Pig Development Department, Animal & Grassland Research & Innovation Centre, Teagasc Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.
UCD Veterinary Sciences Centre, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
PLoS One. 2024 Aug 29;19(8):e0305960. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305960. eCollection 2024.
The study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a tail-biting risk assessment scheme. The scheme consisted of trained private veterinary practitioners (assessors) applying a risk assessment tool on commercial pig farms to six pens per farm. The assessment tool included animal and non-animal-based observations which were used to determine the perceived risk of tail biting for each pen. For this study 27 farms were assessed, and a subsequent batch of pigs from each farm underwent post-mortem tail lesion scoring at the abattoir. The assessments revealed that a high percentage of pens had fully slatted flooring (92%) and mixed-sex populations (84%), with a significant proportion of pens containing pigs which were all tail docked (92%). Most pens (86%) did not allow all pigs simultaneous access to feeders. Enrichment was present in 88% of the pens, but most (46%) were supplied with only one item, and only 15% offering multiple enrichment types. The study found no significant associations between the risk of tail biting and visible injuries, dirty flanks, or tucked tails, as assessed by the assessors (P > 0.05). Similarly, the risk of tail biting reported per pen was not associated with aggressive, damaging, or exploratory behaviours (P > 0.05). At the abattoir, 96% of pigs' tails exhibited minor skin damage, with only 4% showing moderate to severe damage. Furthermore, no links were found between the scores obtained during slaughter and the risk of tail biting, as reported by the assessors (P < 0.05). Although the tool was useful in identifying several improvements that could be made at farm level in areas such as stocking density, enrichment provision and reducing tail docking, overall the results underscored the need for improved training of assessors, and the challenge of associating management practices and animal based measures with tail-biting risk.
本研究旨在评估一种咬尾风险评估方案的有效性。该方案由经过培训的私人兽医从业者（评估员）在商业猪场对每六个猪圈应用风险评估工具。该评估工具包括基于动物和非动物的观察，用于确定每一个猪圈的咬尾风险感知。在这项研究中，评估了 27 个猪场，随后对每个猪场的一批猪在屠宰场进行了死后尾巴损伤评分。评估结果显示，有很高比例的猪圈采用了全漏缝地板（92%）和混合性别猪群（84%），很大一部分猪圈的猪都进行了断尾处理（92%）。大多数猪圈（86%）不允许所有猪同时接触饲料。88%的猪圈有丰容设施，但大多数（46%）只提供了一种物品，只有 15%提供了多种丰容类型。研究发现，评估员评估的可见损伤、肮脏的侧腹或卷尾与咬尾风险之间没有显著关联（P>0.05）。同样，每猪圈报告的咬尾风险也与攻击、破坏或探索行为无关（P>0.05）。在屠宰场，96%的猪尾巴有轻微的皮肤损伤，只有 4%的猪尾巴有中度到严重的损伤。此外，在屠宰时获得的分数与评估员报告的咬尾风险之间没有发现任何关联（P<0.05）。尽管该工具有助于确定在饲养密度、丰容提供和减少断尾等方面可以在农场层面进行的一些改进，但总体而言，结果强调了需要对评估员进行更好的培训，以及将管理实践和基于动物的措施与咬尾风险联系起来的挑战。
