Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T10:53:57.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tail docking in pigs: acute physiological and behavioural responses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2008

M. A. Sutherland ,
P. J. Bryer ,
N. Krebs  and
J. J. McGlone
M. A. Sutherland*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Pork Industry Institute, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
P. J. Bryer
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Pork Industry Institute, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
N. Krebs
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Pork Industry Institute, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
J. J. McGlone
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Pork Industry Institute, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
*
E-mail: mhairi.sutherland@ttu.edu
Get access

Abstract

Tail docking of piglets is a routine procedure on farms to control tail-biting behaviour; however, docking can cause an acute stress response. The objectives of this research were to determine the stress responses to tail docking in piglets and to compare two methods of tail docking; cautery iron (CAUT) and the more commonly used blunt trauma cutters (BT). At approximately 6 days of age, piglets were tail docked using CAUT (n = 20), BT (n = 20) or sham tail docked with their tails remaining intact (CON; n = 40). Blood samples were taken prior to tail docking and at 30, 60 and 90 min after tail docking to evaluate the effect of tail docking on white blood cell (WBC) measures and cortisol concentrations. The above experiment was repeated to observe behaviour without the periodic blood sampling, so as not to confound the effects of blood sampling on piglet behaviour. Piglet behaviour was recorded in the farrowing crate using 1 min scan-samples via live observations for 60 min prior to and 90 min after tail docking. Total WBC counts were reduced (P > 0.05) among BT and CAUT compared with CON piglets 30 min after tail docking. Cortisol concentrations were higher (P < 0.01) among BT compared with CON and CAUT piglets 60 min after tail docking. Cautery and BT-docked piglets spent more (P < 0.05) time posterior scooting compared with CON piglets between 0 and 15 min, and 31 and 45 min after tail docking. Piglets tail docked using CAUT and BT tended to spend more (P < 0.07) time sitting than CON piglets between 0 and 15 min post tail docking. Elevated blood cortisol can be reduced by the use of the CAUT rather than the BT method of tail docking. Although the tail docking-induced rise in cortisol was prevented by using CAUT, the behavioural response to BT and CAUT docking methods was similar.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourcortisolpigstail docking
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , February 2008 , pp. 292 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bowers, SL, Bilbo, SD, Dhabhar, FS, Nelson, RJ 2007. Stressor-specific alterations in corticosterone and immune responses in mice. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity (in press).Google ScholarPubMed
Dhabhar, FS, McEwen, BS 1997. Acute stress enhances while chronic stress suppresses cell-mediated immunity in vivo: a potential role for leukocyte trafficking. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 11, 286–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eicher, SD, Morrow-Tesch, JL, Albright, JL, Dailey, JW, Young, CR, Stanker, LH 2000. Tail-docking influences on behavioral, immunological, and endocrine responses in dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1456–1462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eicher, SD, Cheng, HW, Sorrells, AD, Schutz, MM 2006. Behavioral and physiological indicators of sensitivity or chronic pain following tail docking. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 3047–3051.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Federation of Animal Science Societies 1999. Guide for the care and use of agricultural animals in agriculture and teaching, 1st revised editionFASS, Savoy, IL, USA.Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1987. Mineral deficient diets and the pig’s attraction to blood: implications to tail-biting. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67, 909–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Rushen, J 1987. Attraction to blood as a factor in tail-biting by pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17, 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, MJ, Kent, JE, Molony, V 1997. Effects of four analgesic treatments on the behavioural and cortisol response of 3-week-old lambs to tail docking. Veterinary Journal 153, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, MJ, Kent, JE, Molony, V 2002. The influence of the site of application on the behavioural responses of lambs to tail docking by rubber ring. Veterinary Journal 164, 240–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guy, JH, Rowlinson, P, Chadwick, JP, Ellis, M 2002. Behaviour of two genotypes of growing–finishing pig in three different housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurnik, JF, Webster, AB, Siegel, PB 1995. Dictionary of farm animal behavior. Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar
Jankevicius, ML, Widowski, TM 2003. Does balancing for color affect pigs’ preference for different flavored tail-models? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84, 159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankevicius, ML, Widowski, TM 2004. The effect of ACTH on pigs’ attraction to salt or blood-flavored tail-models. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, JE, Molony, V, Graham, MJ 1998. Comparison of methods for the reduction of acute pain produced by rubber ring castration or tail docking of week-old lambs. Veterinary Journal 155, 39–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGlone, JJ 1985. A quantitative ethogram of aggressive and submissive behaviors in recently regrouped pigs. Journal of Animal Science 61, 559–565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGlone JJ and Nicholson RI 1992. Effects of limited floor and feeder space on pig performance and tail biting. Texas Tech University Agricultural Sciences Technical Report T-5-317, 26–27.Google Scholar
McGlone JJ, Sells J, Harris S and Hurst RJ 1990. Cannibalism in growing pigs: effects of tail docking and housing system on behavior, performance and immune function. Texas Tech University Agricultural Sciences Technical Report. T-5-283, 69–71.Google Scholar
Mellor, DJ, Holmes, RJ 1988. Rings versus knife for docking and castration of lambs. Australian Veterinary Journal 65, 403–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molony, V, Kent, JE 1997. Assessment of acute pain in farm animals using behavioral and physiological measurements. Journal of Animal Science 75, 266–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noonan, GJ, Rand, JS, Priest, J, Ainscow, J, Blackshaw, JK 1994. Behavioural observations of piglets undergoing tail docking, teeth clipping and ear notching. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrie, NJ, Mellor, DJ, Stafford, KJ, Bruce, RA, Ward, RN 1996. Cortisol response of calves to two methods of tail docking used with or without local anaesthetic. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 44, 4–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prunier, A, Mounier, AM, Hay, M 2005. Effects of castration, tooth resection, or tail docking on plasma metabolites and stress hormones in young pigs. Journal of Animal Science 83, 216–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schreiner, DA, Ruegg, PL 2002. Responses to tail docking in calves and heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 3287–3296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonsen, HB, Klinken, L, Bindseil, E 1991. Histopathology of intact and docked pigtails. British Veterinary Journal 147, 407–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 2004. SAS/STAT user’s guide version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Walker, PK, Bilkei, G 2006. Tail-biting in outdoor pig production. Veterinary Journal 171, 367–369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed