This is a short list of scientific publications in which I have used AMI sensors. AMI stands for animal material interactions. AMI sensors can take various shapes and forms. In some way or other AMI sensors record the amount of interaction pigs have with enrichment materials for pigs. Mostly this concerns hanging toys like chains and ropes with or without suspended materials like pieces of wood. Below the list you can also find the abstracts. So far the use of AMI sensors is (mainly) restricted to application for scientific purposes, eg to measure the value of (different aspects of) enrichment materials (directly or indirectly), the effect of tail-biting ointments, and abnormal and/or sickness behaviour. A blog post on AMI sensors and the future of pig farming can be found here.
- Bracke, M.B.M. In press. Chains as proper enrichment for intensively-farmed pigs? In: Spinka, M. Advances in Pig Welfare. Elsevier. Reporting on the work done in the FareWellDock poject (forthcoming, expected June 2017).
- Bracke, M.B.M., 2007. Multifactorial testing of enrichment criteria: pigs ‘demand’ hygiene and destructibility more than sound. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 107, 208-232.
- Bracke, M.B.M., Spoolder, H.A.M., 2008. Novel object test can detect marginal differences in environmental enrichment in pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 109, 39-49.
- Bracke, M.B.M. 2009. Rope test may indicate efficacy of tail-biting treatments in growing pigs. Animal Welfare 18: 263-266.
- Bracke, MBM, Ettema K. 2014. Pigs suffering from injurious behaviours like flank biting and tail biting are more interested to manipulate a novel rope than uninjured control animals. Proceedings of Measuring Behavior 2014, (Wageningen, The Netherlands, August 27-29, 2014). Editors: A.J. Spink, L.W.S. Loijens, M. Woloszynowska-Fraser & L.P.J.J. Noldus.
- Bracke, M.B.M. 2017. AMI-sensors, Farewelldock and the future of pig farming. Blog post on the FareWellDock website.
Abstracts
- Bracke, M.B.M., 2007. Multifactorial testing of enrichment criteria: pigs ‘demand’ hygiene and destructibility more than sound. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 107, 208-232.
- Bracke, M.B.M., Spoolder, H.A.M., 2008. Novel object test can detect marginal differences in environmental enrichment in pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 109, 39-49.
- Bracke, M.B.M. 2009. Rope test may indicate efficacy of tail-biting treatments in growing pigs. Animal Welfare 18: 263-266.
Tail biting is a most serious welfare problem in pigs raised for slaughter. In instances of an outbreak of tail biting, scientists have recommended that farmers take measures such as removal of affected animals, provision of enrichment materials and application of repellents to the pigs’ tails. However, no scientific study has ever confirmed the efficacy of any of these suggestions in counteracting an ongoing outbreak. Here, the efficacy of two repellent ointments, Dippel’s oil and Stockholm tar, were examined in a tail-chew test. For this, a novel piece of nylon rope was used as a tail model to measure biting behaviour semi-automatically in 24 single-sex groups of growing pigs (total 264 pigs). Repeated measures analysis showed no effect of time, gender or unit (12 pens per unit), but a highly significant effect of treatment, in that both Stockholm tar and Dippel’s oil significantly reduced rope manipulation compared to controls. These results suggest that Stockholm tar and Dippel’s oil may be effective in reducing tail biting. The approach taken may be valuable in further testing of strategies to reduce tail biting and improving pig welfare.
- Bracke, MBM, Ettema K. 2014. Pigs suffering from injurious behaviours like flank biting and tail biting are more interested to manipulate a novel rope than uninjured control animals. Proceedings of Measuring Behavior 2014, (Wageningen, The Netherlands, August 27-29, 2014). Editors: A.J. Spink, L.W.S. Loijens, M. Woloszynowska-Fraser & L.P.J.J. Noldus.
Injurious behaviours in pigs may involve persistent or forceful biting in specific body parts and may result in wounds of the pigs’ tails, ears, flanks and legs. Such behaviours, which may lead to progressive tissue damage, are difficult to counteract.
On a commercial farm 22 groups of pigs with wounds on flanks (n = 16) and tails (n = 6) were matched with 22 control groups without wounds. All groups were provided with a novel rope, applied as a ‘tail chew test’. Interaction with the rope was recorded semi-automatically about 45 and 120 minutes after introduction of the rope. Statistical analysis showed significant decrease of interest in the rope over time and significantly elevated interest in the ropes in pens containing wounded animals (median number of pulls per minute in control pens, flank-biting pens and tail-biting pens were 7.8a, 10.2b and 14.3b respectively, where superscripts indicate significance levels (P < 0.001).
These results suggest that flank biting and tail biting increase exploration and destructibility in pigs. The approach taken is valuable in further understanding strategies to reduce injurious behaviours in pigs and improving pig welfare, e.g. by providing enrichment materials.