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

Greek Pig Farmers' Perceptions and Experiences of Tail Biting and Tail Docking

Tail biting is both an important economic and a welfare problem. The primary preventive measure, almost on a routine basis throughout Europe, remains tail docking following a risk analysis. This study aimed to get insight on the perceptions of Greek pig farmers towards tail docking, intervention measures, and risk factors of tail biting, as well as opinions on pig welfare themes. Eighty-two farmers answered a questionnaire provided online and in printed form. In the case of a tail-biting outbreak, the most important intervention measure is the removal of the bitten pig (victim), while feed quality, air movements, and stocking density were ranked as the highest risk factors (p ≤ 0.05). Chains are the most common type of enrichment by 67% followed by plastic objects by 29.5%. Almost half of the farmers reported having no tail-biting problem on their farm, while 64.4% of the respondents have already tried at least once to raise pigs with intact tails. To reduce routine tail docking, it is essential to apply specific farm-oriented solutions effectively. To succeed in this aim, it is important to consider farmers' concerns and practices. This study is the first step in that direction.

Identifying Early Indicators of Tail Biting in Pigs by Variable Selection Using Partial Least Squares Regression

This study examined relevant variables for predicting the prevalence of pigs with a tail lesion in rearing (REA) and fattening (FAT). Tail lesions were recorded at two scoring days a week in six pens in both REA (10 batches, 840 scoring days) and FAT (5 batches, 624 scoring days). To select the variables that best explain the variation within the prevalence of pigs with a tail lesion, partial least squares regression models were used with the variable importance in projection (VIP) and regression coefficients (β) as selection criteria. In REA, five factors were extracted explaining 60.6% of the dependent variable's variance, whereas in FAT five extracted factors explained 62.4% of the dependent variable's variance. According to VIP and β, seven variables were selected in REA and six in FAT with the tail posture being the most important variable. In addition, skin lesions, treatment index in the suckling phase, water consumption (mean), activity time (mean; CV) and exhaust air rate (CV) were selected in REA. In FAT, additional musculoskeletal system issues, activity time (mean; CV) and exhaust air rate (mean; CV) were selected according to VIP and β. The selected variables indicate which variables should be collected in the stable to e.g., predict tail biting.

The Evidence for a Causal Link Between Disease and Damaging Behavior in Pigs

Damaging behaviors (DB) such as tail and ear biting are prevalent in pig production and reduce welfare and performance. Anecdotal reports suggest that health challenges increase the risk of tail-biting. The prevalence of tail damage and health problems show high correlations across batches within and between farms. There are many common risk factors for tail-biting and health problems, notably respiratory, enteric and locomotory diseases. These include suboptimal thermal climate, hygiene, stocking density and feed quality. The prevalence of tail damage and health problems also show high correlations across batches within and between farms. However, limited evidence supports two likely causal mechanisms for a direct link between DB and health problems. The first is that generalized poor health (e.g., enzootic pneumonia) on farm poses an increased risk of pigs performing DB. Recent studies indicate a possible causal link between an experimental inflammation and an increase in DB, and suggest a link between cytokines and tail-biting. The negative effects of poor health on the ingestion and processing of nutrients means that immune-stimulated pigs may develop specific nutrient deficiencies, increasing DB. The second causal mechanism involves tail-biting causing poor health. Indirectly, pathogens enter the body via the tail lesion and once infected, systemic spread of infection may occur. This occurs mainly via the venous route targeting the lungs, and to a lesser extent via cerebrospinal fluid and the lymphatic system. In carcasses with tail lesions, there is an increase in lung lesions, abscessation, arthritis and osteomyelitis. There is also evidence for the direct spread of pathogens between biters and victims. In summary, the literature supports the association between poor health and DB, particularly tail-biting. However, there is insufficient evidence to confirm causality in either direction. Nevertheless, the limited evidence is compelling enough to suggest that improvements to management and housing to enhance pig health will reduce DB. In the same way, improvements to housing and management designed to address DB, are likely to result in benefits to pig health. While most of the available literature relates to tail-biting, we suggest that similar mechanisms are responsible for links between health and other DB.

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.

Severe tail lesions in finisher pigs are associated with reduction in annual profit in farrow-to-finish pig farms

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the financial impact of different prevalence levels of severe tail lesions (STL) during the finisher stage associated with changes in average daily gain (ADG) in farrow-to-finish pig farms.

METHODS

Prevalence of STL was estimated for 31 farrow-to-finish pig farms. Regression tree analysis was used to identify a threshold for STL associated with differences in ADG. Then, a financial analysis was carried using the Teagasc Pig Production model.

RESULTS

A threshold of ≥0.86% prevalence of STL was associated with a 4.8% decrease in ADG which translated into pigs requiring 7 days more to reach target slaughter weight than in farms below the threshold. Reduced ADG meant that farms with higher prevalence of STL used 3.6% more weaner and 1.4% more finisher feed per year increasing feed costs by 1.5%. This reduced mean annual farm profit by 15.1% in farms with higher prevalence of STL.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide an indication of the financial effects of STL in intensive pig production systems. The identified threshold for the prevalence of STL could provide a tangible target for farmers to focus on in developing strategies to reduce tail lesions and allow farmers to complete a cost benefit analysis of controlling STL.

My pigs are ok, why change? - animal welfare accounts of pig farmers

Intensive pig production systems are a source of stress, which is linked to reduced animal welfare and increased antimicrobial use. As the gatekeepers of the welfare of the animals under their care, farmers are seen as the stakeholder responsible for improving animal welfare. The aim of this study was to explore the knowledge and attitudes of pig farmers towards pig welfare and the impact of such attitudes on farmers' selection of management strategies on the farm. We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 44 pig farmers in one of the main pig producing regions of Brazil. Interviews covered knowledge and attitudes towards pig sentience and behaviour and welfare-related issues commonly observed in intensive pig farms (belly-nosing, fights, tail-biting, diarrhoea and castration without pain control) and farmers' conception and attitudes towards pig welfare. We identified many management and animal-based indicators of poor welfare, such as the use of painful and stressful management practices and use of environments that limit the expression of natural behaviours. However, most farmers were satisfied with animal welfare standards at their farms. Farmers' perceptions are aligned with their understanding of animal welfare. Although they identified all the dimensions that impact the welfare of a pig on a farm (affect, biological functioning and naturalness), their social reality, industry demands and available advice pushed them to perceive their range of action limited to biological and environmental aspects of the animals that do not necessarily benefit affective state. This precluded farmers from making associations between good health and the animal's ability to express a full behavioural repertoire, as well as from viewing abnormal behaviours as problems. The negative consequences for the welfare of the animals were commonly alleviated by routines that relied on constant use of medication, including high dependence on antibiotics. Expressions of estrangement from the production chain were common voices among the participants. This suggests that farmers may not be sufficiently informed or engaged in responding to consumers' expectations and commitments made by companies, which can pose a severe economic risk for farmers. The findings of this study indicate that economic, technical and social factors restrict farmers' autonomy and their ability to perform their role as stewards of animal welfare. (Re)connecting different human, animal and environmental interests may be a step to changing this scenario.