Literature DB >> 22439999

Characteristics of biter and victim piglets apparent before a tail-biting outbreak.

J J Zonderland1, F Schepers, M B M Bracke, L A den Hartog, B Kemp, H A M Spoolder.   

Abstract

Little is known about the characteristics of biters and victims before the appearance of a tail-biting outbreak in groups of pigs. This study aimed to characterise biters and victims (according to gender and performance) and to quantify their behavioural development during the 6 days preceding the tail-biting outbreak. The hypotheses tested were: (a) biters are more often female, are the lighter pigs in the group, are more restless and perform more aggressive behaviour; and (b) victims are more often male, heavier and less active. Using video recordings we carried out a detailed study of 14 pens with a tail-biting outbreak among the weaned piglets. All piglets were individually marked and we observed the behaviour of biters, victims and control piglets (piglet types). In every pen, each piglet type was observed every other day from 6 days before (D-6) to the day of the first visible tail damage (i.e. day of tail biting outbreak; D0). While the number of male biters (6 of the 14 biters) and male victims (11 of the 14 victims) was not significantly different (P = 0.13), this numerical contrast was considerable. The start weight of victims was significantly (P = 0.03) higher (8.6 kg) than those of biters (7.5 kg) and control piglets (8.0 kg). Biters tended (P = 0.08) to spend longer sitting/kneeling (3.1 min/h) than controls (1.7 min/h), but no differences were seen in the time spent lying or standing. Victims tended (P = 0.07) to change posture more often (restlessness) than controls and chased penmates more (P = 0.04) than biters. Victims also performed more (P = 0.04) aggressive behaviour than biters and controls. In contrast, biters tended (P = 0.08) to be chased by penmates more often and tended (P = 0.06) to receive more aggressive behaviour than controls. Furthermore, biters spent longer manipulating the enrichment device (P = 0.01) and the posterior/tail (P = 0.02) of their penmates than controls and tended (P = 0.06) to perform more tail bites than victims. Victims received more posterior/tail manipulation (P = 0.02) and tail bites (P = 0.04) than controls. It was also noticed that, independent of piglet type, restlessness (P = 0.03) increased and the frequency of performed tail bites tended (P = 0.08) to increase in the 6 days preceding a tail-biting outbreak. These findings may contribute to the early identification of biters or victims and support the development of strategies to minimise the occurrence of tail biting.

Entities:  

Year:  2011        PMID: 22439999     DOI: 10.1017/S1751731110002326

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Animal        ISSN: 1751-7311            Impact factor:   3.240


  11 in total

1.  Behavioural and Brain Gene Expression Profiling in Pigs during Tail Biting Outbreaks - Evidence of a Tail Biting Resistant Phenotype.

Authors:  Emma Brunberg; Per Jensen; Anders Isaksson; Linda J Keeling
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 2.  Save the pig tail.

Authors:  Anna Valros; Mari Heinonen
Journal:  Porcine Health Manag       Date:  2015-04-16

3.  Review: Early life predisposing factors for biting in pigs.

Authors:  A Prunier; X Averos; I Dimitrov; S A Edwards; E Hillmann; M Holinger; V Ilieski; R Leming; C Tallet; S P Turner; M Zupan; I Camerlink
Journal:  Animal       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Is There a Link between Suckling and Manipulation Behavior during Rearing in Pigs?

Authors:  Friederike K Warns; Mehmet Gültas; Astrid L van Asten; Tobias Scholz; Martina Gerken
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 5.  Omnivores Going Astray: A Review and New Synthesis of Abnormal Behavior in Pigs and Laying Hens.

Authors:  Emma I Brunberg; T Bas Rodenburg; Lotta Rydhmer; Joergen B Kjaer; Per Jensen; Linda J Keeling
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2016-07-22

6.  Automated tracking to measure behavioural changes in pigs for health and welfare monitoring.

Authors:  Stephen G Matthews; Amy L Miller; Thomas PlÖtz; Ilias Kyriazakis
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Automatic early warning of tail biting in pigs: 3D cameras can detect lowered tail posture before an outbreak.

Authors:  Richard B D'Eath; Mhairi Jack; Agnieszka Futro; Darren Talbot; Qiming Zhu; David Barclay; Emma M Baxter
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-04       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Using Passive Infrared Detectors to Record Group Activity and Activity in Certain Focus Areas in Fattening Pigs.

Authors:  Naemi Von Jasmund; Anna Wellnitz; Manuel Stephan Krommweh; Wolfgang Büscher
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-03       Impact factor: 2.752

9.  Long-Term Measurement of Piglet Activity Using Passive Infrared Detectors.

Authors:  Roberto Besteiro; Tamara Arango; Juan Ortega; María D Fernández; Manuel R Rodríguez
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-29       Impact factor: 2.752

10.  Reduced Stocking Density and Provision of Straw in a Rack Improve Pig Welfare on Commercial Fattening Farms.

Authors:  Katharina Schodl; Lisa Wiesauer; Christoph Winckler; Christine Leeb
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2021-12-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.