Researchers advise a paradigm shift when it comes to tail biting
Prof. Dr. Steffen Hoy and Ina Jans-Wenstrup from the Justus Liebig University in Giessen, in a recently completed research project funded by the QS Science Fund, found that there is currently no safe, repeatable and therefore permanent solution to prevent tail biting in pigs gives. They demand innovative solutions for prevention.
Those responsible for the project suspect that the cause of tail biting (caudophagy) lies in the animals' high level of activity motivation, for which interactions with pen partners are obviously more interesting than dealing with "inanimate" objects. Accordingly, tail biting is not to be classified as a behavioral disorder in the animals, but rather the result of species-typical exploratory behavior at the “wrong object”. The researchers therefore urgently recommend a paradigm shift when discussing the causes of caudophagia. "We need a completely different approach to employ the cognitively very demanding and intelligent pigs in such a way that they are not interested in their pen partners," explains Prof. Dr. Hey. New solutions that are more attractive to the animals by offering different, changing stimuli must be developed. "If all efforts do not lead to a reduction in the number of animal welfare-related injuries caused by mutual tail biting, the last third of the tail must be docked as an intervention in the future," Hoy continued.
Pellets are not a solution either
The scientists investigated whether the use of various pellets in addition to the standard feed ration in piglet rearing could be a tried and tested solution against tail biting. The conclusion: The use of pellets is not a suitable preventative measure for weaners and fattening pigs. Other factors examined, such as sex, genotype or age of the mother, had little or no effect on the behavior of the animals. In 14 runs, a total of 1.376 piglets whose tails were not docked were compared with 1.190 piglets with docked tails. Half of the long-tailed piglets were fed the standard ration, the other half of the animals the standard ration supplemented with straw, hay or hop cone pellets (as a supplement to compound feed and, in the case of hay pellets, also for ad libitum activity). A high percentage of tail biting was noted in all trials. The use of straw and hay pellets had no effect on the behavior of the animals, the use of hop cone pellets showed differences in behavior, but the proportion of partial or total loss of the tails was also very high at more than 50 percent.
In 14 runs, a total of 1.376 piglets whose tails were not docked were compared with 1.190 piglets with docked tails. Half of the long-tailed piglets were fed the standard ration, the other half of the animals the standard ration supplemented with straw, hay or hop cone pellets (as a supplement to compound feed and, in the case of hay pellets, also for ad libitum activity). A high percentage of tail biting was noted in all trials. The use of straw and hay pellets had no effect on the behavior of the
of the animals, the use of hop cone pellets showed differences in behavior, but the proportion of partial or total loss of the tails was also very high at more than 50 percent.
To the QS Science Fund
All sanctions that scheme participants have to pay for violations of QS requirements flow into the QS Science Fund. It thus supports research projects or scientific events on topics related to food and feed safety as well as animal health and animal welfare. Among other things, a high relevance of the research project for the economic participants in the agricultural and food industry is decisive for the funding by the science fund. All currently funded and completed projects are listed below QS Science Fund published.
