關(guān)于咬尾話題的國外的研究,供大家參考(沒時(shí)間翻譯,有人就受累慢慢看啊)

yanglei707070

Implementation of existing knowledge on tail biting by the development and evaluation of prevention and outbreak husbandry advisory tools

Research partners: University of Bristol, University of Newcastle

Industrial partners: RSPCA, BPEX, pig producers

Duration: 2006 – 2009


Units from seven producer groups have been involved in a project jointly funded by BPEX
and the RSPCA aimed at reducing the risk of tail biting in commercial units. 65 units were
recruited for the project, each receiving between 2 and 4 visits between 2007 and 2009. On
each visit a questionnaire was completed, examining the specific risks and combinations of
tail biting risks found in different pen types on the units, and units received information and
suggestions to help overcome the specific risks found.
The risks incorporated in the questionnaire were the result of consultation with a range of
industry experts at the start of 2007, covering issues of atmosphere and environment,
health, transport and mixing, feed and water, stocking density and key indicators of the pigs’
behaviour. 57 units had two or more visits (some units ceased production during the study)
and prevalence decreased significantly from 3.96% to 2.38% over the course of the project.
The full picture shows that tail biting is not spread evenly across farms, with no tail bitten
pigs found on 35 out of 172 visits to finisher units, but 15 visits finding that 10% or more pigs
were tail bitten.
The definition of tail biting used here is stricter than the “clinical” definition, extending to
small scabs and lesions rather than only wounds where part of the tail had been bitten off.
There were approximately three pigs with mild lesions for every clinical tail biting case in this
study, varying with housing type and age of pig, which highlights this as an early warning
sign. Looking at the pigs’ behaviour, the best warning signs were pigs tucking their tails
down tightly against their rump, even before clear signs of injury, and restlessness or
agitation in a pen.
The most commonly found risks for tail biting related to atmosphere and environment,
enrichment (straw or toys), general feed and water provision (e.g. ease of access), and pig
health. The majority of individual risks factors seen on a unit were linked to increased
likelihood of tail biting within a pen, but some factors may have been only indirectly
associated with problems.
Factors strongly associated with higher likelihood of tail biting within a pen were:
• Draughts in the lying area - these cause discomfort, disrupted rest, and undesired
use of pen layout e.g. poor separation of lying and dunging areas.
• Variation in tail length (not caused by tail biting) i.e. a mixture of long and docked
tails, or a range of docked tail lengths within the group.
• Season – a link was found with the number of days of air frost in the preceding
month, i.e. uncommonly cold temperatures, which could potentially affect pen
temperature, ventilation rate (thus giving poor air quality and respiratory problems),
drinking water availability, daily farm routine.
• Objects provided for enrichment but being fouled at floor level or with poor
accessibility. A booklet of ideas for pig enrichment based on good practice seen
during the study is available from BPEX.
• Pigs which were previously housed on straw but then moved into non-straw systems
• Fouled drinkers (only found in 4% of pens, but with a highly significant association).
These may have been indicative of general management standard rather than being
a direct cause.
Factors strongly associated with lower likelihood of tail biting within a pen:
• Pigs which currently had straw.
• Pigs which were housed on straw throughout.
• Pigs which were vaccinated against PCV2.
Results from the survey are being used to fine tune our understanding of the relative
importance of different risk factors in order to help prioritise preventive measures on different
types of unit. Similar findings are currently being analysed for weaner systems. A final
spreadsheet calculator of tail biting risks will be made available online via Bristol University.
A related project was also carried out on seven units aimed at reducing the impact of tail
biting once an outbreak had occurred. The likely triggers differed on the different units and
included ventilation issues, mixing a docile and a more aggressive strain of pigs, underlying
health issues or pigs developing tail biting behaviour on their previous unit. A number of
approaches are available to help control an outbreak of tail biting:
• Identify and remove the biter(s); spray mark suspected biters to help identify who the
culprits are.
• Remove and treat bitten pigs; helps to manage lesions and prevent more pigs
becoming involved.
• Add chewable objects; provide a distraction for pigs to chew on – pigs show most
initial interest in objects that are odorous, chewable and deformable, and sustained
interest in objects that are destructible (chewable) and edible. Consider high quality
objects to initially break the behaviour, followed by sustained interest objects. Any
program of adding objects needs to be kept up once the initial outbreak is over.
• For pigs on straw, add straw more often, e.g. daily or twice daily to re-stimulate
interest in the straw instead of each other.Whichever actions are tried, the key is to do something as soon as possible, before more
tails are bitten, before lesions become more severe with infection setting in, and before
more pigs develop the habit of biting tails. Whilst dealing with an outbreak it’s also worth
considering what triggered the behaviour in that particular batch of pigs to help prevent it
in the next batch.
Key points to control tail biting: 1) identify and reduce risk 2) monitor carefully 3)
react fast.

任明武

看著夠費(fèi)勁的，有高手翻譯一下