Data_Sheet_1_Individual behavioral correlates of tail biting in pre-finishing piglets.docx

IntroductionTail biting is a widespread problem in pig production systems and has a negative impact on both animal welfare and farm income. This explorative study aims to validate how tail biting is related to general behaviors at the individual level and explore whether these behaviors are related to a particular type of tail biting: two-stage, sudden-forceful, obsessive, or epidemic.MethodsThis research was conducted in a standard commercial setting where 89 tail-docked pre-finishing piglets divided into 8 groups were observed 4 days per week from 5 to 8 weeks of age. Each piglet was observed for a total of 160 min using continuous focal sampling. Ten individual behaviors were recorded based on the general behaviors expected to be linked to giving tail biting (PCA1), receiving tail biting (PCA2), and tail biting damage (PCA3). These PCAs were assembled and related to tail biting given, tail biting received, and tail biting lesions.ResultsTail biting did not lead to major damage on the piglets' tail at 8 weeks of age but was observed 420 times, where most of the individuals (72%) were categorized as “biters and victims.” When relating PCA1 with tail biting given, piglets that gave more tail biting showed more “active exploration.” When relating PCA2 with tail biting received, piglets receiving more tail biting were more “explored while active” and “attacked and explored.” When relating PCA2 with tail biting lesions, piglets presenting lesions showed more “agonism.” Surprisingly, tail biting lesions were not significantly related to PCA3. The relationship between explorative behaviors and tail biting indicates that the pre-damage stage of two-stage tail biting was the predominant tail biting type, while the damaging stage was likely incipient. The relationship between tail biting and aggression, as well as the minor tail lesions observed suggest that sudden-forceful tail biting was probably present even though it was rarely seen. Obsessive and epidemic tail biting were not observed.DiscussionThis study demonstrates that studying tail biting at the individual level helps to identify the type of tail biting present. This gives directions to farmers for applying appropriate measures to prevent the development of tail biting behavior in piglets.</p

Additional file 3: of A longitudinal study on the performance of in vivo methods to determine the osteochondrotic status of young pigs

Description: Final data set obtained for all pigs for histology and radiography Table 4a. Radiographic and histological joint assessments for the right side Table 4b. Radiographic and histological joint assessments for the left side. (PDF 186 kb

Additional file 1: of A longitudinal study on the performance of in vivo methods to determine the osteochondrotic status of young pigs

Description: Illustration of the timeline of the analysis. (PDF 112 kb

Additional file 2: of A longitudinal study on the performance of in vivo methods to determine the osteochondrotic status of young pigs

Description: Visual scoring characteristics and scoring categories for anatomical and mobility traits (PDF 86 kb

Correlation between placental measures and birth weight.

<p>Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficients (rPM), the associated probabilities (two tailed), and the number of measurements (Ns) are listed. Correlation coefficients with associated probabilities <0.05 are printed bold, whereas coefficients with 0.1 ><i>P</i> >0.05 are printed in italics.</p

Effect of birth weight, ALLO treatment and their interaction on slaughter weight, and relative hippocampal and spleen weight (for means and SEMs see Table 6).

<p>Effect of birth weight, ALLO treatment and their interaction on slaughter weight, and relative hippocampal and spleen weight (for means and SEMs see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0086396#pone-0086396-t006" target="_blank">Table 6</a>).</p

Effects of Allopurinol treatment on piglet birth measures.

<p>Degrees of freedom, F-values, associated probabilities, mean, SEMs and Ns op the ALLO-treated and untreated control piglets are listed.</p><p>Differences in birth measures between piglets from the six sows treated with allopurinol and four control sows. Note that the data of two sows of the control condition (no ALLO treatment) were not used because they did not give birth to LBW piglets (see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0086396#pone-0086396-t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a> for details). Full body length (cm) = snout to tail base; snout length (cm) = snout to end of skull; ponderal index = weight/length3.</p

Average number of errors* made per birth weight and treatment group between finding rewarded bowls.

<p><b>X-axis:</b> 1: before locating the 1^st reward, 2: between locating reward 1–2, 3: between locating reward 2–3, 4: between locating reward 3–4. Groups: low birth weight (LBW) and normal birth weight (NBW) piglets, prenatally treated with allopurinol and untreated controls. Means and SEM for the 1^st (panel A) and 10th trial block (panel B) of the training phase are shown. *Error = visiting an unrewarded or previously rewarded bowl. **Trial block = 2 sessions of 2 consecutive trials (i.e. 4 trials in total).</p

Absolute and relative weights per birth weight by treatment group.

<p>The means and standard errors of the mean (SEM) are listed.</p

Absolute body and relative organ weights of low (LBW) and normal birth weight (NBW) pigs derived from allopurinol treated and control sows at the age of 5 and 5.5 months.

<p>Panel A: body weight, panels B–D: relative organ weights. Ratios are calculated by dividing the organ weight through the end body weight per animal.</p