Tail Docking in Pigs: A Review on its Short- And Long-Term Consequences and Effectiveness in Preventing Tail Biting

Figures & data

Figure 1. Percentage of docked pigs in some European countries (adapted from EFSA, 2007).

Table 1. Countries where European legislation on tail docking is further restricted by national legislation (data taken from EFSA, 2007).

Country	Limits	Legislative act
Denmark	- between days 2 and 4 of life	BEK no. 324, 6 May 2003
	- documented damage to tails in the heard when tail docking is not performed - tail should be docked as little as possible (not more than ½ of the tail) - if performed after the 4^th day of life, piglets should be given long-lasting analgesia
Sweden	- not allowed (it does not appear on the list of surgical interventions allowed for medical reasons)	SFS 1988:534 Paragraphs 2,4,10
Finland	- forbidden as an act causing needless pain to the animal	2002:0910
Lithuania	- totally banned	?
Switzerland	- removed from the list of mutilations that can be performed without anaesthesia	Animal Protection Ordinance, 2001
Norway	- amputation of tails for medical reasons can only be performed by veterinarians using anaesthesia and prolonged analgesia. As a consequence, it is not carried out any more	Regulation for Housing of Swine of 2003, Paragraph 10

Table 2. Prevalence of tail biting: comparison between EFSA survey (EFSA, 2007) and scientific literature (Taylor et al., 2010)

Country	EFSA survey: % of tail bitten pigs (EFSA, 2007)	Location	Type of data collection	Scientific literature % of tail bitten pigs	Prevalence level	Number of pigs in study	Reference
Austria	30 of farms with bitten pigs 20 to 30 of bitten pigs in those affected farms	-	-	-	-	-	-
Belgium	2-5^°	Farm Farm	Scientific study Scientific study	2.12% 14.3%	Pigs Pen	38,559 38,559	Smulders et al. (2008) Smulders et al. (2008)
Cyprus	1-2^°	-	-	-	-	-	-
Denmark	1.2 to 3.1	Farm Abattoir Farm	Clinical exam Meat inspection data Scientific study	Mean 1.2% Mean 0.62% 1.26%	Pigs Pigs Pigs	151,000 151,000 154,347	Busch et al. (2004) Busch et al. (2004) Petersen et al. (2008)
England	0.9	Farm Abattoir	Specialist visit Scientific study	in the last 3 months 1.2%; slatted systems 2%; on straw 0.4% 4.27%	Pigs Pigs	400,000 62,971	NADIS (2013) Hunter et al. (1999)
Estonia	1^°	-	-	-	-	-	-
Finland	<5 (up to 30 for the whole life span, considering minor lesions) ^°	Abattoir Farm	Scientific study Specialist visit	34.6% 8%	Pigs Pigs <25 kg	10,852 16,000	Valros et al. (2004) Tiilikainen (2000)
Ireland	3^°	Abattoir	Scientific study (Republic and Northern Ireland)	58.1% detectable lesions 1.03% severe lesions	Pigs	35,288	Harley et al. (2012)
Italy	Not assessed	Farms	Scientific study	0.05% (weaning units); 0.34% (fattening units); 0.15% (total)	Pigs (mostly tail-docked)	79,780 heavy pigs (30 farms)	Scollo et al. (2013)
Latvia	50 (mainly in big, intensive standard commercial farms) ^°	-	-	-	-	-	-
Netherlands	1^°	Abattoir	Meat inspection data	<1%	Pigs	550,000	Elbers et al. (1992)
Portugal	5-50^°	-	-	-	-	-	-
Slovenia	<1^°	-	-	-	-	-	-
Sweden	1.3-1.5	Abattoir Farm	Routine Animal Health Service	1-2% 2.7%	Pigs Pigs	Swedish national herd 233 fattening barns	Holmgren and Lundeheim (2004) Holmgren and Lundeheim (2004)
		Abattoir	Routine inspection	1.9%	Pigs	15,914	Keeling and Larsen (2004)
		Abattoir	Scientific unit	6.2% and 7.2%	Pigs	7682 + 8232 (15,914)	Keeling and Larsen (2004)
		Abattoir	Scientific unit	7.0-7.2% (injury or shortening)	Pigs	15,086	Keeling et al. (2012)
Norway (non UE country)	1-2^°	Abattoir	Meat inspection data	2.3%	Pigs	255,000	Flesjå and Ulvesaeter (1979)
Switzerland (non UE country)	0.6 to 1.6	Farm	Scientific Study	Traditional farms: 35% (pigs) - 8% (groups); animal friendly farms: 5% (pigs); 0.6% (groups)	Pigs/groups	84 farms	Cagienard et al. (2005)

°Figures based on EFSA’s experts opinion. France, Germany and Spain were not assessed by EFSA nor specific further data were found in recent literature.

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. EFSA Journal 611 :2-98.

 Google Scholar

Taylor N.R. Main D.C.J. MendlM. Edwards S.A. 2010. Tail-biting: a new perspective. Vet. J. 186 :137-147.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

SmuldersD. HautekietV. VerbekeG. GeerstR. 2008. Tail and ear biting lesions in pigs: an epidemiological study. Anim. Welfare 17 :61-69.

 Google Scholar

Busch M.E. WachmannH. Nielsen E.O. Petersen H.H. Nielsen J.P. 2004. Tail biting – can routine meat inspection data be used for classification of herds? Paper n. 788 in Proc. 18th Int. Congr. IPVS, Hamburg, Germany.

 Google Scholar

Petersen H.H. Nielsen E.O. Hassing A.G. Ersbøll A.K. Nielsen J.P. 2008. Prevalence of clinical signs of disease in Danish finisher pigs. Vet. Rec. 162 :377-382.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

NADIS, 2013, National Animal Disease Information Service, UK. Available from http://www.nadis.org.uk/bulletins/tail-bit-ing.aspx

 Google Scholar

Hunter E.J. Jones T.A. Guise H.J. Penny R.H.C. HosteS. 1999. Tail biting in pigs. 1 : the prevalence at six UK abattoirs and the relationship of tail biting with docking, sex and other carcass damage. Pig Journal 43 :18-32.

 Google Scholar

ValrosA. AhlstromS. RintalaH. HakkinenT. SaloniemiH. 2004. The prevalence of tail damage in slaughter pigs in Finland and associations to carcass condemnations. Acta Agr. Scand. A-An. 54 :213-219.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

TiilikainenM. 2000. Nelja viidesta porsastuottajasta tuottaa virheettomia porsaita. Laatuvirheista pahin on purtu hanta. Maatilan Pellervo 1 :22-24.

 Google Scholar

HarleyS. More S.J. O’Connell N.E. HanlonA. TeixeiraD. BoyleL. 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. Vet. Rec. 171 :621.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

ScolloA. Di Martino G. BonfantiL. StefaniA. L. SchiavonE. MarangonS. GottardoF. 2013. Tail docking and the rearing of heavy pigs: the role played by gender and the presence of straw in the control of tail biting. Blood parameters, behaviour and skin lesions. Res. Vet. Sci. 95 :825-830.

 Google Scholar

Elbers A.R.W. Tielen M.J.M. Snijders J.M.A. Cromwijk W.A.J. Hunneman W.A. 1992. Epidemiological studies on lesions in finishing pigs in the Netherlands. I. Prevalence, seasonality and interrelationship. Prev. Vet. Med. 14 :217-231.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HolmgrenN. LundeheimN. 2004. Risk factors in tail biting. Page 786 in Proc. 18th Int. Congr. IPVS, Hamburg, Germany.

 Google Scholar

KeelingL. LarsenA. 2004. What are the characteristics of tail biting pigs? Proc. Nat. Conf. of Djurhalsovardens, Billingen, Skovde, Sweden.

 Google Scholar

Keeling L.J. WallenbeckA. LarsenA. HolmgrenB. 2012. Scoring tail damage in pigs: an evaluation based on recordings at Swedish slaughterhouses. Acta Vet. Scand. 54 :32.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Flesjå K.I. Ulvesaeter H.O. 1979. Pathological lesions in swine at slaughter I. Baconers. Acta Vet. Scand. 20 :498-514.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

CagienardA. RegulaG. DanuserJ. 2005. The impact of different housing systems on health and welfare of grower and finisher pigs in Switzerland. Prev. Vet. Med. 68 :49-61.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar