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.

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.

An analysis of cattle farmers' perceptions of drivers and barriers to on-farm control of Escherichia coli O157.

Structural equation modelling and survey data were used to test determinants' influence on farmers' intentions towards Escherichia coli O157 on-farm control. Results suggest that farmers more likely to show willingness to spend money/time or vaccinate to control Escherichia coli O157 are those: who think farmers are most responsible for control; whose income depends more on opening farms to the public; with stronger disease control attitudes; affected by outbreaks; with better knowledge and more informed; with stronger perceptions of biosecurity measures' practicality; using a health plan; who think farmers are the main beneficiaries of control; and whose farms are dairy rather than beef. The findings might suggest that farmers may implement on-farm controls for E. coli O157 if they identify a clear hazard and if there is greater knowledge of the safety and efficacy of the proposed controls.

An integrated approach to assessing the viability of eradicating BVD in Scottish beef suckler herds.

The viability of eradicating bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) in Scottish suckler herds is dependent on the continued compliance with eradication schemes. At the farm level, the costs of BVD have been identified in previous studies and show a substantial financial imperative to avoid infection. At a regional level the incentives of BVD eradication to individuals are unclear, for example the requirement for vaccination strategies despite achieving disease-free status. Ensuring farmer compliance with an eradication scheme is therefore difficult. Experience of eradicating BVD from beef-dominated areas is limited and theoretical models have tended to focus on the dairy sector. Here we present a stochastic epidemiological model of a typical beef suckler herd to explore the interaction of a farm with a regional pool of replacements, utilising information from a BVD virus seroprevalence survey of Scottish beef suckler herds. Our epidemiological model is then used to assess the relative costs to individuals assuming different regional endemic prevalences, which are used to represent the likelihood of BVD re-introduction. We explore the relative cost of BVD, taken as likelihood and consequence, at an endemic steady state in contrast to previous models that have assumed the introduction or control of BVD in an epidemic state (e.g. a closed and mostly susceptible population). Where endemic, BVD is unlikely to affect all farms evenly and will cost most farmers very little due to herd immunity or self-clearance of the virus. Compliance is likely to be boosted by pump-priming to initiate and complete eradication schemes with cost-sharing.