Chapter 15 The economic and legal aspects of tail biting and tail docking

In: Tail biting in pigs
Authors:
Jarkko K. Niemi Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Bioeconomy and Environment Kampusranta 9, FI-60320 Seinäjoki Finland

Search for other papers by Jarkko K. Niemi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
and
Peter Stevenson Chief Policy Advisor, Compassion in World Farming, River Court, Mill Lane Godalming, Surrey GU7 1EZ UK

Search for other papers by Peter Stevenson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Type:
Chapter
Pages:
369–392
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004694989_017

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

$40.00
Add to Cart
Redeem Access Token

Abstract

The costs of tail biting lesions across Europe are around €0.6 to €3.4 per finished pig. These costs are mainly caused by additional work, material and medication costs, carcass price discounts, impaired feed conversion efficiency and growth rate of pigs. Losses associated with tail biting lesions are influenced by the incidence and severity of tail biting on the farm. Additional work and inputs are needed also to control tail biting preventively. While low-cost measures can be economically profitable already at low levels of efficacy, high-cost measures require that they can mitigate substantial losses.

Widespread use of tail docking seems to be accepted because the alternative steps that producers are required to take before resorting to it are not specified in detail, and because it seems to be less risky and more profitable to produce docked than undocked pigs. Scientific research and a European Commission Recommendation indicate that when considering the legal obligation to try to prevent tail biting by changing inadequate environmental conditions or management systems, inspectors and pig producers should assess, and consider whether improvements are needed regarding thermal comfort and air quality; health status; diet; competition for space or feed; cleanliness; and the quality and quantity of enrichment material that is provided. If tail biting is still a problem on the farm, farmers should carefully consider what additional improvements are needed to prevent tail biting rather than assuming that no further action is necessary because certain levels, for example of enrichment, air quality, space allowance and health, have already been reached.

  • 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

  • Camerlink, I., Bijma, P., Kemp, B. and Bolhuis, J.E., 2012. Relationship between growth rate and oral manipulation, social nosing, and aggression in finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 142: 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.09.004.

    • 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: 1479–1497. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114001359.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • De Briyne, N., Berg, C., Blaha, T., Palzer, A. and Temple, D., 2018. Phasing out pig tail docking in the EU – present state, challenges and possibilities. Porcine Health Management 4, 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-018-0103-8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 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 – scientific opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. The EFSA Journal 611: 1–98. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2007.611.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • England, D.C. and Spurr, D.T., 1969. Litter size of swine confined during gestation. Journal of Animal Science 28: 220–223. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1969.282220x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • European Commission, 2001. Commission Directive 2001/93/EC of 9 November 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Annex, Chapter I, point 8. Official Journal of the European Union L316: 36–38.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • European Commission, 2016a. Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/336 of 8 March 2016 on the application of douncil directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs as regards measures to reduce the need for tail-docking. Official Journal of the European Union L62: 20–22.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • European Commission, 2016b. Commission staff working document on best practices with a view to the prevention of routine tail-docking and the provision of enrichment materials to pigs. (SWD(2016) 49 final). European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 15 p. https://ec.europa.eu/food/system/files/2016-12/aw_practice_farm_pigs_stfwrkdoc_en.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • European Commission, 2019. Outcome of commission actions to reduce tail biting and prevent routine tail docking of pigs. Presentation to meeting of Civil Dialogue Group, 14 November 2019.

  • European Council, 1991. Council directive of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (91/630/EEC). Annex, Chapter II, Section III, point 4. Official Journal of the European Communities L340: 33–38.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • European Council, 2008. Council Directive of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (2008/630/EEC). Annex I, Chapter I, point 8. Official Journal L 47, 18.02.2009 pp. 5–13.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • European Food Safety Authority Opinion, 2007. Scientific opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare 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. The EFSA Journal (2007) 611, 1–13.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • EUWelNet, 2013. Coordinated European animal welfare network. Available at: http://pigstraining.welfarequalitynetwork.net/.

  • Haigh, A. and O’Driscoll, K., 2019. Irish pig farmer’s perceptions and experiences of tail and ear biting. Porcine Health Management 5: 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-019-0135-8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Harley, S., More, S.J., O’Connell, N.E., 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: 621–627. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.100986.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Harley, S., Boyle, L., O’Connell, N., More, S., Teixeira, D. and Hanlon, A., 2014. Docking the value of pigmeat? Prevalence and financial implications of welfare lesions in Irish slaughter pigs. Animal Welfare 23: 275–285.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Heinola, K., Kauppinen, T., Niemi, J.K., Wallenius, E. and Raussi, S., 2021. Comparison of 12 different animal welfare labeling schemes in the pig sector. Animals 11: 2430. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082430.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Heinonen, M., Välimäki, E., Laakkonen, A-M., Toppari, I., Vugts, J., Fàbrega, E. and Valros, A., 2021. Evaluation of tail lesions of finishing pigs at the slaughterhouse: Associations with herd-level observations. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8: 650590. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.650590.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hunter, E.J., Jones, T.A., Guise, H.J., Penny, R.H.C. and Hoste, S., 2001. The relationship between tail biting in pigs, docking procedure and other management practices. The Veterinary Journal 161: 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1053/tvjl.2000.0520.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kritas, S.K. and Morrison, R.B., 2007. Relationships between tail biting in pigs and disease lesions and condemnations at slaughter. Veterinary Record 160: 149–152. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.160.5.149.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lahrmann, H.P., Busch, M.E., D’Eath, R.B., Forkman, B. and Hansen, C.F., 2017. More tail lesions among undocked than tail docked pigs in a conventional herd. Animal 11: 1825–1831. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731117000490.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Larsen, M., Andersen, H. and Pedersen, L., 2018. Which is the most preventive measure against tail damage in finisher pigs: tail docking, straw provision or lowered stocking density? Animal 12: 1260–1267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173111700249X.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Marchant-Forde, J.N., Lay, D.C. Jr., Mc Munn, K.A., Cheng, H.W., Pajor, E.A. and Marchant-Forde, R.M., 2009. Postnatal piglet husbandry practices and well-being: the effects of alternative techniques delivered separately. Journal of Animal Science 87: 1479–1492. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1080.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Marques, B.M.F.P.P., Bernardi, M.L., Coelho, C.F., Almeida, M., Morales, O.E., Mores, T.J., Borowski, S.M. and Barcellos, D.E.S.N., 2012. Influence of tail biting on weight gain, lesions and condemnations at slaughter of finishing pigs. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira 32: 967–974. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-736X2012001000003.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • McGlone, J.J., Sells, J., Harris, S. and Hurst, S., 1990. Cannibalism in growing pigs: effects of tail docking and housing system in behavior, performance and immune function. Scientific Technical Report No T-5-283:69-71. Texas Tech University publications, Lubbock TX, USA. https://www.depts.ttu.edu/animalwelfare/research/documents/CANNIBALISMINGROWINGPIGS_McGlone1990.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Moinard, C., Mendl, M., Nicol, C.J. and Green, L.E., 2003. A case control study of on-farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00276-9.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Munsterhjelm, C., Heinonen, M. and Valros, A., 2015. Effects of clinical lameness and tail biting lesions on voluntary feed intake in growing pigs. Livestock Science 181: 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.09.003.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Nannoni, E., Valsami, T., Sardi, L. and Martelli, G., 2014. Tail docking in pigs: a review on its short- and long-term consequences and effectiveness in preventing tail biting. Italian Journal of Animal Science 13: 3095. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2014.3095.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Niemi, J.K., 2020. Animal welfare and farm economics: an analysis of costs and benefits. In: Ahmadi, B.V., Moran, D., D’Eath, R. (eds), 2020. Economics of farm animal welfare: Theory, evidence and policy. Wallingford, Cabi, UK, pp. 98–116. https://www.cabi.org/vetmedresource/ebook/20203308011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Niemi, J.K., 2021. The economic cost of bacterial infections. In: Foster, N., Kyriazakis, I. and Barrow, P. (eds.), 2021. Advancements and technologies in pig and poultry bacterial disease control. Academic Press, pp. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818030-3.00010-6.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Niemi, J., Bennett, R., Clark, B., Frewer, L., Jones, P., Rimmler, T. and Tranter, R., 2020. A value chain analysis of interventions to control production diseases in the intensive pig production sector. PLoS ONE 15: e0231338. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231338.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Niemi, J.K., Edwards, S.A., Papanastasiou, D.K., Piette, D., Stygar, A.H., Wallenbeck, A. and Valros, A., 2021. Cost-effectiveness analysis of seven measures to reduce tail biting lesions in fattening pigs. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8: 682330. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.682330.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Niemi, J.K., Sinisalo, A., Valros, A. and Heinonen, M., 2012a. Market and policy-oriented incentives to provide animal welfare: The case of tail biting. Paper presented at the European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE), 126th Seminar, June 27–29, 2012, Capri, Italy. http://purl.umn.edu/125957.

  • Niemi, J.K., Sinisalo, A., Valros, A. and Heinonen, M., 2012b. Hännänpurenta – syy vai seuraus? In: Schulman, N. and Kauppinen, H. (eds.), 2012. Maataloustieteen Päivät 2012 [online publication]. Suomen Maataloustieteellisen Seuran julkaisuja no 28. https://doi.org/10.33354/smst.75558.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Niemi, J.K., Sinisalo, A., Valros, A. and Heinonen, M., 2011. The timing and treatment of tail biting in fattening pigs. In: Hulgren, J., Persson, P., Nadeau, E. and Fogelberg, F. (eds.), 2011. 24th Book of abstracts; NJF congress food, feed, fuel and fun – Nordic light on future land use and rural development. Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists, Uppsala, Sweden, 6 pp.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sanchez-Vazquez, M.J., Nielen, M., Edwards, S.A., Gunn, G.J. and Lewis, F.I., 2012. Identifying associations between pig pathologies using a multi-dimensional machine learning methodology. BMC Veterinary Research 8: 151. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-8-151.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Schrøder-Petersen, D.L. and Simonsen, H.B., 2001. Tail biting in pigs. Veterinary Journal 162: 196–210. https://doi.org/10.1053/tvjl.2001.0605.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sinisalo, A., Niemi, J.K., Valros, A. and Heinonen, M., 2012. Tail biting and production performance in fattening pigs. Livestock Science 143: 220–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.09.019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Stygar, A., Krampe, C., Llonch, P. and Niemi, J., 2022. How far are we from data-driven and animal-based welfare assessment? A critical analysis of European quality schemes. Frontiers in Animal Science 3: 874260. https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2022.874260.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sutherland, A.M., Bryer, P., Krebs., N. and McGlone, J., 2009. The effect of method of tail docking on tail-biting behaviour and welfare of pigs. Animal Welfare 18: 561–570. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600000993.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Taylor, N.R., Main, D.C.J., Mendl, M. and Edwards, S.A., 2020. Tail-biting: a new perspective. Veterinary Journal 186: 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.08.028.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Teixeira, D., Harley, S., Hanlon, A., O’Connell, N., More, S. and Boyle, L., 2014. Severity, prevalence, risk factors and economic implications of tail lesions in slaughter pigs. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dayane-Teixeira/publication/299802014_Severity_prevalence_risk_factors_and_economic_implications_of_tail_lesions_in_slaughter_pig/links/570562b408ae74a08e274abd/Severity-prevalence-risk-factors-and-economic-implications-of-tail-lesions-in-slaughter-pig.pdf.

  • Valros, A., Välimäki, E., Nordgren, H., Vugts, J., Fàbrega, E. and Heinonen M., 2020. Intact tails as a welfare indicator in finishing pigs? Scoring of tail lesions and defining intact tails in undocked pigs at the abattoir. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 7: 405. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00405.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • van Staaveren, N., Boyle, L.A., García Manzanilla, E., O’Driscoll, K., Shalloo, L. and Calderón Díaz, J.A., 2021. Severe tail lesions in finisher pigs are associated with reduction in annual profit in farrow-to-finish pig farms. Veterinary Record 2021: e13. https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.13.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Vom Brocke, A.L., Karnholz, C., Madey-Rindermann, D., Gauly, M., Leeb, C., Winckler, C., Schrader, L. and Dippel, S., 2019. Tail lesions in fattening pigs: relationships with postmortem meat inspection and influence of a tail biting management tool. Animal 13: 835–844. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118002070.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wallgren, P. and Lindahl, E., 1996. The influence of tail biting on performance of fattening pigs. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 37: 453–460. https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03548085.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wallenbeck, A. and Keeling, L.J., 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, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5848.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Zhou, B., Yang, X.J., Zhao, R.Q., Huang, R.H., Wang, Y.H., Wang, S.T., Yin, C.P., Shen, Q., Wang, L.Y. and Schinckel, A.P., 2013. Effects of tail docking and teeth clipping on the physiological responses, wounds, behavior, growth, and backfat depth of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 91: 4908–4916. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5996.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Zonderland, J.J., Bosma, B. and Hoste, R., 2011. Financiële consequenties van staartbijten bij varkens. Rapport 543. Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Lelystad, The Netherlands, 31 pp. https://edepot.wur.nl/188443.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past 365 days Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 90 90 67
Full Text Views 1 1 0
PDF Views & Downloads 2 2 0