Tag Archives: Tail docking

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.)

Rat race to pigs without tail biting problems

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

“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

Saving the pig tail

Enrichment, Health, Legal, Pigs, Policy, Straw, Tail biting, Tail docking, , , , , , ,

Anna Valros and Mari Heinonen published a paper called “Save the pig tail” in Porcine Health Management.

Abstract

Tail biting is a common problem in modern pig production and has a negative impact on both animal welfare and economic result of the farm. Tail biting risk is increased by management and housing practices that fail to meet the basic needs of pigs. Tail docking is commonly used to reduce the risk of tail biting, but tail docking in itself is a welfare problem, as it causes pain to the pigs, and facilitates suboptimal production methods from a welfare point-of-view. When evaluating the cost and benefit of tail docking, it is important to consider negative impacts of both tail docking and tail biting. It is also essential to realize that even though 100% of the pigs are normally docked, only a minority will end up bitten, even in the worst case. In addition, data suggests that tail biting can be managed to an acceptable level even without tail docking, by correcting the production system to better meet the basic needs of the pigs.
–
Source
Valros, A., M. Heinonen, 2015. Save the pig tail. Porcine Health Management 2015 1:2.

Tail docking in pigs alters gene expression in the brain associated with increased anxiety-like behaviour

Brain, Pigs, Tail docking, , ,

Oberst et al. (2015) presented a poster on the effect of tail docking in neonatal pigs on the expression of genes involved in modulating anxiety-like behaviour at the annual meeting of the Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain (SASP) at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (13-14th April 2015).

The abstract is presented below; the poster can be found here

Abstract

Background: Adverse experiences in early life, such as exposure to stress, can have long term detrimental effects on the future physiology and behaviour of the animal. Typically animals exposed to such experiences are more anxious and more reactive to stress in later life. Tail biting is a major problem in modern pig production, both in terms of animal welfare and productivity. Tail docking in early postnatal life is common practice to reduce risk of this problem, but causes pain and may alter pain sensitivity.

Aims: To investigate whether a significant painful experience in early life (tail docking) alters the expression of genes in the amygdala that are linked to an anxiety-prone phenotype.

Methods: Eight female piglets (Landrace/Large White x synthetic sireline) were used. Four piglets were tail docked (amputation of approx. 2/3 of the tail) on post-natal day 3 using hot-iron cautery and four sham-docked piglets served as intact controls. On post-natal day 10, pigs were sedated and then euthanized by barbiturate overdose. Brains were removed, the amygdala grossly dissected and frozen on dry ice. 20μm sections were cut and subsequently processed using in situ hybridisation with radiolabelled probes complementary to corticotropin-releasing hormone receptor-1 (Crhr1) and CRH receptor-2 (Crhr2) mRNA.

Results: Crhr1 mRNA expression was significantly greater (p<0.05) in the amygdala of tail-docked piglets compared with the sham-docked animals. There was no significant difference detected in Crhr2 expression in the amygdala between the groups.

Conclusion: Increased expression of Crhr1 in the amygdala is associated with an anxiety-prone phenotype in rats and pigs, thus it is likely that tail docking in early life leads to enhanced anxiety which may have a negative impact on pig welfare. Ongoing experiments will determine whether these central changes in gene expression are long-lasting.

[Support: BBSRC, DEFRA-part of ANIWHA ERA-NET initiative].

Source:
Oberst, P., D.A Sandercock, P.Di Giminiani, S.A. Edwards, P.J. Brunton, 2015. The effect of tail docking in neonatal pigs on the central expression of genes involved in modulating anxiety-like behaviour. Abstract for the poster presentation at the Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain (SASP) Annual Meeting, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 13-14th April 2015.

Poster

Grimace scale

Brain, Pigs, Tail docking, , , ,

Abstract

With the increase in attention to animal welfare, researchers have focused their interest on the assessment of pain in farm animals. In humans who cannot self-report, such as infants and unconscious patients, the observation of facial expression is frequently used for pain assessment (Prkachin, 2009). The possibility to assess pain through changes of facial expression has also been studied in animals, and pain scales developed which include the ‘Mouse Grimace Scale’ (Langford et al., 2010), the ‘Rat Grimace Scale’ (Sotocinal et al., 2011) and the ‘Rabbit Grimace Scale’ (Keating et al., 2012). Although with some species differences, the three scales focus on the eyes, nose, cheeks, ears and whiskers of an animal.
Although pigs have fewer muscles for facial expression, there are subtle changes in appearance (Flecknell & Watermann-Pearson 2000), but there are currently no published pain scales based on facial expression in pigs. The aim of this research was to investigate if it is possible to observe changes in piglets’ facial expressions immediately after painful procedures. Thirty-one piglets were subjected to tail docking by cautery, while held by the farmer. Images of faces were taken immediately before and after this procedure. These images were sorted and those in which piglets had closed eyes were excluded.
Images were evaluated by two treatment-blind observers, scoring from 0 to 2 (0 was no evident tension and 2 very evident tension).
Because of the non normal distribution, data were analysed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, which showed that the cheek tension score significantly increased from before to after the procedure (P<0.042). This result shows promise for the adoption facial expression as a tool for acute pain assessment in pigs.
Facial expression of piglet
In piglets subjected to tail docking cheek tension score significantly increased from before to after the procedure (P<0.05)

Reference: Lonardi, C., Leach, M., Gottardo, F., Edwards, S. 2013. The ‘Grimace Scale’: do piglets in pain change their facial expression? Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of the 5th European Symposium of Porcine Health Management and the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the Pig Veterinary Society of Great Britain, Edinburgh, UK, 22nd – 24th May 2013.

EU compliance regarding enrichment and tail docking

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

This post is the abstract of a student report:

Edman, F. 2014. Do the Member States of the European Union comply with the legal requirements for pigs regarding manipulable material and tail docking? Student report 572, SLU, Skara, Sweden. Accessed 17-2-2015.

Abstract

Tail biting behaviour is a major animal welfare issue in intense pig production, as well as an economic issue. To prevent the behaviour, tail docking is practised. It is a painful procedure where a part of or the whole tail is cut off.

There is a lot of research on the subject of tail biting, with a big variety of solutions to prevent the behaviour. Scientists are consistent about that the absence of manipulable material increases the risk for tail biting. Manipulable material works as an environmental enrichment and stimulates natural behaviours of the pig, such as investigation and rooting. It helps pigs to cope with the environment and reduces stress and frustration, triggers that can lead to tail biting.

The legal requirement regarding tail docking state that it shall not be practised on a routine basis and has been in force since the 1st of January 1994. It was strengthened in 2003 and now appears in Council Directive 2008/120/EC which codifies the earlier directives. The legal requirement now states that measures to prevent tail biting shall be taken before practising tail docking, measures such as changing inadequate management systems, changed environment and reduced stock densities.

Pigs shall also have access to a suitable material or object, to be able to perform natural behaviours and prevent tail biting and stereotypies. In the latest version of the directive on pigs this material was defined as straw, hay, wood, sawdust, mushroom compost, peat or a mixture of such.

The aim of this study was to investigate the current situation of compliance with the legal requirements in the directive on pigs, regarding the provision of manipulable material and the routine practice of tail docking. It was also to investigate actions to increase compliance among the Member States in the European Union. A descriptive analysis of available FVO-reports was used, together with written answers from the Competent Authorities and a qualitative interview with people at the Commission and the FVO.

The results of this report showed that 18 out of 28 Member States in the European Union do not comply with the legal requirement regarding the provision of manipulable material, and that 17 of the Member States do not comply with the legal requirement regarding the practice of tail docking. There has not been any actions such as sanctions to increase the compliance among the Member States.

These findings make an overall conclusion possible about the current issues with the compliance of the directive on pigs. There are no further intrinsic actions to increase compliance, due to a lack of responsibility among the involved parties, such as pig farmers, Competent Authorities and the Commision. Due to the lack of intrinsic action, it is an impossibility to conclude when full compliance will be fulfilled.

Routine tail docking of pigs

Legal, Policy, Tail docking, , , ,

This post presents the abstract and executive summary of the EU report:

Marzocchi, O. 2014.  Routine tail-docking of pigs. Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament, European Union, Brussels, accessed 17-2-2015.

Abstract

Upon request of the PETI committee, the present study examines the issues raised in Petition 0336/2012, the legal framework on the protection of pigs, the level of implementation of the Directive on the protection of pigs in relation to tail-docking on the basis of the available information, the actions being carried out, or that could be carried out, to ensure proper implementation by Member States of the Directive requirements.
Docking a piglet's tail using cautery (hot iron)

Executive summary

The Committee on Petitions (PETI) examined on the 1st of April 2014 Petition 0336/2012 by C.R. (Danish citizen), on behalf of Dyrenes Beskyttelse (Danish Animal Welfare Society), concerning the routine tail-docking of piglets in Denmark1.

The petition raised the issue of the lack of implementation in Denmark, as well as in most EU Member States, of Council Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, in relation to the rules governing the tail-docking of pigs.

The Commission recognised during the discussion that the implementation of the Directive in this regard is not satisfactory, but stated that it did not intend to launch infringement proceedings nor to propose amendments to the Directive, considering these actions as not appropriate. It stated instead that it preferred to rely on guidelines for Member States to ensure better implementation of the Directive, as well as on e-learning tools that are currently being developed. It also pointed to upcoming initiatives, such as framework legislation on animal welfare.

On the same day, PETI committee coordinators discussed the petition, the unsatisfactory implementation of the Directive, as well as the refusal by the Commission to launch infringement proceedings against non-compliant Member States. It was decided to request the Policy Department to analyse the issues discussed so to allow the committee to re-examine the matter during the new parliamentary term, including by potentially deciding to send a delegation to a number of Member States to investigate on the effective implementation of the Council Directive.

The present study addresses the PETI coordinators’ request to analyse the issues raised in the petition, the legal framework on the protection of pigs, the level of implementation of the Directive on the protection of pigs in relation to tail-docking on the basis of the available information, and the actions being carried out, or that could be carried out, to ensure proper implementation by Member States of the Directive requirements.

The study concludes that:

–all the available evidence points at persisting high rates of non-compliance in the large majority of Member States in relation to the ban on routine tail-docking of pigs;

-Commission guidelines, training and e-learning tools, including on enrichment and manipulable materials, as well as a possible Framework Law on Animal Welfare, can be useful instruments to support farmers and Member States’ authorities in the implementation of the Directive; – at the same time, these could be accompanied by a stricter enforcement policy, notably since the Directive has been in force for more than 10 years (while the ban on routine tail-docking has been in force for more than 20 years); – the Commission could be bolder and prepared to launch infringement proceedings as an enforcement tool of last resort, as the mere prospect of serious action may prompt Member States to comply; – the Commission could also more systematically collect, monitor and publish information on the transposition of the Directive by Member States, as well as on their degree of compliance with the ban on routine tail-docking of pigs, including through inspections and specific requests to Member States.

Box 1: Tail-biting, tail-docking, routine tail-docking, enriching and manipulable material

Tail-biting, ie a pig biting another pigs’ tail, is an abnormal behaviour caused by several risk factors, notably by a poor or stressful environment frustrating the normal investigative behaviour of pigs (which are among the most intelligent and curious animals) in common intensive farming conditions. Tail-biting can result in infections, affecting the health and well-being of tail bitten pigs and can lead to tail-biting outbreaks.

Tail-docking is the practice of removing the tail or part of the tail of a pig, while routine tail-docking is the systematic docking of the tail of pigs, normally done in the early days of life, with the aim of avoiding the risk of tail-biting. It is done without anaesthesia, though it is a mutilation which is painful. Tail-docking can cause long-term chronic pain and infections, as well as redirection of the biting behaviour to other body parts, such as ears and legs.

Enriching and manipulable materials are materials such as straw, hay, wood, sawdust, mushroom compost and peat or a mixture of these, with which pigs can satisfy their explorative, playful and foraging behaviours. Studies have highlighted that the provision of such materials has a positive effect on pigs, reducing the risk of tailbiting.

Note: The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament

Reducing tail docking in the Netherlands

Pigs, Policy, Tail biting, Tail docking, , , ,

On April 4, 2014 the Dutch Secretary State of Economic Affairs, Sharon Dijksma, reported to the Dutch parliament the following on the issues of tail docking and tail biting in pigs:
Firstly, research has been commissioned on tail biting and tail docking in pigs (2013-2017).
Secondly, steps have been taken to reduce tail docking in practice (Van Dekken, 28286, nr. 666).
The House of Parliament has asked the government to negotiate an end date for tail docking together with the stakeholders who signed the Declaration Dalfsen.
Since early 2013 the European Commission is working on a plan to address routine docking of piglets at the European level. In parallel, the Dutch pig sector organisations LTO and NVV, and the Dutch Society for the Protection of Animal together drafted and signed the Declaration of Dalfsen, which was presented on June 10, 2013. The Declaration focuses on the prevention of biting , the gradual reduction of short tail docking, leading finally to the responsible ending of the practice of tail docking . It is a process in which partners have expressed trust in each other. These are important steps in the right direction. The Animal Welfare policy note states that the declaration is endorsed and supported by the funding of research. In about two years this research is likely to provide insight if and which promising solutions exist. At that point in time more will be known about the progress made at the European level. At that time the Secretary of State and the partners of the declaration will determine a realistic deadline to responsibly stop the tail docking of pigs.
Finally, as to the strict compliance of the EC Directive on pig welfare in Europe (Ouwehand, TK 21501-32, nr. 750): The House of Parliament has asked the government insist that the European Commission will move towards strict enforcement of animal welfare guidelines and reports on compliance in the Member States. This is related to signs of non-compliance of the Directive by several Member States and more specifically in the areas of tail docking and the routing filing of canine teeth.
With a view to improving the implementation and enforcement of the Directive lying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (2008/120/EC), the Commission – partly based on the Dutch request – started the development of guidelines supplementing the Directive, including a guideline on tail docking. These guidelines (which are expected to be completed this year) are expected to improve enforcement and compliance.

Pig on arm
Piglet on arm