TY - JOUR
AU - Marchant-Forde, R. M.
AB - ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to evaluate stress responses evoked by 2 alternative methods for performing the following processing procedures: 1) teeth resection—clipping vs. grinding; 2) tail docking—cold vs. hot clipping; 3) identification—ear notch vs. tag; 4) iron administration—injection vs. oral; 5) castration—cords cut vs. torn. Eight to 10 litters of 8-, 2-, and 3-d-old piglets were assigned to each procedure. Within each litter, 2 piglets were assigned to 1 of 4 possible procedures: the 2 alternative methods, a sham procedure, and a sham procedure plus blood sampling. Blood was sampled before processing and at 45 min, 4 h, 48 h, 1 wk, and 2 wk postprocedure and assayed for cortisol and β-endorphin. Procedures were videotaped and analyzed to evaluate the time taken to perform the procedure and the number of squeals, grunts, and escape attempts. Vocalizations were analyzed to determine mean and peak frequencies and duration. Piglets were weighed before the procedure and at 24 h, 48 h, 1 wk, and 2 wk afterward. Lesions were scored on a scale of 0 to 5 on pigs in the identification, tail docking, and castration treatments at 24 h, 1 wk, and 2 wk postprocedure. For teeth resection, grinding took longer than clipping and resulted in greater cortisol concentration overall, poorer growth rates, and longer vocalizations compared with pigs in the control treatment (P < 0.05). For tail docking, hot clipping took longer, and hot-clipped piglets grew slower than cold-clipped piglets (P < 0.05). Hot clipping also resulted in longer and higher frequency squealing compared with pigs in the control treatment (P < 0.01). For identification, ear notching took longer than tagging, and ear-notched piglets had worse wound scores than tagged piglets (P < 0.05). Cortisol concentrations at 4 h also tended to be greater for ear-notched piglets (P < 0.10). Ear notching evoked calls with higher peak frequencies than the control treatments. For iron administration, oral delivery took numerically longer than injecting, but there were no significant differences between injecting and oral delivery for any of the measures. For castration, tearing took longer than cutting the cords (P < 0.05), but β-endorphin concentrations at 45 min postprocedure were greater for cut piglets. When measures of behavior, physiology, and productivity were used, the responses to teeth resection, tail docking, and identification were shown to be altered by the procedural method, whereas responses to iron administration and castration did not differ. The time taken to carry out the procedure would appear to be an important factor in the strength of the stress response. INTRODUCTION In the first few days of life, most piglets in commercial production undergo one or more processing procedures. These may include teeth resection, tail docking, identification, iron administration, and castration. These procedures are increasingly scrutinized by animal welfare lobbyists because they are perceived as stressful and painful and may have uncertain positive effects on production. Tail docking, teeth resection, and castration have been subject to legislation within the European Union (Commission Directive 2001/93/EC; European Commission, 2001), but several unanswered questions remain regarding the overall effects on piglet welfare. Although research has been published previously investigating the effects of individual processing procedures on piglet behavior, health, and well-being (e.g., Prunier et al., 2005), few data are available describing the relative effects of alternative methods of the same procedure. For example, some data exist for teeth clipping vs. teeth grinding (Hay et al., 2004; Holyoake et al., 2004; Lewis et al., 2005b; Llamas Moya et al., 2006), iron injection vs. oral administration (Zimmermann, 1995; Zepperitz et al., 2002), tearing vs. cutting spermatic cords during castration (Taylor and Weary, 2000), and hot-iron vs. cold-iron docking of tails (Sutherland et al., 2008). Different methods of identification do not appear to have been addressed. Although piglets can apparently adapt to the stress elicited by most common procedures, alternative methods may have piglet welfare and productivity advantages, thereby improving the acceptability of the processing procedure among all stakeholders. The objectives of this study were to assess the impact of 2 alternative methods of 5 different processing techniques on the behavior, vocalizations, plasma stress hormone concentrations, and growth of piglets when given separately and to determine which of the alternative techniques for each procedure had the greater or lesser impact on piglet well-being. MATERIALS AND METHODS The project was approved by the Purdue University Animal Care and Use Committee, and animals were housed in accordance with FASS (1999) guidelines at the Purdue University Animal Science Research and Education Center. Animals and Treatments All experimental piglets were the progeny of Yorkshire × Landrace dams bred to Duroc × Hampshire sires. At least 5 d before the first few dams were due to farrow, the monthly batch of 20 to 24 dams was loaded onto a trailer and transported 100 m to the farrowing unit. Farrowing accommodation comprised 2 interconnected rooms, each of which contained 12 standard farrowing crates. Temperature in the farrowing rooms was set at 21°C, with supplemental heat pads and heat lamps provided for the piglets. Prepartum dams in the farrowing room were fed approximately 2.3 kg, once daily, with a standard corn- and soybean meal-based lactation diet; intake was increased gradually to ad libitum after farrowing. The lactation diet was formulated to meet or exceed NRC (1998) requirements for all nutrients. For litters used in this experiment, farrowing was not artificially induced. If the dam of a potential experimental litter exhibited signs of difficulty at farrowing, she was first examined manually by a stockperson, followed, if necessary, by administration of oxytocin (20 IU, i.m.) to aid the delivery of piglets. If oxytocin was administered, this litter became nonexperimental and was not used. Data were collected from a total of 328 piglets in 45 litters spread over 6 monthly batches of farrowings between January and June 2005. We thus had 7 or 8 experimental litters per monthly batch. Although on-farm practice may vary widely, in terms of age of delivery, for different processing methods, for standardization in this study, all piglets underwent the assigned procedure at 2 to 3 d of age, which falls within the on-farm age range of application for all procedures. The following processing methods were evaluated, and each experimental piglet was subjected to only a single procedure: Teeth resection—clipping (CLIP) using side-cutter pliers vs. grinding (GRIND) using a high-speed rotary grinder (Health Pro 115, Valley Vet Supply, Marysville, KS). In both cases, piglets were held upright with their heads up, and canine teeth were resected to a standardized 2 to 3 mm above the gum level, taking care not to damage the gum. Tail docking—cold clipping (COLD) using side-cutter pliers vs. hot clipping (HOT) using a gas-heated cautery clippers (Stericut Tail Docker, Valley Vet Supply). In both cases, pigs were inverted with their heads down and approximately 5 cm of tail was removed using either the hot or cold clippers. Identification—ear notching (NOTCH) using a traditional V-cut ear notcher (Valley Vet Supply) vs. ear tagging (TAG) using Allflex Global small numbered tags applied with an Allflex Universal Global Tagger (Valley Vet Supply). Ear notching was carried out in both ears, with the left ear carrying a litter number, requiring between 1 and 4 notches, and the right ear carrying the individual pig number within the litter. One pig was numbered “1,” requiring a single notch, and 1 pig was numbered “8,” requiring 4 notches. Ear tags were made of polyurethane, with a shaft width of 6 mm at the metal self-piercing tip. Tags were large enough to carry litter and piglet identification numbers if required, but for this study, only a single number was used. Iron administration—intramuscular injection (INJ) of iron dextran (Ferrodex 100, AgriLabs, St. Joseph, MO) vs. oral dosing (ORAL) with iron paste (Pig Paste with Iron, Star Labs, St. Joseph, MO). In both cases, pigs were held upright with their heads up and given either a 1-mL dose of iron dextran into the neck muscles or a 1-mL dose of the iron paste orally. Castration—incising the scrotum with a scalpel, externalizing the testicle, and cutting the spermatic cords with a scalpel (CUT) vs. tearing the spermatic cords by pulling (TEAR). In both cases, the pigs were held inverted with their heads down to expose the scrotum. Procedures 1 through 4 were administered to male and female piglets, whereas procedure 5 (castration) was obviously applied only to male piglets. These differences meant that there were slightly different requirements to be met for our experimental litters, and subsequently, we investigated procedures 1 through 4 simultaneously over 5 monthly farrowing batches, and then investigated procedure 5 by using the 6th farrowing batch. For each procedure, there were effectively 4 treatments, and each of these treatments was represented within each experimental litter according to the format detailed in Table 1. Thus, equal numbers of piglets in each litter underwent the 2 alternative methods plus blood sampling, the sham procedure plus blood sampling (control + bleed), and the sham procedure only (control). This degree of control enabled us to discriminate between the response to the processing procedure and any effects of the handling and blood-sampling procedures. Piglets within treatment were balanced for sex and birth weight. For procedures 1 to 4, each experimental litter needed a minimum of 8 viable piglets, 4 male and 4 female; for procedure 5, each experimental litter needed a minimum of 4 viable male piglets. Experimental litters could contain more piglets than the required minimum, and excess piglets could also be fostered off onto nonexperimental litters. However, no experimental litters could have piglets fostered on, and where extra piglets did stay with experimental litters, they underwent full processing procedures as per commercial practice, including simultaneous application of teeth clipping, cold tail docking, ear notching, iron injection, and, where applicable, castration with cutting. To ensure that experimental piglets not receiving iron administration did not become anemic, all experimental litters were given access to a moist oral iron supplement (Sweet Iron, International Nutrition, Omaha, NE), which was placed directly onto a shallow pan located in a rear corner of the pen. Table 1. Summary showing the assignment of litters to procedures and the assignment of piglets within litters to treatments1 Treatment  Teeth resection, CLIP vs. GRIND  Tail docking, HOT vs. COLD  Iron administration, INJ vs. ORAL  Identification, NOTCH vs. TAG  Castration, CUT vs. TEAR  1  Clip + bleed  Cold clip + bleed  Injection + bleed  Ear notch + bleed  Spermatic cords cut      No. of ♀, No. of ♂ piglets/litter  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♂  2  Grind + bleed  Hot iron + bleed  Oral + bleed  Ear tagged + bleed  Spermatic cords torn      No. of ♀, No. of ♂ piglets/litter  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♂  3  Control + bleed  Control + bleed  Control + bleed  Control + bleed  Control + bleed      No. of ♀, No. of ♂ piglets/litter  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♂  4  Control  Control  Control  Control  Control      No. of ♀, No. of ♂ piglets/litter  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♂  Treatment  Teeth resection, CLIP vs. GRIND  Tail docking, HOT vs. COLD  Iron administration, INJ vs. ORAL  Identification, NOTCH vs. TAG  Castration, CUT vs. TEAR  1  Clip + bleed  Cold clip + bleed  Injection + bleed  Ear notch + bleed  Spermatic cords cut      No. of ♀, No. of ♂ piglets/litter  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♂  2  Grind + bleed  Hot iron + bleed  Oral + bleed  Ear tagged + bleed  Spermatic cords torn      No. of ♀, No. of ♂ piglets/litter  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♂  3  Control + bleed  Control + bleed  Control + bleed  Control + bleed  Control + bleed      No. of ♀, No. of ♂ piglets/litter  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♂  4  Control  Control  Control  Control  Control      No. of ♀, No. of ♂ piglets/litter  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♂  1Treatments: CLIP = clipping using a side-cutter pliers; GRIND = grinding using a high-speed rotary grinder [Health Pro 115, Valley Vet Supply, Marysville, KS; CLIP vs. GRIND: 10 litters; 4 female (♀), 4 male (♂) piglets/litter]; HOT = hot clipping using a gas-heated cautery clippers (Stericut Tail Docker, Valley Vet Supply); COLD = cold clipping using a side-cutter pliers (HOT vs. COLD: 10 litters; 4 ♀, 4 ♂ piglets/litter); INJ = intramuscular injection of iron dextran (Ferrodex 100, AgriLabs, St. Joseph, MO); ORAL = oral dosing with iron paste (Pig Paste with Iron, Star Labs, St. Joseph, MO; INJ vs. ORAL: 8 litters; 4 ♀, 4 ♂ piglets/litter); NOTCH = ear notching using a traditional V-cut ear notcher (Valley Vet Supply); TAG = ear tagging using Allflex Global small numbered tags applied using an Allflex Universal Global Tagger (Valley Vet Supply; NOTCH vs. TAG: 8 litters; 4 ♀, 4 ♂ piglets/litter); CUT = incising scrotum with a scalpel, externalizing the testicle, and cutting spermatic cords with a scalpel; TEAR = tearing spermatic cords by pulling (CUT vs. TEAR: 8 litters; 4 ♂ piglets/litter). View Large Table 1. Summary showing the assignment of litters to procedures and the assignment of piglets within litters to treatments1 Treatment  Teeth resection, CLIP vs. GRIND  Tail docking, HOT vs. COLD  Iron administration, INJ vs. ORAL  Identification, NOTCH vs. TAG  Castration, CUT vs. TEAR  1  Clip + bleed  Cold clip + bleed  Injection + bleed  Ear notch + bleed  Spermatic cords cut      No. of ♀, No. of ♂ piglets/litter  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♂  2  Grind + bleed  Hot iron + bleed  Oral + bleed  Ear tagged + bleed  Spermatic cords torn      No. of ♀, No. of ♂ piglets/litter  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♂  3  Control + bleed  Control + bleed  Control + bleed  Control + bleed  Control + bleed      No. of ♀, No. of ♂ piglets/litter  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♂  4  Control  Control  Control  Control  Control      No. of ♀, No. of ♂ piglets/litter  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♂  Treatment  Teeth resection, CLIP vs. GRIND  Tail docking, HOT vs. COLD  Iron administration, INJ vs. ORAL  Identification, NOTCH vs. TAG  Castration, CUT vs. TEAR  1  Clip + bleed  Cold clip + bleed  Injection + bleed  Ear notch + bleed  Spermatic cords cut      No. of ♀, No. of ♂ piglets/litter  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♂  2  Grind + bleed  Hot iron + bleed  Oral + bleed  Ear tagged + bleed  Spermatic cords torn      No. of ♀, No. of ♂ piglets/litter  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♂  3  Control + bleed  Control + bleed  Control + bleed  Control + bleed  Control + bleed      No. of ♀, No. of ♂ piglets/litter  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♂  4  Control  Control  Control  Control  Control      No. of ♀, No. of ♂ piglets/litter  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♀, 1 ♂  1 ♂  1Treatments: CLIP = clipping using a side-cutter pliers; GRIND = grinding using a high-speed rotary grinder [Health Pro 115, Valley Vet Supply, Marysville, KS; CLIP vs. GRIND: 10 litters; 4 female (♀), 4 male (♂) piglets/litter]; HOT = hot clipping using a gas-heated cautery clippers (Stericut Tail Docker, Valley Vet Supply); COLD = cold clipping using a side-cutter pliers (HOT vs. COLD: 10 litters; 4 ♀, 4 ♂ piglets/litter); INJ = intramuscular injection of iron dextran (Ferrodex 100, AgriLabs, St. Joseph, MO); ORAL = oral dosing with iron paste (Pig Paste with Iron, Star Labs, St. Joseph, MO; INJ vs. ORAL: 8 litters; 4 ♀, 4 ♂ piglets/litter); NOTCH = ear notching using a traditional V-cut ear notcher (Valley Vet Supply); TAG = ear tagging using Allflex Global small numbered tags applied using an Allflex Universal Global Tagger (Valley Vet Supply; NOTCH vs. TAG: 8 litters; 4 ♀, 4 ♂ piglets/litter); CUT = incising scrotum with a scalpel, externalizing the testicle, and cutting spermatic cords with a scalpel; TEAR = tearing spermatic cords by pulling (CUT vs. TEAR: 8 litters; 4 ♂ piglets/litter). View Large Piglet Processing Processing was carried out on a maximum of 2 litters daily. Each litter of piglets was removed separately from the home pen and moved into a 4-wheeled, solid-sided cart. The cart was then pushed out of the farrowing room to the central area between 2 wings of the building. Here, a selected piglet was marked with a stock marker for individual identification and had a blood sample taken by jugular venipuncture. It was then carried to an empty nursery room in the other wing of the building, where it was handed to the person responsible for the processing (always the same person). The processor then weighed the piglet and carried out the assigned procedure, with camcorder and sound capture software running continuously. The piglet was then carried back to the middle room and replaced into the cart. The next piglet was then processed similarly, and so on until the full litter was completed. The cart was then pushed back to the home pen and the piglets were placed back with the sow. The piglets were removed in a similar fashion and blood was sampled again at 45 min and at 4 h postprocessing. The technician carrying out the processing procedures had no previous experience with any of the methods before embarking on this study. Before data were collected, the technician underwent 3 mo of training on all the methods to become equally proficient in and experienced with the alternatives to prevent bias. Sampling and Measurements Blood Samples. All blood samples were collected by jugular venipuncture. Samples were taken immediately before the procedure, and then at 45 min, 4 h, 48 h, 1 wk, and 2 wk postprocedure. Sampling was carried out by highly experienced personnel, and a sample was normally obtained within 30 s of the piglet being picked up. Blood was collected into 2-mL Vacutainer tubes (BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ) treated with 3.6 mg of spray-dried K2EDTA and immediately stored on ice. The blood samples were then immediately centrifuged at 700 × g for 15 min at 4°C and plasma aliquots stored at −80°C until further analysis. Blood was analyzed to determine circulating cortisol and β-endorphin concentrations. Plasma cortisol was measured by using a competitive binding RIA kit (GammaCoat, DiaSorin, Stillwater, MN), which has a sensitivity of 0.002 μg/mL and a cross-reactivity of between 0.1 and 4% with other naturally occurring C21 steroids, such as corticosterone, 11-deoxycortisol, and 11-deoxycorticosterone (Wilke and Hirning, 1984). The concentration of cortisol was calculated from a reference curve that ranged from 1 to 60 μg/mL. All cortisol assays were done in 2 batches; the intraassay CV was 6.9% and the interassay CV was 9.5%. Plasma β-endorphin was extracted from plasma samples following the stated 1% trifluoroacetic acid-60% acetonitrile method of the manufacturer and measured by using a competitive binding RIA kit (Phoenix Pharmaceuticals Inc., Belmont, CA), which has a sensitivity of 18 pg/mL and a cross-reactivity of <0.1% with other peptide hormones, such as Met-enkephalin, Leuenkephalin, and ACTH. All β-endorphin assays were done in 2 batches; the intraassay CV was 7.5% and the interassay CV was 8.1%. Behavior. All treatment and handling procedures were videotaped by using a tripod-mounted camcorder (Sony CCD-TRV138, Sony Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). These were analyzed by focal sampling to determine the immediate behavioral response to the procedure. Behavior recorded included the number of escape attempts and leg kicks. During weighing, an escape attempt was defined as an attempt to jump off the weighing scale. During processing, an escape attempt was defined as a body movement carried out to effect an escape. Piglets often carried out a bout of sequential leg kicks in an attempt to escape, followed by a pause. We recorded both the number of bouts and the number of individual leg kicks within a bout. These videorecordings were also used to determine the total number of grunts and squeals elicited during the procedures. Vocalizations. Vocalizations were recorded during the procedures by using a MCE 86 S microphone (Beyerdynamic, Heilbronn, Germany) connected directly to a Dell laptop computer (Dell Inspiron 4000, Dell Inc., Round Rock, TX) running Raven 1.2.1 sound capture and analysis software (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY) and were digitized at a 16-bit, 44.1-kHz sampling rate. After capture, the vocalizations were identified by simultaneous playback with the videotape data, which enabled us to determine the start and end points of periods of interest and extract all vocalizations that corresponded with these periods. Vocalizations of interest were then analyzed individually by using Raven software to produce spectrograms (frame length, 512 points; Hanning window; time grid resolution, 5.8 ms with 50% overlap; Fourier transformation size, 512 points; 3-decibel filter bandwidth; 124 Hz). From the spectrograms, we determined the duration (in s), mean frequency (Hz), and frequency of peak amplitude (Hz) of the vocalizations of interest before the procedure and during the procedure. We also calculated the change in these variables by subtracting the mean value before the procedure from the corresponding mean value during the procedure. Lesion Scoring. Lesion scoring was carried out on tail-docked piglets and piglets undergoing the identification procedures, at 24 h, 1 wk, and 2 wk postprocedure. Lesions were measured for size and scored on a scale of 0 to 5 as follows: 0 = intact skin with no swelling or reddening, complete healing with no scab; 1 = swelling, but intact skin or healing lesion with a scab; 2 = severe swelling, but skin intact or a narrow, red, ulcerated wound around the perimeter of the injury site with little or no exudate, a healing lesion showing a large scab with underlying granulation; 3 = wider band of red, ulcerated skin surrounding injury site, but with no purulent exudate present; 4 = red, ulcerated lesion covered by purulent exudate, swelling of the surrounding tissues; 5 = large red, ulcerated lesion with much pus and exudate and a strong smell of necrosis, severe swelling. BW. Piglets were weighed immediately before the procedure, and then at 24 h, 48 h, 1 wk, and 2 wk post-procedure. Growth rates were then calculated (g/d) to determine the effects of the procedures on growth between each time point. Statistical Methods For procedures 1 through 4, data from each pair of piglets per treatment within litter were averaged, with the average considered as the experimental unit. Procedure 5 (castration) had only 1 piglet per treatment within litter; thus, for this procedure, each piglet was considered as an experimental unit. All data were checked for normality and homogeneity of variance and, where necessary, Box-Cox transformations were performed to determine an appropriate λ value for subsequent transformations. For cortisol, β-endorphin, and growth rate, the data were analyzed by using a repeated-measures, fixed-effects model (PROC MIXED; SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC), which included the fixed effects of treatment and time and their interaction, with the pre-treatment measure of cortisol, β-endorphin, or BW as a covariate, respectively, and litter as a random effect. For other variables, data were analyzed by ANOVA (PROC GLM; SAS Inst. Inc.), with treatment included in the model. Where significant (P < 0.05), F-values were noted, and appropriate post hoc tests (Tukey's) were performed to separate treatment means. RESULTS For clarification, the tables referred to in this section contain only those variables for which significant differences were detected. Where measured variables are not presented, there is no significant treatment effect. Teeth Resection Resection of teeth by GRIND took longer (P < 0.05) than CLIP (Table 2). The total number of grunts and escape attempts during teeth removal was greater (P < 0.05) for both procedures than for the control and control + bleed treatments. However, when time to carry out the procedure was taken into account, piglets performed fewer (P < 0.05) escape attempts per second during both alternative procedures than during the sham procedures. In addition, piglets in the GRIND treatment emitted fewer squeals per second than piglets in the control and control + bleed treatments, with piglets in the CLIP treatment being intermediate (Table 2). Grinding significantly increased the mean call duration of vocalizations compared with control piglets and tended to affect piglet BW negatively at 14 d post-treatment, compared with piglets in the control and control + bleed treatments (Table 2). Growth rates of piglets in the GRIND treatment tended to be less (P < 0.10) than piglets in the control piglets control + bleed treatments, with piglets in the CLIP treatment having intermediate growth rates. Plasma cortisol concentrations tended to be greater (P < 0.10) at 1 wk after resection for piglets in the GRIND treatment compared with those in the CLIP treatment, but there was no difference (P > 0.10) between overall cortisol concentrations when the initial value was included as a covariate. At 4 h postprocedure, β-endorphin concentrations were significantly greater (P < 0.05) for piglets in the GRIND treatment compared with those in the CLIP, control, and control + bleed treatments, but again, there was no overall treatment effect on β-endorphin concentrations. Table 2. The effects of different methods of teeth resection on the behavior, physiology, and growth of piglets during and after the procedure   Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  GRIND  CLIP  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  19.1a  18.9a  56.3b  38.6c  3.0  No. of grunts during the procedure  7.1a  6.6a  16.1b  15.1b  2.4  No. of escape attempts during the procedure  13.4a  11.9a  22.6b  17.1ab  2.6  Squeals, No./s  0.57a  0.57a  0.24b  0.40ab  0.06  Escape attempts/s  0.75a  0.68a  0.46b  0.49b  0.10  BW gain from birth to d 14, g/d  251x  250x  201y  239xy  13  Vocal duration during the procedure, s  0.49ab  0.41a  0.70b  0.56ab  0.06  Plasma cortisol at 1 wk, μg/dL  3.09xy  —  3.32x  2.90y  0.38  Plasma β-endorphin at 4 h, pg/mL  5.71a  —  8.92b  5.68a  1.16    Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  GRIND  CLIP  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  19.1a  18.9a  56.3b  38.6c  3.0  No. of grunts during the procedure  7.1a  6.6a  16.1b  15.1b  2.4  No. of escape attempts during the procedure  13.4a  11.9a  22.6b  17.1ab  2.6  Squeals, No./s  0.57a  0.57a  0.24b  0.40ab  0.06  Escape attempts/s  0.75a  0.68a  0.46b  0.49b  0.10  BW gain from birth to d 14, g/d  251x  250x  201y  239xy  13  Vocal duration during the procedure, s  0.49ab  0.41a  0.70b  0.56ab  0.06  Plasma cortisol at 1 wk, μg/dL  3.09xy  —  3.32x  2.90y  0.38  Plasma β-endorphin at 4 h, pg/mL  5.71a  —  8.92b  5.68a  1.16  a,b Means within a row without a common superscript are different (P < 0.05). x,yMeans within a row without a common superscript show a tendency to be different (P < 0.1). 1Control + bleed = sham procedure plus blood sampling; control = sham procedure only; GRIND = grinding using high-speed rotary grinder (Health Pro 115, Valley Vet Supply, Marysville, KS); CLIP = clipping using side-cutter pliers. View Large Table 2. The effects of different methods of teeth resection on the behavior, physiology, and growth of piglets during and after the procedure   Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  GRIND  CLIP  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  19.1a  18.9a  56.3b  38.6c  3.0  No. of grunts during the procedure  7.1a  6.6a  16.1b  15.1b  2.4  No. of escape attempts during the procedure  13.4a  11.9a  22.6b  17.1ab  2.6  Squeals, No./s  0.57a  0.57a  0.24b  0.40ab  0.06  Escape attempts/s  0.75a  0.68a  0.46b  0.49b  0.10  BW gain from birth to d 14, g/d  251x  250x  201y  239xy  13  Vocal duration during the procedure, s  0.49ab  0.41a  0.70b  0.56ab  0.06  Plasma cortisol at 1 wk, μg/dL  3.09xy  —  3.32x  2.90y  0.38  Plasma β-endorphin at 4 h, pg/mL  5.71a  —  8.92b  5.68a  1.16    Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  GRIND  CLIP  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  19.1a  18.9a  56.3b  38.6c  3.0  No. of grunts during the procedure  7.1a  6.6a  16.1b  15.1b  2.4  No. of escape attempts during the procedure  13.4a  11.9a  22.6b  17.1ab  2.6  Squeals, No./s  0.57a  0.57a  0.24b  0.40ab  0.06  Escape attempts/s  0.75a  0.68a  0.46b  0.49b  0.10  BW gain from birth to d 14, g/d  251x  250x  201y  239xy  13  Vocal duration during the procedure, s  0.49ab  0.41a  0.70b  0.56ab  0.06  Plasma cortisol at 1 wk, μg/dL  3.09xy  —  3.32x  2.90y  0.38  Plasma β-endorphin at 4 h, pg/mL  5.71a  —  8.92b  5.68a  1.16  a,b Means within a row without a common superscript are different (P < 0.05). x,yMeans within a row without a common superscript show a tendency to be different (P < 0.1). 1Control + bleed = sham procedure plus blood sampling; control = sham procedure only; GRIND = grinding using high-speed rotary grinder (Health Pro 115, Valley Vet Supply, Marysville, KS); CLIP = clipping using side-cutter pliers. View Large Tail Docking For HOT vs. COLD tail docking, HOT took significantly longer (P < 0.05) to carry out than COLD, and both methods took longer (P < 0.05) than the sham procedures (Table 3). As with CLIP, differences (P < 0.05) were seen between treatments in the total number of grunts, squeals, and escape attempts carried out during the procedures, but when time taken to carry out the procedure was taken into account, the only significant result was that piglets in the HOT treatment had more (P < 0.05) squeals per second than piglets in either the control or control + bleed treatment, with piglets in the COLD treatment being intermediate (Table 3). Measures of vocal quality were affected by treatment, with the vocalizations of piglets in the HOT treatment having greater (P < 0.05) mean frequencies and greater (P < 0.05) peak frequencies than piglets in the control and control + bleed treatments, and tended (P < 0.10) to have a longer mean call duration than control piglets. The calls of piglets in the COLD treatment also had greater (P < 0.05) peak frequencies than those of piglets in both the control and control + bleed treatments during the procedure. Relative to the vocal quality measures before the procedure, the vocal quality of piglets in both the HOT and COLD treatments showed an increase (P < 0.05) in peak frequency compared with those of piglets in the control + bleed treatment. The mean frequency of calls of piglets in the HOT treatment also increased (P < 0.05) compared with piglets in the control + bleed treatment (Table 3). Finally, the clipping procedure affected growth rates, with piglets in the HOT treatment tending to grow slower (P = 0.10) between 7 and 14 d than piglets in the COLD and control treatments (Table 3). There were no treatment effects on wound scores. Table 3. The effects of different methods of tail docking on the behavior and growth of piglets during and after the procedure   Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  COLD  HOT  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  11.2a  11.6a  16.9b  20.3c  0.9  No. of squeals during the procedure  3.3a  3.0a  7.7b,x  12.7b,y  1.4  No. of grunts during the procedure  7.2a  6.1a  12.8b  11.1b  1.4  No. of escape attempts during the procedure  2.8a  2.2a  5.9b  5.8b  0.7  Squeals during the procedure, No./s  0.29a  0.26a  0.44ab  0.60b  0.09  Mean vocal frequency during the procedure, Hz  443a  350a  1,322ab  1,762b  207  Peak vocal frequency during the procedure, Hz  657a  525a  2,775b  3,375b  287  Vocal duration during the procedure, s  0.27xy  0.26x  0.34xy  0.43y  0.05  Mean vocal frequency change, Hz  −776a  −257ab  536ab  998b  250  Peak vocal frequency change, Hz  −1,863a  −586ab  818b  1287b  525    Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  COLD  HOT  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  11.2a  11.6a  16.9b  20.3c  0.9  No. of squeals during the procedure  3.3a  3.0a  7.7b,x  12.7b,y  1.4  No. of grunts during the procedure  7.2a  6.1a  12.8b  11.1b  1.4  No. of escape attempts during the procedure  2.8a  2.2a  5.9b  5.8b  0.7  Squeals during the procedure, No./s  0.29a  0.26a  0.44ab  0.60b  0.09  Mean vocal frequency during the procedure, Hz  443a  350a  1,322ab  1,762b  207  Peak vocal frequency during the procedure, Hz  657a  525a  2,775b  3,375b  287  Vocal duration during the procedure, s  0.27xy  0.26x  0.34xy  0.43y  0.05  Mean vocal frequency change, Hz  −776a  −257ab  536ab  998b  250  Peak vocal frequency change, Hz  −1,863a  −586ab  818b  1287b  525  a,bMeans within a row without a common superscript are different (P < 0.05). x,yMeans within a row without a common superscript show a tendency to be different (P < 0.1). 1Control + bleed = sham procedure plus blood sampling; control = sham procedure only; COLD = cold clipping using a side-cutter pliers; HOT = hot clipping using a gas-heated cautery clippers (Stericut Tail Docker, Valley Vet Supply, Marysville, KS). View Large Table 3. The effects of different methods of tail docking on the behavior and growth of piglets during and after the procedure   Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  COLD  HOT  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  11.2a  11.6a  16.9b  20.3c  0.9  No. of squeals during the procedure  3.3a  3.0a  7.7b,x  12.7b,y  1.4  No. of grunts during the procedure  7.2a  6.1a  12.8b  11.1b  1.4  No. of escape attempts during the procedure  2.8a  2.2a  5.9b  5.8b  0.7  Squeals during the procedure, No./s  0.29a  0.26a  0.44ab  0.60b  0.09  Mean vocal frequency during the procedure, Hz  443a  350a  1,322ab  1,762b  207  Peak vocal frequency during the procedure, Hz  657a  525a  2,775b  3,375b  287  Vocal duration during the procedure, s  0.27xy  0.26x  0.34xy  0.43y  0.05  Mean vocal frequency change, Hz  −776a  −257ab  536ab  998b  250  Peak vocal frequency change, Hz  −1,863a  −586ab  818b  1287b  525    Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  COLD  HOT  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  11.2a  11.6a  16.9b  20.3c  0.9  No. of squeals during the procedure  3.3a  3.0a  7.7b,x  12.7b,y  1.4  No. of grunts during the procedure  7.2a  6.1a  12.8b  11.1b  1.4  No. of escape attempts during the procedure  2.8a  2.2a  5.9b  5.8b  0.7  Squeals during the procedure, No./s  0.29a  0.26a  0.44ab  0.60b  0.09  Mean vocal frequency during the procedure, Hz  443a  350a  1,322ab  1,762b  207  Peak vocal frequency during the procedure, Hz  657a  525a  2,775b  3,375b  287  Vocal duration during the procedure, s  0.27xy  0.26x  0.34xy  0.43y  0.05  Mean vocal frequency change, Hz  −776a  −257ab  536ab  998b  250  Peak vocal frequency change, Hz  −1,863a  −586ab  818b  1287b  525  a,bMeans within a row without a common superscript are different (P < 0.05). x,yMeans within a row without a common superscript show a tendency to be different (P < 0.1). 1Control + bleed = sham procedure plus blood sampling; control = sham procedure only; COLD = cold clipping using a side-cutter pliers; HOT = hot clipping using a gas-heated cautery clippers (Stericut Tail Docker, Valley Vet Supply, Marysville, KS). View Large Identification The NOTCH procedure took longer (P < 0.05) than the TAG, control, or control + bleed procedure (see Table 4). Piglets in the NOTCH treatment performed more (P < 0.05) total grunts, squeals, and escape attempts than piglets from the other treatments, but there were no differences between treatments when time to carry out the procedure was taken into account. Piglets in the TAG procedure emitted calls with greater (P < 0.05) mean frequencies during the procedure than did piglets in the control + bleed procedure, and they had the greatest (P < 0.05) increases in mean frequency and mean call duration from preprocedure values (Table 4). However, piglets in the NOTCH treatment emitted calls with greater (P < 0.05) peak frequencies during the procedure (Figure 1), and this was the only treatment to show an increase in this measure relative to preprocedure values (Table 4). Piglets in the NOTCH treatment tended (P < 0.10) to have greater cortisol concentrations than piglets in the TAG treatment at 4 h postprocedure, although there were no other treatment differences in cortisol or β-endorphin concentrations at any other time point or overall. Piglets in the NOTCH treatment had greater (P < 0.05) wound scores than piglets in the TAG treatment at 1 and 2 wk postprocedure (Table 4). Table 4. The effects of different methods of identification on the behavior, physiology, and wound healing of piglets during and after the procedure   Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  NOTCH  TAG  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  16.4a  17.3a  31.6b  20.0a  3.3  No. of squeals during procedure  11.6a  7.9a  19.9b  10.2a  4.4  No. of grunts during procedure  6.2x  7.8xy  11.6y  7.1xy  5.3  No. of escape attempts during procedure  8.8a  9.7a  17.2b  12.1ab  4.5  Wound score2 on d 7  —  —  2.0a  1.1b  0.3  Wound score2 on d 14  —  —  0.7a  0.3b  0.2  Mean vocal frequency during procedure, Hz  1,442a  2,254ab  2,173ab  2,760b  302  Peak vocal frequency during procedure, Hz  2,876a  3,981ab  4,235b  3,063ab  329  Mean vocal frequency change, Hz  −643a  −374a  83ab  649b  216  Peak vocal frequency change, Hz  −1,077b  −62ab  153a  −1,350b  407  Vocal duration change, s  −0.01a  0.05ab  0.01a  0.22b  0.05  Plasma cortisol at 4 h, μg/dL  3.99xy  —  4.50x  3.62y  0.54    Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  NOTCH  TAG  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  16.4a  17.3a  31.6b  20.0a  3.3  No. of squeals during procedure  11.6a  7.9a  19.9b  10.2a  4.4  No. of grunts during procedure  6.2x  7.8xy  11.6y  7.1xy  5.3  No. of escape attempts during procedure  8.8a  9.7a  17.2b  12.1ab  4.5  Wound score2 on d 7  —  —  2.0a  1.1b  0.3  Wound score2 on d 14  —  —  0.7a  0.3b  0.2  Mean vocal frequency during procedure, Hz  1,442a  2,254ab  2,173ab  2,760b  302  Peak vocal frequency during procedure, Hz  2,876a  3,981ab  4,235b  3,063ab  329  Mean vocal frequency change, Hz  −643a  −374a  83ab  649b  216  Peak vocal frequency change, Hz  −1,077b  −62ab  153a  −1,350b  407  Vocal duration change, s  −0.01a  0.05ab  0.01a  0.22b  0.05  Plasma cortisol at 4 h, μg/dL  3.99xy  —  4.50x  3.62y  0.54  a,bMeans within a row without a common superscript are different (P < 0.05). x,yMeans within a row without a common superscript show a tendency to be different (P < 0.1). 1Control + bleed = sham procedure plus blood sampling; control = sham procedure only; NOTCH = ear notching using a traditional V-cut ear notcher (Valley Vet Supply, Marysville, KS); TAG = ear tagging using Allflex Global small numbered tags applied using an Allflex Universal Global Tagger (Valley Vet Supply). 2Wound score on a scale from 0 to 5: 0 = intact skin with no swelling or reddening, complete healing with no scab; 5 = large red, ulcerated lesion with much pus and exudate and a strong smell of necrosis, severe swelling. View Large Table 4. The effects of different methods of identification on the behavior, physiology, and wound healing of piglets during and after the procedure   Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  NOTCH  TAG  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  16.4a  17.3a  31.6b  20.0a  3.3  No. of squeals during procedure  11.6a  7.9a  19.9b  10.2a  4.4  No. of grunts during procedure  6.2x  7.8xy  11.6y  7.1xy  5.3  No. of escape attempts during procedure  8.8a  9.7a  17.2b  12.1ab  4.5  Wound score2 on d 7  —  —  2.0a  1.1b  0.3  Wound score2 on d 14  —  —  0.7a  0.3b  0.2  Mean vocal frequency during procedure, Hz  1,442a  2,254ab  2,173ab  2,760b  302  Peak vocal frequency during procedure, Hz  2,876a  3,981ab  4,235b  3,063ab  329  Mean vocal frequency change, Hz  −643a  −374a  83ab  649b  216  Peak vocal frequency change, Hz  −1,077b  −62ab  153a  −1,350b  407  Vocal duration change, s  −0.01a  0.05ab  0.01a  0.22b  0.05  Plasma cortisol at 4 h, μg/dL  3.99xy  —  4.50x  3.62y  0.54    Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  NOTCH  TAG  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  16.4a  17.3a  31.6b  20.0a  3.3  No. of squeals during procedure  11.6a  7.9a  19.9b  10.2a  4.4  No. of grunts during procedure  6.2x  7.8xy  11.6y  7.1xy  5.3  No. of escape attempts during procedure  8.8a  9.7a  17.2b  12.1ab  4.5  Wound score2 on d 7  —  —  2.0a  1.1b  0.3  Wound score2 on d 14  —  —  0.7a  0.3b  0.2  Mean vocal frequency during procedure, Hz  1,442a  2,254ab  2,173ab  2,760b  302  Peak vocal frequency during procedure, Hz  2,876a  3,981ab  4,235b  3,063ab  329  Mean vocal frequency change, Hz  −643a  −374a  83ab  649b  216  Peak vocal frequency change, Hz  −1,077b  −62ab  153a  −1,350b  407  Vocal duration change, s  −0.01a  0.05ab  0.01a  0.22b  0.05  Plasma cortisol at 4 h, μg/dL  3.99xy  —  4.50x  3.62y  0.54  a,bMeans within a row without a common superscript are different (P < 0.05). x,yMeans within a row without a common superscript show a tendency to be different (P < 0.1). 1Control + bleed = sham procedure plus blood sampling; control = sham procedure only; NOTCH = ear notching using a traditional V-cut ear notcher (Valley Vet Supply, Marysville, KS); TAG = ear tagging using Allflex Global small numbered tags applied using an Allflex Universal Global Tagger (Valley Vet Supply). 2Wound score on a scale from 0 to 5: 0 = intact skin with no swelling or reddening, complete healing with no scab; 5 = large red, ulcerated lesion with much pus and exudate and a strong smell of necrosis, severe swelling. View Large Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Examples of amplitude profile (top), spectrogram (middle), and frequency power curve (bottom) from 2 piglets undergoing different identification techniques. A) Squeal with ear notch included (notch made at a sharp vertical line within the vocalization). Note the increase in frequency power (white) after notching. B) Tag inserted after a squeal by the piglet. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Examples of amplitude profile (top), spectrogram (middle), and frequency power curve (bottom) from 2 piglets undergoing different identification techniques. A) Squeal with ear notch included (notch made at a sharp vertical line within the vocalization). Note the increase in frequency power (white) after notching. B) Tag inserted after a squeal by the piglet. Iron Administration Both the INJ and ORAL treatments took longer to carry out (P < 0.05) than the control + bleed and control treatments. Piglets in the ORAL treatment performed more (P < 0.05) total squeals and grunts than piglets in the control and control + bleed treatments (Table 5), and piglets in the INJ treatment tended to carry out more (P < 0.10) escape attempts than control piglets. As with other procedures, all these differences became nonsignificant when time was taken into account. Vocal quality measures showed no differences between treatments during the procedure, but piglets in the ORAL treatment had a greater (P < 0.05) decrease in mean and peak frequencies during the procedure relative to preprocedure values (Table 5). Plasma cortisol concentrations were less (P < 0.05) in piglets in the ORAL treatment compared with piglets in the control + bleed treatment at 2 d postdosing, but no other treatment differences in cortisol or β-endorphin concentrations at any other time point or overall were found. Table 5. The effects of different methods of iron administration on the behavior and physiology of piglets during and after the procedure   Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  INJ  ORAL  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  11.0a  12.3a  20.0b  24.4b  1.7  No. of squeals during procedure  5.7ab,x  5.1a,xy  8.2ab,xy  10.2b,y  1.2  No. of grunts during procedure  4.6a  5.0ab  6.1ab  8.3b  1.0  No. of escape attempts during procedure  9.1xy  7.3x  12.8y  11.5xy  1.3  Mean vocal frequency change, Hz  −322ab  698a  367ab  −851b  269  Peak vocal frequency change, Hz  −1,283xy  488x  −79xy  −2,315y  555  Plasma cortisol at 48 h, μg/dL  4.04a  —  3.05ab  2.80b  0.34    Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  INJ  ORAL  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  11.0a  12.3a  20.0b  24.4b  1.7  No. of squeals during procedure  5.7ab,x  5.1a,xy  8.2ab,xy  10.2b,y  1.2  No. of grunts during procedure  4.6a  5.0ab  6.1ab  8.3b  1.0  No. of escape attempts during procedure  9.1xy  7.3x  12.8y  11.5xy  1.3  Mean vocal frequency change, Hz  −322ab  698a  367ab  −851b  269  Peak vocal frequency change, Hz  −1,283xy  488x  −79xy  −2,315y  555  Plasma cortisol at 48 h, μg/dL  4.04a  —  3.05ab  2.80b  0.34  a,b Means within a row without a common superscript are different (P < 0.05). x,yMeans within a row without a common superscript show a tendency to be different (P < 0.1). 1Control + bleed = sham procedure plus blood sampling; control = sham procedure only; INJ = intramuscular injection of iron dextran (Ferrodex 100, AgriLabs, St. Joseph, MO); ORAL = oral dosing with iron paste (Pig Paste with Iron, Star Labs, St. Joseph, MO). View Large Table 5. The effects of different methods of iron administration on the behavior and physiology of piglets during and after the procedure   Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  INJ  ORAL  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  11.0a  12.3a  20.0b  24.4b  1.7  No. of squeals during procedure  5.7ab,x  5.1a,xy  8.2ab,xy  10.2b,y  1.2  No. of grunts during procedure  4.6a  5.0ab  6.1ab  8.3b  1.0  No. of escape attempts during procedure  9.1xy  7.3x  12.8y  11.5xy  1.3  Mean vocal frequency change, Hz  −322ab  698a  367ab  −851b  269  Peak vocal frequency change, Hz  −1,283xy  488x  −79xy  −2,315y  555  Plasma cortisol at 48 h, μg/dL  4.04a  —  3.05ab  2.80b  0.34    Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  INJ  ORAL  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  11.0a  12.3a  20.0b  24.4b  1.7  No. of squeals during procedure  5.7ab,x  5.1a,xy  8.2ab,xy  10.2b,y  1.2  No. of grunts during procedure  4.6a  5.0ab  6.1ab  8.3b  1.0  No. of escape attempts during procedure  9.1xy  7.3x  12.8y  11.5xy  1.3  Mean vocal frequency change, Hz  −322ab  698a  367ab  −851b  269  Peak vocal frequency change, Hz  −1,283xy  488x  −79xy  −2,315y  555  Plasma cortisol at 48 h, μg/dL  4.04a  —  3.05ab  2.80b  0.34  a,b Means within a row without a common superscript are different (P < 0.05). x,yMeans within a row without a common superscript show a tendency to be different (P < 0.1). 1Control + bleed = sham procedure plus blood sampling; control = sham procedure only; INJ = intramuscular injection of iron dextran (Ferrodex 100, AgriLabs, St. Joseph, MO); ORAL = oral dosing with iron paste (Pig Paste with Iron, Star Labs, St. Joseph, MO). View Large Castration Castration by the CUT and TEAR procedures took longer (P < 0.05) than any of the other procedures detailed above and took longer (P < 0.05) than control castrations and castrations by the control + bleed procedure (Table 6). In addition, TEAR castrations took longer (P < 0.05) than CUT castrations. The total numbers of squeals, grunts, and escape attempts carried out by piglets in both the CUT and TEAR treatments were greater (P < 0.05) than the numbers carried out by piglets in the control and control + bleed treatments, but there were no differences between treatments when time was taken into account. The peak frequency of calls during the procedure and the change from preprocedure values were greater (P < 0.05) for piglets from both the CUT and TEAR treatments than for piglets from the control and control + bleed treatments (Table 6). Growth rates of piglets in the TEAR treatment tended to be less (P < 0.10) than control piglets, with piglets in the CUT and control + bleed treatments having intermediate growth rates (Table 6). At 45 min postprocedure, piglets in both the CUT and TEAR treatments had greater (P < 0.05) circulating cortisol than the piglets in the control + bleed treatment (Table 6), and piglets in the CUT treatment tended (P < 0.10) to have greater β-endorphin concentrations than piglets in the TEAR and control + bleed treatments (Figure 2). Table 6. The effects of different methods of castration on the behavior and physiology of piglets during and after the procedure   Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  CUT  TEAR  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  21.1a  18.4a  70.1b  96.1c  5.3  No. of squeals during the procedure  15.2a  15.7a  43.5b  63.9c  5.1  No. of grunts during the procedure  6.9a  5.0a  18.4ab  27.1b  3.6  No. of escape attempts during the procedure  8.9a  8.9a  20.9b  24.6b  3.2  Peak vocal frequency during the procedure, Hz  2,976a  2,871a  4,427b  5,024b  384  Peak vocal frequency change, Hz  −880ab  −1,416a  586b  794b  531  BW gain from birth to d 14, g/d  264xy  285x  249xy  233y  24  Plasma cortisol at 0 min, μg/dL  4.81a  —  3.58ab  2.88b  0.60  Plasma cortisol at 45 min, μg/dL  4.94x  —  7.52y  7.14y  0.76  Plasma β-endorphin at 45 min, pg/mL  11.5x  —  53.1y  16.4x  10.1    Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  CUT  TEAR  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  21.1a  18.4a  70.1b  96.1c  5.3  No. of squeals during the procedure  15.2a  15.7a  43.5b  63.9c  5.1  No. of grunts during the procedure  6.9a  5.0a  18.4ab  27.1b  3.6  No. of escape attempts during the procedure  8.9a  8.9a  20.9b  24.6b  3.2  Peak vocal frequency during the procedure, Hz  2,976a  2,871a  4,427b  5,024b  384  Peak vocal frequency change, Hz  −880ab  −1,416a  586b  794b  531  BW gain from birth to d 14, g/d  264xy  285x  249xy  233y  24  Plasma cortisol at 0 min, μg/dL  4.81a  —  3.58ab  2.88b  0.60  Plasma cortisol at 45 min, μg/dL  4.94x  —  7.52y  7.14y  0.76  Plasma β-endorphin at 45 min, pg/mL  11.5x  —  53.1y  16.4x  10.1  a–cMeans within a row without a common superscript are different (P < 0.05). x,y Means within a row without a common superscript show a tendency to be different (P < 0.1). 1Control + bleed = sham procedure plus blood sampling; control = sham procedure only; CUT = incising scrotum with a scalpel, externalizing the testicle, and cutting spermatic cords with a scalpel; TEAR = tearing spermatic cords by pulling. View Large Table 6. The effects of different methods of castration on the behavior and physiology of piglets during and after the procedure   Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  CUT  TEAR  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  21.1a  18.4a  70.1b  96.1c  5.3  No. of squeals during the procedure  15.2a  15.7a  43.5b  63.9c  5.1  No. of grunts during the procedure  6.9a  5.0a  18.4ab  27.1b  3.6  No. of escape attempts during the procedure  8.9a  8.9a  20.9b  24.6b  3.2  Peak vocal frequency during the procedure, Hz  2,976a  2,871a  4,427b  5,024b  384  Peak vocal frequency change, Hz  −880ab  −1,416a  586b  794b  531  BW gain from birth to d 14, g/d  264xy  285x  249xy  233y  24  Plasma cortisol at 0 min, μg/dL  4.81a  —  3.58ab  2.88b  0.60  Plasma cortisol at 45 min, μg/dL  4.94x  —  7.52y  7.14y  0.76  Plasma β-endorphin at 45 min, pg/mL  11.5x  —  53.1y  16.4x  10.1    Treatment1    Measure  Control + bleed  Control  CUT  TEAR  SEM  Time to carry out the procedure, s  21.1a  18.4a  70.1b  96.1c  5.3  No. of squeals during the procedure  15.2a  15.7a  43.5b  63.9c  5.1  No. of grunts during the procedure  6.9a  5.0a  18.4ab  27.1b  3.6  No. of escape attempts during the procedure  8.9a  8.9a  20.9b  24.6b  3.2  Peak vocal frequency during the procedure, Hz  2,976a  2,871a  4,427b  5,024b  384  Peak vocal frequency change, Hz  −880ab  −1,416a  586b  794b  531  BW gain from birth to d 14, g/d  264xy  285x  249xy  233y  24  Plasma cortisol at 0 min, μg/dL  4.81a  —  3.58ab  2.88b  0.60  Plasma cortisol at 45 min, μg/dL  4.94x  —  7.52y  7.14y  0.76  Plasma β-endorphin at 45 min, pg/mL  11.5x  —  53.1y  16.4x  10.1  a–cMeans within a row without a common superscript are different (P < 0.05). x,y Means within a row without a common superscript show a tendency to be different (P < 0.1). 1Control + bleed = sham procedure plus blood sampling; control = sham procedure only; CUT = incising scrotum with a scalpel, externalizing the testicle, and cutting spermatic cords with a scalpel; TEAR = tearing spermatic cords by pulling. View Large Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Plasma β-endorphin concentrations in piglets exposed to 2 methods of castration, including tearing the spermatic cords (▪) and cutting the spermatic cords (⋄), and a handling and bleeding control (▴; C+B = control + bleed). Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Plasma β-endorphin concentrations in piglets exposed to 2 methods of castration, including tearing the spermatic cords (▪) and cutting the spermatic cords (⋄), and a handling and bleeding control (▴; C+B = control + bleed). DISCUSSION When planning the study, we expected that the processing procedures being carried out, which consisted of removal from the dam, handling during blood sampling, weighing, handling during the procedure (or sham), receiving the procedure (or sham), and return to the home pen, would be the most stressful element of the whole experience for the piglet. In addition, from a practical application aspect, we wanted to know how long each procedure took relative to the alternative. Thus, we did not impose a standardized amount of time the piglet should be handled when the sham or real procedure was carried out. This approach enabled us to determine which of the alternatives took longer, but the fact that the sham procedures were always imposed for a shorter time resulted in some difficulties in interpreting those variables that may change over time while a piglet is being handled, specifically, vocalizations and escape attempts. Although we did not measure the rates of these variables over time, piglets may show a high degree of distress soon after being picked up, resulting in vigorous escape behavior and vocalization rates, which may decrease over time as they become more passive. Because sham treatments were shorter, piglet responses during these treatments relative to imposed real treatments may present as being greater because of a possible time effect. Conversely, it may be that piglet escape and vocal behavior increases over time during handling; thus, any time effect may be opposite, with pigs in the sham treatment showing reduced responses relative to pigs in the real treatment. Any future studies should therefore aim to impose sham treatments for as long as each of the treatments so that interpretation of escapes and vocalizations is made easier. Teeth Resection In this study, we investigated elements of behavior, stress physiology, and production to determine whether we could differentiate between CLIP or GRIND, in terms of piglet well-being. Traditionally, teeth have been resected to prevent the development of lesions on the faces of littermates and on the udder of the sow, with the latter sustained during the jostling and fighting that occurs around the udder during suckling (English et al., 1977). Further justification for the procedure is given by the suggestion that these wounds may result in secondary infections, sow restlessness, and increased risk of piglet mortality caused by crushing (English et al., 1977). The scientific literature would appear to support some of these points, but not conclusively. There is strong evidence that leaving the teeth of piglets intact does result in increased facial lesions compared with resecting teeth (Brown et al., 1996; Weary and Fraser, 1999; Bates et al., 2003; Holyoake et al., 2004; Gallois et al., 2005; Lewis et al., 2005a). Although resection protects littermates from damage, it may increase internal mouth lesions for piglets with resected teeth (Lewis et al., 2005a) and result in pulpitis (Hay et al., 2004). For the sow, teeth resection may allow some reduction in udder damage (Hutter et al., 1994; Boyle and Boyle, 2002; Lewis et al., 2005b), an inconsistent effect depending on the day of lactation and the teat location on the udder (Gallois et al., 2005), or have no effect (Brown et al., 1996; Holyoake et al., 2004). Production effects of teeth resection are also inconsistent, with some authors demonstrating positive benefits of resection on preweaning mortality (grinding, Hutter et al., 1994; clipping, Holyoake et al., 2004; Lewis et al., 2005a) and piglet growth rates (clipping, Weary and Fraser, 1999; Holyoake et al., 2004), and with other authors reporting no advantages (Bates et al., 2003; Gallois et al., 2005). Conclusions therefore differ, with some authors stating that resection is not justified (Brown et al., 1996; Bates et al., 2003; Hay et al., 2004; Gallois et al., 2005; Llamas Moya et al., 2006) and others stating that grinding is preferable (Hutter et al., 1994; Lewis et al., 2005a) or that clipping is best (Holyoake et al., 2004; Lewis et al., 2005b). With our measures, our study indicated that resecting teeth by GRIND was associated with more indicators of impaired well-being compared with CLIP. Although both procedures took longer than our sham procedure (19 s), GRIND, at 56 s, took 46% longer to carry out than CLIP, at 38 s. These results are similar to those reported by Lewis et al. (2005a), in which grinding took 55 s, clipping took 24 s, and sham resection took 13 s. The additional time taken for GRIND may impose greater handling stress on a piglet that has probably received no handling before this experience, and it may be this aspect alone that elicits a greater stress response rather than grinding per se. Other studies with pigs have shown that under stressful and painful procedures, vocalizations will increase in peak and mean frequencies (White et al., 1995), the rate of emitting squeals will increase (Schrader and Todt, 1998), and vocal duration will become longer (Marx et al., 2003). Our results showed that piglets in the GRIND treatment had a decreased rate of squealing compared with piglets in the control and control + bleed treatments, but the call duration was significantly longer. Although not significant, the calls of piglets in the GRIND procedure also had a numerically higher mean frequency (2,042 Hz) compared with piglets in the CLIP procedure (1,800 Hz) and control piglets (1,590 Hz). These results would appear to indicate that GRIND was evoking a greater vocal response, but it must also be noted that any procedure that involves oral manipulation, such as teeth resection and oral dosing (see below), can potentially affect the quantity and quality of vocalizations the pig performs. The GRIND procedure resulted in an increased cortisol response at 1 wk postprocedure and in elevated β-endorphin concentrations at 4 h postprocedure. Beta-endorphin has a role in modulating pain and may be a useful indicator of the well-being of an animal in response to acute stress (Geers et al., 1994). However, β-endorphin is also released concomitantly with ACTH as a result of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activation, and its increase, in this case, may be associated with the corticotropin-releasing hormone–ACTH-stimulated increase in cortisol production. As well as being an indicator of stress, cortisol has a known catabolic function, and the elevated cortisol concentrations in the piglets subjected to GRIND may at least partially explain the decreased growth seen in this treatment. Holyoake et al. (2004) also found that clipping had beneficial effects on weaning weight relative to grinding, but Lewis et al. (2005a) and Gallois et al. (2005) found no effects of resection method on growth. Tail Docking The practice of tail docking is carried out to prevent tail biting. Tail biting can result in severe damage and lead to abscess formation, carcass condemnation, and even death. There are obviously pain and well-being issues for the afflicted pig. Although a study carried out by Hunter et al. (2001) found that tail docking reduced the percentage of pigs with bitten tails presented at the slaughterhouse, other studies contradict this. A large-scale on-farm survey showed that docking the tails of piglets increased the risk of tail biting by 3-fold (Moinard et al., 2003), although an alternative interpretation is that farms with a greater tail-biting risk are those that subsequently adopt a tail-docking policy. Chambers et al. (1995) also reported that tail biting was more likely to occur on farms that practiced tail docking. Thus, we can conclude that tail docking does not prevent tail biting from occurring, although the etiology of tail-biting outbreaks remains poorly understood. Some countries, such as those within the European Union, already have legislation in place that prevents the procedure from being carried out routinely (Commission Directive 2001/93/EC; European Commission, 2001), yet it remains widely practiced. Traditionally, tails have been docked by using side-cutter clippers, but more recently, heated clippers have become available that aim to cauterize the wound at clipping and improve the well-being of the piglet by sealing the wound and reducing the risk of infection. Hot-iron docking has been more widely researched in calves and lambs, but little information is available on the effects on piglet welfare. The results from this study would appear to indicate that HOT docking is associated with more indicators of impaired well-being compared with COLD docking. Again, both procedures took significantly longer than the sham procedure, but HOT took significantly (approximately 20%) longer than COLD, thereby exposing the piglet to handling of longer duration. Piglets undergoing HOT docking emitted more squeals per second, and these calls had higher mean and peak frequencies than those of piglets in both the control and control + bleed treatments. The calls also tended to be of longer duration than the calls of control piglets. Calls from piglets in the COLD treatment also had higher peak frequencies than those from control piglets, but no other differences were found. There are no other comparable data for studies on pigs, but hot tail docking has been shown to be the only procedure that consistently produced vocalizations during its application in a study on lambs (Grant, 2004). A factor that may influence the responses to the procedure is that of accidental contact of the tail with the hot iron, resulting in superficial burns before the docking occurred. Although the incidence of these events was not recorded, it did happen quite frequently as piglets carried out escape attempts. There was no effect of treatment on either cortisol or β-endorphin concentrations postprocedure. Sutherland et al. (2008) reported that cold-docked piglets showed an increased cortisol response at 60 min postprocedure compared with hot-docked and control piglets. Their study also found that the total white blood cell count for both docked treatments was less at 30 min postprocedure and that both docked treatments showed similar behavioral responses postprocedure, which differed from those of control piglets. Finally, in our study, the HOT treatment was associated with poorer growth rate out to 14 d postprocedure, so that by 14 d, piglets in the HOT treatment were significantly lighter than piglets in the COLD and control treatments, but not those in the control + bleed treatment. Because there was no difference in cortisol concentrations between treatments, the reason for this difference would require further study to determine whether it was a real effect and to see whether these piglets had reduced intake or underwent some metabolic changes that resulted in poorer feed conversion. Identification At present, the need to identify individual pigs will depend on the type of unit in which the pig is housed. If the pig is a terminal cross pig destined for slaughter, there is some need to identify individuals from the time of birth for purposes of tracking medication and maintaining health records. However, other pigs, such as on-farm replacement gilts or breeding stock destined for sale, will need to have very reliable individual identifiers. As meat safety and traceability issues increase, individual identification will also become more important (Barcos, 2001). At present, the easiest on-farm methods of individual identification include tattooing, ear notching, and ear tagging. Another more high-technology option is the implantation of transponders. However, problems have been reported with loss of tags, difficulty with reading tattoos, and migration of transponders, making individual identification difficult or impossible (Gosálvez et al., 2007). On the surface, ear notching would appear to afford a permanent method of identification. However, the results of our study indicate that the NOTCH treatment was associated with more indicators of impaired well-being compared with TAG. Compared with TAG and sham identification, the NOTCH treatment took significantly longer to carry out. The NOTCH procedure took 55% longer than the TAG procedure, but this figure will depend on the number of notches being applied. However, notching does again expose the piglet to handling of longer duration. There were no significant differences in vocalization rates during the procedures, but the NOTCH procedure did elicit calls with the highest peak frequency, one element of call variables known to be of importance in distinguishing the response to pain (Marx et al., 2003). The TAG procedure did result in calls with the highest mean frequencies and the greatest change in mean frequency, but these measures are deemed less important than peak frequency (Marx et al., 2003). However, these changes do indicate that the TAG procedure is not pain free. Work in rodents has also demonstrated that ear notching can elicit an increase in vocalizations relative to sham procedures (Williams et al., 2008). Piglets in the NOTCH procedure tended to have increased cortisol concentrations at 4 h postprocedure compared with piglets in the TAG procedure, but there were no other treatment differences in cortisol or β-endorphin concentrations either overall or at specific time points. The wounds caused by NOTCH were more significant than the wound caused by TAG, and the wound scores were significantly greater at both 1 wk and 2 wk postprocedure, indicating slower healing. To our knowledge, no other comparative studies of NOTCH vs. TAG have been carried out. The only other studies that have examined ear notching in isolation have reported that notching evoked a head-shaking response, which disappeared after 2 min (Noonan et al., 1994) and which was not reduced by the administration of sucrose before the procedure (Rand et al., 2002). Iron Administration Iron is routinely given to indoor-reared piglets to prevent anemia. The bioavailability of iron ingested orally depends on what it is bound to and to the timing of delivery in relation to the closing of the gut to the transport of large molecules. Iron given intramuscularly can avoid some of these potential obstacles, and most piglets are routinely given 1 or 2 injections prophylactically before any symptoms of anemia are seen. Piglets reared in outdoor systems would appear to ingest sufficient iron from the environment to prevent anemia (Brown et al., 1996), but with indoor pigs, dosing with iron is associated with reduced preweaning mortality (O'Reilly et al., 2006). Studies that have compared the effects of oral dosing with injecting iron have focused almost entirely on the resulting effect on hematological indices rather than on any influence on measures of animal well-being in response to dosing (e.g., Zepperitz et al., 2002) and have mostly concluded that either method can be effective at eradicating anemia. In our study, there was very little evidence that either the INJ or the ORAL procedure was worse than the other in terms of the welfare variables we measured. There were no significant differences in any of the measures between piglets in the INJ and ORAL treatments. Both procedures took significantly longer to carry out than the sham procedures. There was a numerical difference between iron dosing procedures, with ORAL taking 4.4 s (22%) longer than INJ, but this was not statistically different. It does, however, correspond with the figures reported by Wynn et al. (1999), who found that oral dosing took 3 s longer than injecting, and this was significantly different in their study. Although not measured in any quantifiable way, oral dosing was more difficult to carry out and, as Zimmermann (1995) noted, oral dosing carries a degree of uncertainty in that it is much more difficult to ensure that a piglet actually obtains and ingests the full intended dose. Both iron-dosing methods resulted in piglets performing greater total numbers of squeals, grunts, and escape attempts compared with those in the sham treatments, but these differences disappeared when time was taken into account. Vocal variables showed no consistent trend but, as with teeth resection, ORAL involves oral manipulation and insertion of the dosing syringe into the mouth, which can potentially affect the quantity and quality of vocalizations the pig performs. The ORAL treatment did appear to influence both the mean and peak frequencies of piglet vocalizations, with large decreases seen in both measures for these piglets relative to the same measures of vocalizations emitted during prehandling and weighing. Wynn et al. (1999) suggested that, in fact, the method of iron dosing actually has no effect on behavioral and cardiac responses beyond those seen from handling during a sham procedure alone. However, when extrapolated to large-scale pig production, intramuscular iron injecting has been proposed as more effective and more easily carried out than oral dosing (Polner et al., 2002). Castration The extent to which castration is routinely carried out is largely dependent on the expected final slaughter BW or age of the male finishing pig and the degree to which intact males exhibit boar taint, an unpleasant odor and taste associated with androstenone and skatole. The amount of boar taint can be reduced by slaughtering the pigs at reduced target BW and ages, before sexual maturation, but this is economically undesirable. The other method to avoid boar taint is castration. However, castration also has several disadvantages in terms of both well-being and economics. From a well-being point of view, castration is a painful procedure, regardless of the age at which it is carried out (Prunier et al., 2006), and the process exposes the piglet to an increased risk of infection. From an economic standpoint, castration is time-consuming to carry out and results in a pig that may grow slower and less efficiently and that has poorer carcass characteristics than an intact male. However, until the boar taint issue is addressed, perhaps by nonsurgical approaches to reduce androstenone production, surgical castration will continue. The data from our study suggest that, as with iron dosing, there would appear to be little difference between our castration treatments in the welfare variables measured. The TEAR treatment required greater attention to detail to ensure that cords were gripped and pulled hard enough to tear in a consistent manner. Thus, TEAR castration took longer (26 s, or 37%) than CUT castration. The only other difference detected statistically between castration treatments was that CUT tended to result in increased concentrations of β-endorphin at 45 min postprocedure relative to TEAR, whereas there was no difference in cortisol response between the CUT and TEAR treatments at this time point, although both tended to be greater than the control + bleed treatment. In this instance, it may be that differences in the type of tissue damage experienced are differentially stimulating β-endorphin release. Tearing the cord is believed to reduce bleeding compared with cutting the cord (Taylor and Weary, 2000). Hemorrhage is known to result in an increase in β-endorphin concentration (Molina, 2001), and opiates have a proposed role in regulating the hemodynamic response to blood loss (Molina, 2001). Although it was not quantified in our study, if cutting did result in more blood loss compared with tearing, then this may explain the increased concentration of circulating β-endorphin. The pain associated with castration, regardless of procedure, is perhaps best illustrated by measures of vocal quality. Both castration treatments elicit calls with very high peak frequencies (cut = 4.4 kHz, tear = 5.0 kHz)—significantly greater than piglets receiving the sham procedure (control = 3.0 kHz, control + bleed = 2.9 kHz). During both castration treatments, there are also significantly greater increases in peak frequency from preprocedural values compared with the sham treatments. As stated previously, peak frequency is acknowledged as one of the best indices for quantification of pain (Marx et al., 2003). The peak frequencies recorded during castration were the highest of any of the procedures examined in this study. Taylor and Weary (2000) were also unable to distinguish between tearing and cutting based on elements of vocal quality. They concluded that either both methods were equally painful or the vocal responses of piglets hit a ceiling, such that both methods evoked a maximal response. Although the current study revealed no significant differences between castration treatments, TEAR did elicit calls that had numerically higher peak and mean frequencies and longer durations than those elicited by CUT. If surgical castration continues to be carried out, it is probable that there will be calls from welfare lobbyists to address the issue of pain management. There are numerous examples in the literature of the use of local or general anesthesia, analgesia, or both. Data exist showing that piglets likely experience postoperative pain for several days postprocedure (Hay et al., 2003). Therefore, although the use of both local anesthetics (e.g., Horn et al., 1999) and general anesthetics (e.g., Hodgson, 2007) would appear to be of benefit during the procedure itself, without the combined use of an analgesic, physiological responses to the procedure postrecovery would seem to indicate that the pain experienced is still great (Schulz et al., 2007). In summary, in this study we identified methods of processing that, when applied singly, can be seen to have advantages over other methods in terms of piglet well-being. Based on a combination of measures of physiology, behavior, and productivity, CLIP would appear to be less negative than GRIND. Similarly, COLD docking would appear to be less negative than HOT, and TAG would appear to be less negative than NOTCH. Different methods of dosing with iron and castrating were less easily distinguishable, perhaps because the dosing with iron elicits a minimal stress response, whereas castrating elicits a maximal stress response, regardless of the method used. The major finding of this research project is that any processing technique that can be carried out quickly and with minimal tissue damage is likely to be least stressful for the piglet. Alternative techniques such as GRIND, HOT docking, and ORAL iron, which might be expected to have some well-being advantages over CLIP, COLD docking, and INJ, respectively, were found to be disadvantageous primarily because of the amount of extra time needed to carry out the procedure. However, the alternative method of TAG for identification purposes, rather than NOTCH, did appear to improve piglet well-being, both by being a quicker technique and by greatly reducing tissue damage. Although the subsequent loss of ear tags is a potential problem on farm, TAG should be considered as a more welfare-friendly alternative. When carried out in a single processing event, our recommendation would be for all tasks to be carried out efficiently by a trained and experienced stockperson to minimize the time taken, ensure the accuracy of procedure, and reduce the stress associated with the procedure itself and with the handling needed to carry out the procedure. 2 The use of a trade, firm, or corporation in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the USDA or the ARS of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. LITERATURE CITED Barcos, L. O. 2001. Recent developments in animal identification and the traceability of animal products in international trade. Rev. Sci. Tech.  20: 640– 651. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bates, R. O., M. D. Hoge, D. B. Edwards, and B. E. Straw 2003. The influence of canine teeth clipping on nursing and nursery pig performance. J. Swine Health Prod.  11: 75– 79. Boyle, L. A., and R. B. Boyle 2002. Effect of leaving piglets' teeth intact on sow behaviour and welfare in farrowing crates. Page 60 in Proc. 36th Annu. Int. Congr. Soc. Appl. Ethol., Egmond aan Zee, the Netherlands. Org. Comm. 36th ISAE Congr., Wageningen, the Netherlands. Brown, J. M. E., S. A. Edwards, W. J. Smith, E. Thompson, and J. Duncan 1996. Welfare and production implications of teeth clipping and iron injection of piglets in outdoor systems in Scotland. Prev. Vet. Med.  27: 95– 105. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Chambers, C., L. Powell, E. Wilson, and L. E. Green 1995. A postal survey of tail biting in pigs in South West England. Vet. Rec.  136: 147– 148. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  English, P. R., W. J. Smith, and A. MacLean 1977. The Sow: Improving Her Efficiency. Farming Press Ltd.,  Ipswich, Suffolk, UK. European Commission 2001. Commission Directive 2001/93/EC of 9 November 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Off. J. Eur. Commun. L  316/ 36. FASS 1999. Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching.  Fed. Anim. Sci. Soc., Savoy, IL. Gallois, M., Y. Le Cozler, and A. Prunier 2005. Influence of tooth resection in piglets on welfare and performance. Prev. Vet. Med.  69: 13– 23. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Geers, R., E. Bleus, T. Van Schie, H. Villh, H. Gerard, S. Janssens, G. Nackaerts, E. Decuyperet, and J. Jourquin 1994. Transport of pigs different with respect to the halothane gene: Stress assessment. J. Anim. Sci.  72: 2552– 2558. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Gosálvez, L. F., C. Santamarina, X Averós, M Hernández-Jover, G. Caja, and D. Babot 2007. Traceability of extensively produced Iberian pigs using visual and electronic identification devices from farm to slaughter. J. Anim Sci.  85: 2746– 2752. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Grant, C. 2004. Behavioural responses of lambs to common painful husbandry procedures. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.  87: 255– 273. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Hay, M., J. Rue, C. Sansac, G. Brunel, and A. Prunier 2004. Long-term detrimental effects of tooth clipping or grinding in piglets: A histological approach. Anim. Welf.  13: 27– 32. Hay, M., A. Vulin, S. Genin, P. Sales, and A. Prunier 2003. Assessment of pain induced by castration in piglets: Behavioural and physiological responses over the subsequent 5 days. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.  82: 201– 218. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Hodgson, D. S. 2007. An inhaler device using liquid injection of isoflurane for short term anesthesia in piglets. Vet. Anaesth. Analg.  33: 207– 213. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Holyoake, P. K., D. J. Broek, and A. P. L. Callinan 2004. The effects of reducing the length of canine teeth in sucking pigs by clipping or grinding. Aust. Vet. J.  82: 574– 576. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Horn, T., G. Marx, and E. von Borell 1999. Behaviour of piglets during castration with and without a local anesthesia. Dtsch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr.  106: 271– 274. Google Scholar PubMed  Hunter, E. J., T. A. Jones, H. J. Guise, R. H. C. Penny, and S. Hoste 2001. The relationship between tail biting in pigs, docking procedure and other management procedures. Vet. J.  161: 72– 79. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Hutter, S., K. Heinritzi, E. Reich, and W. Ehret 1994. Efficacité de différentes méthodes de résection des dents chez le porcelet non sevré. Rev. Med. Vet. (Toulouse)  145: 205– 213. Lewis, E., L. A. Boyle, P. Brophy, J. V. O'Doherty, and P. B. Lynch 2005a. The effect of two piglet teeth resection procedures on the welfare of sows in farrowing crates. Part 2. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.  90: 251– 264. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Lewis, E., L. A. Boyle, P. B. Lynch, P. Brophy, and J. V. O'Doherty 2005b. The effect of two teeth resection procedures on the welfare of piglets in farrowing crates. Part 1. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.  90: 233– 249. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Llamas Moya, S., L. A. Boyle, P. B. Lynch, and S. Arkins 2006. Influence of teeth resection on the skin temperature and acute phase response in newborn piglets. Anim. Welf.  15: 291– 297. Marx, G., T. Horn, J. Thielebein, B. Knubel, and E. von Borell 2003. Analysis of pain-related vocalization in young pigs. J. Sound Vibrat.  266: 687– 698. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Moinard, C., M. Mendl, C. J. Nicol, and L. E. Green 2003. A case control study of on-farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.  81: 333– 355. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Molina, P. E. 2001. Opiate modulation of hemodynamic, hormonal, and cytokine responses to hemorrhage. Shock  15: 471– 478. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Noonan, G. J., J. S. Rand, J. Priest, J. Ainscow, and J. K. Blackshaw 1994. Behavioural observations of piglets undergoing tail docking, teeth clipping and ear notching. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.  39: 203– 213. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   NRC 1998. Nutrient Requirements for Swine. 10th ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC. O'Reilly, K. M., M. J. Harris, M. T. Mendl, S. Held, C. Moinard, P. Statham, J. N. Marchant-Forde, and L. E. Green 2006. Generating hypotheses for factors associated with pre-weaning mortality on commercial pig farms in England and Wales. Vet. Rec.  159: 193– 196. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Polner, A. T., L. Sumeghy, and T. Gaal 2002. Examination of the effect of intramuscular and single peroral iron supplementation in suckling piglets. Mag. Allator. Lap.  124: 273– 280. Prunier, A., M. Bonneau, E. H. von Borell, S. Cinotti, M. Gunn, B. Fredriksen, M. Giersing, D. B. Morton, F. A. M. Tuyttens, and A. Velarde 2006. A review of the welfare consequences of surgical castration in piglets and the evaluation of non-surgical methods. Anim. Welf.  15: 277– 289. Prunier, A., A. M. Mounier, and M. Hay 2005. Effects of castration, tooth resection or tail docking on plasma metabolites and stress hormones in young pigs. J. Anim. Sci.  83: 216– 222. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Rand, J. S., G. J. Noonan, J. Priest, J. Ainscow, and J. K. Blackshaw 2002. Oral administration of a 12% sucrose solution did not decrease behavioural indicators of distress in piglets undergoing tail docking, teeth clipping and ear notching. Anim. Welf.  11: 395– 404. Schrader, L., and D. Todt 1998. Vocal quality is correlated with levels of stress hormones in domestic pigs. Ethology  104: 859– 876. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Schulz, C., M. Ritzmann, A. Palzer, K. Heinritzi, and S. Zoels 2007. Effect of isoflurane-anesthesia on post-operative pain due to castration of piglets. Berlin Munchen. Tierarztl. Wochenschr.  120: 177– 182. Sutherland, M. A., P. J. Bryer, N. Krebs, and J. J. McGlone 2008. Tail docking in pigs: Acute physiological and behavioural responses. Animal  2: 292– 297. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Taylor, A. A., and D. M. Weary 2000. Vocal responses of piglets to castration: Identifying procedural sources of pain. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.  70: 17– 26. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Weary, D. M., and D. Fraser 1999. Partial tooth-clipping of suckling pigs: Effects on neonatal competition and facial injuries. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.  65: 21– 27. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   White, R. G., J. A. DeShazer, C. J. Tressler, G. M. Borcher, S. Davey, A. Waninge, A. M. Parkhurst, M. J. Milanuk, and E. T. Clemens 1995. Vocalization and physiological response of pigs during castration with or without a local anesthetic. J. Anim. Sci.  73: 381– 386. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Wilke, T. J., and D. A. Hirning 1984. The evaluation of five commercial serum cortisol kits regarding precision and accuracy. Clin. Biochem.  17: 311– 316. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Williams, W. O., D. K. Riskin, and K. M. Mott 2008. Ultrasonic sound as an indicator of acute pain in laboratory mice. J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci.  47: 8– 10. Google Scholar PubMed  Wynn, R. J., H. A. M. Spoolder, and R. M. Kay 1999. The effect of handling, oral dosing and injection of iron on the heart rate and behavioural responses of day old piglets. Page 180 in Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Sci. 1999, Scarborough, Yorkshire, UK. Br. Soc.,  Anim. Sci., Penicuik, UK. Zepperitz, H., R. Weidhase, and H. Gürtler 2002. Comparison of different methods of parenteral and combined oral and parenteral administration of iron to baby pigs. Tierarztl. Praxis Ausg. Gross. Nutzt.  30: 89– 98. Zimmermann, W. 1995. Effects of different anemia prevention forms on the blood parameters of the suckling piglet. Dtsch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr.  102: 32– 38. Google Scholar PubMed  Copyright 2009 Journal of Animal Science
TI - Postnatal piglet husbandry practices and well-being: The effects of alternative techniques delivered separately,
JF - Journal of Animal Science
DO - 10.2527/jas.2008-1080
DA - 2009-04-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/postnatal-piglet-husbandry-practices-and-well-being-the-effects-of-vbWWIxShVE
SP - 1479
EP - 1492
VL - 87
IS - 4
DP - DeepDyve
ER -