Training veterinarians and agricultural advisers on a novel tool for tail biting prevention

Abstract

IntroductionMany health and welfare problems in modern livestock production are multifactorial problems which require innovative solutions, such as novel risk assessment and management tools. However, the best way to distribute such novel - and usually complex - tools to the key applicants still has to be discussed.Materials and methodsThis paper shares experiences from distributing a novel tail biting prevention tool (‘SchwIP’) to 115 farm advisers and 19 veterinarians in 23 one-day workshops. Participants gave written and oral feedback at the end of the workshops, which was later analysed together with the number of farms they had visited after the workshops. Workshop groups were categorised into groups showing (a) HIGH, (b) INTermediate or (c) LOW levels of antagonism against SchwIP or parts of it during workshop discussions.ResultsGroup types did not significantly differ in their evaluation of knowledge transfer. However, HIGH group members evaluated the on-farm usability of the tool significantly lower in the workshop feedback and tended to visit fewer farms.ConclusionsAs antagonistic discussion can influence workshop output, future workshop leaders should strive for basic communication training as well as some group leadership experience before setting up and leading workshops.

Multi-Stakeholder Focus Groups on Potential for Meat Inspection Data to Inform Management of Pig Health and Welfare on Farm

“…Ideally, feedback to pig producers would include information on economic impact of health and welfare conditions, as well as advice on appropriate management strategies to reduce them, to allow producers to make judgments on cost-effectiveness. The proposed MI tool could therefore be modified to incorporate advice and function as a decision making tool (e.g., see German tail biting risk tool SchwIP [38,55]). The Teagasc eProfit Monitor, which collects technical and financial performance data for Irish pig herds, allows comparison in time and with the top 25% producers [56].…”

“…At the same time, care must be taken that producers are not overwhelmed with complex data [24] and one producer emphasized that farm personnel should be educated on the type of information the new MI process would provide them. We recommend that education on the MI tool would extend to all stakeholders including advisors, veterinarians, nutritionists, processors and meat inspectors [55]. Veterinarians are particularly important in this regard as they are often used, and they are trusted information sources for pig producers.…”

Interactive Rooting Towers and Behavioural Observations as Strategies to Reduce Tail Biting on Conventional Pig Fattening Farms

“…Insufficient environmental enrichment has a major impact on tail biting incidence, together with indoor and outdoor climate, the general health status of the animals, stocking density, herd size, feeding system and water supply [ 7 , 12 ]. Software-based advisory tools were developed in several EU countries to detect risk factors on farms and to produce herd-specific solutions in order to reduce the incidence of tail biting in the pig industry [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. The German tool SchwIP was used in this study on the farm prior to the experiment.…”

“…The German tool SchwIP was used in this study on the farm prior to the experiment. SchwIP is based on a questionnaire to be answered by the farmers addressing known risk factors, an inspection of the pigs in their farm environment and a farm-individual feedback and advice how the incidence of tail biting could be reduced [ 17 , 18 ]. An evaluation of SchwIP records from 25 farms resulted in stocking density, suckling piglet losses, numbers of litters mixed after weaning and the daily weight gain as major risk factors for tail lesions in weaner pigs [ 19 ].…”