Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:01:26.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why are most EU pigs tail docked? Economic and ethical analysis of four pig housing and management scenarios in the light of EU legislation and animal welfare outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2015

R. B. D’Eath ,
J. K. Niemi ,
B. Vosough Ahmadi ,
K. M. D. Rutherford ,
S. H. Ison ,
S. P. Turner ,
H. T. Anker ,
T. Jensen ,
M. E. Busch  and
K. K. Jensen
...Show all authors
R. B. D’Eath*
Affiliation:
SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
J. K. Niemi
Affiliation:
Economics and Society, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Kampusranta 9, FI-60320 Seinäjoki, Finland
B. Vosough Ahmadi
Affiliation:
SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
K. M. D. Rutherford
Affiliation:
SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
S. H. Ison
Affiliation:
SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
S. P. Turner
Affiliation:
SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
H. T. Anker
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Copenhagen, Denmark
T. Jensen
Affiliation:
Danish Pig Research Centre, SEGES, Axeltorv 3, 1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark
M. E. Busch
Affiliation:
Danish Pig Research Centre, SEGES, Axeltorv 3, 1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark
K. K. Jensen
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Copenhagen, Denmark
A. B. Lawrence
Affiliation:
SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
P. Sandøe
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Copenhagen, Denmark Department of Large Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Copenhagen, Denmark
*
†E-mail: rick.death@sruc.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

To limit tail biting incidence, most pig producers in Europe tail dock their piglets. This is despite EU Council Directive 2008/120/EC banning routine tail docking and allowing it only as a last resort. The paper aims to understand what it takes to fulfil the intentions of the Directive by examining economic results of four management and housing scenarios, and by discussing their consequences for animal welfare in the light of legal and ethical considerations. The four scenarios compared are: ‘Standard Docked’, a conventional housing scenario with tail docking meeting the recommendations for Danish production (0.7 m2/pig); ‘Standard Undocked’, which is the same as ‘Standard Docked’ but with no tail docking, ‘Efficient Undocked’ and ‘Enhanced Undocked’, which have increased solid floor area (0.9 and 1.0 m2/pig, respectively) provision of loose manipulable materials (100 and 200 g/straw per pig per day) and no tail docking. A decision tree model based on data from Danish and Finnish pig production suggests that Standard Docked provides the highest economic gross margin with the least tail biting. Given our assumptions, Enhanced Undocked is the least economic, although Efficient Undocked is better economically and both result in a lower incidence of tail biting than Standard Undocked but higher than Standard Docked. For a pig, being bitten is worse for welfare (repeated pain, risk of infections) than being docked, but to compare welfare consequences at a farm level means considering the number of affected pigs. Because of the high levels of biting in Standard Undocked, it has on average inferior welfare to Standard Docked, whereas the comparison of Standard Docked and Enhanced (or Efficient) Undocked is more difficult. In Enhanced (or Efficient) Undocked, more pigs than in Standard Docked suffer from being tail bitten, whereas all the pigs avoid the acute pain of docking endured by the pigs in Standard Docked. We illustrate and discuss this ethical balance using numbers derived from the above-mentioned data. We discuss our results in the light of the EU Directive and its adoption and enforcement by Member States. Widespread use of tail docking seems to be accepted, mainly because the alternative steps that producers are required to take before resorting to it are not specified in detail. By tail docking, producers are acting in their own best interests. We suggest that for the practice of tail docking to be terminated in a way that benefits animal welfare, changes in the way pigs are housed and managed may first be required.

Keywords

swinewelfaretail bitingtail dockingeconomic modelling
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Supplement 4 , April 2016 , pp. 687 - 699
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnoult, MH, Ahmadi, BV, Stott, AW, Cain, PJ, Guy, JH, Seddon, Y and Edwards, SA 2011. Economics of higher welfare pig production. An independent scientific report commissioned by the RSPCA. Newcastle University and SAC, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, JK 1981. Some behavioural deviations in weaned domestic pigs: persistent inguinal nose thrusting, and tail and ear biting. Animal Production 33, 325–332.Google Scholar
Bracke, M, De Lauwere, CC, Wind, SM and Zonderland, JJ 2013. Attitudes of Dutch pig farmers towards tail biting and tail docking. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26, 847–868.Google Scholar
Broome, J 1991. Weighing goods: equality, uncertainty and time. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Busch, ME, Wachmann, H, Nielsen, EO and Petersen, HH 2004. Tail biting – can slaughter data be used to identify herds with a high prevalence? (In Danish: Halebid – Kan slagtedata anvendes til at identificere besætninger med høj forekomst?), Report: Meddelelse 643, Danish Pig Research Centre (PRC), Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved August 22, 2014, from http://vsp.lf.dk/Publikationer/Kilder/lu_medd/2004/643.aspx?full=1 Google Scholar
Cicia, G and Colantuoni, F 2010. Willingness to pay for traceable meat attributes: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Food System Dynamics 3, 252–263.Google Scholar
The Council of the European Union 2008. Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. The Official Journal L47, 5–13.Google Scholar
Danish Government 2000. Lov om indendørs hold af smågrise, avls- og slagtesvin. Lov nr. 104 af 14. februar 2000. Retrieved October 19, 2015, from https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=773.Google Scholar
D’Eath, RB, Arnott, G, Turner, SP, Jensen, T, Lahrmann, HP, Busch, ME, Niemi, JK, Lawrence, AB and Sandøe, P 2014. Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking? Animal 8, 1479–1497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EFSA 2007. The risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems (Question No EFSA-Q-2006-013). Annex to the EFSA Journal 611, 1–13.Google Scholar
FAWC 2011. Opinion on mutilations and environmental enrichment in piglets and growing pigs. Farm Animal Welfare Council, London.Google Scholar
Finnish Government 2012. Valtioneuvoston asetus sikojen suojelusta (Finnish Government decree on the protection of pigs). VNa 15.11.2012/629. Retrieved October 19, 2015, from https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2012/20120629 Google Scholar
Forkman, B, Olsen, P, Nørgaard, N, Laursen, PB, Pedersen, LJ, Holm, L, Viekilde, K and Søndergaard, JT 2010. Working group report on the keeping of pigs (In Danish: Arbejdsgrupperapport om hold af svin). Justitsministeriet (Ministry of Justice), Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Gonyou, HW and Stricklin, WR 1998. Effects of floor area allowance and group size on the productivity of growing/finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 76, 1326–1330.Google Scholar
Gonyou, HW, Brumm, MC, Bush, E, Deen, J, Edwards, SA, Fangman, T, McGlone, JJ, Meunier-Salaun, M, Morrison, RB, Spoolder, H, Sundberg, PL and Johnson, AK 2006. Application of broken-line analysis to assess floor space requirements of nursery and grower-finisher pigs expressed on an allometric basis. Journal of Animal Science 84, 229–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, S, More, S, O’Connell, N, Hanlon, A, Teixeira, D and Boyle, L 2012. Evaluating the prevalence of tail biting and carcase condemnations in slaughter pigs in the Republic and Northern Ireland, and the potential of abattoir meat inspection as a welfare surveillance tool. Veterinary Record 171, 621.Google Scholar
Herskin, MS, Thodberg, K and Jensen, HE 2014. Effects of tail docking and docking length on neuroanatomical changes in healed tail tips of pigs. Animal 9, 677–681.Google Scholar
Huirne, RBM and Dijkhuizen, AA 1997. Basic methods of economic analysis. In Animal health economics: principles and applications. (ed. AA Dijkhuizen and RS Morris), pp. 32–39. University of Sydney, Sydney.Google Scholar
Hunter, EJ, Jones, TA, Guise, HJ, Penny, RHC and Hoste, S 1999. Tail biting in pigs 1: the prevalence at six UK abattoirs and the relationship of tail biting with docking, sex and other carcass damage. The Pig Journal 43, 18–32.Google Scholar
Hunter, EJ, Jones, TA, Guise, HJ, Penny, RHC and Hoste, S 2001. The relationship between tail biting in pigs, docking procedure and other management practices. Veterinary Journal 161, 72–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jääskeläinen, T, Kauppinen, T, Vesala, KM and Valros, A 2014. Relationships between pig welfare, productivity and farmer disposition. Animal Welfare 23, 435–443.Google Scholar
Keeling, LJ, Wallenbeck, A, Larsen, A and Holmgren, N 2012. Scoring tail damage in pigs: an evaluation based on recordings at Swedish slaughterhouses. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica A 54, 32.Google Scholar
Kiley-Worthington, M 1976. Tail movements of ungulates, canids and felids with particular reference to their causation and function as displays. Behaviour 56, 69–115.Google Scholar
Kritas, SK and Morrison, RB 2007. Relationships between tail biting in pigs and disease lesions and condemnations at slaughter. Veterinary Record 160, 149–152.Google Scholar
Lagerkvist, CJ and Hess, S 2011. A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Eurropean Review of Agricultural Economics 38, 55–78.Google Scholar
Lassen, J and Sandøe, P 2009. GM plants, farmers and the public – a harmonious relation? Sociologia Ruralis 49, 258–272.Google Scholar
Lusk, JL, Nilsson, T and Foster, K 2007. Public preferences and private choices: effect of altruism and free riding on demand for environmentally certified pork. Environmental Resource Economics 36, 499–521.Google Scholar
MAFF 2000. Cost guidelines of construction in accordance with the law on agricultural industry, MMM-RMO E 2 building costs. (In Finnish: Maaseutuelinkeinolain mukaiset rakentamisen ohjekustannukset, MMM-RMO E 2 Rakennuskustannukset). Maa- ja metsätalousministeriön yleiskirje 18.2.2000. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Mäki-Mattila, M 1998. Production costs of pork under intensive and animal friendly extensive production systems. (Sikojen hyvinvointia edistävien tuotantotapojen kustannusvaikutukset). Agricultural Economics Research Institute Working Papers No. 4/98, Agricultural Economics Research Institute, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Marchant-Forde, J, Lay, D, McMunn, K, Cheng, H, Pajor, E and Marchant-Forde, R 2009. Postnatal piglet husbandry practices and well-being: the effects of alternative techniques delivered separately. Journal of Animal Science 87, 1479–1492.Google Scholar
Mattson, B, Susic, Z, Lundeheim, N and Persson, E 2004. Arbetstidsåtgång i svensk grisproduktion. Praktiskt Inriktade Grisförsök Nr 31. 12p. (in Swedish). Retrieved October 19, 2015, from http://www.svenskapig.se/dokument/forsok/pig31.pdf Google Scholar
Munsterhjelm, C 2013. Piloting of the Welfare Quality®-assessment system on Finnish pig farms 2010-2013. Retrieved August 22, 2014, from http://finnishpigwq.edublogs.org/briefly-in-english/ Google Scholar
Munsterhjelm, C, Simola, O, Keeling, L, Valros, A and Heinonen, M 2013. Health parameters in tail biters and bitten pigs in a case-control study. Animal 7, 814–821.Google Scholar
Niemi, JK 2006. Dynamic programming model for optimising feeding and slaughter decisions regarding fattening pigs. Agricultural and Food Science 15, 1–121.Google Scholar
Niemi, JK and Karhula, T 2011. Costs of compliance to alternative housing standards in the Finnish pig sector. In 24th NJF Congress ‘food, feed, fuel and fun – nordic light on future land use and rural development’. Book of Abstract. NJF report 7 (ed. J Hulgren, P Persson, E Nadeau and F Fogelberg), 62pp. Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Nozick, R 1974. Anarchy, state and utopia. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Partanen, K, Niemi, J, Voutila, L and Jukola, E 2012. Responsible pig meat production (In Finnish: Vastuullisen tuotannon vaatimusten täyttäminen näkyy lihasikalan tuloksessa). In Maataloustieteen Päivät (ed. N Schulman and H Kauppinen), 275pp. Publications of Scientific Agricultural Society of Finland, Helsinki. Retrieved August 22, 2014, from www.smts.fi Google Scholar
Parviainen, H 2001. The research of working time and working methods in a rationalized piggery (In Finnish with an English abstract). Work Efficiency Institute Agricultural Bulletin 534. Work Efficiency Institute, Rajamäki.Google Scholar
Schrøder-Petersen, DL and Simonsen, HB 2001. Tail biting in pigs. Veterinary Journal 162, 196–210.Google Scholar
Sinisalo, A, Niemi, JK, Heinonen, M and Valros, A 2012. Tail biting and production performance in fattening pigs. Livestock Science 143, 220–225.Google Scholar
Spoolder, H, Bracke, M, Mueller-Graf, C and Edwards, S 2011. Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of pig – Report 2: Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of weaned, growing and fattening pigs including aspects related to space allowance, floor types, tail biting and need for tail docking. Technical report, EFSA, Parma, Italy. Retrieved October 19, 2015, from http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/181e.htm Google Scholar
Studnitz, M, Jensen, MB and Pedersen, LJ 2007. Why do pigs root and in what will they root? A review on the exploratory behaviour of pigs in relation to environmental enrichment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107, 183–197.Google Scholar
Sutherland, M, Davis, B and McGlone, J 2011. The effect of local or general anesthesia on the physiology and behavior of tail docked pigs. Animal 5, 1237–1246.Google Scholar
Sutherland, MA, Bryer, PJ, Krebs, N and McGlone, JJ 2008. Tail docking in pigs: acute physiological and behavioural responses. Animal 2, 292–297.Google Scholar
Sutherland, MA, Bryer, PJ, Krebs, N and McGlone, JJ 2009. The effect of method of tail docking on tail-biting behaviour and welfare of pigs. Animal Welfare 18, 561–570.Google Scholar
Sutherland, MA and Tucker, CB 2011. The long and short of it: a review of tail docking in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135, 179–191.Google Scholar
Taylor, NR, Main, DCJ, Mendl, M and Edwards, SA 2010. Tail-biting: a new perspective. The Veterinary Journal 186, 137–147.Google Scholar
Torrey, S, Devillers, N, Lessard, M, Farmer, C and Widowski, T 2009. Effect of age on the behavioral and physiological responses of piglets to tail docking and ear notching. Journal of Animal Science 87, 1778–1786.Google Scholar
Turner, SP 2011. Breeding against harmful social behaviours in pigs and chickens: state of the art and the way forward. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 134, 1–9.Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Ewen, M, Rooke, JA and Edwards, SA 2000. The effect of space allowance on performance, aggression and immune competence of growing pigs housed on straw deep-litter at different group sizes. Livestock Production Science 66, 47–55.Google Scholar
Udesen, F 2013. Basis of the estimated weaner price (In Danish: Grundlag for den beregnede smågrisenotering) Juni 2013, Notat nr. 1326. 2013, Pig Research Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved August 22, 2014, from http://www.vsp.lf.dk/Publikationer/Kilder/Notater/2013/1326.aspx Google Scholar
Valros, A and Heinonen, M 2015. Save the pig tail. Porcine Health Management 1, 2.Google Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA and Day, JEL 2009. A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 1–20.Google Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, Breuer, K and Edwards, SA 2006. Effects of species-relevant environmental enrichment on the behaviour and productivity of finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 230–247.Google Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL and Edwards, SA 2005. The development of harmful social behaviour in pigs with intact tails and different enrichment backgrounds in two housing systems. Animal Science 80, 289–298.Google Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, van Riel, JW, Bracke, MBM, Kemp, B, den Hartog, LA and Spoolder, HAM 2009. Tail posture predicts tail damage among weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 165–170.Google Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Wolthuis-Fillerup, M, Van Reenen, CG, Bracke, MBM, Kemp, B, den Hartog, LA and Spoolder, HAM 2008. Prevention and treatment of tail biting in weaned piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110, 269–281.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

D’Eath supplementary material

D’Eath supplementary material 1

Download D’Eath supplementary material(File)
File 20 KB
Supplementary material: File

D’Eath supplementary material

D’Eath supplementary material 2

Download D’Eath supplementary material(File)
File 23.5 KB