Category Archives: Tail docking

Reducing mutilations in the European Union

Pigs, Tail docking, , ,

A study on reducing the number of mutilations on animals within the European Union
By Sanne van Zanen (Student Wageningen University, email: sanne . vanzanen @ wur . nl)
Commissioned by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Netherlands

Abstract

This study has gathered information about the possibilities to reduce the number of mutilations throughout the European Union. It has focused on surgical castration of male pigs, tail docking of pigs and beak trimming of laying hens. According to literature, these mutilations have received most attention in the European Union. Furthermore, in most of the European member states these mutilations are frequently carried out. The study is performed by a graduate student of Wageningen University and commissioned by the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The conclusions of this study do not necessary reflect the official opinion of the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

This study started off with a desk research that sketched the concept of animal welfare across the European Union. A framework of factors that influence the importance attached to animal welfare resulted from this research and was used to clarify the results of the two additional studies within the broad concept of animal welfare across the European Union. The two additional studies that were performed are a literature study and a questionnaire. The literature study has focused on retrieving in-depth information on the current situation of the member states regarding the three mutilations. The questionnaire was set up to get insights into which actions have the greatest chance of success and what are the biggest obstacles in reducing the number of mutilations in animals. The questionnaire was spread, by means of an introducing email, to scientific researchers, veterinarians, policy
makers/officers, NGO’s, employees in a slaughterhouse, farmers and students across the European Union. In total 130 respondents filled out questions about at least one of the three mutilations across 16 member states (Cyprus, Bulgaria, Greece, Luxembourg, Latvia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and Slovenia have not taken part in the questionnaire).

United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain and Portugal nearly raise all their pigs as entire boars. In contrast to these countries, surgical castration of male pigs is the most desired option for the Italian pig market (and parts of the Spanish and Portuguese pig production). This is due to the restrictions imposed by the Parma ham industry (slaughtering pigs at
heavy weights). Consequently, the restrictions imposed by the Parma Industry and the sensitivity for boar taint are the biggest obstacles for reducing surgical castration for the Mediterranean countries. The Eastern European and Central European region do also nearly all surgically castrate their pigs and consider the restrictions imposed by the
Parma Industry and or boar taint sensitivity as an obstacle. The Northern European and Scandinavian regions have already made some efforts on reducing the number of practices by means of non-legislative initiatives. However, the biggest problem for realizing a complete stop of these regions and an additional problem of the Central and Eastern European regions is related to the absence of (inter)national acceptance of non-castrated pigs or immunocastrated pigs, which is crucial for these exporting countries. Consequently, on-line detection methods on the slaughter line of boar taint is of high importance. A legislative approach by the national government is seen by each geography region as the most successful factor for reducing the number of surgical castrated pigs, except central European region (remains unknown).

Tail docking of pigs is forbidden by national law in Sweden, Finland and Lithuania. The remaining Northern European countries do carry out this procedure on pigs, but an increasing number of legislative and non-legislative initiatives within this region show the urgency of phasing out this mutilation. The other European regions raise also pigs with docked tails, but no active initiatives could be found that aim for a reduction of this procedure. These regions consider a lack of political interest and or consumer willingness to pay for more animal friendly products as obstacles for realizing a reduction. Moreover, each region thinks of the following animal production related factors: large stocking densities of groups of pigs, floor type of housing system used and absence and or insufficient enrichment as likely being a restriction in order to realize a reduction of tail docking. A legislation approach by the national government is the most successful factor for realizing a reduction. The Central European region is an exception, because they consider a wholesale price increase by national retailers as most successful.

Beak trimming of laying hens, is already forbidding in Sweden, Finland, Austria and Denmark either by means of national legislation or as a voluntary ban by the poultry sector. Legislative and non-legislative initiatives aim for a stop in the near future or a reduction of beak trimming within the Northern European region. The other regions do
not show a sense of urgency for reducing beak trimming of laying hens. A lack of willingness to pay of consumers and political interest are seen as obstacles for reducing beak trimming within these regions. Furthermore, it seems that the husbandry systems of these regions are not ready yet to raise hens with intact beaks, because large stocking densities, breed and the housing system used are seen as the most frequent additional obstacles. A legislation approach by the national government is the factor with the greatest chance of realizing a reduction of beak trimming for most of the regions (Northern- and Eastern European regions remain unknown). The central European region considers the influence of large multinationals as most successful. Furthermore, the questionnaire results of the Eastern European region could not be used, it is expected that this region is not ready (yet) to reduce the number of beak trimming procedures.

See also Initiatives to reduce mutilations in EU livestock production. By Spoolder, H.A.M.; Schone, Maria; Bracke, M.B.M. 2016. Report 940. Wageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen.

Docking a piglet's tail using cautery (hot iron)

Executive summary

Which of the European member states have the potential to join the four front-runners?

The European member states that have the potential to become a coalition partner of the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Sweden to reduce surgical castration of male pigs, tail docking of pigs and beak trimming of laying hens within the European Union.

Thesis
S.E.J. van Zanen
March 11, 2016
Adaptation Physiology Group
Wageningen University & Ministry of Economic Affairs

In order to get animal welfare higher on the European agenda The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark reached an agreement on several animal welfare related mutilations in 2014. Sweden joined the trilateral agreement in 2015. It is expected that by means of a joint European approach the biggest win for improving animal welfare can be reached within the European context. The main research question in this study is: which European member states have the potential to become a coalition partner of the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Sweden in order to reduce surgical castration procedures in male pigs, tail docking procedures in pigs and beak trimming procedures
in laying hens? Other research questions are about the influence of the individual member states in the European Union and the key success factors and the biggest obstacles in realizing a reduction of each of the three mutilations within several geographic regions.
This study starts with a desk research that sketches the concept of animal welfare across the European Union. The result is a framework of factors that influences the importance attached to animal welfare and is used to explain the results of the following two studies within the broad concept of animal welfare across the European Union. A second desk research focuses on retrieving in-depth information on the current situation of the member states regarding the three mutilations. Thirdly, a questionnaire was set up to get insights into which actions have the greatest chance of success and what are the biggest obstacles in reducing the number of mutilations in animals. The questionnaire was spread, by means of an introducing email, to scientific researchers, veterinarians, policy makers/officers, NGO’s, employees in a slaughterhouse, farmers and students across the European Union. In total 130 respondents filled out questions about at least one of the three mutilations across 16 member states (Cyprus, Bulgaria, Greece, Luxembourg, Latvia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and Slovenia have not taken part in the questionnaire). Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom are the most influential member states within the European Union. Furthermore, these member states, together with the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain and Poland are the biggest egg and pig producing states and or the greatest exporting countries of pork meat.
A legislative approach by the national government is seen by each geographical region as the most successful factor for reducing the number of surgical castrated pigs, except the central European region (remains unknown).
The majority of the pigs raised in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain and Portugal are entire boars. In contrast to these member states, the restrictions imposed by the Parma ham industry force the Italian pig market (and small parts of the Spanish and Portuguese pig production) to slaughter their pigs at heavy weights, which makes surgical castration the most desired option. Consequently, the restrictions imposed by the Parma Industry and the sensitivity for boar taint are the biggest obstacles for reducing surgical castration for the Mediterranean region. The Eastern European and Central European region do also nearly all surgically castrate their pigs and consider the restrictions imposed by the Parma Industry and or boar taint sensitivity as an obstacle(s). The Northern European and Scandinavian regions have already made some efforts on reducing the number of surgical castration practices by means of non-legislative initiatives. However, the biggest problem for realizing a complete stop in these regions (and an additional problem of the Central and Eastern European regions) is related to the absence of (inter)national acceptance of non-castrated pigs or immunocastrated pigs, which is crucial for these exporting countries. Consequently, on-line detection methods on the slaughter line of boar taint is of high importance. It is suggested that the United Kingdom has the highest potential to be a coalition partner of the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Sweden in order to reduce the number of surgical castrated pigs within the European Union.
The majority of the geographic regions consider a legislation approach by the national government as the most successful factor for realizing a reduction of tail docking of pigs. The Central European region is an exception, because they think of a wholesale price increase by retailers as most successfull. Tail docking of pigs is forbidden by national law in Sweden, Finland and Lithuania. The Northern European region does carry out this procedure on pigs, but an increasing number of legislative and nonlegislative initiatives within this region show the urgency of phasing out this mutilation. The other European regions raise also pigs with docked tails, but no active initiatives could be found that aim for a reduction of this procedure. These regions consider a lack of political interest and or consumer willingness to pay for more animal friendly products as obstacles for realizing a reduction. Moreover, each region considers large stocking densities of groups of pigs, floor type of housing system used and absence and or insufficient enrichment as animal-production based obstacles for realizing a reduction of tail docking. It is expected that Finland has the highest potential to be a coalition partner of the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Sweden in order to reduce the number of tail docking procedures in pigs within the European Union.
The Mediterranean region considers a legislative approach by the national government as the factor with the greatest chance of success in realizing a reduction of beak trimming procedures (Northern- and Eastern European regions remain unknown). The Central European region considers the influence of large multinationals as most successful. Furthermore, the questionnaire results of the Eastern European region could not be used, it is expected that this region is not ready (yet) to reduce the number of beak trimming procedures. Beak trimming of laying hens is already forbidding in Sweden, Finland, Austria and Denmark either by means of national legislation or as a voluntary ban by the poultry sector. Legislative and non-legislative initiatives aim for a stop in the near future or a reduction of beak trimming procedures within the Northern European region. The other regions do not show a sense for urgency of reducing beak trimming of laying hens. A lack of willingness to pay of consumers and political interest are seen as obstacles for reducing beak trimming within these regions. Furthermore, the husbandry systems of these regions are not ready yet to raise hens with intact beaks, because large stocking densities, breed and the housing system used are seen as the most frequent additional obstacles. Austria and Finland are suggested to have the highest potential to be coalition partners of the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Sweden in order to reduce the number of beak trimming procedures in laying hens within the European Union.

Effects of tail docking and docking length on neuroanatomical changes in healed tail tips of pigs

Tail docking, , ,

Effects of tail docking and docking length on neuroanatomical changes in healed tail tips of pigs
By M. S. Herskin, K. Thodberg and H. E. Jensen. 2015. Animal 9: 677-681.

Abstract

In pig production, piglets are tail docked at birth in order to prevent tail biting later in life. In order to examine the effects of tail docking and docking length on the formation of neuromas, we used 65 pigs and the following four treatments: intact tails (n=18); leaving 75% (n=17); leaving 50% (n=19); or leaving 25% (n=11) of the tail length on the pigs. The piglets were docked between day 2 and 4 after birth using a gas-heated apparatus, and were kept under conventional conditions until slaughter at 22 weeks of age, where tails were removed and examined macroscopically and histologically. The tail lengths and diameters differed at slaughter (lengths: 30.6±0.6; 24.9±0.4; 19.8±0.6; 8.7±0.6 cm; P<0.001; tail diameter: 0.5±0.03; 0.8±0.02; 1.0±0.03; 1.4±0.04 cm; P<0.001, respectively). Docking resulted in a higher proportion of tails with neuromas (64 v. 0%; P<0.001), number of neuromas per tail (1.0±0.2 v. 0; P<0.001) and size of neuromas (1023±592 v. 0 μm; P<0.001). The results show that tail docking piglets using hot-iron cautery causes formation of neuromas in the outermost part of the tail tip. The presence of neuromas might lead to altered nociceptive thresholds, which need to be confirmed in future studies.

Behavioural differences between weaner pigs with intact and docked tails

Pigs, Tail biting, Tail docking, , ,

Behavioural differences between weaner pigs with intact and docked tails
By Paoli, MA; Lahrmann, HP; Jensen, T; D’Eath, RB, 2016. Animal Welfare 25: 287-296.

Abstract

Tail-biting in pigs (Sus scrofa) reduces welfare and production. Tail-docking reduces (but does not eliminate) tail-biting damage. The reason tail-docking reduces tail damage is unknown. It may reduce pigs attraction to tails (H1), or increase tails’ sensitivity to investigation (H2). To investigate these hypotheses, behavioural differences between 472 individually marked grower pigs with intact tails (nine groups of 25–34 pigs) or docked tails (nine groups of 22–24 pigs) were observed from 5–8 weeks of age on a commercial farm in Denmark. Pens had part-slatted floors, dry feeding and two handfuls of straw per day, and enrichment objects were provided. Behavioural sampling recorded actor and recipient for tail-directed (tail interest, tail in mouth, tail reaction) and investigatory behaviours (belly-nosing, ear-chewing, interaction with enrichment). Scan sampling recorded pig posture/activity and tail posture. Intact-tail pigs performed more overall investigatory behaviours but tail type did not affect the amount of tail-directed behaviours. Larger pigs performed more investigatory and tail-directed behaviours than smaller pigs and females performed slightly more tail investigation. Tail-directed behaviours were not consistent over time at the individual or group level. However, ear-chewing was consistent at the group level. One group with intact tails was affected by a tail-biting outbreak in the final week of the study (evidenced by tail-damage scores) and showed an increase over time in tail posture (tail down) and tail-directed behaviour but not activity. Overall, there were few behavioural differences between docked and undocked pigs: no evidence of reduced tail investigation (H1) or an increased reaction to tail investigation (H2) in docked pigs, and yet docked pigs had less tail damage. We propose that docking might be effective because longer tails are more easily damaged as pigs are able to bite them with their cheek teeth.

Influence of tail docking, with or without a cold analgesic spray, on behaviour, performance and physiology of piglets

Pigs, Tail docking, , , ,

Influence of tail docking, with or without a cold analgesic spray, on behaviour, performance and physiology of piglets
By Armelle Prunier, Gaëlle Bataille, Marie-Christine Meunier-Salaün, Aline Bregeon, Y. Rugraff. 2001. Journées Rech. Porcine en France, 33, 313-318. (Article in French).

Abstract

Tail docking performed in order to avoid tail biting in fattening pigs is criticized. In order to assess its short term consequences, two experiments were realized. The first one performed on 160 piglets from 32 litters was focussed on the behavioural consequences and the growth performance. The aim of the second one was to determine the effects of tail docking on the adrenal (plasma cortisol and ACTH) and sympathetic (measurement of glucose and lactate released from catecholamine-induced mobilization of glycogen) axes in 20 piglets from 7 litters which were catheterized at birth. In the first experiment, there were 5 treatments: tail docking, tail docking + a cold analgesic spray, control handling, control handling + spray, no handling. In the second experiment, the same treatments were run, except the fourth one. Treatments were applied the day after birth and tail was docked with an iron docking (cautery). During treatment, tail docking caused more movements (legs and/or body) and howls (P < 0.05). During the 20 s following treatment, docked piglets demonstrated more tail jamming and wagging (P < 0.05). Both types of docking consequences were attenuated when the cold spray was used. During the following 12 hours, time spent by the piglets to rest or to be active at the sow udder was similar in the 5 groups. Growth rate during the first week of life and the occurrence of injuries at the tail did not differ between groups (P > 0.1). Tail docking with or without the cold spray had no marked effects on the patterns of plasma cortisol, ACTH, glucose and lactate. In conclusion, tail docking causes probably pain of moderate amplitude.

Impact of tail docking on behaviour of suckling piglets

Pigs, Tail docking, , ,

Impact of tail docking on behaviour of suckling piglets
by Céline Tallet, Marine Rakotomahandry, Sabine Herlemont, Armelle Prunier, 2016. Journées Recherche Porcine, 48, 235-236 (Article in French).

Abstract

Tail docking is still applied in Europe to prevent tail biting, despite its evident negative impact on pig welfare. We aimed at characterising consequences of tail docking on suckling piglets. We compared 48 piglets with tail docked (C) to 50 undocked piglets submitted to a non-painful simulation of docking (S). Their behavioural reaction during docking and for 20 s following the process was observed: vocalisations, tail posture and movements. Observations were repeated on C animals and on 48 other animals left intact from birth (I), 4 h after the docking process, 3 days after and once a week, in addition giving a score to the state of the tail. Fifteen days after birth, their reaction to a motionless seated human was observed. The C piglets vocalised more and louder during the docking process than S piglets (P < 0.05). For the 20 s after docking, their tail remained immobile longer (P < 0.05). The tail was also more immobile during the whole suckling period (P < 0.05). The C piglets approached the unfamiliar human later than the I piglets (P < 0.05). The I piglets tended to have more tail lesions than the C group (P < 0.1) during suckling. Tail docking thus induces reactions indicating pain on the day of docking and throughout the suckling period. Evidence of first episodes of tail biting were also found in I pigs. Longer term effects remain to be characterised (pain and bitings).

Study on the Association between Tail Lesion Score, Cold Carcass Weight, and Viscera Condemnations in Slaughter Pigs

Health, Pigs, Tail biting, Tail docking, , ,

Study on the Association between Tail Lesion Score, Cold Carcass Weight, and Viscera Condemnations in Slaughter Pigs
By Dayane L.Teixeira, Sarah Harley, Alison Hanlon, Niamh Elizabeth O’Connell, Simon J. More, Edgar G. Manzanilla and Laura A. Boyle, 2016. Frontiers in Veterinary Science.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between tail lesions, cold carcass weight, and viscera condemnations in an Irish abattoir. The following data were collected at the evisceration point from every third pig slaughtered over 7 days: farm identification, sex, tail lesion score, viscera inspection outcome, and cold carcass weight. Tail lesions were scored according to a 5-point scale. Disease lesions responsible for lung (pleurisy, pneumonia, and abscess), heart (pericarditis), and liver (ascariasis) condemnation were recorded based on the decision of the veterinary inspector (VI). Data on 3,143 pigs from 61 batches were available. The relationship between disease lesions, tail lesion score, and cold carcass weight was studied at individual carcass level, while the relationship between disease lesions and tail lesion score was studied at both carcass and batch level. Tail lesions (score ≥1) were found in 72% of the study population, with 2.3% affected by severe tail lesions (scores ≥3). Pleurisy (13.7%) followed by pneumonia (10.4%) showed the highest prevalence, whereas the prevalence of ascariasis showed the greatest variation between batches (0-75%). Tail lesion score, pleurisy, pleuropneumonia, and pericarditis were associated with reductions in carcass cold weight (P ≤ 0.05) ranging from 3 to 6.6 kg. Tail lesion score was associated with condemnations for pleurisy, pneumonia, and pleuropneumonia (P ≤ 0.05) at a batch level. VI shift was associated with condemnations for pneumonia, pleuropneumonia, and pericarditis (P ≤ 0.05) at a carcass level and with pneumonia at a batch level. Sex was not associated with viscera condemnations but males were more likely to be affected by tail lesions. The relationship between overall tail lesion score and the lung diseases at batch level supports the relationship between poor health and poor welfare of pigs on farms. The inclusion of tail lesion scores at post-mortem meat inspection should be considered as a health and welfare diagnostic tool.

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.

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.

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.