Tag Archives: Project

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

CA COST Action CA15134

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

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

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

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.

5th FareWellDock meeting

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

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

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

Videoconference meeting

Videoconference meeting Oct 7, 2015

Overview of research on tail biting in pigs

The German Federal Research Institute for Animal Health (FLI) has reviewed current research on tail biting in pigs.

The report entitled “Übersicht über Untersuchungen zum Themenkomplex „Schwanzbeißen” makes specific recommendations as to how to best tackle the tail biting problem. The report also has an extensive appendix (under ‘documents’) listing projects, main project results and references on tail biting.

Twenty-six different research projects were counted in Germany alone. Many other projects were also listed in other EU countries (The Netherlands, Belgium, UK, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Spain and Hungary). Also the EFSA and FareWellDock activities were noted, as well as the International Pig Welfare Conference in Denmark in April 2015 (see our Soundbite posts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).

The report has a detailed list of recommendations split for the farm and regional level. At farm level risk assessment, gradual reduction of tail docking, networking, demonstration farms, and trying-out of practical solutions to prevent and treat tail biting are mentioned. At the regional and national level the report mentions the collection and distribution of knowledge in various ways, the coordination of activities, the building of networks of tail biting experts, education/training, the installation of an information platform and the support of research projects using standardised protocol and cooperation with other EU countries.

The report noted a trend for tail biting to start at rather earlier ages (shortly after weaning, but also even before weaning, as has previously been observed by Dr. Ursinus).

It was also noted that on average 70% of the pigs used in the 26 research and field projects in Germany had severe tail lesions. Since these projects were focussing on (improvements of) current housing conditions, it may be questioned whether and to what extent current systems are suited to finally succeed in stopping completely the current practice of tail docking.

PIGWELFIND

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: 5. Interviews with legislators

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)

Rat race to pigs without tail biting problems

Success is not certain but if you do nothing, failure is” Paul Ulasien
April 8 2015, written by Dr Nanda Ursinus, Adaptation Physiology Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands

Damaging biting behaviours such as tail biting expressed by pigs is a huge problem in husbandry systems as it reflects and causes severe health and welfare problems, and economic losses. Many organisations world-wide focus on preventing and reducing these unwanted behaviours and so does Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands. During the Paris meeting of the Farewelldock-team (April 8 2015), a number of past, present and (possibly) future projects in which the  Adaptation Physiology Group of Wageningen University is involved, were presented that incorporate the problem of tail biting in pigs. In this blog two of the projects will be introduced: 1. A PhD trajectory entitled ‘A tale too long for a tail too short: Identification of characteristics in pigs related to tail biting and other oral manipulations directed at conspecifics’; 2. A project based on the Dalfsen Declaration: ‘Curly tails, the Dutch approach’.

A tale too long for a tail too short

Identification of characteristics in pigs related to tail biting and other oral manipulations directed at conspecifics

fwc blog NU phd tale too long 220415

In 2010 Nanda Ursinus started her PhD trajectory and had as main aim to identify biological characteristics of barren and enriched housed pigs that relate to their tendency to develop these damaging oral manipulative behaviours. The project was supervised by Professor Bas Kemp and Dr Liesbeth Bolhuis of the Adaptation Physiology Group, and Dr Kees van Reenen of Wageningen UR Livestock Research. In October 2014 the project finished by defending the thesis in front of an international committee.

The project showed that tail biting behaviour in intensively kept piglets with undocked tails can start as early as the lactation period leading to small tail wounds (± 10% of 480 piglets) observed at time of weaning (i.e. 4 weeks of age). Tail damage was largely prevented by providing straw-bedding, but tail wounds were not fully eliminated (1 pig out of 240 pigs was removed due to a tail wound) (Ursinus et al. 2014 Appl Anim Behav Sci 156:22-36). As straw-bedding is not suitable in many intensive pig husbandry systems, the use of jute sacks as enrichment device was explored. In partly docked gilts, jute sacks were able to reduce the presence of tail wounds five-fold and reduced the occurrence of damaging biting behaviours up to 50%. Furthermore, jute sacks tended to reduce damage to the sows’ tail inflicted by piglets (Ursinus et al. 2014 J Anim Sci 92:5193-5202). Post-weaning, tail biting pens could be predicted by an increased activity and increased levels of pig and pen-directed (e.g. jute sack usage) oral manipulative behaviours (Ursinus et al. 2014 Appl Anim Behav Sci 156:22-36; Camerlink et al. 2015 Behav Genet 45:117-126). Displaying tail biting behaviour by individual pigs is often temporary and consequently inconsistent over time; once a tail biter is not always a tail biter (Ursinus et al. 2014 Appl Anim Behav Sci 156:22-36). There seems to be one exception to this rule: gilts that were identified as high-tail biters during the rearing phase, were identified as high-tail biters during the nursery phase as well (Ursinus et al. 2014 J Anim Sci 92:5193-5202). This suggests that obsessive tail biters (as previously described by Taylor et al. 2010 VET J 186:137–147) may be more consistent in displaying tail biting behaviour than other types of tail biting behaviour. The main hazard in this is that obsessive tail biters are only occasionally present on farms and consequently but not surprisingly, it was hard to identify individual behavioural predictors of tail biting pigs. However, tail biters were likely to stem from a litter with a relatively high level of tail biting behaviour (Ursinus et al. 2014 Appl Anim Behav Sci 156:22-36). Additionally, in a spin-off project with piglets (n=160) that received a jute sack for three days (starting at 15 days of age), individual jute sack manipulation (i.e. nosing, chewing and rooting) turned out to be promising in terms of predicting biting behaviours (mainly directed at other body parts than the tail or ears) at 12 weeks of age (in preparation). We also studied pig personality a bit closer; although there are indications that tail biters would be active copers during stressful situations, our study did not find consistent evidence for that. However, our results suggested a higher level of fearfulness expressed during a novel object test in tail biting pigs. This finding was accompanied with lower blood platelet serotonin levels (i.e. a neurotransmitter involved in for instance mood) in tail biting pigs (Ursinus et al. 2014 PloS One 9:e107040). In a previous study, we also found signs that blood platelet serotonin and serotonin activity in the right hippocampus were related to a pig’s fearfulness (Ursinus et al. 2013 Physiol Behav 118:88–96). Our findings perfectly matches literature about mental disorders in humans and behavioural abnormalities in other animal species (e.g. feather pecking in laying hens). Tryptophan (i.e. the precursor of serotonin) is involved in many biological processes, also in for instance the most important production parameter in pigs: growth. Both phenotypic and genetic production parameters pointed in the direction of an association with (tail) biting behaviours in gilts (Ursinus et al. J Anim Sci 92:5193-5202) implying that pigs are searching for something with a nutritional value, possibly tryptophan. Although tail biting behaviour is not as consistently displayed in individual animals as previously expected and the environment seems to play a large (or even the largest) role in the development of damaging biting behaviours, the results show that also the role of genetics cannot be ignored. Up until now it is difficult to capture the level of expressed tail biting in direct breeding values. However, indirect breeding values or ‘indirect genetic effects’ have been associated with tail damage. Pigs differ in their heritable effect on their group mates’ growth and pigs with a positive effect on their group mates’ growth were found to cause less tail damage (Camerlink et al. 2015 Behav Genet 45:117-126). Tail biting behaviour in pigs thus seems to be caused by a variety of temporary states and more stable traits that influence their motivation to display foraging and exploratory behaviours. Preventing and reducing such unwanted behaviours requires a joint effort of science, industry and society to optimize housing conditions, feeding, management and breeding of pigs.

For more information you can contact Nanda Ursinus (Nanda . ursinus @ wur . nl or Nanda . ursinus @ gmail . com) or Liesbeth Bolhuis (Liesbeth . bolhuis @ wur . nl). This project was funded by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, and it was a collaboration with the Dutch ‘Sociable Swine’ project. In the Sociable Swine project four PhD trajectories were finished:

  1. Sociable swine: Indirect genetic effects on growth rate and their effects on behaviour and production of pigs in different environments. Irene Camerlink, 2014.
  2. (Em)pathetic pigs? The impact of social interactions on welfare, health and productivity. Inonge Reimert, 2014.
  3. Sociable Swine: Prospects of indirect genetic effects for the improvement of productivity, welfare and quality. Naomi Duijvestein, 2014.
  4. Engaging Society in Pig Research: A multi-stakeholder approach to enhance animal welfare in pig production. Marianne Benard, 2014.

 

fwc blog NU phd Sociable swine 220415fwc blog NU phd Empathic pigs 220415

Sociable swine (Duijvestein)Engaging society

 Dalfsen Declaration

Curly tails, the Dutch approach

In 2012, a group of Dutch stakeholders in the pig farming sector joined forces in an attempt to find ways to reduce the need for tail docking in pigs kept in the Netherlands. Therefore they developed and signed a Declaration, now called the ‘Dalfsen Declaration’. Declaration partners involve the industry (Dutch Federation for Agriculture and Horticulture (LTO), Dutch union of Pig Producers (NVV), Coppens Animal Feed, Topigs (now Topigs Norsvin), Royal Netherlands Veterinary Organisation (KNMvD) and Vion Food Group), an NGO (Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals), and a research centre (Wageningen University and Research Centre: Department of Animal Sciences and Wageningen UR Livestock Research). The ambition of this stakeholder-group was supported by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and several other parties in the pig chain. During the course of time 3 routes are followed: 1. A demonstration project, 2. Creating a network of Dutch front runners, and 3. Stepwise increasing the tail length.

The demonstration project started end 2013 at Pig Innovation Centre Sterksel (VIC Sterksel), the Netherlands, and likely ends in December 2015. The project allows animal caretakers to practice with a number of enrichment materials and to learn understanding the behaviour and especially the tail posture of pigs. Enrichment materials used were sometimes rather complex (such as straw or grass silage) and at other times less complex (such as a rope or straw pellets). The materials were provided on the floor, at the walls, or hung from the ceiling and eventually need to be valued by the caretakers as easily applicable in Dutch (intensive) husbandry systems. Enrichment is used both as a preventive and curative measure. As many pig farmers are in search of especially curative measures it is highly important to assess if enrichment materials are suitable in ending or at least reducing the severity of ongoing tail biting outbreaks. In 2015, a start-up meeting was organised with a group of enthusiastic front runners that keep pigs with long tails or are willing to try increasing the length of the tails of (some of) their pigs. During this meeting farmers gave insight in what they need (on their own farm) in order to be able to keep pigs with longer tails. These farmers will be guided and their actions will be monitored. The main ambition is to stepwise increase the length of pig tails in the Netherlands by gradually docking less. Collaboration with neighbouring countries is desired and therefore first steps are made by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs to assess if (the Ministries of) Germany and Denmark share the vision of the Dalfsen Declaration Partners and are willing to join forces as well.

Contact person of the Dutch Curly tails project is Geert van der Peet (geert . vanderpeet @ wur . nl).

Pigs rooting on the floor

Scientists start new EU project to reduce tail biting and docking in pigs

Scientists from eight countries are starting a research project on how to prevent one of the major behavioural problems on commercial pig farms: tail biting. The aim of the collaboration is to yield new knowledge which will help to remove the need for tail docking, the currently widespread preventive practice of cutting off part of the tails of young piglets..
Why do pigs’ tails get damaged?
Tail biting is one of the major problems in modern pig production, both in terms of animal welfare and production economy. It is an abnormal behaviour that can result from several causes, such as stress, illnesses, a poor indoor air quality or competition for food or water. One of the main causes is lack of materials that the pigs can chew on or root. Pigs have a strong innate need for exploring their environment by chewing, biting, rooting and manipulating various objects and materials. When there are not enough exploration and manipulation substrate in a pen, the biting can get redirected to other pigs, especially ears and tails, which may result in tail biting.

In many European countries, tail docking – the practice of cutting part of the piglets’ tails at a young age – is used to control the problem. While this does reduce the risk of being bitten, it causes pain during cutting. Is also possible that, for the rest of their lives, damage to the tail nerves caused by docking may alter the sensitivity of the tail to touch. Some farmers, consumers, legislators etc. would like to stop the practice of tail docking. The EU pig directive states that tail docking can only be used if other means of preventing the behaviour have been tried. In some countries, for example Sweden, Norway and Finland, the practice of tail docking already is banned., These countries therefore provide an opportunity for testing other methods to prevent tail biting without the need to dock.

Searching for new knowledge on causes and prevention

The FareWellDock project is a three-year research project starting this autumn in eight countries: the UK, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and the USA. The overall aim is to supply necessary information for quantitative risk assessment of tail biting, and to stimulate the development towards a non-docking situation in the EU.

The start-up meeting of the project took place on November 5 and 6 in Finland, after which the research will be carried out in three complementary international researcher activities. One group will delve into developing improved measures to prevent tail biting. An essential part is research into reasons for tail-biting outbreaks: which factors in the daily life on farms actually trigger this unnatural behaviour? This is work package 3 of the project. The group in work package 2 will investigate what quantity of straw, or other chewing and rooting materials, would be sufficient to satisfy the pigs’ need to explore and therefore reduce tail biting risk, and how to improve the feasibility of using straw on farms with different manure systems. The third group of scientists (work package 1) will focus on finding out what actually happens to the piglets that are tail-docked: how much pain piglets feel during docking, whether this results in longer-term pain and how this compares to the pain which is experienced by pigs which are tail bitten should an outbreak occur.

The project is led by Professor Anna Valros of the University of Helsinki in Finland. The other research institutes participating in the project are Scotland’s Rural College and Newcastle University in the UK, INRA in France, Aarhus University in Denmark, Wageningen UR Livestock Research in the Netherlands, SLU in Sweden, the Norwegian School of Veterinary Science and USDA-ARS in USA. The project is part of the European Animal Health and Welfare ERA-net initiative (ANIHWA), which aims at increasing cooperation of national research programmes on the health and welfare of farm animals.

Contact persons per country:
Prof. Anna Valros, University of Helsinki, Finland (overall coordination & work package 3)
Dr. Lene Juul Pedersen, Aarhus University, Denmark (leader of work package 2)
Prof. Sandra Edwards, Newcastle University, UK (leader of work package 1)
Dr. Jeremy Marchant-Forde, USDA-ARS, USA
Dr. Marc Bracke, Wageningen Livestock Research, The Netherlands
Dr. Stefan Gunnarsson, SLU, Sweden
Dr. Andrew Janczak, Norway
Dr. Armelle Prunier, INRA, France

FareWellDock logo
FareWellDock logo

Start-up meeting in Helsinki

Attendants of the startup meeting in Helsinki, Finland (5 - 6 Nov 2013)
Startup meeting in Helsinki, Finald (5 – 6 Nov 2013)

The first meeting of the FareWellDock took place on 5 to 6 November 2013 in Finland, with 19 participants. The meeting was started by updating each other on the first steps of the project taken so far in each of the six countries. Plans and scheduling for the upcoming three years were discussed, including plans for internal and external communication. While FareWellDock is a project focusing on research, effort will also be made to communicate the results to end users, such as farmers and stakeholder media. Discussions on methodology to be used in the project were also on the agenda, including the new and promising welfare measure called tear-staining. Matters of terminology were brought up by raising the question whether the word enrichment may be partly misleading: it suggests luxury, while chewing and rooting are fundamental needs in pigs. Part of the time in the meeting was allocated for the participants to split into three groups, according to the three work packages of the project. This gave the researchers from each participating country an opportunity to sit together and efficiently plan details of their work packages. The intensive and fruitful two days concluded with the first meeting of the steering group, which consists of one responsible coordinator from each of the six countries. In the future of the project, meetings for the entire project will be arranged once a year, with video conferences in between.

Attendants at the startup meeting at work
Attendants at the startup meeting at work