Eläinten hyvinvoinnissa riittää tutkittavaa

Eläinten hyvinvointitutkimuksen tarkoituksena on sekä edistää eläinten hyvinvointia että ratkaista tuotannollisia ongelmia. Hyvinvointia pyritään mittaamaan mahdollisimman kokonaisvaltaisesti, joko arvioimalla eläimen tilaa muun muassa sen käyttäytymisen, hormonitoiminnan ja terveyden kautta tai tarkastelemalla eläimen tuotantoympäristöä ja hoitoa tilalla.vo

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. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Animal Consortium.Peer reviewe

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

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

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

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

Feather Pecking and Cannibalism in Non-Beak-Trimmed Laying Hen Flocks—Farmers’ Perspectives

Pecking-related problems are common in intensive egg production, compromising hen welfare, causing farmers economic losses and negatively affecting sustainability. These problems are often controlled by beak trimming, which in Finland is prohibited. An online questionnaire aimed to collect information from farmers about pecking-related problems in Finnish laying hen flocks, important risk factors and the best experiences to prevent the problems. Additionally, the farmers’ attitudes towards beak trimming were examined. We received 35 responses, which represents about 13% of all Finnish laying hen farms with ≥300 laying hens. The majority of respondents stated that a maximum of 5–7% incidence of feather pecking or 1–2% incidence of cannibalism would be tolerable. The majority of respondents (74%) expressed that they would definitely not use beak-trimmed hens. Only two respondents indicated that they would probably use beak-trimmed hens were the practice permitted. Among risk factors, light intensity earned the highest mean (6.3), on a scale from 1 (not important) to 7 (extremely important). Other important problems included those that occurred during rearing, feeding, flock management and problems with drinking water equipment (mean 5.9, each). The most important intervention measures included optimal lighting and feeding, flock management, and removing the pecker and victim. Concluding, Finnish farmers had strong negative attitudes towards beak trimming. The study underlines the importance of flock management, especially lighting and feeding, in preventing pecking problems and indicates that it is possible to incorporate a non-beak-trimming policy into sustainable egg production

Pigs with but not without access to pieces of recently harvested wood show reduced pen-mate manipulation after provision of feed and straw

In barren environments of commercial farms, pig often redirect their rooting and chewing behaviours at other pigs, which can lead to tail biting. When materials such as straw are provided, the quantity is usually too small to have an effect. The aim of this study was to test whether small provisions of straw and species-relevant point- source objects would have an additive effect in reducing pen-mate manipulation. The animals were 167 gilts with undocked tails on a commercial farm in Finland, housed in 12-m2 pens with partly slatted floors, on average 7 pigs/pen. Liquid feed and 20 g/pig of long straw were provided once a day. The pigs had continuous access to suspended objects: in each control pen (N =12), a 40cm ×10cm ×2 cm piece of commercially sourced wooden board and a 60-cm metal chain, and in each experimental pen (N =12), an 80-cm piece and two 40-cm pieces of birch trees with a diameter of 5–7 cm, harvested 1 month earlier. After 2 months of exposure, frequencies of pig- and object-directed manipulation before and after consuming the feed and straw were recorded by continuous observation on video. Pre-consumption pig-directed manipulation did not differ between the treatments (means: 39.3 events/pig/hour (SD =11.7) in the experimental pens and 42.1 events/pig/hour (SD =12.1) in the control pens; t =-0.6, df =21, P >0.1), but post-consumption manipulation was significantly lower in frequency in the experimental treatment (means: 31.5 events/pig/hour (SD =10.4) in the experimental pens and 41.0 events/ pig/hour (SD =8.6) in the control pens; t =2.4, df =21, P <0.05). Object-directed manipulation was higher in the experimental treatment both pre- and post-consumption (pre-consumption medians: 9.7 events/pig/hour (min =2.0, max =14.9) in the experimental pens and 3.1 events/pig/hour (min =0.9, max =13.7) in the control pens (U =18.5, P <0.01); post-consumption means: 9.2 events/hour/pig (SD =2.7) in the experimental pens and 4.8 events/pig/hour (SD =2.0) in the control pens (t =4.5, df =20, P <0.001). It was concluded that the experimental objects with improved material, quantity, shape and location had an additive effect with straw in reducing pen-mate manipulation, whereas objects ordinarily used on the farm had no beneficial effect. Further research is needed on the effects of the odour, taste and consistency of optimal objects.Peer reviewe

Save the pig tail

Tail biting is a common problem in modern pig production and has a negative impact on both animal welfare and economic result of the farm. Tail biting risk is increased by management and housing practices that fail to meet the basic needs of pigs. Tail docking is commonly used to reduce the risk of tail biting, but tail docking in itself is a welfare problem, as it causes pain to the pigs, and facilitates suboptimal production methods from a welfare point-of-view. When evaluating the cost and benefit of tail docking, it is important to consider negative impacts of both tail docking and tail biting. It is also essential to realize that even though 100% of the pigs are normally docked, only a minority will end up bitten, even in the worst case. In addition, data suggests that tail biting can be managed to an acceptable level even without tail docking, by correcting the production system to better meet the basic needs of the pigs.Peer reviewe

Light source preferences in laying hens

The aim of this experiment was to study the light source preference in laying hens reared in either artificial or natural light

Oral Dimensions Related to Bit Size in Adult Horses and Ponies

A bit that fits is essential for horse welfare and good communication with the ridden, driven or led horses. The bit causes pressure on the sensitive structures of the horse mouth. The aim of this study was to investigate variation in oral dimensions related to bit fit in adult horses and ponies and to evaluate bit fit by comparing oral dimensions with the currently used bit size selected by the horse owner. The study population consisted of 554 horses and ponies, 308 geldings and 246 mares, age 5-29 years, presented for routine dental care. Oral dimensions: mouth width, distance between upper and lower jaw, tongue thickness and lower jaw width, were measured under sedation. Oral dimensions were compared with the most used bit mouthpiece size presented to the researcher by the owner. Bit type and material were recorded. All oral dimensions in adult horses and ponies varied by breed and sex. Mouth width and distance between upper and lower jaw correlated positively with age. Oral dimensions were significantly smaller in mares than in geldings. In coldblood Finnhorses, oral dimensions were greater than in other breeds; in ponies they were smaller. The majority of the oral dimensions correlated positively with each other. Lower jaw width did not correlate with tongue thickness. It was common to use a bit that did not fit the horse: the bit was either too short or too long (over 10 mm longer) compared to mouth width, compressed the tongue in between the upper and lower jaw, or the center link was of similar length compared to lower jaw width, thus possibly causing pressure points or a nutcracker effect on the bars of the lower jaw. Horses had, on average, space for a 14 mm thick bit without compressing the tongue. The results of this study can aid in choosing a horse bit size that fits correctly and does not cause discomfort. It is recommended that the fit of the bit is evaluated regularly as the horse ages.Peer reviewe