All posts by Marc

Tail docking in the EU: A case of routine violation of an EU Directive

Legal, Pigs, Policy, Tail docking, ,

Tail docking in the EU: A case of routine violation of an EU Directive
By Lerner, H and B. Algers. 2013. In book: The ethics of consumption, pp.374-378. Wageningen Academic Publishers. The Netherlands.

Abstract

The question of tail docking in pigs is an ongoing problem despite the fact that it should have been solved long ago. In the Council Directive 2008/120/EC it is clearly stated that routine tail docking in pigs are prohibited and enrichment materials for the pigs must be provided, which is in line with the high animal welfare standards that the European Union aim for. This directive is in force in all member states. The habit of tail docking is widespread as a simple comparison by two reports by EFSA shows. We present these results together with results showing that some countries, like Sweden, Finland and Lithuania manage to still keep their production without tail docking routinely. We therefore suggest that the gap between the strong intentions of prohibiting tail docking in the directive and the weak (or non-existent) enforcement of it in most countries in the EU needs to be closed. Of the arguments saying that this will be a troublesome task, we will here focus on two of them. The first is that the directive is unclear or actually allows tail docking. The second is that the habit of routine tail docking is economically profitable. Both these arguments will not hold. There are three ways to bridge the gap. The first is to lower the threshold, lowering the animal welfare level in the directive. We believe strongly that this solution is contradictory to the trend in today’s legislation about animals and not in line with the Lisbon treaty. The second is to demand stronger enforcement which is in line with the EU Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015. The third is to accept that different countries will not enforce the directive, then leaving it to the consumer to choose between more or less animal friendly pork. EU seems to adopt this way in contrast to the EU AW Strategy. To properly inform consumers about animal welfare is a good help although it demands a lot of resources and is a rather slow process. Therefore, in order to have a rapid solution to the gap one need to have a stronger enforcement of the law.

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

Meeting, Pigs, Tail docking, , ,

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.

Effects of clinical lameness and tail biting lesions on voluntary feed intake in growing pigs

Health, Pigs, Tail biting, , ,

Effects of clinical lameness and tail biting lesions on voluntary feed intake in growing pigs
Camilla Munsterhjelm, Mari Heinonen and Anna Valros, 2015. Livestock Science, 181: 210–219.

Highlights

• We modelled voluntary feed intake in clinically lame or tail bitten pigs.
• Age, sex, diagnosis, initial weight and eventual recovery affects feed intake.
• Feed intake starts decreasing 2–3 weeks before diagnosis.
• Feed intake decreases 10–99% from control levels in sick pigs.
• Anorexia is prolonged in lame animals not recovering to slaughter condition.

Abstract

A decreased feed intake is considered one of the first signs of disease in farm animals. Feeding-related individual data collected by electronic feeding systems may thus be useful in detecting illness at an early stage. The aim of this study was to determine changes in individual-level voluntary feed intake in growing pigs before and after a bout of sickness modelled by clinical lameness or an acute tail (biting) lesion, which together count for a significant part of overall health problems in intensive pig production. The data consisted of individual records of health and day-level feed intake in fattening pigs between about 40 and 120 kg obtained from the Finnish progeny test farm. Feed was available ad libitum from automatic single-space feeders. Two time periods in relation to diagnosis (day 0), day −50 to 0 (pre-) and day 0 to +50 (post-), were modelled separately for both diagnoses using hierarchical linear models with random and repeated effects. All healthy animals in the affected animals’ pens were used as controls. The number of pigs in the different analyses were 243/551 (cases/controls, pre-tail lesion), 205/693 (post-tail lesion), 116/588 (pre-lameness) and 165/892 (post-lameness).
Feed intake in the study animals was affected by sex, weight at arrival to the farm, health status (lame or tail bitten case vs healthy control), eventual recovery (culled or dead vs recovering to slaughter condition), the day relative to diagnosis and approximate age (the day on the farm), with the four latter factors involved in multiple interactions. Feed intake started decreasing already 2–3 weeks pre-diagnosis in future lame or tail bitten animals, suggesting a common predisposing factor such as reactive coping. Feed intake decreased substantially (13–99%) from control levels in sick animals, with the level dependent on diagnosis, degree of eventual recovery and age. Lame animals ingested two to three times less than tail bitten ones at diagnosis. Within both diagnoses, culled-to-be animals ingested roughly half the relative amount of those recovering to slaughter condition, suggesting that relative feed intake at diagnosis may predict the outcome of disease. Younger animals were generally more severely affected than older ones. Anorexia was prolonged up to about 30 days in culled-to-be lame animals in contrast to all other groups modeled, which started recovery immediately upon diagnosis and initiated treatment. The observed changes and differences in feed intake may indicate differences in animal welfare.

Associations between tail lesions and other welfare conditions and behaviours in pigs

Pigs, Tail biting, Tail docking, , , ,

Associations between tail lesions and other welfare conditions and behaviours in pigs
Paper presented at the ISAE regional meeting, At Teagasc Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland, by Nienke van Staaveren, Elise Moussard, Alison Hanlon and Laura Boyle.

Abstract

Tail lesions are outcomes of tail biting behaviour and reflective of impaired welfare in pigs. This work is part of a study which aims to validate tail lesions as possible iceberg indicators to be included in the meat inspection process at slaughter (PIGWELFIND).
Twenty farrow-to-finish Irish pig farms were visited. On each farm, 18 randomly selected pens of first (n=6) and second (n=6) weaner stage and finisher (n=6) pigs were inspected. Pigs were observed for 10 min and the number of pigs with tail, ear, flank and skin lesions and the number showing signs of other health deviations (e.g. lameness, sickness) were recorded. All occurrence behaviour sampling was used to record frequency of coughing and sneezing (5 min) and tail-, ear-, and flank biting, fighting and mounting behaviour (5 min). Welfare conditions were expressed as percentage of pigs in a pen and behaviours were expressed per pig to correct for different numbers of pigs per pen (32.1±16.0 pigs/pen). Mixed model equation methods were used to analyse the effect of welfare conditions and behaviours on percentage of pigs with tail lesions. Farms and stage were included as fixed effects and welfare and behaviour indicators were included as covariates. Pen within stage by farm was included as random effect. Results for covariates are presented as regression coefficients.
On average, 7.4% of pigs in a pen had tail lesions. Preliminary results show that the percentage of pigs with tail lesions was greater for pens with a higher percentage of pigs with skin lesions but lower for pens with a higher percentage of sick pigs (P<0.05). Furthermore, the percentage of pigs with tail lesions was positively associated with tail biting (P<0.001).
Results suggest that tail lesions may have potential as iceberg indicators for pig welfare. However, more research is needed to further elucidate the nature of these associations.

6th FareWellDock meeting

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

PigWatch: Combining the ‘eye of the stockman’ and precision farming techniques to improve pig welfare

Pigs, ,

PigWatch is a new ANIHWA project.

Abstract:

Tail biting and aggression between finishing pigs are injurious behaviours affecting health, welfare and productivity. Solutions to these behavioural problems have been researched extensively and include tail docking, provision of environmental enrichment and increasing group stability. However, their effectiveness differs considerably between research labs and commercial practice, and between farms. It is obvious that farmers themselves play a key role in the effectiveness of these ?standard recommendations?. Experimenting and sharing their experiences with scientists and advisors will help to progress existing knowledge into farm-specific tailor-made solutions.

To facilitate the exchange of ideas, and to monitor the effects of these solutions, it is important that there is a common definition and description of injurious behaviours. Therefore, together with pig farmers, PigWatch aims to develop and apply animal based measures to avoid the pain, frustration and negative emotional states associated with tail biting and aggression in finishing pigs.

As a starting point the knowledge generated in FareWellDock and EU Welnet will be used, as well as national initiatives from the participating countries. PigWatch continues these developments at two levels: on-farm and at the abattoir.

The first WP develops animal based warning signals to identify and, if possible predict outbreaks of tail biting or fighting on farm. This will allow farmers to respond to imminent problems before they get out of hand. It includes precision farming techniques for detection of behavioural activity, and lesion detection based on presence of haemoglobin. Finally, it develops protocols for visual scoring of behavioural and other warning signals.

The second WP uses animal based measures to monitor tail biting and skin lesion incidence through routine automated data collection at the slaughter plant. The data will facilitate comparisons (bench marking) between farms, and monitoring the effects of solutions over time. The technology is based on analysis of digital images of live pigs and carcasses. This will be developed in a laboratory setting, validated on a slaughter house and tested in a commercial situation.

The pig farming community will be involved through the whole project, via Farmer Focus Groups which help to develop and disseminate the innovative techniques proposed. PigWatch aims to do this in the five participating countries: France, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany and The Netherlands.

Principle investigator: Dr. Hans Spoolder, Wageningen UR Livestock Research (WLR), Netherlands

Project partners: INRA, FiBL, FBN, CEA LETI, DMRI

PigWatch website

European commission initiative to reduce tail docking and improve enrichment

Enrichment, Legal, Pigs, Policy, Tail docking, , ,

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?

Enrichment, Pigs, Straw, Tail biting, Tail docking, , , ,

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.

Histological and neurophysiological pain assessment in young pigs

Brain, Meeting, Pigs, Tail biting, Tail docking, , , , , , ,

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))

Amount of straw needed to satisfy manipulation needs of growing-finishing pigs

Uncategorized

Bodin L, Algers B, Andersson M, Olsson AC, Botermans J. The amount of straw for growing- finishing pigs considering the reduction of time spent in manipulative behavior. Symbiosis J of Vet Sci. 2015, 1: 105.

Abstract

The behavior of rooting and digging is highly motivated in the pig. The motivation to perform this exploratory behavior is not reduced even after the dietary requirement has been fulfilled through feeding. The aim of this study was to identify the minimal amounts of straw needed to satisfy pig motivation for manipulation and reduce to a minimum the manipulating behavior of pigs directed toward pen mates. To determine the minimal amount of straw needed for conventional growing-finishing pigs, a study using 168 pigs provided with 7 different amounts of straw (20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 200 or 300 grams/ pig/ day) was performed. The straw was provided either once or four times per day. Behavior observations were made using focal animal sampling and continuous recording for one hour between 9 and 10 am and between 3 and 4 pm.

The time spent by the pigs manipulating straw increased over 10% ranging up to 27% in all the pens receiving over 200g of straw per day compared to the range from 4-22% in pens receiving 20-100g of straw. Meanwhile, the time spent in redirected behavior decreased below 5% in all the pens receiving over 200g of straw per day. No significant differences were found when comparing pens provided with straw once or four times per day.