG, Hopster, H, De Jong, IC, Ruis, MAW, Blokhuis, HJ 1999. Coping styles in animals: current status in behavior and stress physiology. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 23, 925935.
Penny, RHC, Walters, JR, Tredget, SJ 1981. Tail-biting in pigs: a sex frequency between boars and gilts. Veterinary Record 108, 35.
Sambraus, HH 1985. Mouth-based anomalous syndromes. Ethology of farm animals. World Animal Science 5, 391472.
Schrøder-Petersen, DL 2005. The ontogeny of tail-in-mouth (TIM) – the presumed precursor of tail biting in pigs. PhD, The Danish Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University.
Schrøder-Petersen, DL, Simonsen, HB 2001. Tail biting in pigs. Veterinary Journal 162, 196210.
Schrøder-Petersen, DL, Simonsen, HB, Lawson, LG 2003. Tail-in-mouth behaviour among weaner pigs in relation to age, gender and group composition regarding gender. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 53, 2934.
Taylor, NR, Main, DCJ, Mendl, M, Edwards, SA 2010. Tail-biting: a new perspective. Veterinary Journal, doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.08.028.
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, Edwards, SA 2005. The development of harmful social behaviour in pigs with intact tails and different enrichment backgrounds in two housing systems. Animal Science 80, 289298.
Van Putten, G 1968. Een onderzoek naar staarbijten bij mestvarkens. PhD thesis. University of Amsterdam.
Van Putten, G 1969. An investigation into tail-biting among fattening pigs. British Veterinary Journal 125, 511517.
Zonderland, JJ, Wolthuis-Fillerup, M, van Reenen, CG, Bracke, MBM, Kemp, B, den Hartog, LA, Spoolder, HAM 2008. Prevention and treatment of tail biting in weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110, 269281.
Zonderland, JJ, van Riel, JW, Bracke, MBM, Kemp, B, den Hartog, LA, Spoolder, HAM 2009. Tail posture predicts tail damage among weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 165170.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

animal
  • ISSN: 1751-7311
  • EISSN: 1751-732X
  • URL: /core/journals/animal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed