3 results
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
- 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, K. K. Jensen, A. B. Lawrence, P. Sandøe
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
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.
Pigs’ aggressive temperament affects pre-slaughter mixing aggression, stress and meat quality
- R. B. D’Eath, S. P. Turner, E. Kurt, G. Evans, L. Thölking, H. Looft, K. Wimmers, E. Murani, R. Klont, A. Foury, S. H. Ison, A. B. Lawrence, P. Mormède
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Pre-slaughter stress has a negative impact on animal welfare and on meat quality. Aggressive behaviour when pigs are mixed together for transportation to, or on arrival at, the abattoir is an important factor in pre-slaughter stress. Aggressiveness of pigs varies between individuals in the population, and this study investigated its effects on stress and meat quality at slaughter. We mixed pigs at a young age to identify individuals of high (H) or low (L) aggressive temperament using the previously validated approach of lesion scoring. To contrast extremes of social stress single-sex groups of eight pigs were mixed according to their aggressiveness in HH, HL or LL combinations or left unmixed (U) prior to transport and slaughter (n = 271). Each treatment was replicated in at least two groups in each of four slaughter batches. Mixing per se had little effect, but mixed groups composed of aggressive pigs (HH) had more carcass skin lesions and higher levels of plasma cortisol at slaughter and had loin muscle samples with higher pH at 24 h, and lower redness (a*) and yellowness (b*) compared to the other treatments. Females had higher levels of plasma cortisol at slaughter, a more rapid decline in pH post-slaughter and greater lean content of meat. Lactate and creatine kinase (CK) levels and meat pH were affected by the interaction of sex and treatment. Genetic factors, dam and sire line composition, and halothane locus (ryanodine receptor 1, RYR1) genotype, also affected a number of production and meat quality parameters as expected. Additionally, ‘commercially normal’ levels of social stress were studied in four further slaughter batches with no manipulation of group composition (n = 313). In these pigs, the proportion of unfamiliar pigs and group size of lairage groups explained limited variation in lesion scores at slaughter, but earlier aggressiveness did not. High numbers of skin lesions on the carcass were associated with high levels of cortisol and lactate and low glucose at slaughter, but not with meat quality measures. When stress and meat quality measures were compared for all pigs, high lactate was associated with low early pH and high drip loss, while high cortisol and CK were associated with high pH at 24 h and changes in meat colour. In conclusion, mixing pigs of above average aggressiveness resulted in greater aggression and stress, and changes in meat quality parameters, consistent with the effects of pre-slaughter stress on muscle chemistry.
Genetics of animal temperament: aggressive behaviour at mixing is genetically associated with the response to handling in pigs
- R. B. D’Eath, R. Roehe, S. P. Turner, S. H. Ison, M. Farish, M. C. Jack, A. B. Lawrence
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Aggression when pigs are mixed into new social groups has negative impacts on welfare and production. Aggressive behaviour is moderately heritable and could be reduced by genetic selection. The possible wider impacts of selection for reduced aggressiveness on handling traits and activity in the home pen were investigated using 1663 male and female pedigree pigs (898 purebred Yorkshire and 765 Yorkshire × Landrace). Aggressive behaviour was observed over 24 h after pigs were mixed at 10 weeks of age into groups balanced for unfamiliarity and weight. Aggression was highly heritable (duration of involvement in reciprocal fighting h2 = 0.47 ± 0.03, and duration of delivering one-sided aggression h2 = 0.34 ± 0.03). Three weeks after mixing, home pen inactivity (indicated by the frequency of lying) was observed over 24 h. Inactivity was weakly heritable (h2 = 0.05 ± 0.01) but showed no significant genetic association with aggression. Pigs’ behaviour during handling by humans was assessed on entry to, whilst inside and on exit from a weigh crate at both mixing and end of test at 22 weeks. Pigs were generally easy to handle, moving easily into and out of the crate. Scores indicating ‘very difficult to move’ were rare. Handling scores at weighing were weakly heritable (h2 = 0.03 to 0.17), and moderately correlated across the two weighings (rg = 0.28 to 0.76). Aggressive behaviour at mixing was genetically associated with handling at the end of test weighing: pigs that fought and delivered one-sided aggression had handling scores indicating more active behaviour at weighing (e.g. moving quickly into the crate v. fighting rg = 0.41 ± 0.05 and v. bullying rg = 0.60 ± 0.04). Also, there was a genetic association between receiving one-side aggression at mixing and producing high-pitched vocalisations in the weigh crate (rg = 0.78 ± 0.08). Correlated behavioural responses occurring across different challenging situations (e.g. social mixing and human handling) have been described by the concept of animal temperament (also known as coping styles, personality or behavioural syndromes), but this has rarely been demonstrated at the genetic level in farm animals. These findings may have practical implications for the development of breeding programmes aimed at altering animal temperament. Breeding to reduce aggression could result in some reduction in activity at weighing. This would have consequences for animal production, because pigs which are inactive at weighing take longer to move into and out of the weigh crate, and perhaps also for animal welfare.