阻止咬尾，并不需要断�

2016年国际猪兽医协会会议的研究报道指出了如何阻止猪的咬尾症，避免断尾过程中的健康和福利风险、�br> 猪群内的咬尾症可发生于任何时候，具体原因目前尚没有完全明白。具体表现为：栏舍内一头或多头猪将其正常的探究行为转化为对同栏舍的同伴，重复撕咬它们的尾巴及身体的其它部位，造成损失、疼痛和感染的风险、�br> 猪群一旦出现咬尾现象，便很难控制，即便是最好的农场。断尾——剪掉约1周龄仔猪尾巴的末端，是全球养猪业一种常规操作，因为更短的尾巴不易引起同伴的撕咬。虽然这种做法普遍有效，但并不是一种理想的解决方法，在欧洲这项操作已被禁止、�br> 定义优秀的动物福利的最基本特征�?项自由中，远离疼痛和伤害便是其中之一。如果不需要断尾就能够阻止猪只间的咬尾，这种方法无疑对每个人都有好处，包括猪、农场、兽医、屠宰场、�img width="640" id="c_pic" alt="阻止咬尾，并不需要断�? src="https://upload.pig66.com/uploadfile/2016/0810/20160810082352304.jpg">

阻止咬尾，并不需要断尽�/p>一个全球问颗�br> 会议中来自爱尔兰的研究证实，咬尾已经发展成了全球养猪场共同的问题，约影响了全�?%的生猪。在持续2年的研究中，发现�?5%的猪群存在不同程度的咬尾现象。趋势图表明夏季、秋季更高，表明在温暖季节咬尾发生率会提高、�br> 随着年龄的增加，咬尾发生率随之提高。爱尔兰的另一个研究表明，尾部受伤的发生率随着年龄增加而提高，断奶仔猪约为5.4%，但生长猪、育肥猪则分别为6.2%�?1.0%、�br> 德国也发现了同样的观察结果，部分农场甚至在断奶前就出现咬尾现象。断奶时，约6.3%的仔猪存在小伤，20%的仔猪尾巴有伤口。在所调查�?5个农场中，只有两个农场直至生长阶段结束时，仍未出现咬尾现象、�br> 芬兰�?003年就已经禁止断尾操作。芬兰猪场咬尾症平均发生率为2.3%，一份近期的调查表明大多数芬兰猪场对咬尾问题并没有引起足够的重视、�br> 原因和相关�?br> 会议报道表明多个因素与猪的咬尾相关。根据一份爱尔兰的研究，咬尾可能在很小的年龄就已经开始。研究表明，母猪年龄与猪群尾部伤害发生率，老龄母猪�?胎以上）所产后代的咬尾发生率约为头胎产仔猪�?倍。中间胎次的则无显著差异。出生重越大，出生后咬尾趋势也就越大、�br> 爱尔兰的一份屠宰场数据揭示了咬尾和呼吸疾病的关联。咬尾率较高的猪群，肺部健康水平越低，暗示咬尾可能与猪群的健康状态低下有关。与同栏健康同伴相比，病猪都或多或少地存在尾部伤害、�br> 斯堪地那维亚的研究者通过对自动投料器位置的影像发现，2周�?0周时采食量的下降、第9周生长性能的下降预示着咬尾症的即将暴发，表明采食量与咬尾症间可能存在联系、�br> 德国的一份未断尾研究发现，饲料、饮水的任何中断都可能引起咬尾，另外的一份研究表明，通风失败造成的栏舍温度上�?1° C及氨气浓度的上升也可引起咬尾、�br> 阻止方法
提供多样物质已被证明可以降低猪群内的咬尾现象。欧洲食品安全局特别强调这些物质应该具体复杂、可变、重组特性，如金属链和刚性塑料管道类的物质并不适合，因为它们并不具备以上特征、�br> 德国的两个试验表明，可移动的稻草觅食堆可帮助降低咬尾率。不作断尾处理，配备稻草觅食堆的栏舍内约25%的猪存在尾部伤害，但没有配备稻草觅食堆的栏舍内尾部伤害高�?0%。在另一个试验中，由于咬尾率都很低，研究者没有发现使用稻草觅食堆的好处、�br> 德国农户表明，经常改变和补充栏舍内的多样物质对转移猪咬尾兴趣同样很重要、�br> 受伤尾部的处琅�br> 一旦出现尾部受伤，处理就比较困难。移走攻击者或受伤者是实际操作中惟一可行的方法，但这样需要饲养员花费更多的时间来观察猪群内的咬尾现象，以便即时作出相应处理、�br> 芬兰养猪户指出，提供足够的活动空间是阻止咬尾的关键。他们还提出良好的健康、高质量的断奶、避免贼风对降低风险也很重要、�br> 从长远来看，育种公司可能会提供一个解决方案。Topigs Norsvin已经开始以“社会经济”特性为基础的选育工作，培育打斗、咬尾等不良特征发生率较低的品种。他们发现这些品种的第一代后代在育肥阶段表现出较低的打斗行为，且没有出现如生长性能下降等的不好后果、�br> 附原文：
Cutting tail biting, without cutting the tail
Research presented at the 2016 International Pig Veterinary Society （IPVS� conference sheds new light on how pig tail biting may be prevented, while avoiding the health and welfare risks associated with tail docking.
Tail biting can occur in groups of pigs at almost any time. For reasons still not fully understood, one or more animals turn their normal exploratory behavior onto their pen-mates, repeatedly biting their tails and other body parts, causing injury and pain and introducing the threat of infection to the victim.
Once started, it is difficult to stop the tail biting, even on the best managed farms. Tail docking � removing the end portion of the piglet"s tail at around 1 week of age � is a common practice worldwide, as the shorter tail is less attractive to any potential biter. While it is generally effective, tail docking is not an ideal solution and in the EU, its routine use is banned.
Freedom from pain and injury are among the Five Freedoms that define the most fundamental features of good welfare for farm animals. It would be to everyone"s benefit � pigs, farmers, veterinarians and slaughterhouses � if tail biting could be prevented without the need to dock.
A widespread problem
Research from Ireland1,2 presented at the conference confirmed that tail biting tends to be a sporadic issue on pig farms, affecting around 2% of pigs. During the 2-year study period, around 15% of the herds were affected by some level of tail biting. Prevalence tended to be higher in the summer and autumn, pointing to more tail biting during warmer weather.
The proportion of tail-bitten pigs may increase with age. Another study from Ireland3?showed the prevalence of tail lesions increasing with age, rising from 5.4% in weaners, to 6.2% in growers and 11.0% in finishers.
The same was observed in Germany4, where there was evidence of tail biting even before weaning among undocked piglets on some farms. By the end of weaner phase, 6.3% of pigs had some minor lesions and 20% had bitten tails. Only on two of the 15 farms studied did none of the pigs have any tail injuries at the end of the growing phase.
Docking has been banned in Finland since 2003. With an average incidence of 2.3%, a recent survey5?reveals that most Finnish pig farmers do not consider tail biting to be a major problem.
Causes and correlations
Presentations at IPVS confirmed that numerous factors have been linked to tail biting in pigs.
The behavior may start very early in the pig"s life, according to an Irish study6. Researchers reported that sow age impacted the occurrence of tail lesions, with pigs from older sows （parity 6 or more� almost twice as likely to have tail lesions later in life as those from first-litter females. There was no significant difference in the rates for piglets from sows of intermediate parities. Heavier birthweights also increased the likelihood of subsequent damage to the tail.
A link between tail biting and respiratory disease was revealed by analysis of slaughterhouse data in Ireland. Pig herds with a high incidence of tail lesions also had more lung condemnations, suggesting tail biting could be linked to poor health at the herd level. However, individual sick pigs were no more or less likely to have tail injuries than their healthy pen-mates.
Monitoring activity at automatic feeders, Scandinavian researchers7?noted dips in feed intake at 2 and 10 weeks prior to an outbreak of tail biting, as well as a growth check? around 9 weeks before biting episodes, indicating a possible link between feeding and the adverse behavior.
From a study of undocked pigs in Germany4, it was noted that any interruption in the supply of feed or water could initiate tail biting, and other German researchers8?observed that an episode may have been triggered by a failure of the ventilation system, which caused an 11° C rise in house temperature and an increase in the ammonia concentration in the air.
Methods of prevention
Provision of enrichment materials has been suggested as a way to minimize the risk of tail biting by pigs. The European Food Safety Authority has specified that these materials should be complex, changeable and destructible, and that objects such as metal chains and rigid plastic pipes are unsuitable as the only form of environmental enrichment for pigs.
Possible benefits of a movable straw foraging tower on tail injuries were assessed in two trials in Germany. With undocked pigs8, 25% of those with access to straw in a tower had tail lesions, compared with 80% for the group with an empty tower, although the severity of the lesions was similar for both groups. In another trial9, the incidence of tail biting was so low that researchers could not draw any conclusions on the effectiveness of the tower.
Frequent changing or re-stocking of the enrichment material was more important to distract the pigs from tail biting than the quantity of material provided, German farmers4 reported.
Treating tail biting
Treatment of tail biting is difficult once it has started. Removal of biters and/or victims from the pen is the only practical option, but producers reported in the same study that they needed additional time to observe their pigs for signs of tail biting, remove the biters and treat injured pigs.
Provision of adequate feeding space is the key to preventing tail biting, according to farmers in Finland5. They also mentioned good health, high-quality weaners and an absence of drafts in the pig pens to be important to minimize the risks.
In the longer term, breeding companies may be able to offer a solution. Topigs Norsvin has been selecting pigs on the basis of “socio-genetic� characteristics10?and breeding from pigs chosen for a low incidence of adverse traits such as aggression and tail biting. They found that the first generation of offspring were less aggressive in the finishing phase, without any unintended consequences such as a decrease in performance.

2016年国际猪兽医协会会议的研究报道指出了如何阻止猪的咬尾症，避免断尾过程中的健康和福利风险� 猪群内的咬尾症可发生于任何时候，具体原因目前尚没有完全明白。具体表现为：栏舍内一头或多头猪将其正常的探究行为转化为对同栏舍的同伴，重

2019-11-12 05:30:00