Damaging Behaviour and Associated Lesions in Relation to Types of Enrichment for Finisher Pigs on Commercial Farms
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Associations Between Enrichment Type and Damaging Behaviour
3.2. Associations Between Enrichment Type and Tail, Ear and Flank Lesions
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Directive, C. Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Off. J. Eur. Union 2008, 316, 5–13. [Google Scholar]
- Van de Weerd, H.A.; Day, J.E.L. A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 116, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Weerd, H.A.; Docking, C.M.; Day, J.E.L.; Avery, P.J.; Edwards, S.A. A systematic approach towards developing environmental enrichment for pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 84, 101–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blokhuis, H.J.; Pina, T.N.; Bracke, M.B.M.; Sanaa, M.; Edwards, S.A.; Gunn, M.; Martineau, G.P.; Mendl, M.; Prunier, A. 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 (Question No EFSA-Q-2006-013). EFSA J. 2007, 611, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Schutz, A.; Sonntag, W.I.; Spiller, A. Environmental Enrichment in Pig Husbandry: Consumer Comparative Assessment of Different Housing Elements based on a Pictorial Survey (No. 1903); Diskussionsbeitrag: Gottingen, Germany, 2019; Available online: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/193689 (accessed on 11 September 2019).
- Bracke, M.B.M.; de Lauwere, C.C.; Wind, S.M.M.; Zonerland, J.J. Attitudes of Dutch Pig Farmers Towards Tail Biting and Tail Docking. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2013, 26, 847–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bracke, M.B.M.; Koene, P. Expert opinion on metal chains and other indestructible objects as proper enrichment for intensively-farmed pigs. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van de Weerd, H.; Ison, S. Providing Effective Environmental Enrichment to Pigs: How Far Have We Come? Animals 2019, 9, 254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nalon, E.; de Briyne, N. Efforts to Ban the Routine Tail Docking of Pigs and to Give Pigs Enrichment Materials via EU Law: Where Do We Stand a Quarter of a Century on? Animals 2019, 9, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Union. Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 on the application of Council Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs as regards measures to reduce the need for tail-docking. Off. J. Eur. Union 2016, L62, 20–22. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document on Best Practices with a View to the Prevention of Routine Tail-Docking and the Provision of Enrichment Materials to Pigs; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Bracke, M.B.M.; Zonderland, J.J.; Lenskens, P.; Schouten, W.G.P.; Vermeer, H.; Spoolder, H.A.M.; Hendriks, H.J.M.; Hopster, H. Formalised review of environmental enrichment for pigs in relation to political decision making. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 98, 165–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuyttens, F.A.M. The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: A review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005, 92, 261–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Averós, X.; Brossard, L.; Dourmad, J.Y.; de Greef, K.H.; Edge, H.L.; Edwards, S.A.; Meunier-Salaün, M.C. A meta-analysis of the combined effect of housing and environmental enrichment characteristics on the behaviour and performance of pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 127, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunberg, E.; Wallenbeck, A.; Keeling, L.J. Tail biting in fattening pigs: Associations between frequency of tail biting and other abnormal behaviours. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 133, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smulders, D.; Hautekiet, V.; Verbeke, G.; Geers, R. Tail and ear biting lesions in pigs: An epidemiological study. Anim. Welf. 2008, 17, 61–69. [Google Scholar]
- Van Der Meer, Y.; Gerrits, W.J.J.; Jansman, A.J.M.; Kemp, B.; Bolhuis, J.E. A link between damaging behaviour in pigs, sanitary conditions, and dietary protein and amino acid supply. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Staaveren, N.; Díaz, J.A.C.; Manzanilla, E.G.; Hanlon, A.; Boyle, L.A. Prevalence of welfare outcomes in the weaner and finisher stages of the production cycle on 31 Irish pig farms. Ir. Vet. J. 2018, 71, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Telkänranta, H.; Bracke, M.B.M.; Valros, A. Fresh wood reduces tail and ear biting and increases exploratory behaviour in finishing pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 161, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Staaveren, N.; Doyle, B.; Manzanilla, E.G.; Calderón Díaz, J.A.; Hanlon, A.; Boyle, L.A. Validation of carcass lesions as indicators for on-farm health and welfare of pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 95, 1528–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kritas, S.K.; Morrison, R.B. Relationships between tail biting in pigs and disease lesions and condemnations at slaughter. Vet. Rec. 2007, 160, 149–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harley, S.; More, S.J.; O’Connell, N.E.; Hanlon, A.; Teixeira, D.; Boyle, L. Evaluating the prevalence of tail biting and carcase condemnations in slaughter pigs in the Republic and Northern Ireland, and the potential of abattoir meat inspection as a welfare surveillance tool. Vet. Rec. 2012, 171, 621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SAS Institute Inc. SAS® 9.4 Statements: Reference, 5th ed.; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Wallgren, T.; Westin, R.; Gunnarsson, S. A survey of straw use and tail biting in Swedish pig farms rearing undocked pigs. Acta Vet. Scand. 2016, 58, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Briyne, N.; Berg, C.; Blaha, T.; Palzer, A.; Temple, D. Phasing out pig tail docking in the EU - present state, challenges and possibilities. Porcine Health Manag. 2018, 4, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pandolfi, F.; Stoddart, K.; Wainwright, N.; Kyriazakis, I.; Edwards, S.A. The ‘Real Welfare’ scheme: Benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs. Animal 2017, 11, 1816–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Quality, W. Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Pigs (Sows and Piglets, Growing and Finishing Pigs); Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Chou, J.Y.; D’Eath, R.B.; Sandercock, D.A.; Waran, N.; Haigh, A.; O’Driscoll, K. Use of different wood types as environmental enrichment to manage tail biting in docked pigs in a commercial fully-slatted system. Livest. Sci. 2018, 213, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mirt, D. Lesions of so-called flank biting and necrotic ear syndrome in pigs. Vet. Rec. 1999, 144, 92–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, J.; Friendship, R.M.; Poljak, Z.; DeLay, J.; Slavic, D.; Dewey, C.E. An investigation of ear necrosis in pigs. Can. Vet. J. 2013, 54, 491–495. [Google Scholar]
- Lahrmann, H.P.; Hansen, C.F.; D’Eath, R.B.; Busch, M.E.; Nielsen, J.P.; Forkman, B. Early intervention with enrichment can prevent tail biting outbreaks in weaner pigs. Livest. Sci. 2018, 214, 272–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valros, A.; Munsterhjelm, C.; Hänninen, L.; Kauppinen, T.; Heinonen, M. Managing undocked pigs—on-farm prevention of tail biting and attitudes towards tail biting and docking. Porcine Health Manag. 2016, 2, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alarcon, P.; Wieland, B.; Mateus, A.L.P.; Dewberry, C. Pig farmers’ perceptions, attitudes, influences and management of information in the decision-making process for disease control. Prev. Vet. Med. 2014, 116, 223–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bock, B.B.; van Huik, M.M. Animal welfare: The attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. Br. Food J. 2007, 109, 931–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Mean | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|
Lesions (%) | |||
Mild tail lesions | 9.2 ± 0.73 | 3.53 | 20.85 |
Severe tail lesions | 1.8 ± 0.36 | 0.00 | 6.20 |
Mild ear lesions | 1.4 ± 0.33 | 0.00 | 5.16 |
Severe ear lesions | 6.2 ± 1.14 | 0.00 | 22.33 |
Mild flank lesions | 0.3 ± 0.17 | 0.00 | 5.10 |
Severe flank lesions | 1.9 ± 0.39 | 0.00 | 6.82 |
Damaging Behaviour (occurrences/pig/5 min) | |||
Tail-directed | 0.09 ± 0.008 | 0.008 | 0.196 |
Ear-directed | 0.04 ± 0.004 | 0.00 | 0.098 |
Flank-directed | 0.02 ± 0.003 | 0.00 | 0.063 |
Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lesions (%) | ||||||
Mild tail lesions (1) | ||||||
Severe tail lesions (2) | −0.00 (0.9842) | |||||
Mild ear lesions (3) | +0.25 (0.1677) | −0.13 (0.4995) | ||||
Severe ear lesions (4) | +0.12 (0.5309) | +0.30 (0.1014) | +0.30 (0.1033) | |||
Mild flank lesions (5) | −0.14 (0.4515) | −0.03 (0.8777) | +0.20 (0.2757) | +0.03 (0.8651) | ||
Severe flank lesions (6) | +0.16 (0.3815) | 0.00 (0.9955) | +0.13 (0.4920) | +0.22 (0.2416) | +0.46 (0.0097) |
Variable | Correlation | p-Value |
---|---|---|
Tail-directed behaviour | ||
Mild tail lesions | +0.51 | 0.0034 |
Severe tail lesions | +0.25 | 0.1765 |
Ear-directed behaviour | ||
Mild ear lesions | −0.11 | 0.5456 |
Severe ear lesions | +0.41 | 0.0206 |
Flank-directed behaviour | ||
Mild flank lesions | 0.05 | 0.7931 |
Severe flank lesions | 0.05 | 0.7703 |
Variable | Chain | Plastic | Wood |
---|---|---|---|
No. of farms | 12 | 11 | 6 |
Average no. of pigs per pen | 19.8 ± 2.20 a | 23.3 ± 2.30 a,b | 32.7 ± 3.12 b |
Average no. of enrichment devices per pen | 1.0 ± 0.22 a | 1.1 ± 0.23 a | 2.3 ± 0.31 b |
Average no. of enrichment devices per pig | 0.05 ± 0.007 | 0.05 ± 0.008 | 0.08 ± 0.010 |
Variable | Chain | Plastic | Wood |
---|---|---|---|
Lesions (%) | |||
All lesions combined | 23.1 ± 2.49 | 20.4 ± 2.64 | 12.2 ± 3.77 |
Mild tail lesions | 10.6 ± 1.20 a | 8.2 ± 0.99 a,b | 5.7 ± 0.99 b |
Severe tail lesions | 1.3 ± 0.46 | 1.1 ± 0.48 | 2.8 ± 0.69 |
Mild ear lesions | 1.4 ± 0.33 | 0.7 ± 0.36 | 0.6 ± 0.51 |
Severe ear lesions | 7.4 ± 1.92 | 6.8 ± 2.03 | 2.1 ± 2.90 |
Mild flank lesions | 2.0 ± 0.29 | 0.6 ± 0.30 | 0.05 ± 0.43 |
Severe flank lesions | 1.9 ± 0.59 | 1.9 ± 0.62 | 0.8 ± 0.89 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
van Staaveren, N.; Hanlon, A.; Boyle, L.A. Damaging Behaviour and Associated Lesions in Relation to Types of Enrichment for Finisher Pigs on Commercial Farms. Animals 2019, 9, 677. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090677
van Staaveren N, Hanlon A, Boyle LA. Damaging Behaviour and Associated Lesions in Relation to Types of Enrichment for Finisher Pigs on Commercial Farms. Animals. 2019; 9(9):677. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090677
Chicago/Turabian Stylevan Staaveren, Nienke, Alison Hanlon, and Laura Ann Boyle. 2019. "Damaging Behaviour and Associated Lesions in Relation to Types of Enrichment for Finisher Pigs on Commercial Farms" Animals 9, no. 9: 677. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090677