Category Archives: Meeting

Feeding behaviour and performance in relation to injurious tail biting in boars – a longitudinal study

Feeding behaviour and performance in relation to injurious tail biting in boars – a longitudinal study. By Munsterhjelm, C., J. Nordgreen, M. Heinonen, A. M. Janczak, A. Valros. 2016. Royal Dublin Society: Abstracts book of the 24th International Pig Veterinary Society (IPVS) Congress, Dublin, Republic of Ireland 7-10th June 2016. p. 627.

Abstract

Introduction: Automatically collected feeder data may be used to predict tail biting in finisher pigs.

Materials and Methods: Pen-level feeding behaviour and growth were investigated in relation to injurious tail biting (ITB), defined as visible wounds, from 10 weeks before to 4 weeks after the first ITB case in the pen. The data set included 36 pens of 10-12 intact boars between 43 and 148 kg, with average pen weight at ITB onset between 78 and 137 kg. A tail biting pen (TBPEN) had at least one case of ITB, whereas a control pen (CTR) had none. Individual feeding-related data including consumed feed, bout length and -frequency were collected by a single automatic ad libitum feeder. Time (week) relative to ITB onset was referred to as RELWEEK. The time before (PRE-ITB, RELWEEK -10 to 0, n=13 TBPEN and 23 CTR pens) and after ITB onset (POST-ITB, RELWEEK 0 to 4, n=9 TBPEN and 21 CTR) were analysed separately. Effects of TBPEN (vs CTR), bodyweight and RELWEEK were analysed using a linear mixed model with RELWEEK as repeated and pen as random effect.

Results: PRE-ITB the number of predicted feeder visits was lower in TBPEN as compared to CTR and decreased with age (PRED = -18 to -39% at RELWEEK -10 to 0; TBPEN effect p=0.02), leading to a tendency for a shorter daily time in the feeder (TBPEN effect p=0.06). TBPEN showed a growth dip to a -11% PRED level in RELWEEK -9 (TBPEN x RELWEEK p=0.001). Feeding behaviour changed in TBPEN in RELWEEK -2 to 0. Significant TBPEN x RELWEEK –interactions (p≤0.02) indicated that the relative decrease in the number of feeding bouts accelerated. Together with a progressive shortening of the average feeding bout this led to decreasing relative feed intake and growth (PRED= -10%, -7% and -8% at RELWEEK 0, respectively). POST-ITB TBPEN still spent less time in the feeder than CTR (TBPEN p=0.04), whereas the difference in the number of visits was decreasing (TBPEN x RELWEEK p<0.001). There was a tendency for a higher intake per second (TBPEN p=0.08) and a significantly faster RELWEEK-related increase in intake per visit (TBPEN x RELWEEK p<0.05), as well as increasingly faster growth (PRED= +9% at RELWEEK 4, TBPEN p=0.02) in TBPEN as compared to CTR. The amount of feed consumed did not differ.

Conclusion: Changes in feeding behaviour in TBPEN 10 weeks before ITB suggests presence of some tail-biting related factor. A growth dip 9 weeks before ITB may indicate the involvement of health problems in tail biting. Rapid changes in feeding behaviour suggest that tail biting behaviour begins or escalates 2 weeks before the first tail wounds are detected. TBPEN shows compensatory growth unrelated to feed intake in the month after ITB onset.

Poster Munsterhjelm IPVS

FareWellDock Edinburgh Satellite Meeting

On July 12th the FareWellDock consortium hosted a satellite meeting and videoconference at the Roslin Institute Building near Edinburgh to coincide with the 50th conference of the International Society for Applied Ethology. The aim of the satellite meeting was to invite researchers involved in other European projects on tail docking and biting to share their work and ideas with the consortium.

The speakers gave four excellent presentations which generated interesting discussions and more ideas for planning future work (see brief summaries below)

Updates of the three work packages were also presented at the meeting. Since the last meeting in March, several more articles on tail docking and biting have been published and a number are near completion. Work progress in all three work packages appears to be on track.

Emphasis was placed upon generating and circulating draft fact sheets from the 3 work packages before the FVO Stakeholder Meeting in Grange, Republic of Ireland on October 4-6th 2016.

Sabine Dippel, a researcher at the Federal Research Institute of Animal Health (FLI), provided a comprehensive overview of “Current tail biting projects in Germany” and the summarised outputs from 51 different projects ranging from those focussed on basic science to feasibility and survey-based studies. Preliminary findings suggested that:
• Undocked weaner pigs were at higher risk of tail biting than undocked fattening pigs.
• Farmers need to gain experience in observing pigs
• Farms need to change step-by-step towards intact tails
• Focus on farm-individual optimisation
• Greater coordination between production stages
• Advice, training, knowledge transfer were essential to achieving these aims
Tail biting pigs
Valérie Courboulay a researcher at IFIP (French Institute for the pig and pork industry) provided an overview of several IFIP related studies on tail biting and dissemination of information in the form of technical datasheets to French farmers. Data presented from studies where pain relief (meloxicam) was provided at the time of docking and castration showed marginal affects on general behaviours, except for increased time spent sitting. When investigating tail posture, pigs with more severe tail lesions (score 3) exhibited more tail-down posture than pigs with minor tail or no tail lesions (score 2-0). A recent study has been undertaken to develop a model of cannibalism in pigs based on frustration of exploratory behaviours by providing environmental enrichment (progressive supply) and straw in the post weaning period and then some groups were reared with or without environmental enrichment for a short duration in the fattening period. The results showed that:
• Removal of enrichment between the post weaning and fattening periods is not sufficient to induce tail biting
• Providing objects for a few days and removing them is not sufficient to induce tail biting
• Frustration of investigative behaviour, that is considered as a major risk factor, is not sufficient to induce tail biting

INRA factsheet on pain

Jen-yun Chou, a first year PhD student working at Teagasc in the Republic of Ireland, presented preliminary findings from her studies into the use of wood as a strategy to reduce the risk of tail biting in pigs managed on slatted floors. The potential use of wood as a manipulable material is viewed positively in Irish production systems due to the problems of slurry removal caused by loose straw in fully slatted systems. To date, preliminary data have shown that softwoods such as spruce and scots pine are more readily used by the pigs compared to more hardwoods such as larch and beech.
• Spruce was used up most quickly both in terms of length and weight loss, possibly due to its softness.
• There is a tendency of more interaction with the wood by pigs in pens provided with spruce.
• In terms of texture and moisture spruce is a good option for enrichment but the cost may be a drawback
• Different wood types did not affect harmful behaviours, pig physical measures and production.
• Correlation between ear lesion and tear staining scorings implies a potential welfare assessment method on farm due to easy visibility.
• Correlation between tail posture and lesion shows that posture could be an indicator of tail biting

Chewed wood

Anna Sinclair, a first year SRUC PhD student currently working at the Institut National de la Recherché Agronomique (INRA), presented preliminary findings from studies into the behavioural and neural/cellular consequences of tooth resection in commercial pigs at its implications for pig welfare. Although this work was not directly related to tail docking or biting it is a project that was developed through on-going collaborative research by Dr. Armelle Prunier ay INRA and Dr. Dale Sandercock at SRUC within the FareWellDock project, addressing the issue of early life pain in livestock. Preliminary data were presented on the effects of tooth clipping and tooth grinding on tooth length and tooth/gum injury, haematological measures, live weight/growth rates, general, stress and pain related behavioural measures. Findings to date have shown that:
• Tooth damage was readily observed but variable
• Maxillary incisors are most consistently affected
• Clipping results in tooth and gum bleeding
• Growth rates are unaffected
• Pigs exhibit reduced activity after tooth treatments
• Pigs keep their ears back less and their tails down more, although this could be handling effect
• High variation at this stage – more data are required

Tooth treatment

Training veterinarians and agricultural advisers on a novel tool for tail biting prevention

Training veterinarians and agricultural advisers on a novel tool for tail biting prevention
By A. L. vom Brocke, D. P. Madey, M. Gauly, L. Schrader and S. Dippel (Vet Rec Open 2015).

Abstract

Introduction Many health and welfare problems in modern livestock production are multifactorial problems which require innovative solutions, such as novel risk assessment and management tools. However, the best way to distribute such novel – and usually complex – tools to the key applicants still has to be discussed.
Materials and methods This paper shares experiences from distributing a novel tail biting prevention tool (‘SchwIP’) to 115 farm advisers and 19 veterinarians in 23 one-day workshops. Participants gave written and oral feedback at the end of the workshops, which was later analysed together with the number of farms they had visited after the workshops. Workshop groups were categorised into groups showing (a) HIGH, (b) INTermediate or (c) LOW levels of antagonism against SchwIP or parts of it during workshop discussions.
Results Group types did not significantly differ in their evaluation of knowledge transfer. However, HIGH group members evaluated the on-farm usability of the tool significantly lower in the workshop feedback and tended to visit fewer farms.
Conclusions As antagonistic discussion can influence workshop output, future workshop leaders should strive for basic communication training as well as some group leadership experience before setting up and leading workshops.

6th FareWellDock meeting

March 16 the FareWellDock team had another videoconference meeting. Partners from FI (3), UK (4), DK (4), SE (1), FR (1) and NL (1) presented and discussed progress in the various project’s workpackages.

This will be the final year of the project. One of the joint activities is to produce factsheets on the FareWellDock project as a whole, aspects related to tail docking and tail length, the relationship between tail biting and health, enrichment, and the prediction of tail biting outbreaks.

Further meeting scheduled for this year include a meeting associated with this year’s ISAE meeting in Edinburgh, a physical meeting in Denmark and meeting with stakeholders.

Other points of interest:

There was an FVO visit to Finland on banning tail docking, where Anna gave a presentation.

There is a new COST action, GroupHouseNet, on tail biting and feather pecking.

There is a new ANIHWA project PigWatch (Hans Spoolder) “Combining the ‘eye of the stockman’ and precision farming techniques to improve pig welfare”.

The EC had a recent meeting on tail biting, docking and enrichment for pigs.

Several of the FareWellDock partners are involved in the writing of chapters of a new book on pig welfare.

A lot is happening this year ….

6the FareWellDock meeting March 16
6the FareWellDock meeting March 16

Histological and neurophysiological pain assessment in young pigs

Original title: Approche histologique et neurophysiologie de la douleur liée à la coupe de queue chez les porcelets

Presentation of Dr. Dale Sandercock (SRUC) at a seminar on histological and neurophysiological approaches to pain assessment in young pigs. INRA-PEGASE, St-Gilles, France, December 14th 2015

Abstract

Concerns exist over the long term consequences of tail docking on possible tail stump pain sensitivity due to the development of traumatic neuromas in injured peripheral nerves. Traumatic neuroma formation may cause detrimental sensory changes in the tail due to altered peripheral and spinal neuronal excitability leading to abnormal sensation or pain. We have investigated tail injury and traumatic neuroma development by histopathological assessment after tail docking and measured the expression of key neuropeptides associated with peripheral nerve regeneration, inflammation and chronic pain. In complimentary studies on tail docking and tail biting, we have developed behavioural assessment approaches to measure mechanical nociceptive thresholds (MNT) in the pig tail in purpose built test set-up using a Pressure Application Measurement (PAM) device. Using these approaches we have determined baseline MNT in intact tails along different regions of the tail and also measured changes in MNT over time in pig with resected tails (simulation of the effect of tail biting). An overview of other Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) pig health and welfare research projects is also presented.

Presentation Pic INRA seminar on pain (D Sandercock, 2015))

News from The Netherlands (and Germany)

This first week of February 2016 two items related to tail biting appeared in farmers’ press in The Netherlands. In addition, we recently provided input into a European project on the welfare of poultry, which will be reported on briefly below.

One news item announced that farmers are invited at the Intensive Farming Fair in Venray (LIV Venray), March 1-3 2016. At the fair two finished tail-biting projects will be presented and discussed with entrepreneurs who are active in intensive farming. One of the projects is ‘Keeping pigs with intact tails’.

The other item was a report on the German tail biting (Ringelschwanz-)project. First results of the curly-tail project in North-Rhine Westphalia showed that more than one quarter of piglets at 15 participating research farms had damaged tails before the end of the rearing period. At some farms half of the tails had been bitten. At the 15 farms participating in the study 30-94 piglets had been reared on each farm without tail docking. Outbreaks of tail biting appeared to be associated with streptococcus infections. Prevention and intervention strategies included providing dried maize silage or alfalfa hay twice daily and the isolation of biters respectively. Most tail biting occurred between week 2 and 4 after weaning. This level of tail biting is not so good news. If these levels of tail biting would persist, it may indicate that intensive systems cannot be made compatible with acceptable levels of animal welfare. Fortunately, however, experiences in Finland indicate that it should be possible to keep undocked pigs in conventional systems at much lower levels of tail biting (around 2% based on slaughter house data).

The German farmers union and North-Rhine Westphalia have agreed 1.5 years ago that they intend to stop tail docking by 2017. This will be done provided on-farm research shows that tail biting among pigs with intact tails does not reduce animal welfare. The general expectation is that the objective of safely quitting tail docking cannot be met.

From a Dutch research perspective two notes appear to be relevant:

The first is that our semantic-modelling approach provides a unique methodology to determine/assess  the cut-off point between the welfare impacts of tail biting and tail docking using formalised biological reasoning and scientific evidence. In this computation one must take into account all relevant aspects: So, not only the point that the welfare of tail bitten pigs is reduced due to blunt trauma (biting) compared to the sharp trauma of tail docking at an earlier age. But also the point must be recognised that the welfare of tail biting pigs may relatively be improved when they can bite their penmates’ tails, compared to when they cannot (other things being equal, i.e. lack of suitable enrichment). What matters for welfare as considered from the animals’ point of view is the extent to which they can satisfy their needs, e.g. for biting and the expression of species-specific foraging behaviour, taking into account also the activation of coping mechanisms such as redirected and harmful-social behaviours.

The second thing to note about the results of the German research project is the following. In addition to taking note of the bad news (many bitten tails, which has to be taken seriously, perhaps even to the point that the conclusion must be drawn that intensive systems are not compatible with acceptable animal welfare), one may also try to move forwards for the time being by focussing on the good news: Two out of the 15 pilot farms in Germany managed to keep all piglets’ tails intact. Other farms may learn from what was done on these farms to keep tails intact. Furthermore, since the EC Directive requires that all farms try to periodically keep at least some intact pigs, a 10% success rate could provide sufficient scope for progress at the population level, even when the causes of the success are poorly understood. This can be concluded from a methodology we designed previously to solve complex welfare problems like feather pecking in poultry and tail biting in pigs. This methodology has been called ‘Intelligent Natural Design’ (INO in Dutch; see also Bracke, 2010). It basically uses evolution to select the best farms to make increasing progress towards the objective of completely stopping the practice of routine tail docking in pig farming.

Countering the routine practices of tail docking and beak trimming, as well as preventing and treating outbreaks of tail biting and feather pecking requires an understanding of tipping points. Recently, we modified our tipping-bucket model for tail biting for inclusion on the Henhub website. This website, which is part of the Hennovation project, gives information about welfare issues in poultry, esp. (at present) feather pecking. On that site the modified tipping-bucket model can be found under the post describing the mechanism of feather pecking.

Tipping-bucket model of tail biting in pigs
Tipping-bucket model of tail biting in pigs

.
Bracke, M.B.M. 2010. Towards long(er) pig tails: New strategy to solve animal welfare problems. In: Lidfors, L., Blokhuis, H., Keeling, L., Proceedings of the 44th Congress of the ISAE, August 4-7 2010, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, p. 135. (Poster, ISAE 2010, Uppsala, Sweden, Aug 4-7.

Synergy for preventing damaging behaviour in group housed pigs and chickens (GroupHouseNet)

CA COST Action CA15134

Description are provided by the Actions directly via e-COST.

The GroupHouseNet aim is to provide the European livestock industry with innovations in breeding and management for pigs and poultry that are needed for a successful transition to large group housing systems without necessitating painful tail docking and beak trimming. Allowing the animals greater opportunities to display their species-specific behaviour while avoiding the routine use of painful procedures, group housing of unmutilated animals sits at the core of the new animal welfare paradigm driven by consumer demand. Group housing is associated with increased risks of damaging behaviours among the animals, such as feather pecking, aggression and cannibalism in laying hens and tail biting, bellynosing, excessive aggression and cannibalism in pigs. Recent research suggests the key to reducing the incidence of these behaviours lies in refining and applying methods of genetic selection, and developing husbandry innovations that improve early and later life conditions – which is exactly what GroupHouseNet will use the COST Action framework and tools to do. GroupHouseNet brings together researchers and industrial partners dealing with animal breeding and genetics, animal nutrition, epidemiology, engineering, animal behaviour and welfare, epigenetics, immunology, (neuro)physiology, economics and ethics. To strengthen the scientific and technological basis in these areas the Action will facilitate knowledge sharing, creation and application in pigs and laying hens in both experimental and commercial environments. The activities will be conducted in an open, output-oriented transnational, multisectorial, and multidisciplinary research and development network emphasising COST Excellence and Inclusiveness Policy.

Proposer of the action: Prof Andrew Janczak
(action arising in part from the FareWellDock project).
 

5th FareWellDock meeting

Today, Oct 7 2015, FareWellDock is having its 5th (3rd videoconference) meeting to discuss project progress.

As far as communication is concerned we are doing fine. We now have about 5 scientific papers, 16 conference contributions, 6 farm magazine articles, 1 training, 6 internet contributions (besides the FareWellDock website) and 1 radio performance (see project overview). In addition, the FareWellDock website lists 37 posts. Twelve of these are new since our last meeting in Paris. Also, most partners are present on our partner page.

At the meeting we discuss the report and factsheet for end-users on how to deal with tail biting and tail docking. As part of that discussion we also talk briefly about the HENNOVATION project. In that project a webtool is being developed providing extension information about welfare problems like featherpecking, in a structured and flexible way. It includes the possibility to set up a forum for end-users to discuss innovations, and wiki pages to aggregate collective knowledge (see the Beta version). This is not feasible within the FareWellDock project, but it is good to learn about cross-disciplinary activities.

Videoconference meeting

Videoconference meeting Oct 7, 2015

Soundbites Pig Welfare Conference: 1. Introduction

On 29 – 30 April 2015 Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Dan Jørgensen hosted an international conference “Improving Pig Welfare – what are the ways forward?“.

During the two-day conference, top academics, experts and political stakeholders from around the world debated and worked to prepare the way forward in improving pig welfare in Europe and ultimately in the world. Ministers from the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden participated.

Below you find ‘soundbites’ from the conference, all more or less related to the subjects of study in the FareWellDock project. This is part 1. Parts 2-5 are other blog posts on this website.

It is truly remarkable that we have been able to gather almost four hundred participants to discuss the ways forward for pig welfare; some are joining us from as far away as the state of Iowa, USA, and Australia
Dan Jørgensen, Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries

fwd PWConf DK Minists IMG_1817c
Left to right: Dan Jørgensen, Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, DK. Sharon Dijksma, Minister for Agriculture, NL. Sven-Erik Bucht, Minister for Rural Affairs, SE. Christian Schmidt, Federal Minister of Food and Agriculture, DE.

At the conference a position paper was signed by
Christian Schmidt, Federal Minister of Food and Agriculture, DE
Sven-Erik Bucht, Minister for Rural Affairs, SE
Dan Jørgensen, Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, DK
Sharon Dijksma, Minister for Agriculture, NL

The position paper, final version(PDF)

Video of signing

Dan Jørgensen
Dan Jørgensen, Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries

Soundbites Pig Welfare Conference: 2. Presentations

On 29 – 30 April 2015 Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Dan Jørgensen hosted an international conference “Improving Pig Welfare – what are the ways forward?“.

During the two-day conference, top academics, experts and political stakeholders from around the world debated and worked to prepare the way forward in improving pig welfare in Europe and ultimately in the world.

Below you find ‘soundbites’ from conference presentations, all more or less related to the subjects of study in the FareWellDock project.

The Welfare Challenges Facing The Pig Sector
Peter Stevenson, Chief Policy Advisor of Compassion in World Farming, UK
Interview (video):
We have created a society where farmers’ margins are so low that they often have no choice but to have very low welfare (P. Stevenson)
We need to find a way in which we can make moving to higher welfare economically viable (P. Stevenson)
Presentation:
The EU should protect farmers from low welfare imports (P. Stevenson)
Most pigs in EU are given no enrichment or ineffective objects such as chains. … Plastic chewing sticks & balls are not effective enrichment (P. Stevenson)
An intact curly tail may well be the single most important animal-based welfare indicator in finishing pigs (EFSA update 2011, cited by P. Stevenson).
The average benefit of raising uncastrated pigs is around €5 per pig due to better feed conversion (EC, 2013, cited by P. Stevenson)
Consumers can drive animal welfare improvements – Don’t keep them in the dark (P. Stevenson).

Could Animal Production Become a Profession?
David Fraser, Professor, University of British Columbia, Canada
Interview (video):
Could pig producers function more like professionals and less like an industry? Professionals set their own standards. (D. Fraser)
Presentation:
The best common people are the agricultural population, so that it is possible to introduce democracy as well as other forms of constitution where the multitide lives by agriculture or by pasturing cattle. Aristotle, “Politics” (cited by D. Fraser).
In the past half century, animal agriculture in the U.S. has been taken over by corporations, turning family farms into factory farms (Farm Sanctuary, 2009, cited by D. Fraser).
Farm animal health levels: Piglet deaths: 0-50%; bursitis: 0-83%; sow mortality: 0-20%; dairy cow lameness 0-85%; broiler lameness: 0-90% (D. Fraser).
Animal welfare reforms have been modeled on worker welfare legislation that regulated the physical environment and exposure time in factories (D. Fraser).
Shifting animal production toward a professional model is a more promising approach to improving animal welfare and maintaining public trust in animal producers (D. Fraser).

Assessment and Alleviation of Pain in Pig Production
Sandra Edwards, Professor, Newcastle University, UK

Sandra Edwards
Sandra Edwards, Professor, Newcastle University, UK

Interview (video):
We need a very strong ethical justification for continuing farm-management procedures which are painful to animals, and look very actively for ways to reduce their necessity (S. Edwards)
Presentation:
Is castration necessary? Not all countries now think so (Backus et al., 2014), but sometimes it may be (S. Edwards)
What links castration, tail docking and gastric ulcers in pigs? Pain (S. Edwards)
Tail docking: Historically (and often currently): A surgical procedure carried out on young piglets with no pain relief (S. Edwards)
Does Tail docking Cause Pain? Many farmers believe not (or only insignificant) (S. Edwards)
30% of finishing pigs and 50% of culled sows have gastric sulcers (score >6). Gastric ulcers are acutely painful in humans. (S. Edwards)
Conclusion: The occurrence of pain compromises animal welfare
– It must be actively addressed.
– “Suppress, Substitute, Soothe”
(S. Edwards)
A reliable method for on-farm pain assessment is needed (S. Edwards)

Neonatal Piglet Mortality in Relation to Sow Farrowing Environment
Lene Juul Pedersen, Senior Researcher, Aarhus University, DK

Lene Juul Pedersen
Lene Juul Pedersen, Senior Researcher, Aarhus University, DK

Interview (video):
Genetic selection for increased littersize in Danish pig production has resulted in problems with piglet mortality that need to be solved, either by changing the breeding goal (to heavier piglets) and/or intensified piglet care (L.J. Pedersen).

Increased piglet mortality is not an innate problem of farrowing pens where sows can freely more around (L.J. Pedersen).
Presentation:
Piglets are born in a thermally insufficient environment (L.J. Pedersen).

Animal welfare in organic pig production
Jan Tind Sørensen, Professor, Aarhus University, DK
Interview (video):
Organic pig production does well on naturalness, welfare perception and low antibiotics use, but needs to solve problems with piglet mortality, endoparasites and castration (J.T. Sørensen).
Scientists cannot solve animal welfare. Politicians either. We need to collaborate to improve pig welfare (J.T. Sørensen).
Presentation:
Lameness prevalense in organic sow herds is higher during summer (Knage-Rasmussen et al 2014, cited by J.T. Sørensen).
High piglet mortality in organic pig production (Sørensen & Pedersen 2013, cited by J.T. Sørensen)
Organic pigs may be more resistant to Salmonella infections
(Bonde & Sørensen 2012, cited by J.T. Sørensen)

The Intelligent Pig Barn
Anders Ringgaard Kristensen, Professor, University of Copenhagen, DK
Interview (video):
Sensor technology is one of the ways forward in pig production (A.R. Kirstensen)
Presentation:
The intelligent pig barn – PigIT – Welfare problems considered: diarrhea, fouling and tail biting (A.R. Kirstensen).

The Danish Pig Welfare Action Plan
Per Henriksen, CVO, Danish Veterinary and Food Administration, DK

The use of animal welfare indicators
Jeremy Marchant-Forde, Research Animal Scientist, USDA-ARS, USA
Interview (video):
Scientists in the EU interact more with policymakers, while the US has closer links with producers (J. Marchant-Forde)
Presentation:
From 2005 to 2050 the global demand for meat will raise: poultry from 82 to 181M tonnes, beef from 64 to 106M, and pork from 100M to 143M tonnes (43%) (J. Marchant-Forde).

The Danish Animal Welfare Index Project
Björn Forkman, Professor, University of Copenhagen, DK
Interview (video):
The Danish Animal Welfare Index is animal-based, compares welfare across years and is based on a definition of welfare in terms of feelings (B. Forkman)
The Danish pig welfare conference showed an astonishing interest in pig welfare (B. Forkman).
Presentation:
“Happy pigs are dirty” (B. Forkman)

Ethical Meat Production & Consumer Response
Athanasios Krystallis Krontalis, Professor, Aarhus University, DK
Interview (video):
What people believe, sometimes is irrevant to the way they behave (A.K. Krontalis)

The social desirability effect implies that we tend to stay on the safe side, hiding what we really believe about something and simply reproducing stereotypes. So people have difficulty saying I don’t care about animal welfare (A.K. Krontalis).
It will take a lot of effort to reveal the real opinions of people generally [regarding animal welfare] (A.K. Krontalis).
Presentation:
29.149 food products launched with the claim “ethical” on their description (top-10 categories, all European countries) (Mintel Gnpd, Apr. 2013 cited by A.K. Krontalis).
Around 4,000 new food product launches with the term “Animal welfare” in their description. Mintel Gnpd, Apr. 2013 (cited by A.K. Krontalis).
People with weak attitudes to pig production eat somewhat more pork (A.K. Krontalis).
Not eating pork at all is not related to being critical to pork production (A.K. Krontalis).
consumers seek more information about production methods to make informed choices (Harper & Henson, 2001, cited by A.K. Krontalis)
In a EU survey (2005) consumers stated they are very rarely or never able to identify meat products from sustainable production methods (cited by A.K. Krontalis)
Ethical meat can be achieved by:
* Optimization of current production (consumer-driven)
and/or
* Development of new (technology-driven) production (i.e. in-vitro or insect-based), with questionable social acceptance potential (A.K. Krontalis).

Good welfare is good business
Jeremy Cooper, CEO, Freedom Food and Kate Parkes, Senior Scientific Officer, RSPCA, UK
Good welfare is good business (J. Cooper, CEO Freedom Food)
Freedom Food: > 3.5k members, 1 billion terrestrial farm animals, > 2k labelled products, almost 1/3 of UK pigs, 50% of UK eggs, > 70% of Scottish salmon (J. Cooper)

The effects of stockperson education and training on farm animal welfare
Paul Hemsworth, Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia
Attitudes tend to direct our behaviour or, at least, our intended behaviour (P. Hemsworth).
The best way to predict how stockpeople will interact with their animals is by knowing what their attitude is toward the activity itself (P. Hemsworth).
To target ‘stockmanship’ both technical and behavioural training of stockpeople are necessary! (P. Hemsworth).