Behavioural observations of piglets undergoing tail docking, teeth clipping and ear notching

Tail docking of pigs is a routine procedure on farms to help control tail-biting behavior; however, docking can cause pain. The objective of this research was to evaluate the effect of local or general anesthesia on the physiology (experiment 1) and behavior (experiment 2) of tail docked pigs. Pigs were allocated to one of six treatment groups: (i) sham docking (CON); (ii) docking using conventional cutting (CUT) with side-cutting pliers; (iii) CUT docking plus local anesthesia injected immediately before docking (LA); (iv) CUT docking plus short-acting local anesthesia applied topically to the tail wound (SHORT); (v) CUT docking plus longacting anesthesia applied topically to the tail wound (LONG) and (vi) CUT docking while the pig was anesthetized with carbon dioxide gas (CO 2 ). In experiment 1, blood samples were collected from pigs (10 pigs per treatment) before and 30, 60 and 120 min after docking to measure leukocyte counts and percentages and cortisol concentrations. In experiment 2, the above treatments were repeated (10 pigs per treatment); the percentage of stress vocalizations were recorded during the administration of the treatments and behavior was recorded for up to 120 min after docking or handling. All pigs were weighed before and 24 h after docking and wound healing was recorded until weaning. The neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio was greater (P , 0.05) in CUT, LA, SHORT and LONG compared with CON pigs. At 30 min, cortisol concentrations were greater (P , 0.05) in CUT, LA, LONG and CO 2 compared with CON pigs. Cortisol concentrations did not differ ( P . 0.05) between SHORT and CON pigs 30 min after docking. Cortisol concentrations did not differ (P . 0.05) among pigs given pain relief at the time of docking compared with pigs' docked without pain relief. Body weight change and wound scores did not differ (P . 0.05) among treatments. The percentage of stress vocalizations increased (P , 0.05) in CUT, SHORT and LONG, but not in CON, LA and CO 2 pigs in response to docking or handling. The percentage of time pigs spent lying without contact after docking tended to be greater (P 5 0.06) in CUT pigs compared with all other docking treatments and CON pigs. In this study, none of the anesthesia treatments tested were effective at significantly changing the physiological or behavioral response to tail docking in pigs.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Sutherland Davis and Mcglonementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of local or general anesthesia on the physiology and behavior of tail docked pigs

Sutherland

Davis

McGlone

2011

“…For instance, docking has been shown to be painful in dogs (review in Bennett and Perini (2003); http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/domestic/awbill consulttaildocking.pdf), sheep (Molony et al, 1993;Graham et al, 1997;Kent et al, 1998) and cattle (review in Stull et al, 2002;Aubry, 2005). Both castration and docking of piglets have also been shown to induce specific behavioural changes, such as vocalisations (Noonan et al, 1994;Weary et al, 1998;Marx et al, 2003;Puppe et al, 2005), activity disturbances and abnormal movements of the mutilated areas Hay et al, 2003).…”

Section: Cosmetic Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tail docking in horses: a review of the issues

Lefebvre¹,

Lips

Ödberg

et al. 2007

Routinely performed painful procedures are of increasing interest and, in 2001 (Royal Order, May 17), Belgium prohibited docking in several vertebrates including horses. In 2004, opponents to this decision submitted a Bill (Doc51 0969/001) to Parliament, intending to obtain derogation for Belgian draught horses, which were traditionally docked. The Animal Welfare Council of Belgium, an official body advising the Minister of Public Health, was asked to evaluate this complex question, including biological, ethical and socio-economic aspects, on the basis of the available peer-reviewed studies. In this context, this study reviews legal aspects (overview of the European legislation), zootechnic aspects (uses of the Belgian draught horse) and biological aspects (pain potentially related to docking; horses’ welfare linked to insect harassment and hygiene, communication and reproduction) of tail docking in draught horses. We conclude that (1) there is no benefit for horses in tail docking, including Belgian draught horses, (2) potential advantages of docking are essentially in favour of humans and these advantages could be scrupulously re-evaluated, taking into account practices of other countries. Therefore, there is no need to dock any horse other than for veterinary reasons.

“…It aims at reducing skin lesions due to biting and injuries at the udder, as well as improving maternal behaviour of sows. During and shortly after tooth clipping or grinding, piglets show some behavioural defence movements (Noonan et al, 1994;Bataille et al, 2002), suggesting that these procedures evoke moderate pain, but no immediate hormonal stress response could be observed (Bataille et al, 2002;Prunier et al, 2005). However, a high incidence of severe tooth lesions (fractures, abscess, necrosis, inflammation) was observed after tooth grinding or clipping (Hay et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimising pain in farm animals: the 3S approach – ‘Suppress, Substitute, Soothe’

Guatteo

Levionnois

Fournier

et al. 2012

Recently, the French National Institute for Agricultural Research appointed an expert committee to review the issue of pain in food-producing farm animals. To minimise pain, the authors developed a ‘3S’ approach accounting for ‘Suppress, Substitute and Soothe’ by analogy with the ‘3Rs’ approach of ‘Reduction, Refinement and Replacement’ applied in the context of animal experimentation. Thus, when addressing the matter of pain, the following steps and solutions could be assessed, in the light of their feasibility (technical constraints, logistics and regulations), acceptability (societal and financial aspects) and availability. The first solution is tosuppressany source of pain that brings no obvious advantage to the animals or the producers, as well as sources of pain for which potential benefits are largely exceeded by the negative effects. For instance, tail docking of cattle has recently been eliminated. Genetic selection on the basis of resistance criteria (as e.g. for lameness in cattle and poultry) or reduction of undesirable traits (e.g. boar taint in pigs) may also reduce painful conditions or procedures. The second solution is tosubstitutea technique causing pain by another less-painful method. For example, if dehorning cattle is unavoidable, it is preferable to perform it at a very young age, cauterising the horn bud. Animal management and constraint systems should be designed to reduce the risk for injury and bruising. Lastly, in situations where pain is known to be present, because of animal management procedures such as dehorning or castration, or because of pathology, for example lameness, systemic or local pharmacological treatments should be used tosoothepain. These treatments should take into account the duration of pain, which, in the case of some management procedures or diseases, may persist for longer periods. The administration of pain medication may require the intervention of veterinarians, but exemptions exist where breeders are allowed to use local anaesthesia (e.g. castration and dehorning in Switzerland). Extension of such exemptions, national or European legislation on pain management, or the introduction of animal welfare codes by retailers into their meat products may help further developments. In addition, veterinarians and farmers should be given the necessary tools and information to take into account animal pain in their management decisions.