Individual drinking patterns are a potential tool for disease monitoring in pigs. However, to date, individual pig drinking behaviour has not been described, and effects of external factors have not been examined. The aim of this study was to perform detailed quantification of drinking behaviour of growing pigs and to examine effects of period of day and effects of competition for access to the drinking nipple on the drinking behaviour, amount of water used and water wastage. In all, 52 cross-bred castrated male pigs (live weight 20.5 ± 1.7 kg; mean ± s.d.) maintained as either 3 (N3) or 10 (N10) pigs per pen and water nipple (four groups/ treatment) were used. All pigs were fitted with a transponder ear tag. A radio frequency identification reader recorded and time stamped visits at the nipple. In each pen, water flow was logged every second. The drinking behaviour was recorded for 4 consecutive days and analysed using a linear mixed model. Overall, the pigs spent 594 s at the nipple during 24 h distributed among 44 visits. During this period, 5 l of water were used, of which >30% was wasted. Social competition did not affect the drinking behaviour over 24 h, except for the proportion of interrupted visits where pigs, kept with recommended nipple availability (N10), showed an increased proportion of interrupted drinking bouts compared with pigs kept at very low level of competition (N3) (0.18 ± 0.01 v. 0.11 ± 0.01; P < 0.01). However, splitting data into 8-h periods (P1, P2, P3) starting from 0600 h revealed differences between treatments, showing that in N3, water use per visit was lower in P1 than P2 and P3 (110 ± 10 v. 126 ± 7 and 132 ± 7 ml; P < 0.05), whereas in N10, the water used per visit was higher during P3 than during the other periods (P1: 107 ± 14 ml, P2: 112 ± 10 ml v. P3: 151 ± 10 ml; P < 0.001). A similar pattern was found for visit duration. In N3, fewer nipple visits were observed in P2 than P1 (15.6 ± 1.2 v. 22.0 ± 1.2; P < 0.001), whereas no difference was found between P1 and P2 in N10. The results demonstrate that growing pigs at the two levels of competition maintained a comparable level of 24 h water intake by changing behavioural variables involved in drinking. This dynamic characteristic of drinking behaviour means that if individual drinking patterns are to be used as disease monitoring tools, it is important to consider effects of external factors and include data on period level to allow rapid detection of behavioural changes.

No abstract

One challenge of intensive pig production is tail damage caused by tail biting, and farmers often decrease the prevalence of tail damage through tail docking. However, tail docking is not an optimal preventive measure against tail damage and thus, it would be preferable to replace it. The aim of the current study was to investigate the relative effect of three possible preventive measures against tail damage. The study included 112 pens with 1624 finisher pigs divided between four batches. Pens were randomly assigned to one level of each of three treatments: (1) tail-docked (n=60 pens) v. undocked (n=52 pens), (2) 150 g of straw provided per pig per day on the solid floor (n=56 pens) v. no straw provided (n=56 pens), (3) stocking density of 1.21 m2/pig (11 pig/pen; n=56 pens) v. 0.73 m2/pig (18 pigs/pen; n=56 pens). Tail damage was recorded three times per week throughout the finisher period by scoring the tail of each individual pig. A pen was recorded as a tail damage pen and no longer included in the study if at least one pig in a pen had a bleeding tail wound; thus, only the first incidence of tail damage on pen level was recorded. Data were analysed by a Cox regression for survival analysis assuming proportional hazards. Results are presented as hazards, and a higher hazard means that a pen has a higher risk of tail damage and of it happening earlier in the finisher period. Pens with undocked pigs had a 4.32-fold higher hazard of tail damage compared with pens with docked pigs (P<0.001). Pens with no straw provided had a 2.22-fold higher hazard of tail damage compared with pens with straw provided (P<0.01). No interactions was seen between the treatments, but the effect of tail docking was higher than the effect of straw provision (P<0.001). Stocking density did not have a significant effect on the hazard of tail damage (hazard rate ratios (HRR)=1.67; P=0.064). However, a combination of straw provision and lowered stocking density showed a similar hazard of tail damage as seen with only tail docking (HRR=1.58; P=0.39). In conclusion, tail docking and straw provision were preventive measures against tail damage, and tail docking reduced the risk more than straw provision. A combination of other preventive measures is necessary to reduce the risk of tail damage in undocked pigs to the same level as in docked pigs.

No abstract

Tail damage within the production of finisher pigs is an animal welfare problem. Recent research suggests that removal of known risk factors may not be enough to eliminate tail biting, especially in undocked pigs, thus a different strategy is worth investigating. This could be early detection of tail biting, using behavioural changes observed before tail damage. If these early stages of tail biting can be detected before tail damage occurs, then tail damage could be prevented by early interventions. The first step in developing such a strategy is to identify the types of behaviour changes that emerge during early stages of tail biting. Thus, the aim of the current study was to investigate whether pen level activity and object manipulation evolved differently during the last 7 days before the scoring of tail damage (day 0) for pens scored with tail damage (tail damage pens) and pens not scored with tail damage (matched control pens). The study included video recordings for twenty-four tail damage pens and thirty-two matched control pens. Activity level and object manipulation were observed the last 7 days before day 0 during the morning (0600 to 0800 h), afternoon (1600 to 1800 h) and evening (2200 to 2400 h, only activity level). Both activity level and object manipulation were analysed using generalised linear mixed effects models with a binomial distribution for activity level and a negative binomial distribution for object manipulation. The probability of being active was higher in tail damage pens compared to control pens during the afternoon the last 5 days before day 0 (P&lt;0.001). This was seen due to a decrease in activity level in the control pens, which makes it difficult to identify future tail damage pens from this difference. Object manipulation was lower in tail damage pens compared to the control pens on all 7 days before day 0, but only in pens with undocked pigs (P&lt;0.01). Thus, it is still unknown when this difference in object manipulation initiated. It was concluded that both activity level and object manipulation seemed related to ongoing tail biting and should be investigated through more detailed observations and for a longer time to establish the normal behaviour pattern for a particular pen. Thus, it is suggested that future research focusses on developing automatic monitoring methods for pen level activity and object manipulation and applies algorithms that establish and detect deviations from the normal behaviour pattern of the pen before tail damage.