Producer Perceptions of the Prevention of Tail Biting on UK Farms: Association to Bedding Use and Tail Removal Proportion.

farmer perceptions pig risk factors tail biting tail docking

Journal

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
Titre abrégé: Animals (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101635614

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
29 Aug 2019
Historique:
received: 15 07 2019
revised: 16 08 2019
accepted: 16 08 2019
entrez: 1 9 2019
pubmed: 1 9 2019
medline: 1 9 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Tail biting causes widespread problems both for animal welfare and in the form of economic losses in pig production. This study was performed to better understand the perceptions of farmers on how to best prevent tail biting, and if perceptions are influenced by the specific system of farming, with a focus on different levels of bedding use and docking different proportions of the tail of their pigs. Pig producers in the UK were surveyed on their perceptions of the efficacy of preventive measures and attitudes towards tail biting and docking. In total, 204 responses were included. The results show that producers rank the importance of preventive measures differently to scientists and other experts. This calls for consideration when communicating with producers; and for better integration of knowledge based on practical experiences with scientific results. The study also shows that the perception of how to best avoid tail biting differs between farms of different types, and that these perceptions might be influenced by the farmers´ own experiences-one example being that farms currently using plentiful amounts of bedding also value this more highly as a way to avoid tail biting than those that do not.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31470626
pii: ani9090628
doi: 10.3390/ani9090628
pmc: PMC6769598
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

Acta Vet Scand. 2016 Dec 5;58(1):84
pubmed: 27919291
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 22;14(2):e0212610
pubmed: 30794640
Animal. 2017 Oct;11(10):1816-1824
pubmed: 28249629
Animal. 2015 Apr;9(4):677-81
pubmed: 25482535
Animals (Basel). 2019 Jun 17;9(6):null
pubmed: 31212960
Animal. 2011 Jun;5(8):1237-46
pubmed: 22440176
Vet J. 2001 Jan;161(1):72-9
pubmed: 11145831
Porcine Health Manag. 2018 Nov 16;4:27
pubmed: 30473870
Animals (Basel). 2019 Mar 29;9(4):null
pubmed: 30934983
Porcine Health Manag. 2016 Feb 1;2:2
pubmed: 28405428
Animal. 2017 Oct;11(10):1825-1831
pubmed: 28294097
Animal. 2016 Apr;10(4):687-99
pubmed: 26522665
Physiol Behav. 2019 Jan 1;198:76-83
pubmed: 30290182
Vet J. 2012 Oct;194(1):77-83
pubmed: 22503206
Vet J. 2016 May;211:1-2
pubmed: 27040920
Animal. 2014 Sep;8(9):1479-97
pubmed: 25130712
Porcine Health Manag. 2015 Apr 16;1:2
pubmed: 28405411
Physiol Behav. 2017 Oct 1;179:298-307
pubmed: 28684135
Animal. 2018 Dec;12(12):2609-2618
pubmed: 29573756
Vet J. 2016 Jan;207:92-98
pubmed: 26626091
Animal. 2018 Jun;12(6):1260-1267
pubmed: 29094665

Auteurs

Anna Valros (A)

Research Centre for Animal Welfare & Department of Production Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 57, 00014 Helsinki, Finland. anna.valros@helsinki.fi.

Claire Barber (C)

Animal Science (Health & Welfare), Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board, Stoneleigh Park, Kenilworth CV8 2TL, UK.

Classifications MeSH