Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T16:53:05.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Descriptive Survey of the Range of Injuries Sustained and Farmers’ Attitudes to Vulva Biting in Breeding Sows in South-West England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

S Rizvi ,
C J Nicol  and
L E Green
S Rizvi*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
C J Nicol
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
L E Green
Affiliation:
Ecology and Epidemiology Group, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The within-farm prevalence of vulva biting in breeding sows in south-west England was investigated using a postal survey sent to 410 pig farmers in January 1997. The response rate was 65 per cent and there were 83 useable replies. The majority of farms where vulva biting was reported indicated a low within-farm prevalence of 1-9 per cent of sows affected, although prevalences as high as 30-60 per cent were reported. The injuries reported ranged from bleeding to removal of the whole vulva, the most commonly reported injuries being bleeding and superficial damage to the vulva. No long-term effects from this injury to service and dry sows were reported by 70 per cent and 76 per cent of farmers respectively. Competition for food, aggressive sows, closeness to farrowing and mixing of sows were the most common reasons suggested by these farmers as causes of vulva biting.

Keywords

animal welfaresowvulva biting
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , August 2000 , pp. 273 - 280
Copyright
© 2000 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Barnett, J L, Cronin, G M, Winfield, C G and Dewar, A M 1984 The welfare of adult pigs: the effects of five housing treatments on behaviour, plasma corticosteroids and injuries. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12: 209–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, A D, Dean, J A, Burton, A H and Dicker, R C 1994 Epi Info, Version 5. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, Centre for Disease Control and Prevention: Stone Mountain, USAGoogle Scholar
De Koning, R, Bokma, S, Koomans, P and Van Putten, G 1987 Praktijkonderzoek naar groepshuisvesting van zeugen in combinatie met een krachtvoersation. In: Proefstation Voor de Varkenshouderij ρ 1.14. Rosmalen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
GB Parliament 1994 Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994. Statutory Instrument No 2126. Her Majesty's Stationery Office: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hughes, P E and Varley, M A 1980 Reproduction in the Pig. Butterworth Group: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Kroneman, A, Vellenga, L, Van Der Wilt, F J and Vermeer, H M 1993 Review of health problems in group-housed sows, with special emphasis on lameness. Veterinary Quarterly 15: 26–29CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrow, D A 1986 Current Therapy in Theriogenology 2. W B Saunders: Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C J 1995 The social transmission of information and behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 79–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, A C, Svendsen, J, Reese, D, Andersson, M and Rantzer, D 1993 Housing of gestation sows in long narrow pens with liquid feeding. Rapport - Institutionen for Lantbrukets Byggnadsteknik, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet No 87: SwedenGoogle Scholar
Rizvi, S, Nicol, C J and Green, L E 1998 Risk factors for vulva biting in breeding sows in south-west England. Veterinary Record 143: 654–658CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Putten, G and Van De Burgwal, J A 1990 Vulva biting in group-housed sows: preliminary report. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar