Category Archives: Meeting

Soundbites Pig Welfare Conference: 2. Presentations

Enrichment, Meeting, Pigs, Policy, Straw, Tail biting, Tail docking, , , , , , ,

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).

PIGWELFIND

Meeting, Pigs, Tail biting, , ,

My name is Grace Carroll and I am a PhD student studying at Queens University Belfast.

Grace Carroll
Grace Carroll

The project I am working on, PIGWELFIND, is a collaborative all-Ireland project with researchers in Teagasc, University College Dublin and Queens University Belfast. The aim of PIGWELFIND is to explore the potential of measures taken at meat inspection for use as an animal welfare diagnostic tool.
The positive association between animal welfare and productivity levels is being increasingly realised. Tail lesions for example have been found to be associated with reduced growth (Marques et al., 2012) and the spread of infection which can lead to secondary abscessation and carcass condemnation (Huey, 1996). Harley et al. (2012) found direct producer losses of €0.37 per pig slaughtered as a result of carcass condemnation. When indirect losses (e.g. reduced growth potential, medicines, processing of condemned meat) are considered, the financial implications are even greater (Harley et al., 2012). Welfare-related meat inspection information could be fed back to producers, informing herd health plans and providing an opportunity to improve animal welfare while simultaneously increasing productivity levels.
The main aim of my research is to determine whether the lifetime welfare of pigs is reflected in measures taken from the carcass. To do this, I assessed the welfare of several batches of pigs from 7 weeks of age to the week prior to slaughter. I then compared the carcasses of pigs with welfare issues in early life, later life and whole life, to the carcasses of those that showed no evidence of poor welfare on farm.

Carcass tail
Carcass tail

Initial results indicate that evidence of tail lesions and skin lesions acquired in both early and later life remain evident on the carcass in the form of visible tail lesions, short tails (in relation to original docked length) and healed (non-red) skin lesions. Fresh skin lesions were not associated with skin lesions acquired on farm, suggesting that these may reflect damage that occurred during loading, transportation or lairage.

As the concept of conducting welfare assessments on the carcass is relatively new, we also wanted to determine the effect that routine slaughter processes, such as scalding and dehairing, would have on the visibility of welfare-related carcass damage. Carcasses were scored for tail lesions, skin lesions and loin bruising immediately after exsanguination and again subsequent to scalding and dehairing. The findings from this study indicate that the visibility of tail lesions, loin bruising and severe skin lesions was significantly improved by these processes, suggesting that abattoir-based welfare assessments should be carried out after scalding and dehairing of the carcass.

Carcss loin
Carcass loin

Together, these findings strengthen the argument for the integration of welfare-specific measures into routine meat inspection processes.
For more information, see our poster at the International Pig Welfare Conference in Denmark. For any questions about our research you can contact me at gcarroll05 @ qub . ac . uk. This research is funded by the Research Stimulus Fund of the Irish Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine.

References
Harley, S., More, S. J., O’Connell, N. E., Hanlon, A., Teixeira, D. & Boyle, L. 2012. Evaluating the prevalence of tail biting and carcase condemnations in slaughter pigs in the Republic and Northern Ireland, and the potential of abattoir meat inspection as a welfare surveillance tool. Veterinary Record, 171, 621-+.
Huey, R. 1996. Incidence, location and interrelationships between the sites of abscesses recorded in pigs at a bacon factory in Northern Ireland. Veterinary Record, 138, 511-514.
Marques, B. M. F. P. P., Bernardi, M. L., Coelho, C. F., Almeida, M., Morales, O. E., Mores, T. J., Borowski, S. M. & Barcellos, D. E. S. N. 2012. Influence of tail biting on weight gain, lesions and condemnations at slaughter of finishing pigs. Pesquisa Veterinaria Brasileira, 32, 967-974.

 

Soundbites Pig Welfare Conference: 3. Workshop

Enrichment, Legal, Meeting, Pigs, Policy, Tail biting, Tail docking, , , , , ,

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).

Soundbites Pig Welfare Conference: 4. Posters

Enrichment, Meeting, Pigs, Policy, Straw, Tail biting, Tail docking, , , , , ,

On 29 – 30 April 2015 Denmark hosted an international conference “Improving Pig Welfare – what are the ways forward?“.

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

Do increasing amounts of straw increase growing pigs’ oral manipulation of straw?
Margit Bak Jensen, Mette S. Herskin, Björn Forkman, Lene J. Pedersen
Pigs were provided with various amounts of unchopped straw (10-500 gr/pig/day) to determine the amount of straw where additional provision did not further increase pigs’ exploratory behaviour.
Increasing the straw amount from 10 to 360 g straw per pig per day increased the time pigs spent in oral manipulation of straw markedly, while increasing the straw amount above 430 g straw per pig per day had no additional effect .
Approximately 400 g long straw per pig per day maximizes straw‐directed behaviour in partly slatted concrete floor (0.7 m2/pig)

Providing various amounts of straw (10-500 gr/pig/day) showed that oral manipulation of straw increases steadily up to 360 g straw/p/d. (M. Bak-Jensen et al.)

Increasing amounts of straw increase growing pigs’ production and healthLene J. Pedersen, Mette S. Herskin, Björn Forkman, Henrik Elvang Jensen, Margit B. Jensen
Aim: To quantify the amount of straw needed to achieve health and production effects, we investigated the effect of straw amount on the prevalence of gastric ulcers and production parameters.
Animals & housing: In both experiments pigs were housed in groups of 18 per pen, with partly slatted concrete floor (0.7 m2/pig) and fed a commercial dry feed for ad libitum intake.
Conclusion: The average daily gain (ADG) increased by 8±17 g/day for every extra 100 g straw added daily (P<0.001) resulting in 42 g higher ADG at 500 compared to 10 g straw provided. The feed conversion ratio was not affected by amounts of straw. The proportion of pigs with ulcerations was reduced by permanent access to straw (7 vs. 33%; P<0.05). Based on these results, production and health parameters were improved by increasing amounts of straw to pigs kept in conventional pens.

More straw improves production (ADG) and health (ulceration) parameters of pigs significantly (L.J. Pedersen et al.)

Tail biters may have a relatively high innate immune status (Ursinus et al.)

Straw provided to growing/finishing pigs resulted in a lower prevalence of tail lesions at slaughter (Dippel et al.)
The SchwIP management tool for tail biting in fattening pigs: a comprehensive approach for a complex problem (Dippel et al.)
Farm specific reports with causal explanations facilitate farmer engagement and knowledge transfer (Dippel et al.)

Tail lesions on carcasses of Irish slaughter pigs in relation to producer association with advisory services
N. van Staaveren, D. L. Teixeira, A. Hanlon and L. A. Boyle
The high prevalence of moderate tail lesions in a large proportion of batches of slaughter pigs suggests that chronic tail manipulation is a widespread problem. The large variation between batches indicates that there is good scope for improvement in the housing and management of pigs to reduce this behaviour on Irish farms. Given the economic and welfare implications of even moderate tail lesions it would benefit producers to receive information from the factory on such lesions recorded during meat inspection. This could help inform farm management plans and enable intervention before the behaviour escalates into tail biting.
The high prevalence of moderate tail lesions in a large proportion of batches of IE slaughter pigs suggests that chronic tail manipulation is a widespread problem (Van Staaveren et al.).
The large variation in tail biting between batches indicates that there is good scope for improvement in the housing and management of pigs to reduce this behaviour.
It would benefit pig producers to receive information about tail lesions recorded during meat inspection. This could help inform farm management and enable intervention before the behaviour escalates into tail biting (Van Staaveren et al.).

Experiences with Intact Tails in Well-Managed Conventional Herds
H.P. Lahrmann, T. Jensen, E. Damsted
Even in well-managed herds in average one out of two pigs is at risk of getting a tail lesion between 7-85 kg (Lahrmann et al., pilot study in DK).

Straw Use and Prevention of Tail Biting in Undocked Pigs – a Survey of Housing and Management Routines in Swedish Pig Farms
Stefan Gunnarsson, Beth Young and Rebecka Westin
The Swedish farmers reported limited problems with tail biting in finishing pigs. In nurseries tail biting was rarely observed.
Straw was provided to the pigs more or less daily.
Distribution of straw caused no problems with the manure system in 58% of the nurseries and in 81% of the finishing units (Gunnarsson et al.).

The Effect of an Enriched Environment on Biting Behavior and Performance of Finishing Pigs with Intact Tails
A. Bulens, S. Van Beirendonck, J. Van Thielen, N. Buys, B. Driessen
Pigs performed better in pens enriched with hanging toy, straw blocks and hiding wall: pigs had higher body weight at 90 kg and at 120kg, and showed less frustration and less tail manipulation. (Bulens et al.)

Curly Tails: the Dutch Approach
Marion Kluivers, Carola van der Peet, Anita Hoofs, Nienke Dirx, Nanda Ursinus, Liesbeth Bolhuis, Geert van der Peet
Dutch Curly Tails project aims at closing the gap between science and practice, and relieving the anxiety and scepticism about keeping pigs with long tails in current systems.
During the first year researchers and animal caretakers developed a mutual understanding that enabled putting scientific knowledge into practice (Kluivers et al.)
Costs and labour of keeping pigs with intact tails should not be underestimated (Kluivers et al.)
Biting behaviour can already start in the farrowing unit (Kluivers et al.)
Coaching, creating trust, transferring knowledge are essential in the process towards keeping pigs with long intact tails (Kluivers et al.)

How to solve a conflict without getting into a fight? Space for conflict resolution should not be regarded as an unnecessary luxury (Camerlink et al.)

Soundbites Pig Welfare Conference: 5. Interviews with legislators

Enrichment, Meeting, Pigs, Policy, Tail biting, Tail docking, , , , , , ,

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 are ‘soundbites’ from video-interviews with legislators attending the conference, all more or less related to the subjects of study in the FareWellDock project.

A pig is an intelligent animal. It is a sentient being. Therefore, it needs to be treated with respect (Dan Jørgensen, Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries)

Finding solutions in how we can produce pigs in a competive manner, but at the same time improve the animal welfare, is an extremely important task (D. Jørgensen)

Ministers Dijksma (NL) and Jørgensen (DK)
To the left: Sharon Dijksma, Minister for Agriculture, NL. To the right: Dan Jørgensen, Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, DK

Sharon Dijksma, Minister for Agriculture, The Netherlands – “Towards Sustainable Pig Farming – The Dutch Way”

Dutch pigs are top quality animals: they are healthy, fertile and, if I may say so, good to eat (S. Dijksma)

Pig welfare is playing a growing role in where the Dutch pig industry is at present (S. Dijksma).

The Dutch care deeply about animal welfare. Animals have intrinsic value, i.e. value in itself, independent of people (S. Dijksma).

We are happy other countries share our conviction. Together we will be more succesful convincing the agricultural sector worldwide to put the welfare of animals first (S. Dijksma).

We must respect the animals’ physical integrity. … Physical integrity also means letting pigs keep their tails (S. Dijksma).

I call on the sector to make every effort to prevent tail biting as much as possible…. My aim is a complete ban on tail docking (S. Dijksma).

Animal welfare also means animals must be able to exhibit their natural behaviour. Pigs investigate their environment by rooting and biting. (S. Dijksma)

When we eat meat it is good to know that the animals from which our meat derives have had a pleasant life (S. Dijksma)

I’m convinced that nothing beats the taste of pork chops of a pig that really lived well (S. Dijksma)

It is wrong to put farmers in the bank of the accused ones (Christian Schmidt, Federal Minister of Food and Agriculture, Germany – “Minding Animals – Ways to Improve Animal Welfare“)

Sven-Erik Bucht, Minister for Rural Affairs, Sweden – “High Animal Welfare – A Winning Concept for Future Pig Production”

We are what we eat (S.-E. Bucht)

[In EU pig production] We must focus on quality, and quality means animal welfare (S.-E. Bucht)

Good animal welfare is not about the health and well-being of our pigs. It is also about our own health, and of our children, and of our grandchildren (S.-E. Bucht)

About truely good food, we all have a lot to learn (S.-E. Bucht)

More and more the European consumer calls for animal-friendly products (Denis Simonin, Policy officer on animal welfare at European Commission)

The EU strategy for the protection and welfare of animals (2012-2015) was focused on the enforcement of the EU rules (D. Simonin)

Almost 2/3 of member states are fully compliant with welfare regulations on group housing of sows
(D. Simonin)

[In the European Commission] Work is still ongoing on the development of guidelines aiming to achieve better implementation of the use of manipulable materials (D. Simonin)

EU reference centers for animal welfare to support the enforcement of animal welfare standards
(D. Simonin)

Problems with the treatment of pigs are among the most important problems to be improved as regards animal welfare (Janusz Wojciechowski, MEP and Vice-chairman in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development)

Pigs are very intelligent and very sensitive (J. Wojciechowski)

Esp. European pig farming is increasingly industrialised. Thousands of pigs in one place is not good for animal welfare standards (J. Wojciechowski)

Meeting Paris April 2015

Meeting

The third meeting of the FareWellDock project took place on the 8th and 9th April 2015 in Paris (France) with 16 participants. Two external participants having scientific interest in tail docking and/or biting were also invited for the first day. During that day, we informed each other on progress on the first half of the project within each of the three Work Packages. When results were available, they were discussed. Schedule for new or ongoing experiments as well as plans for data analyses during the upcoming 18 months were also discussed. External participants (Nanda Ursinus from university of Wageningen, NL and Keelin O´Driscoll from Teagasc, Ireland) presented their own research projects (see Nanda’s contribution and Keelin’s) and discussed the possibilities to interact further with partners from the FareWellDock project. On the second day of the meeting, content and schedule for the mid-term report, update of the list of participants, dates, location and content of the next meetings were discussed. In order to communicate the results of the project to the pig industry, the possibility to organize a stakeholder meeting at the end of the project was thoroughly discussed. At the end of the present meeting, the participants split into small groups to discuss in details topics that needed new input: a) the screening method regarding the use of straw to fulfil behavioural needs of pigs, b) the assessment of pain and the use of immune markers, c) the use of AMI sensors for assessing pig behaviour, the use of tear staining to assess stress in pigs in relation to tail biting, d) the analysis of behavioural sequences leading to tail biting. The 2-days meeting was intensive and fruitful, and allowed good sharing of expertise and ideas between partners of the six countries. The first half of the project already led to the production of a lot of data, fully in accordance with the plans and even beyond. To continue the discussion between participants, a video meeting will be held on the 7th October 2015 and a physical meeting (last meeting) will be organized in November 2016 in Denmark.

Meeting in Paris,
FareWellDock meeting in Paris, April 2015

Meeting in Paris

 

Visiting the FareWellDock Meeting in Paris, April 8, 2015

Enrichment, Meeting, Pigs, ,

Written by Keeling O’Driscoll

I’m a researcher at Teagasc, the national research and development authority for agriculture in Ireland. My position is funded by a levy which all Irish pig farmers contribute to, so my work really aims to provide practical solutions to current and prospective issues facing the industry. Although about 99% of Irish pigs are tail docked, tail biting is still a widespread problem; recent work found that 60% – 70% of approx. 40,000 pig carcasses had detectable tail lesions (PigWelFind project, led by Dr. Laura Boyle). There’s been little research to date in Ireland on strategies to reduce tail biting, but I’m starting work shortly investigating manipulable material that could be suitable for use in slatted systems (where most Irish pigs are produced), and varying the level of fibre in the diet. One of the FareWellDock members, Dale Sandercock is acting as a co-supervisor for the PhD student that I will recruit, so I was delighted to be invited to attend the recent meeting in Paris. It was a great opportunity for me to hear a bit more about progress and future plans that the group members have, as I’m relatively new to the area. I especially liked the idea of hearing about all the varied research questions addressed within the group, and the wide range of measures that are being used.

Pig toy
The meeting was also a good forum for me to present the results of a short pilot study that I carried out recently, trying out a new floor based enrichment device for pigs (pictured). I provided a group of 36 pregnant gilts with either 1 or 3 of the floor based or a hanging device at a time, and compared pig behaviour and tail and ear lesion scores, as well as measuring the wear of the devices (weight and arm length loss). During the experiment the hanging device didn’t lose any weight or arm length, but the floor based device lost approx. half the length of its arms, and significantly more weight when there was 1 rather than 3 provided. The gilts also interacted more with the floor device when there was 1 rather than 3 provided (see figure), which explains this loss, and more interactions ended with a displacement. Gilts also had lower ear lesion scores when there were 3 rather than 1 devices in the pen, which could also indicate the importance of level of access when it comes to reducing harmful behaviours. Bouts of interaction with the floor device were almost 5 times longer than the hanging one, regardless of the number provided. These results imply that the floor based enrichment device was more attractive to the pigs than the hanging one. Anecdotally, I could see from the videos I watched that pigs seemed to perform a lot of ‘rooting-like’ behaviours with these devices, which is not possible with hanging ones. They were also able to pick them up and carry them to various points in the pen, and chew on them while lying, again, all behaviours that are not possible with devices that are attached to a single point. I am hoping that I can investigate more precisely the specific behaviours and interactions that pigs have with this type of device in my future work.

Figure
Finally, I was able to tell the group about my future plans! My project (ENTAIL) officially started on 1 April, and just after the meeting Amy Haigh, a postdoctoral researcher, started working with me on it. Dale and I hope to recruit a PhD student in the coming months as well. The work will initially focus on organic manipulable materials that can be used in slatted systems. We are planning to start with compressed straw blocks, and different types of wood, for use in growing and finishing pig pens. Following that we are interested in looking at the individual preferences of the pig, as well as perhaps non-organic options (such as the floor device I used with the gilts), and how much to provide. Hearing the reports from other FareWellDock researchers was really great, as I got lots of ideas on how and what to measure. I hope to stay in touch with the group and am looking forward to hearing about new results, as well of as course sharing the results that ENTAIL will soon be producing!

 

Conference: Improving pig welfare

Meeting, Pigs, Tail biting,

A a two-day international conference focusing on pig welfare will be held in Copenhagen, Denmark from the 29th to the 30th of April 2015 – and is open to all with an interest in the field of animal welfare, production and research.
The conference is organized by the Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries and The Danish Centre for Animal Welfare (DCAW).
Entitled “Improving pig welfare – what are the ways forward?”, the conference will bring together scientists and specialists who will present recent knowledge on animal welfare with the main focus on pigs.
In addition the conference will facilitate discussions on the ways forward for pig welfare in several workshops and a panel discussion where stakeholders from different organizations will be brought together.

The conference topics include:

  • Recent knowledge on tail docking and castration
  • Recent knowledge on piglet and sow mortality
  • Animal welfare in the organic pig production
  • Pig welfare and sustainability
  • Use of animal welfare indicators to improve animal welfare
  • The ability of market forces to drive animal welfare improvements
  • The role of education in improving animal welfare

Important dates:

Conference website www.IPWC2015.dk opens December 15th 2014
Conference registration on the website from December 15th 2014
Deadline for registration: January 30th 2015
Deadline for poster abstract submission: February 25th 2015

Read more about the conference

Meeting October 2014

Meeting,

The yearly FareWellDock meeting was held on October 9th 2014 using video conferencing between participants from Finland (Anna Valros, Mari Heinonen, Camilla Munsterhjelm), the UK (Sandra Edwards, Dale Sandercock, Pierpaolo Di Giminiani), France (Armelle Prunier, Celine Tallet), Denmark (Lene Juul Pedersen, Margit Bak Jensen, Mette Herskin), The Netherlands (Marc Bracke), Sweden (Stefan Gunnarsson, Rebecka Westin), and Norway (Andrew M Janczak, Janicke Nordgreen, Anastasija Popova, Frida Aae). Researchers in Work Package 1 shared updates on the characterization of pig tail caudal nerves and the histopathology of traumatic neuromas in docked pig tails, as well as activities aimed at testing effects of tail docking with or without analgesia on neural transmission, endocrine responses, and behaviour and facial expressions. Work Package 2 researchers summarized studies testing effects of providing straw on exploratory and tail directed behaviour, use of remote sensors for animal monitoring, and the efficacy of measures to prevent tail biting. For Work Package 3 updates were given on relationships between health and the risk of tail biting outbreaks. Progression in research and dissemination was summarized relative to project milestones and deliverables and plans were made for the next meeting to be held in Paris in April 2014. The meeting was productive and indicated good work progression in the enthusiastic project team.

Second project meeting

Meeting

The second meeting of the FareWellDock project was held on Thursday March 27 2014 by videoconference. Partners from Finland, the UK, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway presented their work in progress. All partners have started and work is on schedule.

We now have a new logo and several abstracts have already been submitted for presentation at scientific conferences (DK on pain in docking at ISAE 2014; FI on tear staining at WAFL and NL on logging AMI (animal-material interactions) at Measuring Behavior 2013).

Prof. Valros gave an interview to a Dutch Journalist for the farmer Magazine ‘Varkens’ about the Finnish pig sector and the recent publication showing that chewable enrichment materials in the farrowing pen can reduce tail biting in later life (Telkänrantaa et al. 2014). Another farm magazine article about the startup of the FareWellDock project is expected in the Finnish journal KMVET.

Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday October 9, 2014.

FareWellDock logo
FareWellDock logo