Scoring tail damage in pigs: an evaluation based on recordings at Swedish slaughterhouses

Keeling, Linda J.; Wallenbeck, Anna; Larsen, Anne; Holmgren, Nils

doi:10.1186/1751-0147-54-32

Cited by 53 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this survey, the “bitten” was not defined in the protocol or by surveyed farmers. According to finishing pig farmers, the percentage of bitten pigs was on average 1.6% at slaughter, which is in agreement with tail biting recorded by National Food Agency standards in two Swedish abattoirs (1.5–1.9%) [20]. In addition, the finding that tail biting increases with age is in agreement with the findings of previous studies [3, 21].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…A review comparing the prevalence of tail biting from different sources found a wide range both within and between countries depending on data source [19]. This variation may partially be attributed to differences in definition, as definitions range from swollen tails to tissue loss [19, 20]. In this survey, the “bitten” was not defined in the protocol or by surveyed farmers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A survey of straw use and tail biting in Swedish pig farms rearing undocked pigs

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTail biting is a common problem in intensive pig farming, affecting both welfare and production. Although routine tail docking is banned within the EU, it remains a common practice to prevent tail biting. Straw as environmental enrichment has been proposed as an alternative to tail docking, but its effectiveness against tail biting and function in manure handling systems have to be considered. The aim of the study was to survey how pigs with intact tails are raised and how tail biting is handled in Sweden, where tail docking is banned through national legislation. The study emphasises straw usage and its association with tail biting pigs and problems in the manure handling system. The expectation is that this information could be conveyed to the rest of the EU to reduce the need for tail docking.ResultsIn a telephone survey of randomly selected Swedish pig farmers (46 nursery and 43 finishing pig units) with at least 50 sows or 300 finishing places, it was found that straw was used by 98% of the farmers. The median daily straw ration provided was 29 g/pig for nursery and 50 g/pig for finishing pigs in systems with partly slatted flooring. The reported prevalence of tail biting was 1.6% at slaughter. The majority of farmers reported that they never had manure handling problems caused by straw (56% of nursery units and 81% of finishing pig units). A proportion of farmers (37%) also provided with additional material apart from straw on some occasions, which may have affected tail biting prevalence and manure handling problems.ConclusionsSwedish farmers rear undocked pigs without large problems with tail biting. Straw is the main manipulable material used, and additional manipulable material is used to various extents. The low incidence of straw obstructing the manure handling systems implies that it is indeed possible to use straw in partly slatted flooring systems, reducing the need for tail docking. The impact of using additional manipulable material is unknown and requires more investigation to separate the impact of such material from the impact of straw.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13028-016-0266-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey of straw use and tail biting in Swedish pig farms rearing undocked pigs

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, the possibilities to use data from slaughterhouses or similar animal-based measures as welfare surveillance tools have been suggested (European Food Safety Authority, 2012;Harley et al, 2012). Keeling et al (2012) presented evidence that data on tail lengths obtained from Swedish slaughterhouses can be used to identify farms with tail-biting problems. Similarly, tail lengths measured at slaughterhouses may be used to classify farms according to their docking practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Herskin

Thodberg

Jensen³

2015

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

“…Finally, Table 2 gives figures on tail biting prevalence in the different countries and schemes, estimated from abattoirs. It is very difficult to compare the figures, since they are not collected in a standardised way, for example pigs with missing tails are usually not counted as injured (EFSA, 2007;Keeling et al, 2012). It is also difficult to compare between docked and undocked pigs; if the number of lesions are counted, long tails provide a greater area for biting than docked or part-docked tails (Webster and Day, 1998).…”

Section: Disease Including Parasitismmentioning

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

148

142

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

Scoring tail damage in pigs: an evaluation based on recordings at Swedish slaughterhouses

Cited by 53 publications

References 9 publications

A survey of straw use and tail biting in Swedish pig farms rearing undocked pigs

A survey of straw use and tail biting in Swedish pig farms rearing undocked pigs

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About