Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-lmk9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-23T09:25:42.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2014

R. B. D’Eath ,
G. Arnott ,
S. P. Turner ,
T. Jensen ,
H. P. Lahrmann ,
M. E. Busch ,
J. K. Niemi ,
A. B. Lawrence  and
P. Sandøe
R. B. D’Eath*
Affiliation:
SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
G. Arnott
Affiliation:
SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK Queen’s University Belfast, School of Biological Sciences, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK
S. P. Turner
Affiliation:
SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
T. Jensen
Affiliation:
Danish Agriculture & Food Council, Pig Research Centre, Axeltorv 3, 1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark
H. P. Lahrmann
Affiliation:
Danish Agriculture & Food Council, Pig Research Centre, Axeltorv 3, 1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark
M. E. Busch
Affiliation:
Danish Agriculture & Food Council, Pig Research Centre, Axeltorv 3, 1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark
J. K. Niemi
Affiliation:
MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Economic Research, Kampusranta 9, FI-60320 Seinäjoki, Finland
A. B. Lawrence
Affiliation:
SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
P. Sandøe
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences and Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Copenhagen, Denmark
*
† E-mail: rick.death@sruc.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

Tail biting is a serious animal welfare and economic problem in pig production. Tail docking, which reduces but does not eliminate tail biting, remains widespread. However, in the EU tail docking may not be used routinely, and some ‘alternative’ forms of pig production and certain countries do not allow tail docking at all. Against this background, using a novel approach focusing on research where tail injuries were quantified, we review the measures that can be used to control tail biting in pigs without tail docking. Using this strict criterion, there was good evidence that manipulable substrates and feeder space affect damaging tail biting. Only epidemiological evidence was available for effects of temperature and season, and the effect of stocking density was unclear. Studies suggest that group size has little effect, and the effects of nutrition, disease and breed require further investigation. The review identifies a number of knowledge gaps and promising avenues for future research into prevention and mitigation. We illustrate the diversity of hypotheses concerning how different proposed risk factors might increase tail biting through their effect on each other or on the proposed underlying processes of tail biting. A quantitative comparison of the efficacy of different methods of provision of manipulable materials, and a review of current practices in countries and assurance schemes where tail docking is banned, both suggest that daily provision of small quantities of destructible, manipulable natural materials can be of considerable benefit. Further comparative research is needed into materials, such as ropes, which are compatible with slatted floors. Also, materials which double as fuel for anaerobic digesters could be utilised. As well as optimising housing and management to reduce risk, it is important to detect and treat tail biting as soon as it occurs. Early warning signs before the first bloody tails appear, such as pigs holding their tails tucked under, could in future be automatically detected using precision livestock farming methods enabling earlier reaction and prevention of tail damage. However, there is a lack of scientific studies on how best to respond to outbreaks: the effectiveness of, for example, removing biters and/or bitten pigs, increasing enrichment, or applying substances to tails should be investigated. Finally, some breeding companies are exploring options for reducing the genetic propensity to tail bite. If these various approaches to reduce tail biting are implemented we propose that the need for tail docking will be reduced.

Keywords

pigshousingenrichmenttail bitingbehaviour

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 9 , September 2014 , pp. 1479 - 1497
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arey, DS 1991. Tail-biting in pigs. Farm Building Progress 20–23.Google Scholar
Averós, X, Brossard, L, Dourmad, JY, De Greef, KH, Edge, HL, Edwards, SA and Meunier-Salaün, MC 2010. A meta-analysis of the combined effect of housing and environmental enrichment characteristics on the behaviour and performance of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 127, 73–85.Google Scholar
Barnett, SA 1965. Genotype and environment in tail length in mice. Experimental Physiology 50, 417–429.Google Scholar
Barnikol, M 1978. Observations of tail biting (cannibalism) amongst fattening hogs and breeding pigs in connection with protein and mineral nourishment. Tieraerztliche Umschau 33, 540.Google Scholar
Beattie, VE, Sneddon, IA, Walker, N and Weatherup, RN 2001. Environmental enrichment of intensive pig housing using spent mushroom compost. Animal Science 72, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, VE, Breuer, K, O’Connell, NE, Sneddon, IA, Mercer, JT, Rance, KA, Sutcliffe, MEM and Edwards, SA 2005. Factors identifying pigs predisposed to tail biting. Animal Science 80, 307–312.Google Scholar
Bergersen, B 2013. Extended working group meeting on the development of guidelines concerning Council Directive 2008/120/EC on the protection of pigs. European Commission Directorate – General for Health and Consumers (DG-Sanco), Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Bijma, P, Muir, WA and van Arendonk, JAM 2007a. Multilevel selection 1: quantitative genetics of inheritance and response to selection. Genetics 175, 277–288.Google Scholar
Bijma, P, Muir, WM, Ellen, ED, Wolf, JB and van Arendonk, JAM 2007b. Multilevel selection 2: estimating the genetic parameters determining inheritance and response to selection. Genetics 175, 289–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Bornett, HLI, Guy, JH and Cain, PJ 2003. Impact of animal welfare on costs and viability of pig production in the UK. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 16, 163–186.Google Scholar
Boyle, L and Lemos Teixeira, D 2010. Improving pig welfare will reduce carcass losses. Teagasc Pig Farmers Conferences. Moorepark, Ireland, pp. 47–56. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/view_publication.aspx?PublicationID=48 Google Scholar
BPEX 2010. Environmental enrichment for pigs. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.bpex.org.uk/articles/301028 Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM 2009. Rope test may indicate efficacy of tail-biting treatments in growing pigs. Animal Welfare 18, 263–266.Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Hulsegge, B, Keeling, L and Blokhuis, HJ 2004. Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs. 2. ‘Validation’. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 45–54.Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Zonderland, JJ, Lenskens, P, Schouten, WGP, Vermeer, H, Spoolder, HAM, Hendriks, HJM and Hopster, H 2006. Formalised review of environmental enrichment for pigs in relation to political decision making. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 98, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branford Oltenacu, EA and Boylan, WJ 1974. Inheritance of tail length in crossbred Finnsheep. Journal of Heredity 65, 331–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuer, K, Sutcliffe, MEM, Mercer, JT, Rance, KA, Beattie, VE, Sneddon, IA and Edwards, SA 2003. The effect of breed on the development of adverse social behaviours in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84, 59–74.Google Scholar
Breuer, K, Sutcliffe, MEM, Mercer, JT, Rance, KA, O’Connell, NE, Sneddon, IA and Edwards, SA 2005. Heritability of clinical tail-biting and its relation to performance traits. Livestock Production Science 93, 87–94.Google Scholar
Brooks, PH 2005. Effect of diet on the behaviour and welfare of pigs. Proceedings of the Manitoba Swine Seminar. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.prairieswine.com/effect-of-diet-on-the-behaviour-and-welfare-of-pigs/ Google Scholar
Brunberg, E, Wallenbeck, A and Keeling, LJ 2011. Tail biting in fattening pigs: associations between frequency of tail biting and other abnormal behaviours. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 133, 18–25.Google Scholar
Brunberg, E, Jensen, P, Isaksson, A and Keeling, LJ 2013a. Brain gene expression differences are associated with abnormal tail biting behavior in pigs. Genes, Brain, and Behavior 12, 275–281.Google Scholar
Brunberg, E, Jensen, P, Isaksson, A and Keeling, LJ 2013b. Behavioural and brain gene expression profiling in pigs during tail biting outbreaks – evidence of a tail biting resistant phenotype. PLoS One 8, e66513.Google Scholar
Busch, ME, Wachmann, H, Nielsen, EO and Petersen, HH 2004. Halebid – Kan slagtedata anvendes til at identificere besætninger med høj forekomst? (Tail biting – can slaughter data be used to identify herds with a high prevalence?). Danish Pig Research Centre (PRC), Copenhagen, Denmark. Report: Meddelelse 643. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://vsp.lf.dk/Publikationer/Kilder/lu_medd/2004/643.aspx?full=1 Google Scholar
Camerlink, I, Bijma, P, Kemp, B and Bolhuis, JE 2012. Relationship between growth rate and oral manipulation, social nosing, and aggression in finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 142, 11–17.Google Scholar
Canario, L, Mignon-Grasteau, S, Dupont-Nivet, M and Phocas, F 2013. Genetics of behavioural adaptation of livestock to farming conditions. Animal 7, 357–377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CIWF 2008. The state of Europe’s pigs: An exposé. Compassion in world farming, investigative report. Compassion in World Farming, Godalming, Surrey, UK.Google Scholar
CIWF 2009. Welfare of pigs in the European Union – the urgent need for reform of existing legislation and effective enforcement. Compassion in World Farming, Godalming, Surrey, UK.Google Scholar
Costa, A, Ismayilova, G, Borgonovo, F, Leroy, T, Berckmans, D and Guarino, M 2013. The use of image analysis as a new approach to assess behaviour classification in a pig barn. Acta Veterinaria Brno 82, 25–30.Google Scholar
Council of State 2002. Valtioneuvoston asetus eläinsuojeluasetuksen muuttamisesta. VNa 910/2002 (Government decree on the regulation of the protection of animals). Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2002/20020910 Google Scholar
Council of State 2012. Valtioneuvoston asetus sikojen suojelusta. VNa 629/2012 (Government decree on the protection of pigs). Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2012/20120629 Google Scholar
Courboulay, V, Eugene, A and Delarue, E 2009. Welfare assessment in 82 pig farms: effect of animal age and floor type on behaviour and injuries in fattening pigs. Animal Welfare 18, 515–521.Google Scholar
Courboulay, V, Souffran, H, Guingand, N, Massabie, P and Dubois, A 2008. Intérêt de la brumisation en engraissement pour améliorer le confort des porcs en croissance (Fogging system: a way to improve the welfare of growing-finishing pigs during summer periods). Journées Recherche Porcine 40, 243–246.Google Scholar
D’Eath, RB, Conington, J, Lawrence, AB, Olsson, IAS and Sandøe, P 2010. Breeding for behavioural change in farm animals: practical, economic and ethical considerations. Animal Welfare 19, 17–27.Google Scholar
D’Eath, RB, Niemi, J, Ahmadi, B, Arnott, G, Turner, SP, Baxter, EM, Rutherford, KMD, Jensen, T, Lahrmann, HP, Busch, ME, Jensen, KK, Lawrence, AB and Sandøe, P 2014. Tail docking vs. tail biting – a scientific, legal, socio-economic and ethical analysis. Animal Welfare (submitted).Google Scholar
Danish Crown 2007. Kvalitetshåndbog for Antonius griseproduktion (Quality handbook for Antonius pig production), Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.danishcrown.dk/lib/file.aspx?fileID=286 Google Scholar
Danish Government 2000. Lov no. 104 af 14 Februar 2000 om indendørs hold af smågrise, avls- og slagtesvin (Act on indoor keeping of pigs, breeding and fattening), Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Danish Government 2003a. BEK nr 323 af 06/05/2003. Bekendtgørelse om beskyttelse af svin (Order on the protection of pigs) Fødevareministeriet (Danish Ministry of Food), Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=1571 Google Scholar
Danish Government 2003b. BEK nr 324 af 06/05/2003, Bekendtgørelse om halekupering og kastration af dyr (Order on tail docking and castration of animals) Fødevareministeriet (Ministry of Food), Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=1572 Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS, Lee, HJ, Waitt, CD and Roberts, SJ 2009. Optical flow patterns in broiler chicken flocks as automated measures of behaviour and gait. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119, 203–209.Google Scholar
Day, JEL, De Weerd, HAV and Edwards, SA 2008. The effect of varying lengths of straw bedding on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109, 249–260.Google Scholar
Day, JEL, Burfoot, A, Docking, CM, Whittaker, X, Spoolder, HAM and Edwards, SA 2002. The effects of prior experience of straw and the level of straw provision on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 189–202.Google Scholar
De Greef, KH, Vermeer, HM, Houwers, HWJ and Bos, AP 2011. Proof of principle of the comfort class concept in pigs. Experimenting in the midst of a stakeholder process on pig welfare. Livestock Science 139, 172–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defra 2003. Code of recommendations for the welfare of livestock: pigs. Defra Publications, London.Google Scholar
DVFA 2013. Fødevarestyrelsens vejledning om beskæftigelses- og rodematerialer (DVFA guidance on employment and enrichment materials) Danish Veterinary and Food Administration (Føedevarestyrelsen), Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/Leksikon/Sider/Hold-af-svin.aspx Google Scholar
EC 2009. Answer from the European Commission to a written question (E-5360/2009) from Member of the European Parliament, Caroline Lucas, Strasbourg. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2009-5360&language=EN Google Scholar
Edwards, S 2011. What do we know about tail biting today? The Pig Journal 66, 81–86.Google Scholar
Edwards, SA 2006. Tail biting in pigs: understanding the intractable problem. Veterinary Journal 171, 198–199.Google Scholar
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
Elst, WET, Vaessen, MA, Vos, HJMP, Binnendijk, GP, Huime, REM and Backus, GBC 1988. Proefverslag- Varkensproefbedrifj- Zuid-enwest-Nederland 200, 1–54.Google Scholar
Eurostat 2013. Livestock: number of farms and heads of animals by type of farming in 2010 European Commision. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/agriculture/data/database Google Scholar
Evira 2013. Sikojen tonkimismateriaali (Materials for pigs to root) Evira (Finnish Food Safety Authority), Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.evira.fi/files/attachments/fi/elaimet/elainsuojelu_ja_elainten_pito/sikojen_tonkimismateriaali.pdf Google Scholar
Falconer, DS and Mackay, TFC 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edition. Longman, New York.Google Scholar
FAWC 2009. Farm animal welfare in Great Britain: past, present and future. Farm Animal Welfare Council, London.Google Scholar
FAWC 2011. Opinion on mutilations and environmental enrichment in piglets and growing pigs. Farm Animal Welfare Council, London.Google Scholar
Feddes, JJR and Fraser, D 1994. Non-nutritive chewing by pigs: implications for tail-biting and behavioural enrichment. Transactions of the ASAE 37, 947–950.Google Scholar
Fjetland, O and Kjastad, HP 2002. Tail biting in pigs. Norsk Veterinartidsskrift 114, 249–253.Google Scholar
Forkman, B, Olsen, P, Nørgaard, N, Laursen, PB, Pedersen, LJ, Holm, L, Viekilde, K and Søndergaard, JT 2010. Arbejdsgrupperapport om hold af svin (Working group report on the keeping of pigs) Justitsministeriet Departementet, Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from https://bdkv2.borger.dk/Lovgivning/Hoeringsportalen/Sider/Fakta.aspx?hpid=2146002290 Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1987a. Attraction to blood as a factor in tail-biting by pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17, 61–86.Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1987b. Mineral-deficient diets and the pig’s attraction to blood: implications for tail-biting. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67, 909–918.Google Scholar
Fraser, D, Bernon, DE and Ball, RO 1991. Enhanced attraction to blood by pigs with inadequate dietary-protein supplementation. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 71, 611–619.Google Scholar
Friland 2012. Frilandgris Produktionskoncept – en god begyndelse (Outdoor pigs production concept – a good start), Randers, Denmark. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.friland.dk/lib/file.aspx?fileID=636 Google Scholar
Geers, R, Dellaert, B, Goedseels, V, Hoogerbrugge, A, Vranken, E, Maes, F and Berckmans, D 1989. An assessment of optimal air temperatures in pig houses by the quantification of behavioral and health-related problems. Animal Production 48, 571–578.Google Scholar
Georgsson, L and Svendsen, J 2001. One or two feeders for groups of 16 growing-finishing pigs: effects on health and production. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 51, 257–264.Google Scholar
Georgsson, L and Svendsen, J 2002. Degree of competition at feeding differentially affects behavior and performance of group-housed growing-finishing pigs of different relative weights. Journal of Animal Science 80, 376–383.Google Scholar
Goldberg, TL, Weigel, RM, Hahn, EC and Scherba, G 2000. Associations between genetics, farm characteristics and clinical disease in field outbreaks of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 43, 293–302.Google Scholar
Goossens, X, Sobry, L, Odberg, F, Tuyttens, F, Maes, D, De Smet, S, Nevens, F, Opsomer, G, Lommelen, F and Geers, R 2008. A population-based on-farm evaluation protocol for comparing the welfare of pigs between farms. Animal Welfare 17, 35–41.Google Scholar
Guy, JH, Rowlinson, P, Chadwick, JP and Ellis, M 2002. Behaviour of two genotypes of growing/finishing pig in three different housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75, 193–206.Google Scholar
Hansen, LL, Hagelsø, AM and Madsen, A 1982. Behavioural results and performance of bacon pigs fed ad libitum from one or several self-feeders. Applied Animal Ethology 8, 307–333.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, 621–662.Google Scholar
Holm, L, Jensen, MB, Pedersen, LJ and Ladewig, J 2008. The importance of a food feedback in rooting materials for pigs measured by double demand curves with and without a common scaling factor. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 111, 68–84.Google Scholar
Holmgren, N and Lundeheim, N 2004. Risk factors for tail biting. Proceedings of the 18th IPVS Congress, Hamburg, Germany, p. 786.Google Scholar
Howell, JM and Siegel, PB 1966. Morphological effects of the Manx factor in cats. Journal of Heredity 57, 100–104.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
Jaeger, F 2013. Das Projekt “intakter Ringelschwanz” beim Schwein – stehen wir vor dem Durchbruch? (The project “intact curly tails” in pigs – are we just before a breakthrough?). Tieraerztliche Umschau 68, 3–11.Google Scholar
Jensen, MB and Pedersen, LJ 2007. The value assigned to six different rooting materials by growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 108, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, MB, Studnitz, M and Pedersen, LJ 2010. The effect of type of rooting material and space allowance on exploration and abnormal behaviour in growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123, 87–92.Google Scholar
Jensen, MB, Studnitz, M, Halekoh, U, Pedersen, LJ and Jorgensen, E 2008. Pigs’ preferences for rooting materials measured in a three-choice maze-test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112, 270–283.Google Scholar
Jensen, T, Kold Nielsen, C, Vinther, J and D‘Eath, RB 2012. The effect of space allowance for finishing pigs on productivity and pen hygiene. Livestock Science 149, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, T, Riis, AL, Maribo, H, Vernersen, A and Busch, ME 2004. Halebid manual (tail-biting manual). Videncenter for Svineproduktion og danske slagterier, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Jordbruksverket 2010. Statens jordbruksverks föreskrifter och allmänna råd om djurhållning inom lantbruket m.m. (Swedish State Board of Agriculture Regulations and Guidelines on Animal Husbandry in Agriculture, etc.). Statens jordbruksverk, Jönköping, Sweden.Google Scholar
Kanis, E, van den Belt, H, Groen, AF, Schakel, J and De Greef, KH 2004. Breeding for improved welfare in pigs: a conceptual framework and its use in practice. Animal Science 78, 315–329.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 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
Krider, JL, Albright, JL, Plumlee, MP, Conrad, JH, Sinclair, CL, Underwood, L, Jones, RG and Harrington, RB 1975. Magnesium supplementation, space and docking effects on swine performance and behavior. Journal of Animal Science 40, 1027–1033.Google Scholar
Kritas, SK and Morrison, RB 2004. An observational study on tail biting in commercial grower-finisher barns. Journal of Swine Health and Production 12, 17–22.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
Lahrmann, HP and Steinmetz, H 2011. Effekt af halmlængde på forekomsten af unormal adfærd og halmrettet adfærd hos slagtesvin (Effect of straw length on the incidence of abnormal behavior and straw directed behavior of pigs). Danish Pig Research Centre (VSP), Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Lawrence, AB, Conington, J and Simm, G 2004. Breeding and animal welfare: practical and theoretical advantages of multi-trait selection. Animal Welfare 13, S191–S196.Google Scholar
Lee, HJ, Roberts, SJ, Drake, KA and Dawkins, MS 2011. Prediction of feather damage in laying hens using optical flows and Markov models. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 8, 489–499.Google Scholar
LMD 2003. FOR 2003-02-18 nr 175: Forskrift om hold av svin (Regulations on the keeping of pigs) Landbruks- og matdepartementet (Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture and Food). Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/ldles?doc=/sf/sf/sf-20030218-0175.html Google Scholar
Lund, A and Simonsen, HB 2000. Aggression and stimulus-directed activities in two breeds of finishing pig. The Pig Journal 45, 123–130.Google Scholar
MAF 1997. Sikojen pidolle asetettavat eläinsuojeluvaatimukset (Animal protection requirements on concerning the keeping of pigs), Decision 13/EEO/1997. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
Manteuffel, G, Puppe, B and Schon, PC 2004. Vocalization of farm animals as a measure of welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88, 163–182.Google Scholar
Marchant-Forde, JN and Marchant-Forde, RM 2005. Minimizing inter-pig aggression during mixing. Pig News and Information 26, 63N–73N.Google Scholar
McIntyre, J and Edwards, SA 2002a. An investigation into the effect of tryptophan on tail chewing behaviour of growing pigs. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, p. 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, J and Edwards, SA 2002b. Preference for blood and behavioural measurements of known tailbiting pigs compared to control penmates. Proceedings of the 36th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Egmond an Zee, the Netherlands, p. 93.Google Scholar
Merks, JWM, Mathur, PK and Knol, EF 2012. New phenotypes for new breeding goals in pigs. Animal 6, 535–543.Google Scholar
MFLF 2012. Vejledning om økologisk jordbrugs-produktion (Guidance on organic agricultural production) Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries), Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://1.naturerhverv.fvm.dk/oekologi_vejledning_bedrifter.aspx?ID=2137 Google Scholar
Moinard, C, Mendl, M, Nicol, CJ and Green, LE 2003. A case control study of on-farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 333–355.Google Scholar
Mul, M, Vermeij, I, Hindle, V and Spoolder, H 2010. EU Welfare Legislation on Pigs, Report 273 Livestock Research, Wageningen UR.Google Scholar
Munsterhjelm, C, Brunberg, E, Heinonen, M, Keeling, L and Valros, A 2013. Stress measures in tail biters and bitten pigs in a matched case-control study. Animal Welfare 22, 331–338.Google Scholar
Munsterhjelm, C, Peltoniemi, OAT, Heinonen, M, Halli, O, Karhapaa, M and Valros, A 2009. Experience of moderate bedding affects behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118, 42–53.Google Scholar
Niemi, JK, Sinisalo, A, Valros, A and Heinonen, M 2011. The timing and treatment of tail biting in fattening pigs. In 24th NJF Congress “Food, Feed, Fuel and Fun – Nordic Light on Fugure Land Use and Rural Development”, NJF Report 7 (ed. J Hulgren, P Persson, E Nadeau and F Fogelberg), pp. 50–55. NJF, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Niemi, JK, Sinisalo, A, Valros, A and Heinonen, M 2012. Hännänpurenta – syy vai seuraus? (Tail biting – cause or effect?). Schulman, N. and Kauppinen, H. Maataloustieteen Päivät 2012 [Verkkojulkaisu] (Agricultural Science Days 2012 [Online]). Suomen Maataloustieteellisen Seuran julkaisuja no. 28 (The Scientific Agricultural Society of Finland publications no. 28), Helsinki, Finland (http://www.smts.fi/mtpjul2012.html, accessed 30th May 2014).Google Scholar
Olsson, L 2011. Optimizing amount of straw for growing-finishing pigs – considering time spent in manipulative behaviour. SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Palander, PA, Heinonen, M, Simpura, I, Edwards, SA and Valros, AE 2013. Jejunal morphology and blood metabolites in tail biting, victim and control pigs. Animal 7, 1523–1531.Google Scholar
Partanen, K, Niemi, J, Voutila, L and Jukola, E 2012. Vastuullisen tuotannon vaatimusten täyttäminen näkyy lihasikalan tuloksessa (Responsible pig meat production). In Maataloustieteen Päivät 2012 [Verkkojulkaisu] (Agricultural Science Days 2012 [Online]) Suomen Maataloustieteellisen Seuran julkaisuja no. 29 (The Scientific Agricultural Society of Finland publications no. 29), p. 275 (ed. N Schulman and H Kauppinen). Helsinki, Finland. http://www.smts.fi/mtpjul2012.html, accessed 30th May 2014.Google Scholar
Pedersen, LJ, Herskin, M and Forkman, B 2013. How much straw do slaughter pigs need to meet the need for exploration. ISAE 47th Congress, Florianopolis, Brazil, p. 46.Google Scholar
Petersen, V, Simonsen, HB and Lawson, LG 1995. The effect of environmental stimulation on the development of behaviour in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45, 215–224.Google Scholar
PRC 2011. Annual report, Pig Research Centre, Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, Bijma, P, Ellen, ED, Bergsma, R, de Vries, S, Bolhuis, JE, Kemp, B and van Arendonk, JAM 2010. Breeding amiable animals? Improving farm animal welfare by including social effects into the genetic model. Animal Welfare 19, 77–82.Google Scholar
RSPCA 2012. Welfare standards for pigs. Freedom Food. Retrieved 30 May 2014, from http://www.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/farmanimals/standards/pigs Google Scholar
Ruiterkamp, WA 1985. Het Gedrag Van Mestvarkens in Relatie Tot Huisvesting (The Behaviour of Fattening Pigs in Relation to Housing). PhD Thesis, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Rushen, J, Chapinal, N and de Passille, A 2012. Automated monitoring of behavioural-based animal welfare indicators. Animal Welfare 21, 339–350.Google Scholar
Sambraus, HH 1985. Mouth-based anomalous syndromes. In World animal science, A5, ethology of farm animals. A comprehensive study of the behavioural features of common farm animals (ed. AF Fraser), pp. 391–422. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Sanchez, M and Gonzalez, JL 2005. The fertilizer value of pig slurry. I. Values depending on the type of operation. Bioresource Technology 96, 1117–1123.Google Scholar
Scheepens, CJM, Hessing, MJC, Laarakker, E, Schouten, WGP and Tielen, MJM 1991. Influences of intermittent daily draft on the behaviour of weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31, 69–82.Google Scholar
Schmolke, SA, Li, YZ and Gonyou, HW 2003. Effect of group size on performance of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 81, 874–878.Google Scholar
Schrøder-Petersen, DL and Simonsen, HB 2001. Tail biting in pigs. Veterinary Journal 162, 196–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schroder-Petersen, DL, Heiskanen, T and Ersboll, AK 2004. Tail-in-mouth behaviour in slaughter pigs, in relation to internal factors such as: age, size, gender, and motivational background. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 54, 159–166.Google Scholar
Scollo, A, Di Martino, G, Bonfanti, L, Stefani, AL, Schiavon, E, Marangon, S and Gottardo, F 2013. Tail docking and the rearing of heavy pigs: the role played by gender and the presence of straw in the control of tail biting. Blood parameters, behaviour and skin lesions. Research in Veterinary Science 95, 825–830.Google Scholar
Scott, K, Taylor, L, Gill, BP and Edwards, SA 2009. Influence of different types of environmental enrichment on the behaviour of finishing pigs in two different housing systems 3. Hanging toy versus rootable toy of the same material. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 186–190.Google Scholar
Scott, K, Chennells, DJ, Armstrong, D, Taylor, L, Gill, BP and Edwards, SA 2007. The welfare of finishing pigs under different housing and feeding systems: liquid versus dry feeding in fully-slatted and straw-based housing. Animal Welfare 16, 53–62.Google Scholar
Scott, K, Chennells, DJ, Campbell, FM, Hunt, B, Armstrong, D, Taylor, L, Gill, BP and Edwards, SA 2006. The welfare of finishing pigs in two contrasting housing systems: fully-slatted versus straw-bedded accommodation. Livestock Science 103, 104–115.Google Scholar
Sihvo, H, Simola, O, Munsterhjelm, C and Syrja, P 2012. Systemic spread of infection in tail-bitten pigs. Journal of Comparative Pathology 146, 73.Google Scholar
Simonsen, HB 1995. Effect of early rearing environment and tail docking on later behaviour and production in fattening pigs. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 45, 139–144.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
SLU and LRF 2009. Swedish pig production (pamphlet). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Swedish Pig Producers Association, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Smulders, D, Hautekiet, V, Verbeke, G and Geerst, R 2008. Tail and ear biting lesions in pigs: an epidemiological study. Animal Welfare 17, 61–69.Google Scholar
Soil Association 2012. Organic standards: farming and growing (revision 16.7), UK. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.soilassociation.org/organicstandards Google Scholar
Sonoda, LT, Fels, M, Oczak, M, Vranken, E, Ismayilova, G, Guarino, M, Viazzi, S, Bahr, C, Berckmans, D and Hartung, J 2013. Tail Biting in pigs – causes and management intervention strategies to reduce the behavioural disorder. A review. Berliner und Munchener Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 126, 104–112.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 submitted to EFSA.Google Scholar
Statham, P 2008. Effects of experience and individuality on tail biting in pigs. PhD thesis, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
Statham, P, Green, L and Mendl, M 2011. A longitudinal study of the effects of providing straw at different stages of life on tail-biting and other behaviour in commercially housed pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 134, 100–108.Google Scholar
Statham, P, Green, L, Bichard, M and Mendl, M 2009. Predicting tail-biting from behaviour of pigs prior to outbreaks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 157–164.Google Scholar
Steinmetz, HV and Pedersen, ML 2009. Kønsvis opstaldnings betydning for forekomsten af halebid (Single sex housing – its importance for tail biting). Report Meddelelse nr. 845 Videncenter for Svineproduktion, Danish Pig Research Centre.Google Scholar
Stern, S, Sonesson, U, Gunnarsson, S, Öborn, I, Kumm, KI and Nybrant, T 2005. Sustainable development of food production: a case study on scenarios for pig production. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 34, 402–407.Google Scholar
Street, BR and Gonyou, HW 2008. Effects of housing finishing pigs in two group sizes and at two floor space allocations on production, health, behavior, and physiological variables. Journal of Animal Science 86, 982–991.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, 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
Svendsen, J, Olsson, AC and Botermans, J 2006. Data on tail biting in pigs. Proceedings of the 19th IPVS Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, p. 613.Google Scholar
Swiss Federal Council 2008. 455.1 Animal Welfare Ordinance (TSchV). Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.bvet.admin.ch/themen/tierschutz/02443/index.html?lang=de 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
Taylor, NR, Parker, RMA, Mendl, M, Edwards, SA and Main, DCJ 2012. Prevalence of risk factors for tail biting on commercial farms and intervention strategies. The Veterinary Journal 194, 77–83.Google Scholar
Telkänranta, H, Bracke, M and Valros, A 2014a. Developing chewable and rootable low-cost objects for commercial pig farms. Proceedings of the 25th ISAE Nordic Regional Meeting, Drobak, Norway, p. 10.Google Scholar
Telkänranta, H, Swan, K, Hirvonen, H and Valros, A 2014b. Chewable materials before weaning reduce tail biting in growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science (in press http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.01.004).Google Scholar
Temple, D, Courboulay, V, Velarde, A, Dalmau, A and Manteca, X 2012. The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems in France and Spain: assessment of health. Animal Welfare 21, 257–271.Google Scholar
The Council of The European Union 2001a. Commission Directive 2001/93/EC of 9 November 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal L316, 01/12/2001.Google Scholar
The Council of The European Union 2001b. Council Directive 2001/88/EC of 23rd October 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal L 316, 01/12/2001.Google Scholar
Trickett, SL, Guy, JH and Edwards, SA 2009. The role of novelty in environmental enrichment for the weaned pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 45–51.CrossRefGoogle 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
Tuyttens, FAM 2005. The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: a review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 261–282.Google Scholar
Valros, A, Ahlstrom, S, Rintala, H, Hakkinen, T and Saloniemi, H 2004. The prevalence of tail damage in slaughter pigs in Finland and associations to carcass condemnations. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 54, 213–219.Google Scholar
Valros, A, Palander, P, Heinonen, M, Brunberg, E, Keeling, L and Piepponen, P 2013. Preliminary evidence of an altered serotonin metabolism in the prefrontal cortex of tail biting pigs. ISAE 47th Congress, Florianopolis, Brazil, p. 105.Google Scholar
Van de Perre, V, Driessen, B, Van Thielen, J, Verbeke, G and Geers, R 2011. Comparison of pig behaviour when given a sequence of enrichment objects or a chain continuously. Animal Welfare 20, 641–649.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 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
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, Avery, PJ and Edwards, SA 2003. A systematic approach towards developing environmental enrichment for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84, 101–118.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 Putten, G 1969. An investigation into tail-biting among fattening pigs. British Veterinary Journal 125, 511–517.Google Scholar
Verdoes, N 2014. Starplus stalconcept voor varkens (Starplus Stable concept for pigs). Retrieved January 29, 2014, from http://www.wageningenur.nl/nl/show/Starplus-stalconcept-voor-varkens.htm Google Scholar
Wallenbeck, A and Keeling, LJ 2013. Using data from electronic feeders on visit frequency and feed consumption to indicate tail biting outbreaks in commercial pig production. Journal of Animal Science 91, 2879–2884.Google Scholar
Wallgren, P and Lindahl, E 1996. The influence of tail biting on performance of fattening pigs. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 37, 453–460.Google Scholar
Webster, SD and Day, JEL 1998. Tail-biting and tail-docking in pigs. The Veterinary Record 142, 375.Google Scholar
Wechsler, B 2013. Experience from Switzerland on ensuring the welfare of pigs. Extended working group meeting on the development of guidelines concerning Council Directive 2008/120/EC on the protection of pigs (DG SANCO), Brussels, EU.Google Scholar
Westin, R 2003. Svansbitning hos gris relaterat till individuell tillväxt och ras (Tail biting in pigs related to individual growth and breed), Department of Animal Environment and Health, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (SLU), Veterinärmedicinska fakulteten, Veterinärprogrammet.Google Scholar
Wilson, K, Zanella, R, Ventura, C, Johansen, HL, Framstad, T, Janczak, A, Zanella, AJ and Neibergs, HL 2012. Identification of chromosomal locations associated with tail biting and being a victim of tail-biting behaviour in the domestic pig (Sus scrofa domesticus). Journal of Applied Genetics 53, 449–456.Google Scholar
Zonderland, JJ 2010. Talking tails: quantifying the development of tail biting in pigs. PhD, Wageningen UR.Google Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Bracke, MBM, den Hartog, LA, Kemp, B and Spoolder, HAM 2010a. Gender effects on tail damage development in single- or mixed-sex groups of weaned piglets. Livestock Science 129, 151–158.Google Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Kemp, B, Bracke, MBM, den Hartog, LA and Spoolder, HAM 2010b. Individual piglets’ contribution to the development of tail biting. Animal 5, 601–607.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, Schepers, F, Bracke, MBM, den Hartog, LA, Kemp, B and Spoolder, HAM 2011. Characteristics of biter and victim piglets apparent before a tail-biting outbreak. Animal 5, 767–775.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
Zwicker, B, Gygax, L, Wechsler, B and Weber, R 2012. Influence of the accessibility of straw in racks on exploratory behaviour in finishing pigs. Livestock Science 148, 67–73.Google Scholar
Zwicker, B, Gygax, L, Wechsler, B and Weber, R 2013. Short- and long-term effects of eight enrichment materials on the behaviour of finishing pigs fed ad libitum or restrictively. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144, 31–38.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

D’Eath Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download D’Eath Supplementary Material(File)
File 42.7 KB