Explore the vast range of titles available.

Tail-biting is globally recognized as a welfare concern for commercial swine production. Substantial research has been undertaken to identify risk factors and intervention methods to decrease and understand this vice. Tail-biting appears to be multifactorial and has proven difficult to predict and control. The primary objective of the scoping review was to identify and chart all available literature on the risk factors and interventions associated with tail-biting in pigs. A secondary objective was to identify gaps in the literature and identify the relevance for a systematic review. An online literature search of four databases, encompassing English, peer-reviewed and grey literature published from 1 January 1970 to 31 May 2019, was conducted. Relevance screening and charting of included articles were performed by two independent reviewers. A total of 465 citations were returned from the search strategy. Full-text screening was conducted on 118 articles, with 18 being excluded in the final stage. Interventions, possible risk factors, as well as successful and unsuccessful outcomes were important components of the scoping review. The risk factors and interventions pertaining to tail-biting were inconsistent, demonstrating the difficulty of inducing tail-biting in an experimental environment and the need for standardizing terms related to the behavior.

Tail-biting occurs pre-weaning, but literature on tail damage during lactation and on the development of damage over time is sparse, especially for non-docked piglets. We assessed the prevalence of tail damage in non-docked piglets in a commercial Danish piggery during the lactation and weaning period, and investigated the within-animal association of tail lesions pre- and post-weaning. Non-docked piglets (n = 741) from 51 loose-housed sows were individually marked and tracked from birth to 9 weeks (w9) of age. Tail damage was scored during lactation at w1 and w4, and once a week post-weaning (average weaning age 30 days) at w6 to w9. The within-animal association of tail damage before and after weaning was investigated at pig level using generalized mixed models. Tail damage was prevalent already pre-weaning. During the lactation period, the prevalence of tail lesions was 5% at w1 and 42% at w4, with the most prevalent score being ‘superficial damages’ (66.7%, score 1; pre-weaning scheme: 0 = no damage, 3 = tail wound). Post-weaning, 45% of pigs had a tail lesion at least once over the four assessments, with 16.7% of pigs having a tail lesion at least at two assessments. The majority of lesions were ‘minor scratches’ (34.2%, score 1; post-weaning scheme: 0 = no damage, 4 = wound – necrotic tail end) and a ‘scabbed wound’ (19.9%, score 3). The number of pigs with lesions as well as wound severity increased over time. More pigs had a tail wound at w8 (15%, P < 0.001 and < 0.01) and w9 (19%, P < 0.001 and < 0.001) compared to w6 (2.7%) and w7 (5.6%). Pigs with tail lesions pre-weaning (w1: OR 3.0, 95% CI 0.9 to 10.2; w4: OR 3.4, 95% CI 2.0 to 5.8) had a significantly higher risk of having a wound post-weaning, and pigs with lesions at w4 additionally were at a higher risk (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.8 to 5.1) of having a lesion over several assessments. Females compared to castrated males had a significantly lower risk of having tail lesions at w1 (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.8). Similarly, females were at a significantly lower risk (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9) of having a wound post-weaning, and tended to have a lower risk of having lesions over several assessments (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.2). Our study confirmed that tail damage is prevalent already during the lactation period, and that pre-weaning tail damage is predictive of tail wounds post-weaning.

With social network analysis, group structures of animals can be studied. However, underlying behavioural observations face problems of missing events or deviations between observers. The current study analysed the robustness of node-level network parameters based on tail-biting observations in pigs affected by missed events. Real observations of one observer were used as a gold standard to build true networks and to compare two sets of erroneous networks to them. The first set consisted of networks from different observers of the same data basis. The second set consisted of networks with a fixed error rate (random samples of the gold standard). The stability of the ranking order was used as an indication of accuracy (range 0–1; ≥0.49 good accuracy; ≥0.81 very good accuracy). Comparing observers with true networks yielded overall bad accuracy scores. Generally, outgoing network parameters (active: biting) provided better accuracy scores than ingoing network parameters (passive: being bitten). The results of sampled networks showed decreasing accuracy scores with increasing error rates. At the same error rate, longer observation periods yielded better accuracy scores. For sampled networks, differences between outgoing and ingoing network parameters were more distinct and local parameters (direct contacts) provided better accuracy scores than global parameters (direct and indirect contacts). Overall, sampled networks with 3/10 missed events yielded good to very good accuracy. As networks with more observations handle missed events better, studies of behavioural observations always need to evaluate the required accuracy and feasible workload. The current study gives insights in the accurate estimation of behavioural observations.

Tail biting is a common issue within commercial pig production. It is mainly an indicator of inadequate housing environment and results in reduced health welfare and production. To reduce the impact of tail biting, pigs are commonly tail docked, without pain relief, within the first week of life. EU Council Directive 2008/120/EC prohibits routine tail docking, but the practice is still widely used in many Member States. Sweden has banned tail docking since 1988 and all pigs have intact tails, yet tail biting is a minor problem. This paper summarises and synthesises experimental findings and practical expertise in production of undocked pigs in Sweden and describes solutions to facilitate a transition to producing pigs with intact tails within intensive pig production in the EU. Swedish pig housing conditions and management differ in many aspects from those in other EU Member States. Swedish experiences show that lower stocking density, provision of sufficient feeding space, no fully slatted flooring, strict maximum levels for noxious gases and regular provision of litter material are crucial for success when rearing pigs with intact tails. To prevent tail biting and to eliminate the need for tail docking, we strongly recommend that EU legislation should more clearly match the biological needs of pigs, as is done in Swedish legislation.

The aim of the study was to analyse the influence on tail-biting in undocked pigs during the rearing period of crude fibre in piglets' rations. All pigs were fed the same pre-starter until weaning. The study comprised two trials with four experimental groups each. The first trial contained: a control group (CG1) with conventional feed (up to 40 g/kg crude fibre), two groups with an increased crude fibre content of up to 50 g/kg (G5) and 60 g/kg (G6), respectively, and one group with conventional feed and crude fibre provision ad libitum (AL). The second trial consisted of a control group (CG2) which received the same conventional feed as CG1 and three treatment groups with either soya hulls (SS), dried sugar beet pulp (DP) or oat fibre (OF) admixed to their ration, to achieve a crude fibre content of 60 g/kg in all three groups. The rearing week, the batch, the treatment group (only in trial one) and the interaction between batch and treatment group had a significant influence on tail-lesions (P < 0.05). The tail-biting process started in rearing week 3 (trial one) and 5 (trial two), respectively. Due to the low frequency of tail-biting during the present study, crude fibre seems to have no major influence on tail-biting during the rearing period. This unexpected result may be caused by the optimized conditions in which the piglets were kept and the intensive animal observation carried out by the employees. However, the batch effect was most influential.

Osteomyelitis is the leading cause of total carcass condemnation in finishing pigs in Portugal, causing significant economic losses in swine production. The present study sought to determine a possible link between osteomyelitis in pig carcasses, pre-slaughter factors, and concomitant post-mortem inspection findings. For this purpose, meat inspection data were collected from 100,489 finishing pigs slaughtered in a northern Portuguese abattoir. Information regarding total carcass condemnation, slaughter season, origin, sex, tail-biting lesions, and husbandry invasive procedures (tail docking and teeth resection) was collected. The main cause of total carcass condemnation was osteomyelitis (61.03%). A total of 36.16% of osteomyelitis cases were present in the anterior region and 52.20% in the posterior region. In the anterior region, 94.78% of osteomyelitis cases were in the mandibular bone. Pigs with clipped teeth and carcasses with pleurisies were associated with a higher occurrence of osteomyelitis (p = 0.00262 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Second- and third-grade tail-biting lesions were also linked to a higher occurrence of osteomyelitis (p = 0.00128 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Slaughter inspection and monitoring procedures should be revised to better assess welfare factors and correlate management practices with the occurrence of osteomyelitis in pig carcasses.

In spite of European legislation attempting to limit this practice, tail docking is nowadays the only preventive measure against tail biting which is widely adopted by farmers. Docking consists in amputating, usually without anaesthesia or analgesia, the distal part of the tail, in order to reduce its attractiveness and to sensitize it, increasing avoidance behaviour in the bitten pig. Tail docking results in both acute and chronic effects on pig welfare, and its effectiveness in preventing tail biting is limited, since it reduces the symptoms of a behavioural disorder, but does not address the underlying causes. The aim of the present paper is to review the available literature on the effects of tail docking on swine welfare. Although from a practical standpoint the welfare risks arising from tail docking may appear to be negligible compared to those arising during and after tail biting outbreaks, it should be considered that, apart from acute physiological and behavioural responses, tail docking may also elicit long-term effects on weight gain, tail stump sensitivity and animal freedom to express their normal behaviour. Such chronic effects have been poorly investigated so far. Besides, studies evaluating the effectiveness of anaesthetics or analgesic treatments are often conflicting. Within this framework, further research is recommended in order to reduce the acute and chronic pain and discomfort experienced by the animals, until preventive measures (e.g., environmental enrichment, stocking densities) are broadly adopted to prevent tail biting.

Pigs have a need for manipulable materials to satisfy a range of behavioural needs, which can be different in different classes of pig. When these needs are not met, a range of adverse welfare consequences result, one of these being an increased risk for tail‐biting in weaners and rearing pigs. The ability to control the risk of tail‐biting is essential when aiming to avoid tail‐docking. Based on available scientific information this Opinion identifies the multiple interactions between risk factors, welfare consequences and animal and non‐animal‐based measures on the two subjects requested (i) the absence of functional manipulable materials, for pigs at different stages in life and (ii) tail‐biting, for weaners and rearing pigs only. An attempt is made to quantify the relationships between the identified interactions by carrying out a statistical analysis of information from available databases, those being an international dataset collected using the Welfare Quality® protocol, which was not designed to evaluate risk factors for tail‐biting and therefore, it had limitations in fitness for this analysis, and a large Finnish dataset with undocked pigs. Based on the current state of knowledge, the AHAW Panel proposes two simple tool‐boxes for on farm use to assess (i) the functionality of the supplied manipulable material and (ii) the presence and strength of risk factors for tail biting. Both proposed tool‐boxes include a combination of the most important resource‐based and animal‐based measures. Further development and validation of decision‐support tools for customised farm assessment is strongly recommended and a proposal for harmonised data collection across the range of European farming circumstances is presented. A series of further recommendations are made by the AHAW Panel.

The objective of this study was to investigate the association between social structure and incidence of tail-biting in pigs. Pigs (n = 144, initial weight = 7.2 ± 1.57 kg, 4 weeks of age) were grouped based on their litter origin: littermates, non-littermates, and half-group of littermates. Six pens (8 pigs/pen) of each litter origin were studied for 6 weeks. Incidence of tail injury and growth performance were monitored. Behavior of pigs was video recorded for 6 h at 6 and 8 weeks of age. Video recordings were scanned at 10 min intervals to register pigs that were lying together (1) or not (0) in binary matrices. Half weight association index was used for social network construction. Social network analysis was performed using the UCINET software. Littermates had lower network density (0.119 vs. 0.174; p < 0.05), more absent social ties (20 vs. 12; p < 0.05), and fewer weak social ties (6 vs. 14, p < 0.05) than non-littermates, indicating that littermates might be less socially connected. Fifteen percent of littermates were identified as victimized pigs by tail-biting, and no victimized pigs were observed in other treatment groups. These results suggest that littermates might be less socially connected among themselves which may predispose them to development of tail-biting.

This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of pigs on farm, and is based on literature and expert opinion. All pig categories were assessed: gilts and dry sows, farrowing and lactating sows, suckling piglets, weaners, rearing pigs and boars. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal‐based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. Recommendations are also provided on quantitative or qualitative criteria to answer specific questions on the welfare of pigs related to tail biting and related to the European Citizen's Initiative ‘End the Cage Age’. For example, the AHAW Panel recommends how to mitigate group stress when dry sows and gilts are grouped immediately after weaning or in early pregnancy. Results of a comparative qualitative assessment suggested that long‐stemmed or long‐cut straw, hay or haylage is the most suitable material for nest‐building. A period of time will be needed for staff and animals to adapt to housing lactating sows and their piglets in farrowing pens (as opposed to crates) before achieving stable welfare outcomes. The panel recommends a minimum available space to the lactating sow to ensure piglet welfare (measured by live‐born piglet mortality). Among the main risk factors for tail biting are space allowance, types of flooring, air quality, health status and diet composition, while weaning age was not associated directly with tail biting in later life. The relationship between the availability of space and growth rate, lying behaviour and tail biting in rearing pigs is quantified and presented. Finally, the panel suggests a set of ABMs to use at slaughter for monitoring on‐farm welfare of cull sows and rearing pigs.