College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.
J Anim Sci. 2013 Oct;91(10):4908-16. doi: 10.2527/jas.2012-5996. Epub 2013 Aug 21.
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.
本实验旨在比较断尾和剪牙对猪生长和行为的影响。将 21 窝（每窝 6 头）的猪按初生重分组，在 3 日龄时，根据窝别随机分为断尾剪牙（处理）和对照（假处理）组。在处理过程中记录猪的叫声，在哺乳期、保育期和生长期观察猪的行为。在第 21 天收集血液样本，以测量血清 IgG 浓度。在 70、110 和 160 日龄时，通过检查身体和尾巴两侧评估身体和尾巴上的伤口，在 10、21、70 和 160 日龄时记录体重。在 160 日龄时，通过超声测量生长猪的脂肪和肌肉深度。处理过程中，剪牙和断尾的猪叫声更多（1.06 比 0.62 秒；P < 0.01），处理后 3 天和整个哺乳期，处理猪更常独自躺着（P = 0.03）；然而，剪牙和断尾并没有（P ≥ 0.14）改变猪在哺乳期、站立、拥挤、玩耍/打架或坐着的频率。保育期（P ≥ 0.23）和生长期（P ≥ 0.18）的社会行为不受剪牙和断尾的影响，但保育期处理猪休息更多（P = 0.03），对探索行为的兴趣较低，特别是在栏内（P ≤ 0.04）和丰容调查（P ≤ 0.02）中。断尾和剪牙降低了 10 至 21 日龄（P = 0.01）和 21 至 70 日龄（P = 0.04）的 ADG，导致 21 日龄（P = 0.01）和 70 日龄（P = 0.08）体重较轻与假处理猪相比。然而，160 日龄体重（P = 0.62）、70 至 160 日龄 ADG（P = 0.23）和增重/饲料比（P ≥ 0.15）不受断尾和剪牙的影响。此外，假处理和处理猪的脂肪深度（P ≥ 0.05）、肌肉深度（P = 0.93）或估计的肌肉百分比（P = 0.27）没有差异。尽管断尾和剪牙似乎会产生短期的疼痛和不适，但本实验结果表明，保留牙齿和尾巴不会对生长育肥猪的死亡率、发病率、生产性能或胴体质量产生不利影响。
