More tail lesions among undocked than tail docked pigs in a conventional herd.

The vast majority of piglets reared in the European Union (EU) and worldwide is tail docked to reduce the risk of being tail bitten, even though EU animal welfare legislation bans routine tail docking. Many conventional herds experience low levels of tail biting among tail docked pigs, however it is not known, what the prevalence would have been had the pigs not been tail docked. The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of tail lesions between docked and undocked pigs in a conventional piggery in Denmark with very low prevalence of tail biting among tail docked pigs. The study included 1922 DanAvl Duroc×(Landrace×Large White) female and castrated male pigs (962 docked and 960 undocked). Docked and undocked pigs were housed under the same conditions in the same room but in separate pens with 20 (±0.03) pigs/pen. Pigs had ad libitum access to commercial diets in a feed dispenser. Manipulable material in the form of chopped straw was provided daily on the floor (~10 g/pig per day), and each pen had two vertically placed soft wood boards. From weaning to slaughter, tail wounds (injury severity and freshness) were scored every 2nd week. No clinical signs of injured tails were observed within the tail docked group, whereas 23.0% of the undocked pigs got a tail lesion. On average, 4.0% of the pigs with undocked tails had a tail lesion on tail inspection days. More pens with tail lesions were observed among pigs weighing 30 to 60 kg (34.3%; P<0.05) than in pens with pigs weighing 7 to 30 kg (13.0%) and 60 to 90 kg (12.8%). Removal of pigs to a hospital pen was more likely in undocked pens (P<0.05, 47.7% undocked pens and 22.9% docked pens). Finally, abattoir meat inspection data revealed more tail biting remarks in undocked pigs (P<0.001). In conclusion, this study suggests that housing pigs with intact tails in conventional herds with very low prevalence of tail biting among tail docked pigs, will increase the prevalence of pigs with tail lesions considerably, and pig producers will need more hospital pens. Abattoir data indicate that tail biting remarks from meat inspection data severely underestimate on-farm prevalence of tail lesions.

Why are most EU pigs tail docked? Economic and ethical analysis of four pig housing and management scenarios in the light of EU legislation and animal welfare outcomes.

To limit tail biting incidence, most pig producers in Europe tail dock their piglets. This is despite EU Council Directive 2008/120/EC banning routine tail docking and allowing it only as a last resort. The paper aims to understand what it takes to fulfil the intentions of the Directive by examining economic results of four management and housing scenarios, and by discussing their consequences for animal welfare in the light of legal and ethical considerations. The four scenarios compared are: 'Standard Docked', a conventional housing scenario with tail docking meeting the recommendations for Danish production (0.7 m2/pig); 'Standard Undocked', which is the same as 'Standard Docked' but with no tail docking, 'Efficient Undocked' and 'Enhanced Undocked', which have increased solid floor area (0.9 and 1.0 m2/pig, respectively) provision of loose manipulable materials (100 and 200 g/straw per pig per day) and no tail docking. A decision tree model based on data from Danish and Finnish pig production suggests that Standard Docked provides the highest economic gross margin with the least tail biting. Given our assumptions, Enhanced Undocked is the least economic, although Efficient Undocked is better economically and both result in a lower incidence of tail biting than Standard Undocked but higher than Standard Docked. For a pig, being bitten is worse for welfare (repeated pain, risk of infections) than being docked, but to compare welfare consequences at a farm level means considering the number of affected pigs. Because of the high levels of biting in Standard Undocked, it has on average inferior welfare to Standard Docked, whereas the comparison of Standard Docked and Enhanced (or Efficient) Undocked is more difficult. In Enhanced (or Efficient) Undocked, more pigs than in Standard Docked suffer from being tail bitten, whereas all the pigs avoid the acute pain of docking endured by the pigs in Standard Docked. We illustrate and discuss this ethical balance using numbers derived from the above-mentioned data. We discuss our results in the light of the EU Directive and its adoption and enforcement by Member States. Widespread use of tail docking seems to be accepted, mainly because the alternative steps that producers are required to take before resorting to it are not specified in detail. By tail docking, producers are acting in their own best interests. We suggest that for the practice of tail docking to be terminated in a way that benefits animal welfare, changes in the way pigs are housed and managed may first be required.

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.

Identification of QTL for dorso-caudal chronic pleuritis in 12 crossbred porcine families.

Pleuropneumonia is a major problem in pig production. At the time of slaughter, chronic pleuritis (CP) developed from pleuropneumonia is a common finding, and breeding for a reduced incidence of CP using marker-assisted selection (MAS) would be advantageous. Before applying MAS, quantitative trait loci (QTL) or markers associated with the prevalence of CP should be identified. In this study, 7470 pigs from crosses between 12 Danish Duroc boars and 604 sows (Danish Landrace × Danish Large White) were evaluated for CP located on the dorso-caudal part of the lungs. Quantitative trait loci were identified within boar families using both a Binomial logistic regression method and a chi-square test of association. Significant QTL for CP were detected on Sus scrofa chromosomes (SSC) 2, 8, 12, 13, 14 and 18 using both methods. One QTL on SSC 8 was also detected across families. For the QTL identified within families, the odds-ratio of having CP was approximately twice as high for the unfavourable allele compared to the favourable one. These QTL and closely linked markers show promise for the development of gene-specific markers associated with a reduced incidence of CP located on the dorso-caudal part of the lungs.

Quantitative trait loci analysis of osteochondrosis traits in the elbow joint of pigs.

Osteochondrosis is a growth disorder in the cartilage of young animals and is characterised by lesions found in the cartilage and bone. This study identified quantitative trait loci (QTLs) associated with six osteochondrosis lesion traits in the elbow joint of finishing pigs. The traits were: thickening of the cartilage, lesion in the subchondral bone, irregular cartilage surface, fissure under the cartilage, an irregular sagittal central groove and depression of the proximal edge of the radius. The study comprised 7172 finishing pigs from crossing 12 Duroc boars with 600 crossbred Landrace × Large White sows and included 462 single nucleotide polymorphism markers. The results showed 18 QTLs exceeding the 5% genome-wide threshold. The QTLs associated with lesions in the medial part of the condylus humeri (assumed to be the four main osteochondrosis traits) were, in most cases, at common locations, whereas the QTLs associated with depression of the proximal edge of the radius in general were on the same chromosomes but at separate locations. The detected QTLs explain a large part of the genetic variation, which is promising for incorporating osteochondrosis into a breeding programme using marker-assisted selection.

Prevention of edema disease in pigs by passive immunization.

The effect of treatment with verotoxin 2e (VT2e) specific antiserum was evaluated in 3 Danish pig herds with edema disease (ED). The antiserum was prepared by immunizing horses with a VT2e toxoid. The study was performed as a randomized blind field trial with parallel treatment and control groups. There were approximately 50 piglets in each group in each of the 3 herds and 741 piglets were included in the study (244 from herd A, 249 from herd B, and 247 from herd C). Treatment groups received 2, 4, or 6 mL anti-VT2e serum intramuscularly the day before weaning. Control groups were treated with 6 mL normal horse serum or 6 mL RPMI 1640 medium as placebo. All pigs that died in the trial period (1 d before weaning to 44 d after weaning) were examined pathologically and microbiologically. Mortality due to ED, mortality due to other causes, and adverse effects due to treatment were recorded. As there was no mortality due to ED, herd B was excluded from statistical calculations on mortality. The content of horse antibodies specific to VT2e in serum from pigs was analyzed in an indirect ELISA. A higher dose of anti-VT2e serum was reflected in higher optical density values in the indirect ELISA. Transient adverse reactions, seen as vomiting, ataxia, and cyanosis, occurred shortly after the injection of horse serum in 1.5% of the pigs, and one pig died. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality due to other causes among the 3 treatment groups in herds A and C. Only pigs from which F18+, VT2e+, ST-, LT- hemolytic E. coli (0139 or O-rough) was isolated were diagnosed as dead due to ED. Deaths due to ED in the control groups were 8.1% and 12.0% in herds A and C, respectively, compared with 0% and 0.7% in the corresponding serum groups. The difference between treatment and control groups was statistically significant (P<0.0001). It was not possible to establish an effect of dose (2, 4, or 6 mL) of anti-VT2e serum, because only one pig died of ED in the treatment groups. It was concluded that passive immunization by intramuscular injection of a VT2e-specific antiserum can be used for protecting piglets against ED.