Tag Archives: Enrichment

Proper enrichment for intensively-farmed pigs – From review to preview

Bracke, M.B.M. 2016. Enrichment materials for intensively-farmed pigs – From review to preview (Conference abstract & presentation, ICPD 2016). In: Kemp, B. et al., 2016. 16th International Conference on Production Diseases in Farm Animals. June 20-23, 2016. Wageningen, NL. p. 179.

Abstract

Tail biting is a well-known production disease in intensively-farmed pigs raising concern for animal welfare, e.g. related to the practice of routine tail docking. To reduce tail biting pigs are provided with enrichment materials. EU legislation requires that pigs have permanent access to a sufficient quantity of material to enable proper investigation and manipulation activities. In order to meet this directive many pigs are provided with a metal chain with or without a rather indestructible object attached to the chain. The European commission recently revised current guidelines as to what constitutes adequate enrichment, apparently moving into the direction of the status-quo in welfare schemes. Building on extensive previous work at Wageningen UR Livestock Research, especially on the modelling of pig enrichment (the so-called RICHPIG model) a review is presented of our current state of knowledge. In addition, an outline is given as to how so-called AMI-sensors, measuring Animal-Material Interactions (AMI) (semi-)automatically, can be used to assess the pig’s need for enrichment, also in relation to aspects associated with health status, such as feed restriction, biting wounds and streptococcus infection. It is suggested that the use of chains with or without rather indestructible materials such as pipes, balls or (hard)wood is generally inadequate to enrich the pens of intensively-farmed pigs. An evolutionary mechanism appears to be underlying the causation of multifactorial welfare problems in general, the issues of enrichment, tail biting and tail docking in pigs in particular. In this respect ongoing selection for increased resource efficiency has been exerting a profound impact on livestock production. Various routes are explored as to how persistent welfare problems may be resolved, including a method that has been called Intelligent Natural Design (IND).

Branched chain
Two organic pigs interacting simultaneously with a branched chain in the snow. Despite access to a straw bed for rooting, even organic pigs may interact with such chains for long periods of time, esp. directed towards the floor. In fact they will root the chain on the floor more than twice as much as playing with it in a horizontal position. In intensive pig production chains are often (too) short, and when a hockey-type ball or ‘sustainable’ plastic pipe is attached to the end of such a chain the pigs’ interest, and their welfare, is often even reduced further. By contrast, to improve the chain further 7mm stainless-steel anchor chains may be recommended for growing pigs over the cheaper c-chain shown here, as anchor chains have heavier and more rounded shackles.

See also an older previous presentation on tail biting.

Bracke, M.B.M, Wolthuis, M., Zonderland, J. J., Kluivers, M., 2011. TAILS TO TELL – Tail docking, tail biting and enrichment for pigs – Experiences from the Netherlands. Herning, DK, May 25-26, 2011.

Improving Welfare, Health and Productivity in Pigs by Optimizing Adaptation

Improving Welfare, Health and Productivity in Pigs by Optimizing Adaptation
By J.E. Bolhuis and B. Kemp, 2016. Journal of Animal Science (conference paper, March 14-16, 2016, Des Moines, USA).

Abstract

Welfare problems in pigs often arise from an imbalance between the challenges they are exposed to and their adaptive capacity. A major challenge for pigs is the weaning transition. Weaning often results in reduced growth, intestinal problems and damaging behaviors. The natural behavior of pigs and their adaptive strategies can inspire us to reduce weaning-related problems. We found that early ingestion of feed can be stimulated by facilitating information transfer from sow to piglet, both through flavor learning in utero and social learning. This early feeding, in turn, seems vital for a good post-weaning performance. Also enrichment substrates that stimulate early sampling of feed positively affect piglet performance around weaning. We are developing a multi-litter group housing system for lactating sows and their piglets in which both opportunities for sow-piglet information transfer and enrichment substrates are provided. Piglets raised in this system and kept in large groups post-weaning show improved performance until at least 9 weeks of age. Measures that facilitate the weaning transition in pigs typically also reduce the occurrence of damaging behaviors directed at pen mates, such as tail biting and ear biting. These behaviors both reflect and generate welfare problems, and are influenced by multiple factors. Apart from the impact of early life conditions, we studied the contribution of (genetic) characteristics of pigs and of their environment to the tendency of displaying damaging behaviors. Tail biting seems associated with fearfulness, serotonin metabolism and with (genetic and phenotypic) production characteristics. Excessive levels of damaging behaviors lead to reduced growth in the victims, and we therefore investigated the impact of a novel breeding strategy, targeting indirect genetic effects on growth. Pigs with high indirect genetic effects on growth inflicted less tail damage and showed less ear biting. They also seemed less fearful and showed lower leukocyte, lymphocyte and haptoglobin levels. Enrichment with straw bedding had similar beneficial effects additive to those of the new genetic strategy. On most farms it is, however, not feasible to provide pigs with straw, and we therefore studied the effectiveness of a simple enrichment material – a burlap sack – and found a twofold reduction in damaging behaviours and a five-fold reduction in the proportion of animals with a tail wound. In conclusion, – small and large – changes in genetic background, early life conditions and quality of the environment that contribute to the adaptive capacity of pigs, and reduce their stress load, can be used to improve pig welfare and performance in concert.

European commission initiative to reduce tail docking and improve enrichment

March 2016 the European Commission takes another step to reduce tail docking and improve enrichment for pigs as part of its animal welfare strategy.

Here are some relevant phrases from the announcement made on the Commission’s website:

The welfare of pigs is assured by Council Directive 2008/120/EC.

It applies to all categories of pig and lays down minimum standards for their protection:

  • Providing permanent access to …. materials for rooting and playing

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (EU) 2016/336 of 8 March 2016 on the application of Council Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs as regards measures to reduce the need for tail-docking.

STAFF WORKING DOCUMENTpdf(706 kB) on best practices with a view to the prevention of routine tail-docking and the provision of enrichment materials to pigs [SWD(2016)49 final] Following the adoption of the Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 as regards measures to reduce the need for tail-docking, the staff working document provides useful tools to a harmonised understanding on how the provision of manipulable material and avoidance of tail-docking can be practically achieved.

The working document recognises that proper enrichment is important to help prevent tail biting, and hence the need for tail docking.

Specified as unsafe are synthetic ropes, tyres, dry wood, dry sawdust, poorly stored straw, untreated peat/mushroom compost and dirty objects.

Furthermore proper enrichment should have one or more of the following qualities:

  • Edible or feed-like (to eat or smell)
  • Chewable (to bite)
  • Investigable (to root)
  • Manipulable (to change its location, appearance or
    structure)

Provision should be

  • of sustainable interest
  • accessible
  • of sufficient quantity
  • clean
MATERIALS OF MARGINAL INTEREST
Materials of marginal interest should not be used as essential or single component of pig
enrichment materials. They can provide distraction but should not be considered as
fulfiling the essential needs of the pigs. Other materials should also be provided.
Materials of marginal interest include objects, such as hard plastic piping or chains.
Marginal materials may supplement suboptimal materials like stones or strawdust briquette.

Can tail damage outbreaks in the pig be predicted by behavioural change?

Vestbjerg Larsen, M.L., Andersen, H.M-L, Pedersen, L.J. 2016. Can tail damage outbreaks in the pig be predicted by behavioural change? The Veterinary Journal 209: 50-56.

Abstract

Tail biting, resulting in outbreaks of tail damage in pigs, is a multifactorial welfare and economic problem which is usually partly prevented through tail docking. According to European Union legislation, tail docking is not allowed on a routine basis; thus there is a need for alternative preventive methods. One strategy is the surveillance of the pigs’ behaviour for known preceding indicators of tail damage, which makes it possible to predict a tail damage outbreak and prevent it in proper time. This review discusses the existing literature on behavioural changes observed prior to a tail damage outbreak. Behaviours found to change prior to an outbreak include increased activity level, increased performance of enrichment object manipulation, and a changed proportion of tail posture with more tails between the legs. Monitoring these types of behaviours is also discussed for the purpose of developing an automatic warning system for tail damage outbreaks, with activity level showing promising results for being monitored automatically. Encouraging results have been found so far for the development of an automatic warning system; however, there is a need for further investigation and development, starting with the description of the temporal development of the predictive behaviour in relation to tail damage outbreaks.

Tail postures
Tail postures
Pigs resting on straw
Pigs resting on straw

See also the related editorial:

Zonderland, J.J. and Zonderland, M.A., 2016. Behavioural change by pig producers is the key factor in raising pigs with intact tails (Editorial). The Veterinary Journal.

Re­search: How do Finnish pro­du­cers deal with long-tailed pigs?

Tail biting is a common and serious welfare problem in pig production, causing large economical losses. Tail docking is performed routinely in most EU countries to reduce the tail biting risk. However, tail docking is painful, and does not prevent tail biting totally. In Finland, tail docking is forbidden. New research shows that most Finnish producers would not raise tail docked pigs if it were possible.

Professor Anna Valros led a project asking with a web-survey from the Finnish farmers how they manage to raise pigs without tail docking. Respondents scored feeding-related issues to be most important for prevention of tail biting, identifying and removing the biting pig as most important intervention measures, and straw as the most important manipulable material when preventing tail biting. Tail biting was not perceived as a serious problem by over 70% of the respondents, even though docking is not allowed, and was reported to occur close to a level which was also considered acceptable by the respondents. Most respondents did not think it is probable they would raise tail docked pigs if it were possible, but about 21 % probably would.

These results are important for trying to reduce the risk of tail biting, and subsequently the need for tail docking on an international level.

Results are published in Porcine health management – journal.

More in­form­a­tion

professor Anna Valros, anna.valros(at)helsinki.fi

tel. +358-29-4157400

Managing undocked pigs – on-farm prevention of tail biting and attitudes towards tail biting and docking,

Anna Valros, Camilla Munsterhjelm, Laura Hänninen, Tiina Kauppinen, Mari Heinonen, Porcine Health Management 2016

Strategies to reduce the risk of tail biting in pigs managed on slatted floors

By Jen-Yun (author)

A 4-year project of “Strategies to reduce the risk of tail biting in pigs managed on slatted floors” has started. It is a collaboration between Teagasc, SRUC and the University of Edinburgh.
Below is a poster on the project presented in the Teagasc Pig Farmers’ Conference 2015.
The project will aim to explore ways to reduce tail-biting on slatted floor systems where straw is not available by environmental enrichment and nutritional strategies.
The enrichments used at the moment are compressed straw and different wood types.
Later the project will also investigate the effects of various lengths of tails, measures to predict tail-biting outbreaks and methods to interfere effectively.
The project will be supervised by Dr Keelin O’Driscoll (Teagasc), Dr Rick D’Eath (SRUC), Dr Dale Sandercock (SRUC), and Prof Natalie Waran (University of Edinburgh).
Dr Amy Haigh is the postdoctoral researcher working together on this project in Teagasc, and Dr Laura Boyle and Dr Edgar Garcia Manzanilla are also the collaborating researchers in Teagasc. I (Jen-Yun) am the PhD student on this project.
fwd uk jy291015 entail poster - JC 28102015c

How much straw is enough?

Jensen, M.B., Herskin, M, Forkman, B, Pedersen, L.J., 2015. Effect of increasing amounts of straw on pigs’ explorative behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 171, 58–63.

Highlights

  • We investigated the effect of straw amount on pigs’ time spent manipulating straw.
  • We investigated the effect of straw amount on pigs’ simultaneous straw manipulation.
  • Increasing straw from 10 to 430 g/pig/day increased both measures.
  • Increasing straw above approx. 250 g did not significantly increase the behaviour further.

Abstract

According to European legislation, pigs must have permanent access to sufficient quantity of material to enable manipulation activities. However, few studies have quantified how much straw is needed to fulfil the requirements of growing pigs. We investigated the effect of increasing amount of straw on pigs’ manipulation of the straw, and hypothesised that after a certain point increasing straw amount will no longer increase oral manipulation further. From 30 to 80 kg live weight, pigs were housed in 90 groups of 18 pigs in pens (5.48 m × 2.48 m) with partly slatted concrete floor and daily provided with fresh uncut straw onto the solid part of the floor. Experimental treatments were 10, 80, 150, 220, 290, 360, 430 or 500 g straw per pig and day. At 40 and 80 kg live weight, the time spent in oral manipulation of the straw by three focal pigs per pen (large, medium and small sized) were recorded along with the percentage of pigs manipulating straw simultaneously. This was recorded in three 1-h intervals (1 h before and 1 h after straw allocation in the morning, as well as from 17 to 18 h in the afternoon). With increasing quantity of straw provided, we found a curvilinear (P < 0.01) increase in the time spent in oral manipulation of the straw. Smaller pigs spent more time manipulating straw than larger and medium sized pigs (367, 274 and 252 s/h for small, medium and large sized pigs, respectively; P < 0.001), and pigs spent more time manipulating straw at 40 kg than 80 kg live weight (356 vs. 250 s/h; P < 0.001). At both live weights, pigs spent most time manipulating straw during the hour after allocation of straw. Similar effects of increasing amounts of straw were found for the percentage of pigs engaged in simultaneous manipulation of the straw. Post hoc analyses were applied to estimate the point, after which additional straw did not increase manipulation of straw any further. For the time spent manipulating straw the estimated change point was 253 (approx. 95% confidence limits (CL) 148–358) g straw per pig and day. For the number of pigs simultaneously manipulating straw the change point was 248 (CL 191–304) g straw per pig and day. These results show that increasing the quantity of straw from minimal to approximately 250 g per pig and day increased the time spent in oral manipulation of the straw, as well as the occurrence of simultaneous straw manipulation.
Hence, data from the current experiment identified 250 g straw per pig per day as the amount of straw where a further increase in straw provision did not further increase neither time spent on oral manipulation of straw, nor the percentage of pigs simultaneously manipulating straw. This suggests that, within the current housing system and using this criterion, this amount of straw may be the biological turning point for increasing oral manipulation of straw.

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).

Soundbites Pig Welfare Conference: 3. Workshop

On 29 – 30 April 2015 Denmark 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 conference workshops, all more or less related to the subjects of study in the FareWellDock project.

Workshop 3: Tail docking of piglets

The workshop on tail docking of piglets at the Pig Welfare Conference in DK had a very interesting poll showing that 95 % of the participants believe that it is realistic to stop tail docking either immediately or within a 10 years period.

Suggested solutions and ways forward for pig welfare (from Workshop 3): Stopping tail docking immediately …and encouraging the farmer to think “out of the box”; sharing information regarding manipulative material.

Workshop presentations:

Torben Jensen, Chief Manager, SEGES, Danish Pig Research Centre:
Intact Tails – A Challenge!
To dock or not to dock – what is in the producer’s best interest? (T. Jensen)
THE UNDERLYING PROCESSES OF TAIL BITING: foraging activity and tail damage are central (T. Jensen, Slide 3)
ENRICHMENT materials’ relative effect at reducing tail biting (D’Eath et al. 2014): 500gr compost/d is better than 500gr straw, but the latter may be equivalent to 12.5-20gr/p/d (T. Jensen, Slide 4)
Standard Undocked may pay off for some farmers but it is a more risky choice and has inferior welfare to Standard Docked (T. Jensen)
Cessation of tail docking increases the incidence of tail biting even in well-managed herds (T. Jensen)
Tail lesions are more frequent in organic and free range production than in conventional production (T. Jensen)
By tail docking producers are acting in their own best interest (T. Jensen)
To compare welfare consequences of no docking at a farm level the number of tail bitten pigs must be considered (T. Jensen).

Workshop 5: Market driven animal welfare. The role for retailers and consumers

Hans Spoolder, Professor, Wageningen University:
EconWelfare: Upgrading Animal Welfare Standards Across Europe
We need transparent animal welfare labeling schemes (H. Spoolder)
EU wide legislation is important to set the lower boundaries for farm animal welfare, and it needs to be enforced (H. Spoolder).
The overall goal of animal welfare policy should be the same everywhere in the EU (H. Spoolder).