Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of pig ‐ Report 2: Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of weaned, growing and fattening pigs including aspects related to space allowance, floor types, tail biting and need for tail docking

Spoolder, Hans; Bracke, M.B.M.; Mueller-Graf, Christine; Edwards, Sandra

doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2011.en-181

Cited by 15 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 125 publications

(74 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A final potential area for innovation is to test the efficacy of measures to stop tail biting once it begins (or just before it begins), which has been the subject of only one scientific study (Zonderland et al, 2008). Spoolder et al (2011) suggested that 'an intact curly tail' can be regarded as the single most important welfare indicator in finishing pigs, since to achieve this requires a high standard of housing and management over a pig's lifetime, so it serves as an 'iceberg indicator' of welfare (FAWC, 2009) and demonstrates respect for the 'animal integrity' of the pig. Within a system type, it also indicates good management to prevent (or quickly deal with) tail biting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is a multi-factorial problem, and a variety of risk factors have been identified which are associated with it. Various efforts have been made to review all the currently known risk factors to weight their importance in order to influence policy makers (Bracke et al, 2006;EFSA, 2007;Spoolder et al, 2011) and to provide practical advice to farmers (Bracke et al, 2004;Jensen et al, 2004;Taylor et al, 2012). Taylor et al (2010) in a recent review made a convincing case that there were at least two and possibly three different types of tail biting: two-stage, sudden-forceful and obsessive.…”

Section: Scientific Investigation Of Tail Biting Is Difficultmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

D’Eath

Arnott

Turner

et al. 2014

Animal

151

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tail biting is a serious animal welfare and economic problem in pig production. Tail docking, which reduces but does not eliminate tail biting, remains widespread. However, in the EU tail docking may not be used routinely, and some 'alternative' forms of pig production and certain countries do not allow tail docking at all. Against this background, using a novel approach focusing on research where tail injuries were quantified, we review the measures that can be used to control tail biting in pigs without tail docking. Using this strict criterion, there was good evidence that manipulable substrates and feeder space affect damaging tail biting. Only epidemiological evidence was available for effects of temperature and season, and the effect of stocking density was unclear. Studies suggest that group size has little effect, and the effects of nutrition, disease and breed require further investigation. The review identifies a number of knowledge gaps and promising avenues for future research into prevention and mitigation. We illustrate the diversity of hypotheses concerning how different proposed risk factors might increase tail biting through their effect on each other or on the proposed underlying processes of tail biting. A quantitative comparison of the efficacy of different methods of provision of manipulable materials, and a review of current practices in countries and assurance schemes where tail docking is banned, both suggest that daily provision of small quantities of destructible, manipulable natural materials can be of considerable benefit. Further comparative research is needed into materials, such as ropes, which are compatible with slatted floors. Also, materials which double as fuel for anaerobic digesters could be utilised. As well as optimising housing and management to reduce risk, it is important to detect and treat tail biting as soon as it occurs. Early warning signs before the first bloody tails appear, such as pigs holding their tails tucked under, could in future be automatically detected using precision livestock farming methods enabling earlier reaction and prevention of tail damage. However, there is a lack of scientific studies on how best to respond to outbreaks: the effectiveness of, for example, removing biters and/or bitten pigs, increasing enrichment, or applying substances to tails should be investigated. Finally, some breeding companies are exploring options for reducing the genetic propensity to tail bite. If these various approaches to reduce tail biting are implemented we propose that the need for tail docking will be reduced.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scientific Investigation Of Tail Biting Is Difficultmentioning

confidence: 99%

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

D’Eath

Arnott

Turner

et al. 2014

Animal

151

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Neither situation is ethically acceptable. This deontological argument demands changes to housing and management to reduce tail biting to an acceptably low level without the need for docking (Spoolder et al, 2011;.…”

Section: How To Interpret the Results Of The Economic Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This anomalous situation puts the EU pig industry in a difficult position in terms of public expectations and pressure for change. For example, in the Netherlands, a voluntary agreement has been reached between producers and government to phase out tail docking by 2023 (Spoolder et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why are most EU pigs tail docked? Economic and ethical analysis of four pig housing and management scenarios in the light of EU legislation and animal welfare outcomes

D’Eath

Niemi

Ahmadi

et al. 2016

animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To limit tail biting incidence, most pig producers in Europe tail dock their piglets. This is despite EU Council Directive 2008/120/EC banning routine tail docking and allowing it only as a last resort. The paper aims to understand what it takes to fulfil the intentions of the Directive by examining economic results of four management and housing scenarios, and by discussing their consequences for animal welfare in the light of legal and ethical considerations. The four scenarios compared are: ‘Standard Docked’, a conventional housing scenario with tail docking meeting the recommendations for Danish production (0.7 m2/pig); ‘Standard Undocked’, which is the same as ‘Standard Docked’ but with no tail docking, ‘Efficient Undocked’ and ‘Enhanced Undocked’, which have increased solid floor area (0.9 and 1.0 m2/pig, respectively) provision of loose manipulable materials (100 and 200 g/straw per pig per day) and no tail docking. A decision tree model based on data from Danish and Finnish pig production suggests that Standard Docked provides the highest economic gross margin with the least tail biting. Given our assumptions, Enhanced Undocked is the least economic, although Efficient Undocked is better economically and both result in a lower incidence of tail biting than Standard Undocked but higher than Standard Docked. For a pig, being bitten is worse for welfare (repeated pain, risk of infections) than being docked, but to compare welfare consequences at a farm level means considering the number of affected pigs. Because of the high levels of biting in Standard Undocked, it has on average inferior welfare to Standard Docked, whereas the comparison of Standard Docked and Enhanced (or Efficient) Undocked is more difficult. In Enhanced (or Efficient) Undocked, more pigs than in Standard Docked suffer from being tail bitten, whereas all the pigs avoid the acute pain of docking endured by the pigs in Standard Docked. We illustrate and discuss this ethical balance using numbers derived from the above-mentioned data. We discuss our results in the light of the EU Directive and its adoption and enforcement by Member States. Widespread use of tail docking seems to be accepted, mainly because the alternative steps that producers are required to take before resorting to it are not specified in detail. By tail docking, producers are acting in their own best interests. We suggest that for the practice of tail docking to be terminated in a way that benefits animal welfare, changes in the way pigs are housed and managed may first be required.

show abstract

“…In addition, in the Scientific Opinions of 2007 (EFSA, 2007a, b, c), a risk assessment was performed leading to the identification of all factors that are risks for poor pig welfare (hazards). In addition, two technical reports were produced, on request from EFSA in 2011, by Wageningen Livestock Research (Spoolder et al, 2011a(Spoolder et al, , 2011b to update the conclusions and recommendations of all above mentioned Opinions and for identifying hazards in light of new literature. As a consequence of these reports, all of the existing conclusions and recommendations remained but some additional recommendations were added and these are included in this Opinion.…”

Section: Eu Reports and Opinions On The Welfare Of Pigs And The Welfamentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare in pigs

Prunier¹

2012

EFSA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal-based measures, identified on the basis of scientific evidence, can be used effectively in the evaluation of the welfare of on-farm pigs in relation to laws, codes of practice, quality assurance schemes and management. Some of these measures are also appropriate for ante-mortem inspection and there are additional post-mortem animal-based measures which can be taken at the slaughterhouse. Non-animal-based measures can be used when the association between them and the welfare outcome is strong and when they are more efficient than animalbased measures as a means to safeguard welfare. Both animal-based and non-animal-based measures can be useful predictors of welfare in pigs. In order to assess welfare, a wide range of measures is needed. However, to assess aspects of welfare it is unnecessary to use all animal-based measures on every occasion. The choice of animal-based measures will depend upon the specific objectives of the assessment. The full list is comparable to a 'toolbox', from which the appropriate range of measures can be selected. The Welfare Quality ® protocol provides information on the majority of the welfare outcomes of the main hazards identified in the EFSA Scientific Opinions but not those where time limitation prevents it. There are currently insufficient animal-based measures to use as welfare outcome indicators on-farm or in the slaughterhouse to assess the issues of pain, frustration and other positive and negative emotional states. The extent to which short-term management can prevent the negative effects of hazards arising from genetic selection, and of most housing-related problems, is extremely limited. Herd monitoring and surveillance programmes should be implemented within the pig industry using a range of appropriate animal-based measures to document welfare changes over time. There should be both initial and ongoing training of assessors to ensure valid and reliable welfare measurement.

show abstract

Cited by 15 publications

References 125 publications

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

Why are most EU pigs tail docked? Economic and ethical analysis of four pig housing and management scenarios in the light of EU legislation and animal welfare outcomes

Scientific Opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare in pigs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About