Haltung von Schweinen mit nicht kupierten Schwänzen in konventionellen Betrieben

Zusammenfassung

Gegenstand und Ziel: In der Machbarkeitsstudie wurden Schweine mit nicht kupierten Schwänzen und Schweine mit kupierten Schwänzen in vier konventionell produzierenden Betrieben in Niedersachsen von der Aufzucht bis zur Schlachtung untersucht. Ziel war die praktische Erprobung von Managementempfehlungen zur Verhinderung und Eindämmung von Schwanzbeißen. Material und Methoden: Vor Einstallung der Tiere wurden die betriebsspezifischen Risikofaktoren für das Schwanzbeißen geprüft und soweit möglich reduziert. Zusätzlich wurden in jedem Betrieb individuelle präventive Maßnahmen ergriffen, wie z. B. die Bereitstellung von zusätzlichen Beschäftigungsmaterialien oder Futterzusätzen. Die Landwirte wurden in der Tierbeobachtung geschult, um Anzeichen eines beginnenden Schwanzbeißens rechtzeitig zu erkennen und Maßnahmen ergreifen zu können. Eine Beurteilung der Schwänze der Tiere erfolgte täglich durch den Landwirt sowie in 14-tägigen Abständen durch die Erstautorin. In die Auswertung gingen zudem die erfassten Schlachtdaten der Tiere ein. Ergebnisse: Schwanzbeißen trat in jedem Durchgang in allen Betrieben bei den nicht kupierten Schweinen bereits in der Ferkelaufzucht auf. Im Durchschnitt aller Betriebe konnten 53,5% der nicht kupierten Tiere mit vollständiger Schwanzlänge in die Mast eingestallt werden. Zum Ende der Mast wiesen noch 24,2% der nicht kupierten Tiere einen intakten Schwanz auf. Bei den nicht kupierten Tieren ergab sich eine signifikant höhere Mortalität als bei den kupierten Schweinen (p = 0,0104). Die vermehrte Beanstandung von Abszessen am Schlachthof bei nicht kupierten Tieren mit vorhergehenden Verletzungen durch Schwanzbeißen war ebenfalls signifikant (p < 0,0001). Schlussfolgerung: Empfohlen wird eine mehrjährige Übergangszeit für schweinehaltende Betriebe, um durch ein schrittweises Erlernen die Haltung und Betreuung von nicht kupierten Tieren ohne vermehrtes tierschutzrelevantes Leiden der Tiere zu ermöglichen.

Summary

Objective: In this feasibility study, weaning and fattening pigs with undocked and docked tails were kept simultaneously on four conventionally producing farms in Lower Saxony, Germany. It was the aim of the study to test management recommendations to avoid and reduce tail biting under practical conditions. Material and methods: Before stocking, the farm-specific risk factors for tail biting had been analyzed and, if possible, reduced. Furthermore, on every farm, individual preventive measures, for example, additional pen enrichments and feed additives had been adopted. The farmers had been trained in animal observation, recognition of tail biting prior to outbreaks and measures to be taken when tail biting occurred. The tails of the pigs were examined daily by the farmer and every second week by the first author. Additionally, carcass characteristics were documented and analyzed. Results: Tail biting was observed in every batch on every farm during the rearing period. Combining data from all the farms, a mean of 53.5% of pigs with undocked tails could enter the fatte ning period without tail lesions. At the end of fattening, only 24.2% of the undocked slaughter pigs had intact tails. Additionally, in the group with undocked tails, mortality was significantly increased (p = 0.0104) in comparison with the control group and abscesses were detected significantly more frequently in carcasses of undocked pigs (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: As a consequence of these results, a transition period of several years is recommended to give farmers the opportunity to learn step by step how to maintain animals with undocked tails and to prevent animal suffering due to tail biting.

Schlüsselwörter

Schwanzbeißen - Kaudophagie - Ferkelaufzucht - Mast

Keywords

Tail biting - caudophagia - nursery - fattening

• Literatur

• 1 Tierschutzgesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 18. Mai 2006 (BGBl. I S. 1206, 1313), das zuletzt durch Artikel 8 Absatz 13 des Gesetzes vom 3. Dezember 2015 (BGBl. I S. 2178) geändert worden ist. Abrufbar unter: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/BJNR012770972.html
• 2 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from Commission 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. The EFSA Journal 2007; 611: 1-13.
• 3 Richtlinie 2008/120/EG des Rates vom 18. Dezember 2008 über Mindestanforderungen für den Schutz von Schweinen (kodifizierte Fassung). 2009.
• 4 Bracke MBM, De Lauwere CC, Wind SMM, Zonderland JJ. Attitudes of Dutch pig farmers towards tail biting and tail docking. J Agric Environ Ethics 2013; 26: 847-868.
• 5 Chambers C, Powell L, Wilson E, Green LE. A postal survey of tail biting in pigs in South-West England. Vet Rec 1995; 136: 147-148.
• 6 D'Eath R, Niemi J, Ahmadi BV. et al. Why are most EU pigs tail docked? Econo mic and ethical analysis of four pig housing and management scenarios in the light of EU legislation and animal welfare outcomes. Animal 2015; 10 (04) 1-13.
• 7 Day JEL, Van de Weerd HA, Edwards SA. The effect of varying lengths of straw bedding on the behaviour of growing pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2008; 109: 249-260.
• 8 Di Martino G, Scollo A, Gottardo F, Stefani AL, Schiavon E, Capello K, Marangon S, Bonfanti L. The effect of tail docking on the welfare of pigs housed under challenging conditions. Livest Sci 2015; 173: 78-86.
• 9 Docking CM, de Weerd HAV, Day JEL, Edwards SA. The influence of age on the use of potential enrichment objects and synchronisation of behaviour of pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2008; 110: 244-257.
• 10 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. Appendix to the EFSA Journal 2007; 611: 1-13.
• 11 Huey RJ. Incidence, location and interrelationships between the sites of abscesses recorded in pigs at a bacon factory in Northern Ireland. Vet Rec 1996; 138: 511-514.
• 12 Hunter EJ, Jones TA, Guise HJ, Penny RH, Hoste S. Tail biting in pigs 1: the prevalence at six UK abattoirs and the relationship of tail biting with docking, sex and other carcass damage. Pig J 1999; 43: 18-32.
• 13 Hunter EJ, Jones TA, Guise HJ, Penny RH, Hoste S. The relationship between tail biting in pigs, docking procedure and other management practices. Vet J 2001; 161: 72-79.
• 14 Jaaskelainen T, Kauppinen T, Vesala KM, Valros A. Relationships between pig welfare, productivity and farmer disposition. Anim Welf 2014; 23: 435-443.
• 15 Kauppinen T, Vesala KM, Valros A. Farmer attitude toward improvement of animal welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters. Livest Sci 2012; 143: 142-150.
• 16 Kritas SK, Morrison SB. Relationships between tail biting in pigs and disease lesions and condemnations at slaughter. Vet Rec 2007; 160: 149-152.
• 17 Lang E. Einfluss einer Echinacea-Fütterung auf Immunstatus und Verhalten bei Ferkeln in den ersten Lebenswochen. Dissertation. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München; 2004
• 18 Madey DP. Evaluation of a software-based intervention tool for the reduction of tail biting in German fattening pigs. Dissertation, Tierärztl Hochschule Hannover. 2014
• 19 Marques BMFPP, Bernardi ML, Coelho CF. et al. Influence of tail biting on weight gain, lesions and condemnations at slaughter of finishing pigs. Pesqui Vet Bras 2012; 32: 967-974.
• 20 Moinard C, Mendl M, Nicol CJ, Green LE. A case control study of on-farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2003; 81: 333-355.
• 21 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 2014; 13: 9.
• 22 Newberry RC, Woodgush DGM. Development of some behavior patterns in piglets under semi-natural conditions. Anim Prod 1988; 46: 103-109.
• 23 Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft, Verbraucherschutz und Landesentwicklung. Tierschutzplan Niedersachsen 2011 [zitiert am 8.8.2015]. Abrufbar unter: http://www.ml.niedersachsen.de/download/57732
• 24 Norval J. Abscesses in pigs. Vet Rec 1966; 78: 708-713.
• 25 Penny RH, Hill FW. Observations of some conditions in pigs at the abattoir with particular reference to tail biting. Vet Rec 1974; 94: 174-180.
• 26 Prunier A, Heinonen M, Quesnel H. High physiological demands in intensively raised pigs: impact on health and welfare. Animal 2010; 4: 886-898.
• 27 Pütz S. Entwicklung und Validierung von praxistauglichen Maßnahmen zum Verzicht des routinemäßigen Schwänzekupierens beim Schwein in der konventionellen Mast. Dissertation. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen; 2014
• 28 Schroder-Petersen DL, Simonsen HB. Tail biting in pigs. Vet J 2001; 162: 196-210.
• 29 Schroder-Petersen DL, Simonsen HB, Lawson LG. Tail-in-mouth behaviour among weaner pigs in relation to age, gender and group composition regarding gender. Acta Agric Scand Sect A-Anim Sci 2003; 53: 29-34.
• 30 Scollo A, Di Martino G, Bonfanti L. et al. Tail docking and the rearing of heavy pigs: the role played by gender and the presence of straw in the control of tail biting. Blood para meters, behaviour and skin lesions. Res Vet Sci 2013; 95: 825-830.
• 31 Scott K, Taylor L, Gill BP, Edwards SA. Influence of different types of environmental enrichment on the behaviour of finishing pigs in two different housing systems. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2007; 105: 51-58.
• 32 Simonsen HB, Klinken L, Bindseil E. Histopathology of intact and docked pig tails. Br VetJ 1991; 147: 407-412.
• 33 Sinisalo A, Niemi JK, Heinonen M, Valros A. Tail biting and production performance in fattening pigs. Livest Sci 2012; 143: 220-225.
• 34 Sonoda LT, Fels M, Oczak M. et al. Tail biting in pigs - causes and ma nagement intervention strategies to reduce the behavioural disorder. A review. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr 2013; 126: 104-112.
• 35 Stafford KJ. Tail biting: an important and undesirable behaviour of growing pigs. Vet J 2010; 186: 131-132.
• 36 Statham P, Green L, Bichard M, Mendl M. Predicting tail-biting from behaviour of pigs prior to outbreaks. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2009; 121: 157-164.
• 37 Taylor NR, Main DC, Mendl M, Edwards SA. Tail-biting: a new perspective. Vet J 2010; 186: 137-147.
• 38 Trickett SL, Guy JH, Edwards SA. The role of novelty in environmental enrichment for the weaned pig. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2009; 116: 45-51.
• 39 Tuyttens FAM. The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: A review. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2005; 92: 261-282.
• 40 Ursinus WW, Van Reenen CG, Kemp B, Bolhuis JE. Tail biting behaviour and tail damage in pigs and the relationship with general behaviour: Predicting the inevitable?. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2014; 156: 22-36.
• 41 Valros A, Ahlstrom S, Rintala H, Hakkinen T, Saloniemi H. The prevalence of tail damage in slaughter pigs in Finland and associations to carcass condemnations. Acta Agric Scand Sect A- Anim Sci 2004; 54: 213-219.
• 42 Valros A, Heinonen M. Save the pig tail. Porcine Health Management. 2015: 1
• 43 Van de Weerd HA, Docking CM, Day JEL, Avery PJ, Edwards SA. A systematic approach towards developing environmental enrichment for pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2003; 84: 101-118.
• 44 Van de Weerd HA, Docking CM, Day JEL, Edwards SA. The development of harmful social behaviour in pigs with intact tails and different enrichment backgrounds in two housing systems. Anim Sci 2005; 80: 289-298.
• 45 Van de Weerd HA, Docking CM, Day JEL, Breuer K, Edwards SA. Effects of species-relevant environmental enrichment on the behaviour and productivity of finishing pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2006; 99: 230-247.
• 46 van de Weerd HA, Day JEL. A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2009; 116: 1-20.
• 47 Wallgren P, Lindahl E. The influence of tail biting on performance of fattening pigs. Acta Vet Scand 1996; 37: 453-460.
• 48 Zonderland JJ, Wolthuis-Fillerup M, Van Reenen CG, Bracke MBM, Kemp B, Den Hartog LA, Spoolder HAM. Prevention and treatment of tail biting in weaned piglets. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2008; 110: 269-281.
• 49 Zonderland JJ, van Riel JW, Bracke MBM, Kemp B, den Hartog LA, Spoolder HAM. Tail posture predicts tail damage among weaned piglets. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2009; 121: 165-170.
• 50 Zonderland JJ, Schepers F, Bracke MBM, den Hartog LA, Kemp B, Spoolder HAM. Characteristics of biter and victim piglets apparent before a tail-biting outbreak. Animal 2011; 5: 767-775.