Chapter 12 Changing stakeholder behaviour

In: Tail biting in pigs
Authors:
Grace Carroll Animal Behaviour Centre, School of Psychology, Queen’s University Belfast UK

Search for other papers by Grace Carroll in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Alison Burrell Animal Health Ireland 2–5 The Archways, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co. Leitrim N41 WN27 Ireland

Search for other papers by Alison Burrell in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
Lisa Graham-Wisener Centre for Improving Health Related Quality of Life (CIHRQoL), School of Psychology, Queen’s University Belfast UK

Search for other papers by Lisa Graham-Wisener in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Type:
Chapter
Pages:
305–329
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004694989_014

Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

$40.00
Add to Cart
Redeem Access Token

Abstract

Humans play a key role in determining the welfare status of animals kept under their control. For example, stakeholders in the farming industry such as veterinarians, consumers, retailers and legislators all have responsibility in determining pig welfare standards. Today, Human Behaviour Change (HBC) is a well-established field that is used to address important human health issues such as smoking cessation, increasing physical activity, and improving disease detection. However, despite the wealth of knowledge and research on HBC, the majority of ‘interventions’ regarding farming practices come in the form of top-down public policy changes that tend to lack a theoretical underpinning. The Behaviour Change Wheel provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the key predictors of human behaviour and has a user-friendly structure, making it a practical tool for those interested in changing human behaviour to reduce tail biting in pigs. This chapter provides an intervention design guide for those working with pigs that may be new to intervention design or who may be unfamiliar with the psychological foundations of Human Behaviour Change. A guide is provided along with hypothetical and real-world examples to aid understanding of this sometimes complex field, from defining the behaviour to be changed, to assessing the effectiveness of the designed intervention.

  • Collapse
  • Expand

Tail biting in pigs

A comprehensive guide to its aetiology, impact and wider significance in pig management

Cover Tail biting in pigs
E-Book ISBN:
9789004694989
Publisher:
Wageningen Academic
Print Publication Date:
20 Aug 2024

  • Ajzen, I., 1985. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In Action Control; Springer: Berlin, Germany. 11–39.

  • Albernaz-Gonçalves, R., Olmos, G. and Hötzel, M.J., 2021. My pigs are ok, why change? – animal welfare accounts of pig farmers. Animal 15(3): 100154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2020.100154.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Animal Health Ireland (AHI), 2022. TASAH – Tail biting risk factor assessment (pigs) training. Available at: https://animalhealthireland.ie/training/tasah-tail-biting-risk-factor-assessment-training/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bandura, A., 1986. The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 4(3): 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L., and McEvoy, C., 2021. The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24:6, 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Buijs, S. and Muns, R., 2019. A review of new knowledge on tail biting and tail docking. Agri-food and biosciences institute.

  • Bull, E.R., and Dale, H., 2021. Improving community health and social care practitioners’ confidence, perceived competence and intention to use behaviour change techniques in health behaviour change conversations. Health and Social Care in the Community 29(1): 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13090.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Cane, J., O’Connor, D., and Michie, S., 2012. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implementation Science 7(1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-37.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Carroll, G.A. and Groarke, J.M., 2019. The importance of the social sciences in reducing tail biting prevalence in pigs. Animals 9(9): 591. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090591.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Carroll, G.A., Groarke, J.M. and Graham-Wisener, L., 2021. In: Human behaviour change models for improving animal welfare. Camerlink, I (ed.). Bridging research disciplines to advance animal welfare science: a practical guide, 273 pp.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Cornish, A., Jamieson, J., Raubenheimer, D. and McGreevy, P., 2019. Applying the behavioural change wheel to encourage higher welfare food choices. Animals 9(8): https://doi.org/524.10.3390/ani9080524.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Coupe, N., Cotterill, S., and Peters, S., 2021. Enhancing community weight loss groups in a low socioeconomic status area: application of the COM‐B model and Behaviour Change Wheel. Health Expectations. 25(5): 2043–2055 https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13325.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • D’Eath, R.B., Arnott, G., Turner, S.P., Jensen, T., Lahrmann, H.P., Busch, M.E., Niemi, J.K., Lawrence, A.B. and Sandøe, P., 2014. Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking? Animal 8(9): 1479–1497. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114001359.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • D’Eath, R.B., Niemi, J.K., Ahmadi, B.V., Rutherford, K.M.D., Ison, S.H., Turner, S.P., Anker, H.T., Jensen, T., Busch, M.E., Jensen, K.K. and Lawrence, A.B., 2016. 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. Animal 10(4): 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115002098.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Eldredge, L.K.B., Markham, C.M., Ruiter, R.A., Fernández, M.E., Kok, G., and Parcel, G.S., 2016. Planning health promotion programs: an intervention mapping approach. John Wiley and Sons, 704 pp.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Escobar, M.P., and Demeritt, D., 2017. Paperwork and the decoupling of audit and animal welfare: the challenges of materiality for better regulation. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 35(1): 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16646771.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • European Commission. 2017. Directorate-general for health and food safety. Directorate for health and food audits and analysis. Study visits on rearing pigs with intact tails: overview report, Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2772/486504.

  • Farrell, S., Benson, T., McKernan, C., Regan, Á., Burrell, A.M.G. and Dean, M., 2023. Factors influencing dairy farmers’ antibiotic use: an application of the COM-Model. Journal of Dairy Science 106:4059–4071 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22263.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Fernandes, J., Blache, D., Maloney, S.K., Martin, G.B., Venus, B., Walker, F.R., Head, B. and Tilbrook, A., 2019. Addressing animal welfare through collaborative stakeholder networks. Agriculture 9(6): 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9060132.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Golding, S.E., Ogden, J., and Higgins, H.M., 2019. Shared goals, different barriers: a qualitative study of UK veterinarians’ and farmers’ beliefs about antimicrobial resistance and stewardship. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 6: 132. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00132.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Gollwitzer, P.M., and Oettingen, G., 2015. From studying the determinants of action to analysing its regulation: a commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau and Araújo-Soares. Health Psychology Review 9(2): 146–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.919511.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Haigh, A., Yun-Chou, J. and O’Driscoll, K., 2019. An investigation into the effectiveness of compressed straw blocks in reducing abnormal behaviour in growing pigs. Animal 13(11): 2576–2585. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731119000715.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Harley, S., Boyle, L.A., O’Connell, N.E., More, S.J., Teixeira, D.L. and Hanlon, A., 2014. Docking the value of pigmeat? Prevalence and financial implications of welfare lesions in Irish slaughter pigs. Animal Welfare 23(3): 275–285. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.3.275.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Henry, M., Jansen, H., Amezcua, M.D.R., O’Sullivan, T.L., Niel, L., Shoveller, A.K. and Friendship, R.M., 2021. Tail-biting in pigs: a scoping review. Animals 11(7): 2002. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11072002.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kanejima, Y., Kitamura, M., and Izawa, K.P., 2019. Self-monitoring to increase physical activity in patients with cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research 31(2): 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-018-0960-7.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • McDonald, J.L., Farnworth, M.J. and Clements, J., 2018. Integrating trap-neuter-return campaigns into a social framework: developing long-term positive behavior change toward unowned cats in urban areas. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 5:258. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00258.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • McEachan, R.R.C., Conner, M., Taylor, N., and Lawton, R.J., 2011. Prospective prediction of health-related behaviors with the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review 5: 97–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2010.521684.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • McGowan, L.J., Powell, R., and French, D.P., 2020. How can use of the theoretical domains framework be optimized in qualitative research? A rapid systematic review. British Journal of Health Psychology 25(3): 677–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12437.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • McParland, J.L., Williams, L., Gozdzielewska, L., Young, M., Smith, F., MacDonald, J., Langdridge, D., Davis, M., Price, L. and Flowers, P., 2018. What are the ‘active ingredients’ of interventions targeting the public’s engagement with antimicrobial resistance and how might they work? British Journal of Health Psychology 23(4): 804–819. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12317.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Michie, S., and Prestwich, A., 2010. Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme. Health psychology 29(1): 1. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0016939.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Michie, S., Ashford, S., Sniehotta, F.F., Dombrowski, S.U., Bishop, A., and French, D.P., 2011b. A refined taxonomy of behaviour change techniques to help people change their physical activity and healthy eating behaviours: the CALO-RE taxonomy. Psychology and health 26(11): 1479–1498. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2010.540664.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Michie, S., Atkins, L., and West, R., 2014. The behaviour change wheel. A guide to designing interventions. 1st ed. Great Britain: Silverback Publishing, 329 pp.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Michie, S., Carey, R.N., Johnston, M., Rothman, A.J., De Bruin, M., Kelly, M.P. and Connell, L.E., 2018. From theory-inspired to theory-based interventions: a protocol for developing and testing a methodology for linking behaviour change techniques to theoretical mechanisms of action. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 52(6): 501–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9816-6.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Michie, S., Hyder, N., Walia, A., and West, R., 2011a. Development of a taxonomy of behaviour change techniques used in individual behavioural support for smoking cessation. Addictive Behaviors 36(4): 315–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.11.016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., Eccles, M.P., Cane, J. and Wood, C.E., 2013. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 46(1): 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Michie, S., Van Stralen, M.M., West, R., 2011c. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science 6: 42. http://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Morgans, L.C., Bolt, S., Bruno-McClung, E., van Dijk, L., Escobar, M.P., Buller, H.J., Main, D.C. and Reyher, K.K., 2021. A participatory, farmer-led approach to changing practices around antimicrobial use on UK farms. Journal of Dairy Science 104(2): 2212–2230. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18874.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Nalon, E. and De Briyne, N., 2019. Efforts to ban the routine tail docking of pigs and to give pigs enrichment materials via EU law: where do we stand a quarter of a century on? Animals, 9(4), 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9040132.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Nicolini, D., 2012. Practice theory, work, and organization: an introduction. Oxford University Press.

  • Ogden, J., 2016. Celebrating variability and a call to limit systematisation: the example of the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy and the Behaviour Change Wheel. Health Psychology Review 10(3): 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2016.1190291.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Oliwa, J.N., Nzinga, J., Masini, E., van Hensbroek, M.B., Jones, C., English, M., and van’t Hoog, A., 2020. Improving case detection of tuberculosis in hospitalised Kenyan children – employing the behaviour change wheel to aid intervention design and implementation. Implementation Science 15(1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01061-4.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Presseau, J., McCleary, N., Lorencatto, F., Patey, A.M., Grimshaw, J.M. and Francis, J.J., 2019. Action, actor, context, target, time (AACTT): a framework for specifying behaviour. Implementation Science 14(1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0951-x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Regan, Á., Burrell, A., McKernan, C., Martin, H., Benson, T., McAloon, C., ... & Dean, M. (2023). Behaviour change interventions for responsible antimicrobial use on farms. Irish Veterinary Journal, 76(1), 8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Regan, Á., Douglas, J., Maher, J., and O’Dwyer, T., 2021. Exploring farmers’ decisions to engage in grass measurement on dairy farms in Ireland. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 27(3): 355–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1858892.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Salari, F., Yazdanpanah, M., Yaghoubi, J. and Forouzani, M., 2019. Understanding Iranian livestock breeders’ intentions and behavior regarding nonhuman animal welfare. Society and Animals 29(3): 246–267. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341592.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Shortall, O., Ruston, A., Green, M., Brennan, M., Wapenaar, W., Kaler, J., 2016. Broken biosecurity? Veterinarians’ framing of biosecurity on dairy farms in England. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 132: 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.06.001.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sniehotta, F.F., Presseau, J., and Araújo-Soares, V., 2014. Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychology Review 8(1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2013.869710.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sniehotta, F.F., Scholz, U., Schwarzer, R., 2005. Bridging the intention-behaviour gap: planning, self-efficacy, and action control in the adoption and maintenance of physical exercise. Psychology and Health 20: 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440512331317670.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sonoda, L.T., 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. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr 126(3–4): 104–112.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sutherland, M.A. and Tucker, C.B., 2011. The long and short of it: a review of tail docking in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 135(3): 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.10.015.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Uphill, M., 2014. Behaviour change: physical (in) activity. The British Psychological Society. Retrieved from: https://www.bps.org.uk/sites/www.bps.org.uk/files/Policy/Policy%20-%20Files/Changing%20behaviour%20-%20physical%20%28in%29activity.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Valros, A. and Barber, C., 2019. Producer perceptions of the prevention of tail biting on UK farms: association to bedding use and tail removal proportion. Animals 9(9): 628. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390%2Fani9090628.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Valros, A., Munsterhjelm, C., Hänninen, L., Kauppinen, T. and Heinonen, M., 2016. Managing undocked pigs – on-farm prevention of tail biting and attitudes towards tail biting and docking. Porcine Health Management 2(1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-016-0020-7.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • van Dijk, L., Buller, H.J., Blokhuis, H.J., van Niekerk, T., Voslarova, E., Manteca, X., Weeks, C.A. and Main, D.C., 2019. HENNOVATION: Learnings from promoting practice-led multi-actor innovation networks to address complex animal welfare challenges within the laying hen industry. Animals 9(1): 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9010024.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wallgren, T., Westin, R. and Gunnarsson, S., 2016. A survey of straw use and tail biting in Swedish pig farms rearing undocked pigs. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 58(1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13028-016-0266-8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Walshe, N., Burrell, A., Kenny, U., Mulcahy, G., Duggan, V., and Regan, A. 2023. A qualitative study of perceived barriers and facilitators to sustainable parasite control on thoroughbred studs in Ireland. Veterinary Parasitology, 317: 109904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2023.109904.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Winkel, C., von Meyer-Höfer, M. and Heise, H., 2020. Understanding german pig farmers’ intentions to design and construct pig housing for the improvement of animal welfare. Animals 10(10): 1760. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101760.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past 365 days Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 150 150 48
Full Text Views 3 3 0
PDF Views & Downloads 1 1 0