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

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

Development of flank lesions in growing pigs after weaning : A case study

Flank lesions in pigs are a common yet poorly understood consequence of damaging social behavior. One group of pigs on a commercial farm with group lactation and late weaning, and with the history of flank lesions was studied. Skin lesions on the flanks, including linear and circular lesions, and tail lesions on 69 pigs were recorded six times during 5 weeks after weaning at the age of 9 weeks. Nosing behavior was scanned during six sessions with multiple scans. The associations of age, trunk whiteness, weight gain, sow parity, litter size, sex, and tail lesions with the number of circular and linear lesions were analyzed using linear mixed models. The number of linear lesions increased as pigs aged, and pigs with a higher weight gain had more linear lesions. Moreover, pigs with a whiter trunk color were scored with more lesions of both types. According to descriptive behavior data, nosing and biting behaviors were most frequent during weeks 2-4 after weaning at the age of 11-13 weeks. On average, seven circular flank lesions were found per pig during the experiment, at the age of 10-14 weeks. After the peak on day 17, their occurrence decreased. Skin lesion occurrence was related to a lighter skin color on the trunks of pigs. We recommend reporting skin color in connection with lesion scoring results. Nosing behavior and flank lesions both peaked from 2 to 4 weeks after weaning, suggesting that nosing behavior contributed to lesion development during this time

Evaluating the effects of bedding materials and elevated platforms on contact dermatitis and plumage cleanliness of commercial broilers and on litter condition in broiler houses

1. Experiment 1, comparing wood shavings and ground straw bedding with peat, was performed on 7 broiler farms over two consecutive batches during the winter season. Experiment 2, assessing the effect of elevated (30 cm) platforms, was conducted in three farms replicated with 6 consecutive batches. 2. Footpad lesions were inspected at slaughter following the Welfare Quality® (WQ) assessment and official programme. Hock lesions, plumage cleanliness and litter condition were assessed using the WQ assessment. Litter height, pH, moisture and ammonia were determined. 3. Footpad condition on wood shavings appeared to be worse compared with peat using both methods of assessment and was accompanied by inferior hock skin health. WQ assessment resulted in poorer footpad and hock skin condition on ground straw compared with peat. Farms differed in footpad and hock skin condition. Footpad and hock lesions were not affected by platform treatment. Peat appeared more friable than ground straw. The initial pH of wood shavings was higher and moisture was lower than in peat, but at the end of production period there were no differences. Ground straw exhibited higher initial and lower end pH, and was drier in the beginning than peat. Litter condition and quality were not affected by platform treatment. 4. This study provides new knowledge about the applicability of peat as broiler bedding and shows no negative effects of elevated platforms on litter condition or the occurrence of contact dermatitis in commercial environments. The results suggest a complicated relationship between litter condition, moisture and contact dermatitis. Furthermore, it is concluded that the farmer’s ability to manage litter conditions is important, regardless of the chosen litter material. Peat bedding was beneficial for footpad and hock skin health compared with wood shavings and ground straw.Peer reviewe

Production animal welfare - farmers' attitudes and practices

In our preliminary study we explored farmer's attitudes towards production animal welfare at 9 Finnish pig production farms and 9 dairy farms in 2005