Tail Docking of Piglets 2: Effects of Meloxicam on the Stress Response to Tail Docking.

Rebecca Morrison,Paul Hemsworth

doi:10.3390/ani10091699

Abstract

Simple SummaryPrevious research has shown that tail docking causes an acute stress response and tail docking using the cauterisation procedure may be less aversive than the clipper procedure. This experiment examined the efficacy of meloxicam in mitigating acute stress responses to tail docking. Cauterisation was less aversive than the clipper procedure based on the stress response after docking. Meloxicam mitigated the cortisol response at 30 min after tail docking with the clipper and the behavioural response in the first 60 min after tail docking with the clipper. The commercial viability and implementation of meloxicam requires consideration before it is recommended for use compared to cauterisation alone, as it requires additional handling of piglets and higher costs.This experiment assessed the efficacy of the cauterisation procedure with or without pain relief (injectable meloxicam) in mitigating the acute stress response to tail docking. Male piglets (n = 432) were allocated to the following treatments at 2-d post-farrowing: (1) no handling, (2) sham handling, (3) tail docked using clippers, (4) tail docked using a cauteriser, (5) meloxicam + clipper, and (6) meloxicam + cauteriser. Meloxicam treatments used Metacam® at 5 mg/mL injected i.m. 1 h prior to tail docking. Blood samples were collected at 15 and 30 min post-treatment and analysed for total plasma cortisol. Behaviours indicative of pain such as escape attempts, vocalisations and standing with head lowered were measured. The duration of vocalisations and frequency of escape attempts during treatment were greater in all tail docking treatments compared to the sham treatment. Piglets in the clipper treatment had higher (p < 0.05) cortisol concentrations at 30 min but not 15 min after treatment and stood for longer (p < 0.001) with head lowered in the first 60 min after treatment than those in the cauterisation treatment. Meloxicam reduced (p < 0.05) both the cortisol response at 30 min after tail docking with the clipper as well as the behavioural response in the first 60 min after tail docking with the clipper. In comparison to the sham treatment, cortisol concentrations at 15 min were higher in the two tail docking treatments whereas the tail docking treatments with meloxicam were similar to the sham handling treatment. In comparison to the sham handling treatment, cortisol concentrations at 30 min post-docking were higher (p < 0.05) only in the clipper treatment. While cauterisation appears to be less aversive than the clipper procedure, the administration of meloxicam did not mitigate the behavioural response during tail docking using either procedure, but reduced standing with head lowered in the first hour after docking for both methods. The commercial viability of administration of meloxicam requires consideration before it is recommended for use compared to cauterisation alone, as it requires additional handling of piglets and costs.

Highlights

Tail biting is both an economic and welfare problem of pigs that involves destructive chewing of pen-mates’ tails
There was a trend for more deaths when clippers with or without meloxicam were used compared to cauterisation with or without meloxicam (13.2% and 6.9% mortality post-treatment, respectively, X2 = 3.11, p = 0.078)
In comparison to the sham treatment, cortisol concentrations at 15 min post-treatment were higher (p < 0.05) in the clipper and cauterisation treatment. Both tail docking treatments with meloxicam were similar to the sham treatment (p > 0.05)

Summary

Introduction

Tail biting is both an economic and welfare problem of pigs that involves destructive chewing of pen-mates’ tails. Tail biting can result in wounding and bleeding and more severe consequences such as infection, spinal abscess, paralysis, and, in extreme cases, death [2]. The aetiology of tail biting remains poorly understood and potential factors predisposing tail biting are numerous, e.g., crowding, poor ventilation, breakdown in the food or water supply, poor quality diets, and breed type. The underlying behavioural mechanisms for tail biting are not well understood. While management and housing factors should be carefully examined in cases of tail biting, tail docking is a common procedure for reducing the risk of tail biting behaviour, and there is evidence that the procedure reduces the numbers of tail-bitten pigs [3,4]. Tail docking of piglets commonly involves the use of either side-cutter pliers (clippers) or a cauterising tail-docking iron (cauterisation) with docking occurring between 1.5 and 2.5 cm from the base of the tail, in between vertebra [5]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion