Scientists and Dutch Pig Farmers in Dialogue About Tail Biting: Unravelling the Mechanism of Multi-stakeholder Learning

Benard, Marianne; Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan; Buning, Tjard de Cock

doi:10.1007/s10806-013-9471-x

Cited by 14 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This point supports evidence from elsewhere on how veterinarians form a key component in facilitating effective communication, and capacity building at the farm level [5, 15–18]. Indeed, veterinarians could play an important role in knowledge transfer on issues such as tail biting and tail docking [19], in enabling the “dialogue process” identified by Benard et al [20] as being important in helping farmers address complex welfare issues, and in directing producers to avail of advisory services, to help lower the risk of tail biting [21]. …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Stakeholder perspectives on the use of pig meat inspection as a health and welfare diagnostic tool in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland; a SWOT analysis

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis is a strategic management tool applied to policy planning and decision-making. This short report presents the results of a SWOT analysis, carried out with n = 16 stakeholders i) involved in the pig industry in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and ii) in general animal welfare and food safety policy areas. As part of a larger study called PIGWELFIND, the analysis sought to explore the potential development of pig meat inspection as an animal welfare and diagnostic tool.FindingsThe final SWOT framework comprised two strengths, three opportunities, six weaknesses, and five threats. Issues around relationships and communication between producers and their veterinary practitioner, processors and producers were common to both the strengths and weakness clusters. Practical challenges within the processing plant were also named. Overall, the SWOT framework complements results reported in Devitt et al. (Ir Vet J 69:2, 2016) regarding problematic issues within the current system of information feedback on meat inspection especially within the Republic of Ireland, and the wider challenges of communication and problems of distrust.ConclusionThe results of the SWOT analysis support the conclusions from Devitt et al. (Ir Vet J 69:2, 2016), that trust between all stakeholders across the supply chain will be essential for the development of an effective environment in which to realise the full diagnostic potential of MI data. Further stakeholder engagement could seek to apply the findings of the SWOT analysis to a policy Delphi methodology, as used elsewhere.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Stakeholder perspectives on the use of pig meat inspection as a health and welfare diagnostic tool in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland; a SWOT analysis

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conceivably, where such changes improve pig performance there are likely to be associated improvements in pig welfare possible reflected in a lower prevalence of tail biting. Furthermore, farmers may be more willing to modify management practices, on the recommendation of an advisor, as there is a basis of trust in the farmer-advisor relationship and advisors are more aware of practical issues (Taylor et al, 2012;Benard et al, 2014). Nevertheless, the impact that different producer perspectives have on their likelihood to keep records and therefore on the improvements associated with record keeping cannot be discounted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Farmers have an economic framing of animal welfare and place most emphasis on good health as determined by production numbers, growth and absence of diseases (Benard et al, 2014). In this regard, tail biting is an important welfare problem because of its negative effects on production and health (EFSA, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Farm-specific advice and financial incentives can help farmers to reduce the risk of tail biting, however this depends on whether the advice is practical, has other negative consequences or is too expensive to implement (Taylor et al, 2012). Advisory services can avoid these pitfalls, because they are aware of practical issues on the farms, and are trusted by their clients (Benard et al, 2014). Advisory services aim to improve farm productivity through better housing, management and nutrition of pigs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pig carcass tail lesions: the influence of record keeping through an advisory service and the relationship with farm performance parameters

Staaveren

Teixeira

Hanlon

2017

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tail lesions are important pig welfare indicators that could be recorded during meat inspection as they are more visible on the carcass than on the live animal. Tail biting is associated with reduced performance in the bitten pig, but it is not clear whether problems with tail biting are reflected in general farm performance figures. Farm advisory services aim to improve farm productivity which could be associated with improvements in pig welfare. Record keeping forms an integral part of such advisory services. The aim of this study was to examine the influence of record keeping in the Teagasc eProfit Monitor (ePM herds) on the prevalence of tail lesion severity scores in Irish slaughter pigs. In addition, we investigated associations between the prevalence of tail lesion scores and production parameters at farm level in ePM herds. Pigs were observed after scalding/dehairing and tail lesion score (0 to 4), sex and farm identification were recorded. Tail lesion scores were collapsed into none/mild lesions (score ⩽ 1), moderate lesions (score 2) and severe lesions (score ⩾ 3). The effect of record keeping (ePM herd) on the different tail lesion outcomes was analysed at batch level using the events/trials structure in generalized linear mixed models (PROC GLIMMIX). Spearman's rank correlations were calculated between average tail lesion score of a batch and production parameters. A total of 13 133 pigs were assessed from 73 batches coming from 61 farms. In all, 23 farms were identified as ePM herds. The average prevalence of moderate tail lesions was 26.8% and of severe tail lesions was 3.4% in a batch. Batches coming from ePM herds had a lower prevalence of moderate tail lesions than non-ePM herds ( P < 0.001). Average tail lesion score was negatively associated with age ( P < 0.05) and weight ( P < 0.05) at sale/transfer of weaners, and tended to be positively associated with the number of finishing days ( P = 0.06). In addition, the prevalence of severe tail lesions was negatively associated with average daily gain in weaners ( P < 0.05) and tended to do so with average daily gain in finishers ( P = 0.08). This study provides the first indication that record keeping through an advisory service may help to lower the risk of tail biting, which is associated with improved farm performance.

show abstract

“…Despite this growing interest in animal welfare, there remains much difference of opinion among stakeholders [7,8,9,10], including disagreements over aspects as fundamental as the definition of and means to assess animal welfare [10,11,12,13]. The general public, including consumers of animal products, emphasise the presence or absence of positive mental states (i.e., pleasure) and management styles associated with “natural living” when defining livestock animal welfare [4,10,13,14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Chats to Assess Stakeholder Perceptions of Meat Chicken Intensification and Welfare

Howell

Rohlf

Coleman

et al. 2016

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple SummaryMost people care about animal welfare. Nevertheless, divergent views remain on what constitutes animal welfare, despite a growing body of scientific evidence. We used online chats to trigger discussion among participants from various stakeholder groups: general public, animal advocacy group, meat chicken industry-affiliated, and researchers or veterinarians who were not industry-affiliated but had experience with chickens. The aim of this pilot study was to assess reasons for divergence in opinions or conversely agreement between participants, using the topic of the welfare implications of meat chicken farming intensification. Participants also completed a pre- and post-chat survey to evaluate their perceptions and knowledge of chicken farming. Reasons for supporting intensification included perceptions of better health for the chickens and the sustainability of the system. Reasons for opposition included perceptions of the large number of animals kept together, and limited ability to perform natural behaviours. Misunderstandings about current practices were clarified in chats which contained industry-affiliated participants. Participants agreed on the need for enforceable standards and industry transparency. On average, objective knowledge of intensification increased after participating in the chat, but support for intensification did not change over the course of the study, counter to assertions that lack of knowledge results in lack of support for some practices. Engaging stakeholders can provide valuable information to anyone interested in the relationship between perception and knowledge of specific farming practices.AbstractEvidence suggests that there is variation in support for specific chicken farming practices amongst stakeholder groups, and this should be explored in more detail to understand the nature of these differences and work towards convergence. Online focus groups were used to assess attitudes to animal welfare in meat chicken farming in this pilot study. Across six online chats, 25 participants (general public, n = 8; animal advocacy group, n = 11, meat chicken industry, n = 3; research or veterinary practice who had experience with poultry but no declared industry affiliation, n = 3) discussed meat chicken intensification and welfare. Of those, 21 participants completed pre- and post-chat surveys gauging perceptions and objective knowledge about meat chicken management. Main reasons for intensification support were perceptions of improved bird health, and perceptions that it is a cost-effective, sustainable farming system. Reasons for opposition included perceptions that a large number of birds kept are in close proximity and have limited ability to perform natural behaviours. Misunderstandings about current practices were clarified in chats which contained industry representation. Participants agreed on the need for enforceable standards and industry transparency. Industry-affiliated members rated welfare of meat chickens higher, and gave lower ratings for the importance of n...

show abstract

Scientists and Dutch Pig Farmers in Dialogue About Tail Biting: Unravelling the Mechanism of Multi-stakeholder Learning

Cited by 14 publications

References 36 publications

Stakeholder perspectives on the use of pig meat inspection as a health and welfare diagnostic tool in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland; a SWOT analysis

Stakeholder perspectives on the use of pig meat inspection as a health and welfare diagnostic tool in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland; a SWOT analysis

Pig carcass tail lesions: the influence of record keeping through an advisory service and the relationship with farm performance parameters

Online Chats to Assess Stakeholder Perceptions of Meat Chicken Intensification and Welfare

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About