Irish pig farmer's perceptions and experiences of tail and ear biting.

peer-reviewedAbnormal behaviours such as ear and tail biting of pigs is of significant welfare and economic concern. Currently, pig welfare legislation is under renewed focus by the EU commission and is likely to be enforced more thoroughly. The legislation prohibits routine tail docking and requires adequate enrichment to be provided. In Ireland, tail-docking is still the most utilised control mechanism to combat tail biting, but biting is still widespread even in tail-docked pigs. In addition, as pig farms are almost all fully slatted, bedding type material cannot be provided. Thus, the opinions, and practices of farmers in countries like Ireland, which may need to make significant adaptations to typical pig management systems soon, need to be considered and addressed. We carried out a survey of pig farmers during 2015 in order to gain a greater understanding of the extent of biting on Irish farms, perception on the most important preventive measures, current enrichment use and actions following outbreaks. Fifty-eight farmers from 21 Counties responded with an average herd size of 710 ± 597 sows (range 90–3000 sows). Only two farms had experienced no biting in the last year. Of the farms that had experienced tail biting (88%), 86% had also experienced ear biting. The most common concerns relating to biting were condemnation and reduced productivity of bitten pigs with both receiving an average score of 4 (most serious). Ear biting occurred most commonly in the 2nd stage (approximately 47–81 days from weaning) weaner and tail biting in the finishing stage. The most important preventive measures were felt to be taking care of animal health, restricting density, maintaining an even quality of feed/content and maintaining good air movement. Sixty-five percent of respondents added additional enrichment following an outbreak. Chains were the most common form of enrichment currently used (83%). Those not using chains favoured wood, toys and rope (17%). Identification of the most effective and accessible control and prevention measures both for the animals and for the farming community is thus essential. Improved understanding of the concerns and practices of producers, which this survey contributes to, is a first step towards this aim

Observation of CP violation in B ->eta/K-0 decays

We present measurements of the time-dependent CP-violation parameters S and C in B-0 -> eta K-'(0) decays. The data sample corresponds to 384 x 10(6) B (B) over bar pairs produced by e(+)e(-) annihilation at the Upsilon(4S). The results are S = 0.58 +/- 0.10 +/- 0.03 and C = -0.16 +/- 0.07 +/- 0.03. We observe mixing-induced CP violation with a significance of 5.5 standard deviations in this b -> s penguin dominated mode

Branching fraction measurements of B+->rho(+)gamma, B-0 ->rho(0)gamma, and B-0 ->omega gamma

We present a study of the decays B+->rho(+)gamma, B-0 ->rho(0)gamma, and B-0 ->omega gamma. The analysis is based on data containing 347x10(6) B (B) over bar events recorded with the BABAR detector at the PEP-II asymmetric B factory. We measure the branching fractions B(B+->rho(+)gamma)=(1.10(-0.33)(+0.37)+/- 0.09)x10(-6) and B(B-0 ->rho(0)gamma)=(0.79(-0.20)(+0.22)+/- 0.06)x10(-6), and set a 90% C.L. upper limit B(B-0 ->omega gamma)(rho/omega)gamma)=(1.25(-0.24)(+0.25)+/- 0.09)x10(-6), from which we determine vertical bar V-td/V-ts vertical bar=0.200(-0.020)(+0.021)+/- 0.015, where the first uncertainty is experimental and the second is theoretical

Measurements of CP-violating asymmetries in B-0 -> a(1)(+/-)(1260)pi(-/+) decays

We present measurements of CP-violating asymmetries in the decay B-0 -> a(1)(+/-)(1260)pi(-/+) with a(1)(+/-)(1260)->pi(-/+)pi(+/-)pi(+/-). The data sample corresponds to 384x10(6) B(b) over bar pairs collected with the BABAR detector at the PEP-II asymmetric B factory at SLAC. We measure the CP-violating asymmetry A(CP)(a1 pi)=-0.07 +/- 0.07 +/- 0.02, the mixing-induced CP violation parameter S-a1 pi=0.37 +/- 0.21 +/- 0.07, the direct CP violation parameter C-a1 pi=-0.10 +/- 0.15 +/- 0.09, and the parameters Delta C-a1 pi=0.26 +/- 0.15 +/- 0.07 and Delta S-a1 pi=-0.14 +/- 0.21 +/- 0.06. From these measured quantities we determine the angle alpha(eff)=78.6 degrees +/- 7.3 degrees

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

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is increasing interest in recording tail damage in pigs at slaughter to identify problem farms for advisory purposes, but also for benchmarking within and between countries as part of systematic monitoring of animal welfare. However, it is difficult to draw conclusions when comparing prevalence’s between studies and countries partly due to differences in management (e.g. differences in tail docking and enrichment routines) and partly due to differences in the definition of tail damage.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Tail damage and tail length was recorded for 15,068 pigs slaughtered during three and four consecutive days at two slaughterhouses in Sweden. Tail damage was visually scored according to a 6-point scale and tail length was both visually scored according to a 5-point scale and recorded as tail length in centimetres for pigs with injured or shortened tails.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The total prevalence of injury or shortening of the tail was 7.0% and 7.2% in slaughterhouse A and B, respectively. When only considering pigs with half or less of the tail left, these percentages were 1.5% and 1.9%, which is in line with the prevalence estimated from the routine recordings at slaughter in Sweden. A higher percentage of males had injured and/or shortened tails, and males had more severely bitten tails than females.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>While the current method to record tail damage in Sweden was found to be reliable as a method to identify problem farms, it clearly underestimates the actual prevalence of tail damage. For monitoring and benchmarking purposes, both in Sweden and internationally, we propose that a three graded scale including both old and new tail damage would be more appropriate. The scale consists of one class for no tail damage, one for mild tail damage (injured or shortened tail with more than half of the tail remaining) and one for severe tail damage (half or less of the tail remaining).</p

Methods to Detect Loss of Lysosomal Membrane Integrity

Loss of lysosomal membrane integrity, often referred to as lysosomal membrane permeabilization (LMP), occurs in many instances of cell death either as an initiating or as an amplifying event. Currently, the best method for detecting LMP is the galectin puncta formation assay which can be used for a broad range of sample types, both fixed and live, is easy to perform, and highly sensitive. This method, which is similar to the widely used LC3 puncta formation assay for autophagy, is based on the translocation of galectins to damaged lysosomes resulting in a change from uniform to punctate staining pattern. Here, we provide protocols for the galectin puncta formation assay in fixed and live cells and for an alternative assay based on fluorescent dextran release from damaged lysosomes, which can be performed in paralle