Effects of tail docking and teeth clipping on the physiological responses, wounds, behavior, growth, and backfat depth of pigs1

Abstract

The objective of this experiment was to compare the effects of tail docking and teeth clipping on the growth and behavior of pigs. Pigs (n = 126) from 21 litters (6 pigs/litter) were blocked by birth weight, and assigned at 3 d of age within blocks to either teeth clipping and tail docking (processed) or control (sham-processed). Vocalizations of pigs were recorded during the procedures, and behavior was observed during the lactation, nursery, and growing periods. Blood samples were collected on d 21 to measure serum IgG concentrations. Wounds on the body and tail were assessed by inspecting both sides of the body and tail at 70, 110, and 160 d of age, whereas BW were recorded at 10, 21, 70, and 160 d of age. Fat and LM depths were measured ultrasonically on growing pigs at 160 d of age. Clipped and docked pigs vocalized more (1.06 vs. 0.62 s; P < 0.01) during processing, and processed pigs were observed lying alone more often (P = 0.03) during the 3 d after processing and the entire suckling period; however, teeth clipping and docking did not (P ≥ 0.14) alter the frequency that pigs spent suckling, standing, huddling, playing/fighting, or sitting during the first 3 d or between 5 and 15 d after processing. Social behavior during the nursery (P ≥ 0.23) and grower phases (P ≥ 0.18) was unaffected by clipping and docking, but processed pigs rested more (P = 0.03) during the nursery period and were less (P ≤ 0.01) interested in exploratory behaviors during both phases, especially during pen (P ≤ 0.04) and enrichment investigations (P ≤ 0.02). Teeth clipping and tail docking reduced ADG between 10 and 21 d (P = 0.01) and 21 to 70 d of age (P = 0.04), resulting in lighter BW at 21 (P = 0.01) and 70 d of age (P = 0.08) compared with sham-processed pigs. However, 160-d BW (P = 0.62), d 70 to 160 ADG (P = 0.23), and G:F (P ≥ 0.15) were not affected by teeth clipping and tail docking. Additionally, there was no difference between sham and processed pigs for fat depth (P ≥ 0.05), LM depth (P = 0.93), or estimated percent muscle (P = 0.27). Even though tail docking and teeth clipping appear to produce short-term pain and distress, results of this experiment indicate that leaving the teeth and tails intact have no detrimental effects on mortality, morbidity, live performance, or carcass merit of growing-finishing pigs.

Ear tagging in piglets: the cortisol response with and without analgesia in comparison with castration and tail docking

“…Furthermore, wound healing is thought to be better when using side cutting pliers (Kilchling, 2010). Tail docking is a painful process for the piglet as is already shown in several studies (Noonan et al, 1994;Zhou et al, 2013). This could be confirmed in this investigation.…”

Los procedimientos dentales postnatales afectan la ganancia de peso y el bienestar de los lechones

“…In the previously quoted paper (13), when evaluating the performance of piglets with clipped teeth or simulated procedures, no differences were found for wounds in the body of pigs at 70, 110 and 160 days of life after teeth procedures.…”

“…Al evaluar el rendimiento de los lechones con dientes recortados frente a un tratamiento simulado, Zhou et al (13) verificaron un mayor peso corporal a los 21 días en los lechones con dientes recortados. Sin embargo, de 21 a 70 días, los cerdos con tratamiento simulado presentaron un mayor aumento de peso diario.…”

“…En el documento citado anteriormente (13), al evaluar el rendimiento de los lechones con dientes cortados o procedimientos simulados, no se encontraron diferencias en heridas en el cuerpo de los cerdos a los 70, 110 y 160 días de vida después de los procedimientos dentales.…”

Tail Docking in Pigs: A Review on its Short- And Long-Term Consequences and Effectiveness in Preventing Tail Biting

“…However, comparisons between the two populations should be made carefully since the systems in which docked and undocked pigs are kept are not equivalent, undocked pigs generally living in systems where hazards for tail biting are less prevalent (e.g., more often having access to enrichment materials such as straw and additional space) (EFSA, 2007;Taylor et al, 2010). As concerns the pain arising from tail docking, literature extensively addressed the acute behavioural and physiological response to tail docking, but rarely took into account its chronic effects (Sandercock et al, 2011;Strobel and Hawkins, 2012;Zhou et al, 2013). The present paper aims to review the available literature on tail docking in order to evaluate the diffusion of the practice in the European countries, its consequences in terms of animal welfare and its effectiveness in preventing tail biting outbreaks.…”