Behavioural change by pig producers is the key factor in raising pigs with intact tails

Review: The tale of the Finnish pig tail - how to manage non-docked pigs?

Tail biting is a serious behavioural problem in modern pig production, causing impaired animal welfare and economic losses. In most countries, the detrimental effects of tail biting are counteracted by docking pigs tails. Finland is one of the few countries where tail docking in pigs is totally forbidden. The aim of this paper was to look in detail at features of pig production in Finland in order to try to understand how Finnish producers manage to rear non-docked pigs. The way pigs are housed and managed in Finland is influenced by both European and national legislation, but also by governmental subsidies, industry recommendations and voluntary initiatives. Several features of Finnish pig production might indeed have a preventive role regarding the tail biting risk: these include, among others, a comparably larger space allowance, partly slatted flooring, use of manipulable materials, a good animal health status and meal feeding from long troughs. In addition, Finnish producers are motivated to rear non-docked pigs, which is possibly one of the most important prerequisites for success. The experiences from Finland show that even though tail biting is still a challenge on some farms, in general, it is possible to rear non-docked pigs in intensive production. Potential positive side-effects of enhancing management and housing to facilitate the rearing of non-docked pigs include a good growth rate, a reduced need for antimicrobials and better animal welfare levels.

Producer Perceptions of the Prevention of Tail Biting on UK Farms: Association to Bedding Use and Tail Removal Proportion

Simple Summary

Tail biting is a serious behavioural problem in modern pig production which causes both animal welfare challenges and economic losses. The aim of this study was to collect information on the perceptions of farmers on how to best prevent tail biting, and on their attitudes towards tail biting and docking. Further, the aim was to investigate if perceptions are influenced by the specific system of farming, with a focus on different levels of bedding use and different tail docking practices. To achieve the goal, pig producers in the UK were surveyed. The results show that producers rank the importance of preventive measures differently to scientists and other experts. This calls for consideration when communicating with producers, and for further consideration of producer knowledge, which might be based on a more holistic view than that of researchers. The study also shows that the perception of how to best prevent and intervene to avoid tail biting differs between farms of different types, and that these perceptions might be influenced by the farmers’ own experiences, which again, might differ between countries and farming systems.

Abstract

Tail biting causes widespread problems both for animal welfare and in the form of economic losses in pig production. This study was performed to better understand the perceptions of farmers on how to best prevent tail biting, and if perceptions are influenced by the specific system of farming, with a focus on different levels of bedding use and docking different proportions of the tail of their pigs. Pig producers in the UK were surveyed on their perceptions of the efficacy of preventive measures and attitudes towards tail biting and docking. In total, 204 responses were included. The results show that producers rank the importance of preventive measures differently to scientists and other experts. This calls for consideration when communicating with producers; and for better integration of knowledge based on practical experiences with scientific results. The study also shows that the perception of how to best avoid tail biting differs between farms of different types, and that these perceptions might be influenced by the farmers´ own experiences—one example being that farms currently using plentiful amounts of bedding also value this more highly as a way to avoid tail biting than those that do not.

Expert opinion on metal chains and other indestructible objects as proper enrichment for intensively-farmed pigs

EC Directive 2001/93 requires that all pigs have access to proper investigation and manipulation materials. Intensively farmed pigs in Europe are frequently provided with a short metal chain with or without an indestructible object attached to the chain. To date authorities are regarding this as proper enrichment, perhaps with (in)direct reference to the RICHPIG model as a justification. However, it has become increasingly clear that the chains do not provide proper enrichment, and that adding an indestructible object to the end of the chain may even reduce rather than improve pig welfare. To test this hypothesis an expert survey was conducted containing 26 more or less compound questions. On a scale from 0 to 10 experts specified their level of agreement with the hypothesis, the prevalence and welfare scores of nine indestructible enrichment materials. In total 36 experts, mostly pig-welfare scientists, responded (response rate: 39%). Indestructible objects are less prevalent in countries that provide straw (like Sweden and the UK) and outside the EU (US). They are more prevalent in the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Finland, while the prevalence seems to be low in Spain. Balls, wood and pipes were provided most frequently: hard wood especially in the UK (as specified in farm assurance); indestructible balls and pipes in Germany and the Netherlands. The experts’ score for agreement with the hypothesis was only 4.6 on average (scale 0–10; n = 25). Enrichment materials, ranked from high to low welfare score, were grouped in 5 significance levels as indicated by different superscripts based on Wilcoxon signed rank tests: Branched chains (5.1^a), Chain on the floor (4.4^b), Hard wood (3.7^bc), Pipe (3.5^c), Bare chain (3.3^c), Short chain (3.1^d), Small ball (2.8^d), Big ball (2.5^d), and Chain hanging too high (1.3^e). Branched chains scored significantly better than all other indestructible materials and its welfare score (5.1 on average) was close to the pre-defined level of acceptability (5.5 on a scale from 0, worst, to 10, best). The welfare benefits of adding balls, pipes or hard wood to the metal chain were marginal, and well below what the experts considered acceptable enrichment. The branched-chains design, by contrast, appears to be the most viable alternative. It involves providing a longer chain, i.e. with the free end reaching to floor level, adding ‘branches’, i.e. several short chains ending at the nose height of the pigs, and providing more chains per pen (i.e. 1 branched chain per 5 pigs). Branched chains should be implemented widely and in the short term as a first step towards, and benchmark for, providing proper enrichment to intensively-farmed pigs.