Author:
Heseker Philipp,Bergmann Tjard,Scheumann Marina,Traulsen Imke,Kemper Nicole,Probst Jeanette
Abstract
AbstractEarly identification of tail biting and intervention are necessary to reduce tail lesions and their impact on animal health and welfare. Removal of biters has become an effective intervention strategy, but finding them can be difficult and time-consuming. The aim of this study was to investigate whether tail biting and, in particular, individual biters could be identified by detecting pig screams in audio recordings. The study included 288 undocked weaner pigs housed in six pens in two batches. Once a tail biter (n = 7) was identified by visual inspection in the stable and removed by the farm staff, the previous days of video and audio recordings were analyzed for pig screams (sudden increase in loudness with frequencies above 1 kHz) and tail biting events until no biting before the removal was observed anymore. In total, 2893 screams were detected in four pens where tail biting occurred. Of these screams, 52.9% were caused by tail biting in the observed pen, 25.6% originated from other pens, 8.8% were not assignable, and 12.7% occurred due to other reasons. In case of a tail biting event, screams were assigned individually to biter and victim pigs. Based on the audio analysis, biters were identified between one and nine days prior to their removal from the pen after visual inspection. Screams were detected earlier than the increase in hanging tails and could therefore be favored as an early warning indicator. Analyzing animal vocalization has potential for monitoring and early detection of tail biting events. In combination with individual marks and automatic analysis algorithms, biters could be identified and tail biting efficiently reduced. In this way, biters can be removed earlier to increase animal health and welfare.
Funder
Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture
Stiftung Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover (TIHO)
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference63 articles.
1. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Scientific Report on the risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems. EFSA J. 5, 1–13 (2007).
2. D’Eath, R. B. et al. Why are most EU pigs tail docked? Economic and ethical analysis of four pig housing and management scenarios in the light of EU legislation and animal welfare outcomes. Animal 10, 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115002098 (2016).
3. Lahrmann, H. P., Busch, M. E., D’Eath, R. B., Forkman, B. & Hansen, C. F. More tail lesions among undocked than tail docked pigs in a conventional herd. Animal 11, 1825–1831. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731117000490 (2017).
4. Nannoni, E., Valsami, T., Sardi, L. & Martelli, G. Tail docking in pigs: A review on its short- and long-term consequences and effectiveness in preventing tail biting. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 13, 3095. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2014.3095 (2014).
5. Thodberg, K., Herskin, M. S., Jensen, T. & Jensen, K. H. The effect of docking length on the risk of tail biting, tail-directed behaviour, aggression and activity level of growing pigs kept under commercial conditions. Animal 12, 2609–2618. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118000563 (2018).
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献