The effect of biting tails and having tails bitten in pigs

Zupan, Manja; Janczak, Andrew M.; Framstad, Tore; Zanella, Adroaldo José

doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.04.025

Cited by 48 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Phenotypes even had comparable diurnal cortisol patterns. However, interestingly, they had different basal heart rate variability (Zupan et al, 2012). Finding no cortisol difference during transportation in our study contradicts the findings of Valros et al (2013), who reported that tail-bitten pigs show a lower cortisol response to the transport-induced stress than control pigs.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 88%

“…We documented that the activity of the autonomic nervous system, especially the suppression of parasympathetic tone, indicates that some pigs may have a dysfunctional autonomic regulation (Zupan et al, 2012). Additionally, the results indicated that in tail-biting pens, pigs of different sexes and breeds possess different autonomic flexibility (Zupan et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…We studied the same pigs and commercial farms as described previously (Zupan et al, 2012(Zupan et al, , 2016. Farm visits followed a report of tail-biting outbreaks on three commercial Norwegian farms.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pigs involved in tail biting suffer from inflammatory responses (Heinonen et al, 2010) and fearfulness (Zupan et al, 2012(Zupan et al, , 2016, thus having impaired physical and psychological health.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, we tested pigs in a human-response test, a novel object test, a novel arena test, and during transportation and assessed the activation of stress-axis, using a non-invasive method to measure salivary cortisol concentrations. By performing different behaviour responses to environmental situations (Zupan et al, 2012(Zupan et al, , 2016, we expected animals to express different stress susceptibility, with tail biters and victims to have higher cortisol levels than control pigs. Equally, by investigating diurnal rhythm in cortisol release, we expected the genotypic characteristics of the pigs to affect their circadian rhythm.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Peripheral regulation of stress and fear responses in pigs from tail-biting pens

Zupan

Zanella

2017

R. Bras. Zootec.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-This study focused on stress physiology by characterizing cortisol responses to stressors in tail biters (n = 10), victims (n = 10), and control pigs (n = 10) of two different breeds (Landrace × Yorkshire, LY; Landrace/Yorkshire × Landrace/ Duroc; LYLD) and sexes (females and castrated males). We exposed pigs to 10 min of isolation with a human at the farm and transported them to a controlled environment. There, the behaviour was registered for 10 min during sessions when subjected to a novel object test and to a novel arena test. Sampling times of salivary cortisol were in all the fear tests before testing and 60 min thereafter, while for transportation as well 120 min after the beginning of transportation. We additionally measured cortisol at 7:00 and 16:00 h during three days following transportation. The basal stress axis activity followed a distinct diurnal rhythm between sexes and breeds, with castrated males having higher cortisol level than females and LY pigs higher than LYLD pigs. Following isolation at the farm and transportation, the concentration of salivary cortisol was higher in LY than in LYLD pigs. Pigs considered the exposure to a novel arena, but not to a novel object, stressful by showing a cortisol level after testing higher than before testing. The results suggest a genotypic effect on sensitivity to stress in pigs that have performed tail biting, have been victimized, or have not been involved in tail biting.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 88%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%