PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11681870

Tail biting in pigs.

D L Schrøder-Petersen·H B Simonsen
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

One of the costly and welfare-reducing problems in modern pig production is tail biting. Tail biting is an abnormal behaviour, characterized by one pig's dental manipulation of another pig's tail. Tail biting can be classified into two groups: the pre-injury stage, before any wound on the tail is present, and the injury stage, where the tail is wounded and bleeding. Tail biting in the injury stage will reduce welfare of the bitten pig and the possible spread of infection is a health as well as welfare problem. The pigs that become tail biters may also suffer, because they are frustrated due to living in a stressful environment. This frustration may result in an excessive motivation for biting the tails of pen mates. This review aims to summarize recent research and theories in relation to tail biting.

Explore related subjects

Animal WelfareAnimalsBehavior, AnimalBites and StingsHousing, AnimalMotivationStress, PsychologicalSwineSwine DiseasesTailJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D L Schrøder-Petersen, H B Simonsen. 2001. Tail biting in pigs.. https://doi.org/10.1053/tvjl.2001.0605

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Systematic review of comparative studies examining alternatives to the harmful use of animals in biomedical education.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the published literature for controlled studies comparing learning outcomes of traditional methods that require the terminal use of animals (eg, dissection, live-animal surgery, and live-animal laboratory demonstrations) with outcomes obtained with alternative teaching methods. DESIGN: Systematic review. STUDY POPULATION: Controlled studies published between 1996 and 2004. PROCEDURES: PubMed was searched with the following keywords, used alone and in combination: educational alternatives, nonlethal teaching methods, veterinary alternatives, medical education, and nonterminal animal use. Cited references of retrieved reports were reviewed to identify additional reports. Reports were selected for review only if a comparison group was included. RESULTS: 17 studies that were randomized controlled trials or nonrandomized trials that included a comparison group were identified. Five involved veterinary students, 3 involved medical students, 6 involved university undergraduate students, and 3 involved high school biology students. Sample size ranged from 14 to 283 students. Eleven studies appeared to be randomized, parallel-group trials, 4 involved comparative groups to which participants were not randomly assigned or for which the randomization process was not clear, 1 was a 2-period crossover study, and 1 involved a retrospective review of grades. In all 17 studies reviewed, results associated with the alternative method of instruction were not significantly different from or superior to results associated with the conventional method. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although the number of controlled studies identified was small, the results seem to support more widespread adoption of alternative teaching methods in biomedical education.

Animal Welfare↗