To be blamed or pitied? The effect of illness on social behavior, cytokine levels and feed intake in undocked boars

Munsterhjelm, Camilla; Nordgreen, Janicke; Aae, F.; Heinonen, Mari; Olstad, Kristin; Aasmundstad, T.; Janczak, Andrew M.; Valros, Anna

doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.06.024

Cited by 26 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are indications that the LPS-treated pigs experienced a long-term shift in social motivation, resulting in more tail-and ear-directed behavior compared to controls 2 days after the challenge (5). The relationship between sickness and altered social behavior was also found in the field where pigs diagnosed with respiratory diseases tended to perform more ear and tail biting than controls in the days before they were diagnosed as sick (34). There is a correlation between nosing the tail and tail biting and between nosing the ear and ear biting (35).…”

Section: Effect Of Lps and Ketoprofen On Behavioral Signs Of Sicknessmentioning

confidence: 83%

The Effect of LPS and Ketoprofen on Cytokines, Brain Monoamines, and Social Behavior in Group-Housed Pigs

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poor health is a risk factor for damaging behaviors, but the mechanisms behind this link are unknown. Injection of pigs with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) can be used to model aspects of poor health. Recent studies have shown that LPS-injected pigs perform more tail- and ear-directed behavior compared to saline-injected pigs and suggest that pro-inflammatory cytokines may play a role in these behaviors. The aims of this study were to test the effect of LPS on the social behavior of pigs and the neurotransmitters and modulators in their brains and to test the effect of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug on the effects of LPS. Fifty-two female pigs (11–12 weeks) were allocated to four treatments comprising two injections: saline–saline (SS), saline–LPS (SL), ketoprofen–saline (KS), and ketoprofen–LPS (KL). Activity was scan-sampled every 5 min for 6 h after the last injection in the pen. Social behavior was observed continuously in 10 × 15-min bouts between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. 1 day before (baseline) and 1 and 2 days after the injection. Saliva was analyzed for cortisol and plasma for tryptophan and kynurenine. The frontal cortex, hippocampus, hypothalamus, and brain stem were sampled 72 h after the injection and analyzed for cytokines and monoamines. LPS activated the HPA axis and decreased the activity within 6 h after the injection. Ketoprofen lowered the effect of LPS on cortisol release and attenuated the behavioral signs of sickness in challenged pigs. SL pigs manipulated the ears of their pen mates significantly longer than SS pigs 2 days after the injection. LPS had no observed effect on IFN-γ, TNF-α, and IL-18. At 72 h after the injection, plasma tryptophan was depleted in SL pigs, and tryptophan and kynurenine concentrations in the frontal cortex and brain stem of SL pigs were significantly lower compared to those in SS pigs. Dopamine concentrations in the hypothalamus of SL pigs were significantly lower compared to those in SS pigs. Serotonin concentrations in the hypothalamus and noradrenaline concentrations in the hippocampus of SL pigs were significantly lower compared to those in KL pigs. In conclusion, LPS influenced the different neurotransmitters and modulators in the brain that are hypothesized to play an important role in the regulation of mood and behavior.

show abstract

Section: Effect Of Lps and Ketoprofen On Behavioral Signs Of Sicknessmentioning

confidence: 83%

The Effect of LPS and Ketoprofen on Cytokines, Brain Monoamines, and Social Behavior in Group-Housed Pigs

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During the last few years there has been an increased interest in understanding the link between (ill-)health and tail biting, e.g., in the EU-project FareWellDock [22] and the COST action CA15134 GroupHouseNet [23]. Some recent studies do imply a mechanistic link between a reduced health level and an increased risk for tail biting [24,25]. Interestingly, there is a difference between Finland (with no tail docking) and the UK regarding pig health status.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Producer Perceptions of the Prevention of Tail Biting on UK Farms: Association to Bedding Use and Tail Removal Proportion

Valros

Barber

2019

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple SummaryTail biting is a serious behavioural problem in modern pig production which causes both animal welfare challenges and economic losses. The aim of this study was to collect information on the perceptions of farmers on how to best prevent tail biting, and on their attitudes towards tail biting and docking. Further, the aim was to investigate if perceptions are influenced by the specific system of farming, with a focus on different levels of bedding use and different tail docking practices. To achieve the goal, pig producers in the UK were surveyed. The results show that producers rank the importance of preventive measures differently to scientists and other experts. This calls for consideration when communicating with producers, and for further consideration of producer knowledge, which might be based on a more holistic view than that of researchers. The study also shows that the perception of how to best prevent and intervene to avoid tail biting differs between farms of different types, and that these perceptions might be influenced by the farmers’ own experiences, which again, might differ between countries and farming systems.AbstractTail biting causes widespread problems both for animal welfare and in the form of economic losses in pig production. This study was performed to better understand the perceptions of farmers on how to best prevent tail biting, and if perceptions are influenced by the specific system of farming, with a focus on different levels of bedding use and docking different proportions of the tail of their pigs. Pig producers in the UK were surveyed on their perceptions of the efficacy of preventive measures and attitudes towards tail biting and docking. In total, 204 responses were included. The results show that producers rank the importance of preventive measures differently to scientists and other experts. This calls for consideration when communicating with producers; and for better integration of knowledge based on practical experiences with scientific results. The study also shows that the perception of how to best avoid tail biting differs between farms of different types, and that these perceptions might be influenced by the farmers´ own experiences—one example being that farms currently using plentiful amounts of bedding also value this more highly as a way to avoid tail biting than those that do not.

show abstract

“…A suboptimal development of the immune system during lactation, for example due to insufficient colostrum intake (Declerck et al, 2016;Devillers et al, 2011), has a long-term effect on health and growth. Furthermore, recent studies indicate that the current health status of pigs is linked to an increased risk for developing deleterious behaviours (Munsterhjelm et al, 2017(Munsterhjelm et al, , 2019. However, as far as we know, there is no direct evidence for a link between piglet health during the lactational period and behavioural problems in pigs at a later age.…”

Section: Consequences Of Neonatal Immune Development and Healthmentioning

confidence: 96%

8. Consequences of the lactational environment on behavioural problems of pigs after weaning

Prunier

Valros

Tallet

et al. 2020

The Suckling and Weaned Piglet

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important part of pig brain development takes place after birth and depends upon internal and environmental inputs. Therefore, the environment of the piglets during the lactational period may influence their cognitive and behavioural development, hence their predisposition to fight and to perform other forms of deleterious behaviours such as sustained belly nosing or tail biting. Such behaviours are of great concern to the pig industry for animal welfare and economic reasons. This chapter focusses specifically on predisposing factors during the postnatal period until weaning for the expression of fighting and other deleterious behaviours later in life. During that suckling period, the piglet acquires essential elements to develop a good immune status, proper gut microbiota, and high disease resilience for its future life. Health problems are a major risk factor for the occurrence of tail biting so that ensuring good colostrum intake and proper hygiene in the farrowing room might reduce deleterious behaviours in the long-term. Fighting behaviour is reduced by cross-fostering and socialisation before weaning whereas earlylife competition for limited resources appears to increase subsequent aggressiveness. Therefore, any means allowing piglets from different litters to interact from the second week of age onward should be encouraged. Social stress, due to competition and crossfostering, also stimulates the occurrence of other deleterious behaviours later in life and is highly dependent on litter size at birth. Therefore, the full consequences of large litters at birth should be evaluated in terms of health, welfare and performance over the whole life of pigs. Enriching the environment during lactation has diverse effects on fighting behaviour with no effect in most situations and a reduction, or even an increase, in some others. Similarly, it has diverse effects on tail biting and on manipulatory behaviours suggesting that the nature of the enrichment, the age, and the timing at which it is presented might greatly influence its impact on such deleterious behaviours. This chapter emphasizes that even though the environment in which post-weaned pigs are raised is of major importance for the expression of nefarious behaviours, the pre-weaning environment should also be optimized to reduce their likelihood.

show abstract

To be blamed or pitied? The effect of illness on social behavior, cytokine levels and feed intake in undocked boars

Cited by 26 publications

References 44 publications

The Effect of LPS and Ketoprofen on Cytokines, Brain Monoamines, and Social Behavior in Group-Housed Pigs

The Effect of LPS and Ketoprofen on Cytokines, Brain Monoamines, and Social Behavior in Group-Housed Pigs

Producer Perceptions of the Prevention of Tail Biting on UK Farms: Association to Bedding Use and Tail Removal Proportion

8. Consequences of the lactational environment on behavioural problems of pigs after weaning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About