Managing undocked pigs – on-farm prevention of tail biting and attitudes towards tail biting and docking

RESEARCH Open Access Managing undocked pigs –on- a m p e en ion o ail bi ing and a i udes owa ds ail bi ing and docking Anna Val os 1* , Camilla Muns e hjelm 1 , Lau a Hänninen 1 , Tiina Kauppinen 2 and Ma i Heinonen 1 Abs ac Backg ound: Tail bi ing is a common and se ious wel a e p oblem in pig p oduc ion, causing la ge economical losses. Tail docking is pe o med ou inely in mos EU coun ies o educe he ail bi ing isk. Howe e , ail docking is pain ul, and does no p e en ail bi ing o ally. The isk ac o s behind ail docking a e mul i ac o ial and mos analyses a e based on s udies using biological o epidemiological app oaches. The e is e y li le in o ma ion a ailable on how p oduce s deal wi h ail bi ing on- a m. The e a e also no s udies on he a i ude o p oduce s owa ds ail docking and ail bi ing in sys ems wi h long- ailed pigs. We aimed o s udy how a me s a e he e iciency o di e en measu es o p e en ing and in e ening wi h ail bi ing, when ail docking is no allowed. Fu he mo e, we in es iga ed he a i udes o Finnish a me s o ail docking and ail bi ing. Resul s: Responden s sco ed eeding- ela ed issues o be mos impo an o p e en ion o ail bi ing, iden i ying and emo ing he bi ing pig as mos impo an in e en ion measu es, and s aw as he mos impo an manipulable ma e ial when p e en ing ail bi ing. Tail bi ing was no pe cei ed as a e y se ious p oblem by o e 70 % o he esponden s, e en hough docking is no allowed, and was epo ed o occu close o a le el which was also conside ed accep able by he esponden s. Mos esponden s did no hink i is p obable hey would aise ail docked pigs i i we e possible, bu abou 21 % p obably would. Conclusions: In compa ison wi h o he au ho s’ indings, he anking o impo ance o isk ac o s o ail bi ing di e s be ween scien is s and a me s, and be ween a me s in di e en cul u es o pig p oduc ion. In addi ion, he a i ude owa ds ail bi ing and ail docking appea s o be e y di e en in p oduce s wi h di e en expe iences o ail docking. These esul s indica e ha a scien is - a me dialogue, as well as in e na ional communica ion is impo an when ying o educe he isk o ail bi ing, and subsequen ly he need o ail docking. Keywo ds: Pig, Tail bi ing, Tail docking, Fa me a i udes, Risk ac o s Backg ound Tail bi ing is a common and se ious wel a e p oblem in pig p oduc ion. Tail bi ing has been connec ed o in- c eased s ess le el o he pigs [1] and isk ac o s in- clude a wide ange o housing- and managemen - ela ed p oblems, as well as cha ac e is ics o indi idual pigs [2]. B acke e al. [3] ound ha Du ch p oduce s hough ‘bi ing’was one o he main wel a e p oblems in pig p oduc ion. Tail bi ing also causes conside able econom- ical losses [4, 5]. Tail docking is a pain ul p ocedu e [6, 7] pe o med o educe he isk o ail bi ing. By docking he ail, he ail bi ing isk dec eases, al hough he p ocedu e does no elimina e ail bi ing: in a ecen s udy in I eland, whe e 99 % o he pigs a e docked, a p e alence o ail lesions o 72.5 % (including mild lesions) was s ill epo ed a he aba oi , wi h 2.5 % se e e lesions [5]. Based on a ail- able s udies, Val os & Heinonen [8] sugges ed ha ail docking educes he p e alence o se e e lesions by abou 50 %. Tail docking in i sel , in addi ion o causing acu e, and possibly ch onic pain [9], educes he isk o ail bi ing when keeping pigs in ea ing sys ems wi h a * Co espondence: [email p o ec ed] 1 Resea ch Cen e o Animal Wel a e, Depa men o P oduc ion Animal Medicine, Facul y o Ve e ina y Medicine, Uni e si y o Helsinki, PO Box 5700014 Helsinki, Finland Full lis o au ho in o ma ion is a ailable a he end o he a icle © 2016 Val os e al. Open Access This a icle is dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/), which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided you gi e app op ia e c edi o he o iginal au ho (s) and he sou ce, p o ide a link o he C ea i e Commons license, and indica e i changes we e made. The C ea i e Commons Public Domain Dedica ion wai e (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/publicdomain/ze o/1.0/) applies o he da a made a ailable in his a icle, unless o he wise s a ed. Val os e al. Po cine Heal h Managemen (2016) 2:2 DOI 10.1186/s40813-016-0020-7 highe le el o isk ac o s, and hus migh inc ease he isk o keeping pigs in a way ha is no op imal o hei wel a e [8, 10]. Ano he impo an eason o a ou ing long- ailed pigs is ha in non-docked pigs, he s a us o he ails can be used as a measu e o he o e all wel a e s a us on he a m [11]. As i is easonable o expec ha ail bi ing will inc ease as a esul o no docking, a leas in he ini ial s age [3], i is also impo an o gain know- ledge abou wha would be an accep able a e o ail bi - ing conside ing animal wel a e implica ions, a me s’ iews and socie al conside a ions [12]. The mul i ac o ial na u e o he ail bi ing p oblem is illus a ed by he on- a m in e en ion ool HAT de el- oped in he UK [13]: i includes 83 isk ac o s, di ided in o eigh ca ego ies. Thus, he e is no simple measu e o educing ail bi ing ha applies o all a ms. I has been sugges ed ha managing he isk ac o s behind ail bi ing needs o be conside ed on a a m-speci ic le el [2]. The majo i y o expe imen al s udies on ail bi ing isk ac o s ha e been on manipulable ma e ials ( o a e iew, see [12]), while isk ac o s ela ed o e.g. eeding [14, 15], clima e issues [16, 17] and educed heal h [14, 18, 19] ha e been iden i ied in epidemio- logical s udies. I has been shown ha he iew o how o p e en ail bi ing di e s be ween p oduce s and scien is s. A s udy, including Du ch a me s and scien is s, showed ha p o- duce s did no ag ee wi h he scien is s' ocus on ‘bo e- dom’being he mos impo an eason o ail bi ing [20]. Also B acke e al. [3] sugges ed di e ing iews on ail bi ing and docking be ween p oduce s and scien is s. Be na d e al. [20] indica ed ha a me s migh igno e scien i ic in o ma ion, maybe because i is no conc e e enough, o oo ocused on speci ic ac o s. The au ho s sugges ha a me s ha e a mo e holis ic app oach, while scien is s end o educe eali y in o mo e con ol- lable ac s [20]. This indica es ha he e is a need o lis- en o a me s in o de o ully unde s and he p oblems ela ed o ail bi ing, and in o de o enhance communi- ca ion be ween science and end-use s. The e a e, how- e e , e y ew s udies asking a me s abou hei iew on how o mos e icien ly p e en ail bi ing. B acke e al. [3] s udied a i udes o Du ch a me s owa ds ail bi ing and docking, as well as hei iews o e iciency o p e- en i e and in e en ion measu es. The Du ch p oduce s a ed clima ic ac o s as mos impo an , and con en- ional p oduce s ag eed o a la ge ex en wi h he s a e- men ha i is be e o dock all pigs han isk any cases o ail bi ing. Hun e e al. [15] asked a me s in he UK abou which in e en ion measu es hey mos ly use and ound ha emo al o he bi en pig o he bi e , and adding objec s o manipula ion we e he mos com- monly used measu es. Howe e , o ou knowledge he e is no compa able da a om con en ional a me s no docking hei pigs, while a need o such in o ma ion has been iden i ied [10]. A i udes do no only di e be ween di e en s ake- holde g oups, bu p oduce a i udes o animal wel a e appea o di e be ween coun ies. Fo example, in a s udy o Canadian pig p oduce s, he p oduce s did no eally eel com o able using he e m animal wel a e a all [21], while Finnish p oduce s do no seem o ind his a p oblem, e en hough hei de ini ion o animal wel- a e migh di e om ha commonly used by scien is s [22]. The p oduce s in he s udy by Kauppinen e al. [22] mos o en men ioned animal wel a e in he concep o p o iding he animals wi h a a ou able li ing en i - onmen and good heal hca e. As he ail bi ing issue is closely ela ed o animal wel a e, cul u al and socie al di e ences be ween coun ies migh also a ec a i udes owa ds ail bi ing and docking. Finland is an in e es ing coun y in his con ex , as ail docking has ne e been widely applied, and as i has been o ally banned since 2003. Views migh be in luenced by he sys em a me s a e used o [21], hus i can be expec ed ha he iew o Finnish a me s migh di e om e.g. ha o he Du ch p oduce s in he s udy by B acke e al. [3]. We aimed o s udy how a me s a e he e iciency o di e en measu es o p e en ing ail bi ing, when ail docking is no allowed. In addi ion, we s udied which ail bi ing in e en ion s a egies a me s ind mos e icien , and which manipulable ma e ials a e used, and how e i- cien hese a e ound o be in p e en ing ail bi ing. The p e en i e and in e en ion measu es included in he s udy we e selec ed based on exis ing scien i ic in o ma- ion. Fu he mo e, we in es iga ed he a i udes o Finnish a me s o ail docking and ail bi ing. Resul s In o al, we ecei ed 70 eplies, which ep esen s abou 7.5 % o Finnish pig a ms. O hese, 44 we e om a - ening a ms, 14 om pigle p oducing a ms, and 12 om in eg a ed a ms ( a ow o slaugh e ). Each e- sponse ep esen ed ei he a a ening uni (54) o a weaning uni (16). The esponden s had an a e age ex- pe ience o 18 yea s wi hin pig a ming (median 18, ange 1–44 yea s), and he a e age uni size (size o he uni he esponse was ep esen ing) was 1307 pigs (me- dian 875, ange 100–6400 pigs). The a e age uni size o he esponden s is hus sligh ly la ge han ha o he es ima ed a e age Finnish a m. The di ision o a ms be ween di e en a ms size classes is p esen ed in Table 1. Pe cei ed impo ance o p e en i e measu es All he measu es included in he ques ionnai e we e pe - cei ed as being a leas somewha impo an , as hey all sco ed o e 4 on a e age. ‘Enough eeding space’was he Val os e al. Po cine Heal h Managemen (2016) 2:2 Page 2 o 11 op- a ed measu e, also showing a low a ia ion be ween esponden s, closely ollowed by ‘Taking ca e o animal heal h’. Also ‘Managing ai mo emen s’,‘Wa e a ailable o all pigs’,‘Co ec eed con en ’and ‘Good quali y pigs’ go a e age sco es o 6 o abo e (Table 2). As a whole, he measu e subca ego y ‘Feed and wa e ’sco ed signi i- can ly highe (median: 6.25 (in e qua ile ange: 1.50)) han all he o he subca ego ies (p< 0.001 o all com- pa isons). The a e age sco e o he subca ego y ‘Housing and en i onmen ’(5.14 (1.43)) was signi ican ly lowe han all he o he subca ego ies (p< 0.001 o all com- pa isons). The subca ego ies ‘Pig beha iou ’(5.60 (1.20)) and ‘Animals’(5.50 (1.13)) sco ed in e media e. Also in he open answe s on u he measu es he p o- duce s had ound impo an , eeding- ela ed measu es we e men ioned mos equen ly (by 17 esponden s). The need o eed o e he ecommended no ms, no o eed mo e han he pigs can ea , o ha e enough eeding imes and o gi e enough mine als and sal s we e men- ioned, as well as he impo ance o co ec eed com- posi ion. The impo ance o ou side condi ions we e men ioned in se en eplies: noise and ligh om he ou - side a e p oblema ic, as well as a ia ion in ou side empe a u e. Six esponden s men ioned he impo ance o he ca e ake : he ime spen by he ca e ake in he pigge y (which was men ioned bo h as a p o ec i e and as a isk ac o ), as well as he isk o changing ca e ake . Fu he open answe s included he impo ance o a i- a ion in manipulable ma e ials, he backg ound and quali y (such as ail damage s a us) o pigs on a i al and keeping pig g oups s able. In e en ion measu es When ail bi ing had al eady s a ed in a pen, iden i ica- ion and emo ing he bi e we e epo ed as he mos impo an in e en ion measu es. These we e a ed Table 1 Numbe o a ms wi hin di e en a m size ca ego ies Numbe o pigs a Numbe o a ms % o esponden s <500 25 35.7 500–1000 16 22.9 1000–2000 19 27.1 >2000 10 14.3 a Numbe o animals wi hin he p oduc ion phase which he ques ionnai e answe s ep esen Table 2 Pe cei ed impo ance o he di e en p e en i e measu es gi en in he ques ionnai e Measu e Subca ego y e A e age (s anda d de ia ion) Median (in e qua ile ange) Enough eeding space a PB 6.30 (0.92) 7 (1) Taking ca e o animal heal h A 6.21 (0.95) 7 (1) Managing ai mo emen s (d augh ) HM 6.16 (1.16) 6 (1) Wa e a ailable o all pigs FW 6.10 (1.36) 7 (2) Co ec eed con en FW 6.10 (0.98) 6 (2) Good quali y pigs (heal hy, e enly g own) A 6.00 (1.16) 6 (2) E en quali y o eed FW 5.96 (0.94) 6 (2) Managing ai quali y HM 5.81 (1.27) 6 (2) App op ia e empe a u e in pen HM 5.71 (1.26) 6 (2) Feeding always a he same ime FW 5.71 (1.53) 6 (2) Res ic ing animal densi y PB 5.66 (1.42) 6 (2) Backg ound o he pigle s b A 5.53 (1.40) 6 (2) Use o bedding- ype ma e ials c PB 5.46 (1.62) 6 (2) A oiding mixing o animals PB 5.06 (1.61) 5 (3) Managing noise le el HM 4.79 (1.54) 5 (2) B eed o pigs A 4.77 (1.75) 5 (2) Use o objec s o manipula ion d PB 4.61 (1.79) 5 (3) Adjus ing na u al ligh om windows HM 4.49 (1.70) 5 (3) Adequa e ligh le el HM 4.27 (1.46) 4 (1) Managing pen hygiene/cleanliness HM 4.21 (2.05) 4 (3) a Enough eeding space o each pig a he ough o enough eeding places a he eeding au oma b Such as housing and managemen in a owing o weaning uni c Such as s aw, wood-sha ings/sawdus , pea d Such as chains, wood e Measu e subca ego ies: HM housing and en i onmen , PB pig beha iou , FW eed and wa e , Aanimals Scale: 1 (no impo an a all) o 7 ( e y impo an ) Val os e al. Po cine Heal h Managemen (2016) 2:2 Page 3 o 11 signi ican ly highe han all he o he measu es (p< 0.05 o all compa isons). ‘Adding bedding- ype ma e ial’ (p< 0.001 o all compa isons), and ‘Remo ing he bi - en pig om he pen’(p< 0.05 o all compa isons) we e conside ed signi ican ly mo e impo an han ‘Adding objec s o manipula ion’,‘Reducing animal densi y’and ‘Use o an i-bi ing subs ances on he ail’ (Table 3). Also ega ding in e en ion measu es, eeding- ela ed ac o s we e men ioned mos o en in he open answe s (by 14 esponden s). Mos o en (9 esponden s) he sug- ges ion was o add mine als, sal s o o he addi ional eeds u s, mainly on he loo o he pen. Rega ding addi ion o manipulable ma e ials he esponden s unde lined he impo ance o adding some hing no el and a iable o he pigs. A ew esponden s also men- ioned he impo ance o making su e he ic im’s bi en ail heals quickly, by using e.g. wound sp ay and medica- ion, o a oid u he in e es in he ail. Manipulable ma e ials used o p e en ion o ail bi ing None o he manipulable ma e ials named in he ques- ionnai e go an a e age sco e o e 6, and all o hem di- ided he opinion o he esponden s o a highe deg ee han mos o he p e en i e and in e en ion measu es desc ibed abo e. S aw, newspape , hay and ca dboa d o pape sacks sco ed on a e age o e 5. In gene al, bed- ding ype ma e ials sco ed highe han objec s. S aw, newspape and chains we e he mos commonly used ma e ials (Table 4). On a e age, he esponden s epo ed adding 0.4 l o bedding ma e ial pe pig pe day (median: 0.3, ange 0.02– 1.5 l). One a m epo ed ha ing deep bedding in he pens. The esponden s men ioned a ew u he manipulable ma e ials in hei open answe s, bu no ma e ials came up e y s ongly. The men ioned ma e ials included, among o he s, silage, used ca i es, s aw pelle s, pieces o wa e - ing hose, s ones, emp y plas ic con aine s, and used boo s and shoes. Also he e, he esponden s unde lined he im- po ance o a ia ion in manipulable ma e ials, as well as ha he ma e ials need o be mo able by he pigs. P oduce a i udes owa ds ail bi ing and docking The TB le el was epo ed as on a e age 2.3 % (median 1 %, ange 0–30 %). Tail bi ing was no conside ed a e y se ious p oblem: 72 % o he esponden s eplied o he ques ion o how se ious a p oblem ail bi ing was on hei a m (TB p oblem) wi h sco e 1 o 2 (Table 5). O he esponden s, 29 % did no conside ail bi ing o be accep able a all (TB accep able). A le el o 1–2 % ail bi ing was conside ed o s ill be accep able by 51 % o he esponden s, while 2.9 % hough ha e en 11–15 % is accep able (Table 5). The majo i y (62 %) o he esponden s hough i was e y unlikely ha hey would aise docked pigs e en i i was made legal in Finland (sco e 1 o 2) (TD p obabil- i y). On he o he hand, abou 21 % said hey would p obably (sco e 6 o 7) aise docked pigs i i we e pos- sible (Table 5). Typically, esponden s who s a ed hey would mos p obably no ail dock e en i i was legal, mo i a ed his wi h e hical a gumen s, such as ha he pig has he igh o i s ail, ha ail docking is animal c uel y, o ha i is inhumane o dock pig ails. They also e e ed o he pain induced by docking, and he inc eased isk o in- ec ions due o docking as well as o he impo ance o he ail as a wel a e indica o . One o he esponden s, a a me wi h an in eg a ed uni and 27 yea s o expe i- ence s a ed ha : “[Tail docking] causes he pigs unnecessa y pain and inc eased isk o in ec ions –why should we dock when we can manage well wi h long- ailed pigs”. On he o he hand, esponden s ha s a ed hey would e y p obably aise ail docked pigs i i was legal, Table 3 Pe cei ed impo ance o he di e en ail bi ing in e en ion measu es gi en in he ques ionnai e Measu e A e age (s anda d de ia ion) 5 Median (in e qua ile ange) 5,6 Iden i ying he bi e 6.49 (0.97) 7 (1) a Remo ing he bi e om he pen 6.29 (1.08) 7 (1) a Adding bedding- ype ma e ial 1 5.79 (1.34) 6 (2) b Remo ing he bi en pig om he pen 5.39 (1.30) 6 (1) b Adding objec s o manipula ion 2 4.71 (1.62) 5 (2) c Reducing animal densi y 3 4.60 (1.70) 5 (2) c Use o an i-bi ing subs ances on he ail 4 4.31 (1.10) 5 (3) c 1 Such as s aw, wood-sha ings/sawdus , pea 2 Such as chains, wood 3 By emo ing (any) pigs om he pen 4 Such as a , Po ci e ® 5 Scale: 1 (no impo an a all) o 7 ( e y impo an ) 6 Di e en subsc ip s indica e di e ences in median a ing be ween he ac o s (p< 0.05) Val os e al. Po cine Heal h Managemen (2016) 2:2 Page 4 o 11 mo i a ed hei iew wi h mo e u ili a ian easons, such as ha docking inc eases a m p o i , educes wo k load and dec eases medica ion need, hus esul ing in cleane mea . They did, howe e , also e e o ail docking mak- ing li e easie o he pigs, and educing he isk o join in ec ions in pigs. A a ening pig a me , wi h 15 yea s o expe ience o aising pigs s a ed ha : “[Tail docking] is he only igh hing o do in e icien p oduc ion. The Finns a e gi ing o he coun ies a huge compe i i e ad an age”. Co ela ions be ween di e en a iables The e we e se e al co ela ions be ween he a i ude o- wa ds ail docking, pe cei ed se iousness o ail bi ing, ail bi ing occu ence on he a m, le el o pe cei ed accep able ail bi ing le el, and a m size (Table 6). The co ela ion be ween TD p obabili y and a m size disap- pea ed i he smalles a m class (<500 pigs) we e ex- cluded om he analyses (p= 0.7). The numbe o yea s he esponden s had expe ience o aising pigs did no co ela e wi h any o hese a iables (p> 0.05 o all). Discussion The a me s gene ally ag eed wi h he high impo ance o measu es o p e en ail bi ing ha ha e been shown o be impo an also in expe imen al and epidemio- logical s udies. The a me s did, howe e , unde line he impo ance o eeding- ela ed ac o s mo e han p e i- ous science has, while gi ing he impo ance o manipu- lable ma e ials less weigh . The esponden s do, in gene al, no ind ail bi ing a e y la ge p oblem on hei Table 4 Pe cei ed e iciency in p e en ing ail bi ing o he di e en manipulable ma e ials gi en in he ques ionnai e Ma e ial N c A e age (s anda d de ia ion) d Median (in e qua ile ange) d S aw 61 5.64 (1.74) 6 (2) Newspape 61 5.44 (1.55) 6 (3) Hay 37 5.21 (1.82) 6 (3) Ca dboa d o pape sacks 46 5.13 (1.58) 5 (2) Chain 58 4.75 (1.79) 5 (3) Unp ocessed, esh wood a 47 4.63 (1.81) 5 (3) Sawdus /wood sha ings 52 4.57 (1.94) 5 (4) Rope 45 4.41 (1.64) 5 (2) Pea 29 4.37 (2.08) 4.5 (3) Ball o o he objec a ached o a chain 47 4.31 (1.78) 4 (3) P ocessed, d y wood b 34 3.89 (1.91) 4 (4) Ball o o he objec loose on he loo 53 3.71 (1.72) 4 (3) Comme cial pig oy 39 3.68 (1.51) 4 (2) a Such as b anches, a piece o ee unk b Such as a piece o plank c Numbe o esponden s ha had expe ience o he ma e ial in ques ion d Scale: 1 (no a all e icien ) o 7 ( e y e icien ) Table 5 a-c The dis ibu ion o answe s o he se iousness o he ail bi ing p oblem (5a); he p obabili y o docking, i docking was legal (5b); and he le el o ail bi ing ound o be accep able (5c) 5aScale TB p oblem 4 5bScale TD p obabili y 5 5c% ail bi ing TB accep able 6 1 2 37.1 (26) 1 1 3 34.3 (24) 1 0 28.6 (20) 1 2 34.3 (24) 2 25.7 (18) 1–2 50.0 (35) 3 12.9 (9) 3 4.3 (3) 3–4 14.3 (10) 4 8.6 (6) 4 7.1 (5) 5–7 2.9 (2) 5 2.9 (2) 5 7.1 (5) 8–10 1.4 (1) 6 2.9 (2) 6 5.7 (4) 11–15 2.9 (2) 7 1.4 (1) 7 15.7 (11) >15 0 (0) The in o ma ion gi en in he ows do no ep esen he same he ds 1 Da a is gi en as pe cen age and (N) o eplies 2 Scale: 1: no a p oblem a all–7: a e y se ious p oblem 3 Scale: 1: de ini ely no –7: e y p obably 4 How se ious a p oblem do you pe cei e ail bi ing o be on you a m? 5 Tail docking is o bidden in Finland. I i was allowed, how p obable is i ha you would aise docked pigs? 6 How much ail bi ing do you pe cei e as accep able? Val os e al. Po cine Heal h Managemen (2016) 2:2 Page 5 o 11 a ms, despi e no ail docking. The majo i y o he a me s would no wan o aise docked pigs e en i i was legal in Finland, e en hough he e is a subse o a me s ha indica e hey would mos p obably do so i hey could. I is impo an o keep in mind ha his s udy is based on an open ques ionnai e, wi h a a he small esponse a e, which makes i impossible o gene alise he esul s o he en i e Finnish pig a me communi y. I is pos- sible ha he esponses ep esen s a me s mos in e - es ed in he opic. Howe e , he subse o a ms he esponden s ep esen , do appea o be a he ep esen- a i e o Finnish a ms ega ding ail bi ing incidence, and o ep esen a sligh ly la ge a m size han a e age in Finland. As he as majo i y (es ima ed by he au- ho s o be a leas 95 %) o pig a me s in Finland use compu e ized p oduc ion eco ding sys ems, he ac ha he ques ionnai e was pe o med on-line should no a ec he s udy popula ion signi ican ly. I should also be no ed ha he main aim o he s udy was no o gene alize na ionally, bu o in es iga e expe iences and hough s o a me s used o deal wi h long- ailed pigs. The esponden s in his s udy ag eed wi h he gene al impo ance o he p e en i e measu es lis ed in he ques ionnai e, wi h all measu es ge ing a median sco e o ou o mo e on a scale om one (no impo an a all) o se en ( e y impo an ). This shows ha he e is a ce ain le el o ag eemen be ween a me s and he exis ing science. Howe e , he anking o he di e en measu es di e ed o a la ge ex en om he anking by expe s p esen ed in an EFSA opinion [23]. Expe s in he EFSA opinion [23] anked isk ac o s ela ed o ab- sence o manipulable ma e ial as clea ly mos impo an , ollowed by e a ded g ow h wi hin he g oup, and cas- a ion. Feeding and die - ela ed issues we e alued as less impo an isk ac o s. This was he opposi e in his ques ionnai e: he esponden s anked eeding ela ed ac o s e y high, especially compe i ion o eed, while he addi ion o manipulable ma e ial was anked lowe han expec ed. Also animal heal h was anked e y high. The ac ha manipulable ma e ial was anked lowe han expec ed om expe opinions is in acco dance wi h he esul s by he s udy by B acke e al. [3], whe e pig a me s sco ed bo edom o he pigs o be only he 7 h mos impo an ac o in p e en ing ail bi ing. Fa me s in he s udy by Be na d e al. [20] c i icized sci- en is s o ocusing mo e o less solely on manipulable ma e ials when ying o sol e he ail bi ing p oblem. These esea che s also showed ha Du ch p oduce s do no belie e bo edom being a eason o ail bi ing, and e en hink ha domes ic pigs ha e los he need o oo . Ano he eason o he esponden s in his ques ionnai e o ank manipulable ma e ials lowe han expec ed migh be ha hei iew is in luenced by he sys em he a me is used o [21]. In Finland, some le el o bedding- ype manipulable ma e ial is compulso y. Thus i is possible ha a me s ake he use o manipulable ma e ial as sel -e iden , and hus do no see he e ec on ail bi ing in p ac ice. Howe e , his s ic de ini ion o he egula ion o use o manipulable ma e ial has been implemen ed only o a ew yea s, so a leas some o he a me s mos p obably also ha e expe ience o ais- ing pigs wi hou he use o bedding- ype manipulable ma e ial. One eason o he main ocus on manipulable ma e ials by esea che s migh be due o he me e ac ha he la ges numbe o expe imen al and epidemio- logical s udies on isk ac o s o ail bi ing ha e ocused on his [12]. Fa me s, on he o he hand, migh see he si ua ion on hei a m in a mo e holis ic way [20], iden- i ying also mo e sub le isk ac o s. The Du ch a me s in he s udy by B acke e al. [3] anked ‘S able clima e’as he mos impo an ac o , while he subca ego y ‘Housing and En i onmen ’did no e- cei e a e y high sco ing in he cu en s udy, no acco d- ing o expe opinion [23]. The ac ha compe i ion o eeding is an impo an ail bi ing isk is no a new inding: i has been epo ed in p e ious s udies [14, 24]. Also ani- mal heal h is an issue ecei ing mo e and mo e a en ion as a isk ac o o ail bi ing [18], bu so a , he link be- ween ail bi ing and heal h is s ill inconclusi e [12]. An in e es ing ac o ha came up in he open answe s, and which has no ecei ed much a en ion p e iously, is he impo ance o he ca e ake . This unde lines he im- po ance o expe ience o non-docking pigs, which migh explain why a me s con e ing o non-docking migh e- quen ly encoun e p oblems wi h ail bi ing [3]. This Table 6 Co ela ions be ween a i udes owa ds ail bi ing and docking, occu ence o ail bi ing and a m size TB p oblem TB accep able TD p obabili y Fa m size How much ail bi ing occu s on you a m? (TB occu ence) a = 0.43 p< 0.001 = 0.41 p= 0.001 = 0.31 p= 0.01 ns b How se ious a p oblem do you pe cei e ail bi ing o be on you a m? (TB p oblem) ns = 0.34 p= 0.005 ns How much ail bi ing do you pe cei e as accep able? (TB accep able) = 0.22 p= 0.07 = 0.25 p= 0.04 Tail docking is o bidden in Finland. I i was allowed, how p obable is i ha you would aise docked pigs? (TD p obabili y) = 0.31 p= 0.009 a Spea man ank co ela ions b ns co ela ion non-signi ican , p> 0.1 Val os e al. Po cine Heal h Managemen (2016) 2:2 Page 6 o 11 migh also be an explana o y ac o o why Finland can manage so well wi h he non-docking policy: Finnish a ms a e, on a e age smalle han in many o he EU coun ies. On la ge a ms, o en wi h a educed ca e ake / pig a io, i becomes mo e di icul o spo ail bi ing ea ly enough, and ha e ime o in e ene app op ia ely [10]. Howe e , we did no ind a co ela ion be ween a m size and occu ence o ail bi ing in his s udy. Also he expe opinion epo ed by EFSA [23] did no conside he d size as a e y impo an isk ac o . In e es ingly, e en hough ail bi ing is no ela ed o a m size in his s udy, la ge a ms pe cei e ail bi ing as a mo e se ious p oblem, and a e mo e willing o dock. Also B acke e al. [3] epo ed ha e y la ge a ms we e less mo i a ed o s op docking han smalle ones. The e a e e y ew s udies on how o e icien ly in e - ene when ail bi ing is abou o s a , o when i has al eady s a ed. The only expe imen al s udy on hese compa ed he e ec o emo ing he bi e o adding s aw, and ound hese measu es equal [25]. The s udy, howe e , did no include a con ol wi hou in e en ion. The mos commonly used in e en ion measu e e- po ed by p oduce s in UK [15] was emo ing he bi en pig, ollowed by adding manipulable objec s and emo - ing he bi e . Adding bedding- ype ma e ials was only used by a mino i y o he a me s, while his was anked a he high by he esponden s in he cu en s udy. Du ch a me s [3] epo ed emo ing bi e s and bi en animals om he g oup when ail bi ing occu s mos e- quen ly. Remo ing pigs, especially in he case o ic ims du ing ou b eaks, migh be a challenge, as enough sick pens on he a m a e necessa y. I is also no su e i bi e s can be combined in o common g oups wi hou u he ail bi ing p oblems. This migh howe e no be a p oblem, as epo ed by Zonde land e al. [25], and is also men ioned by one esponden in he cu en s udy: “I is wo hwhile o combine bi e s in o g oups, hey do no necessa ily bi e each o he ”. Tee h clipping o bi e pigs, which was men ioned as a a he common p ocedu e by he Du ch p oduce s [3], and which is illegal in bo h he Ne he lands and Finland was men ioned only by one esponden in he cu en ques ionnai e. Edwa ds [26] men ioned adding sal o ail bi ing pens o s op ail bi ing. Adding sal s, mine als o o he sup- plemen a y eeds u s o he pens when ail bi ing is abou o s a , o has s a ed, was also a popula measu e men ioned in he open answe s o his s udy. The e a e some comme cial eeds a ailable o use o ail bi ing in e en ion, u he indica ing he po en ial e iciency o his measu e. As a as we know he e is, howe e , only one s udy in es iga ing he e ec i eness o only one such eed in educing ail bi ing, and i ailed o show an e ec [24], indica ing a need o s udy o he eeds. Using an i-bi ing subs ances was no anked e y high in his s udy, which is in ag eemen wi h he low le el (by less han 5 % o a me s) o use by Du ch a me s [3]. Abou 25 % o he UK a me s in he s udy by Hun e e al. [15], howe e , epo ed using such sub- s ances. B acke e al. [27] showed expe imen ally ha opes can be made less a ac i e o pigs by adding a . The anking o e iciency o manipulable ma e ials in his s udy, wi h bedding- ype ma e ials sco ing bes , co - espond a he well wi h p e ious epo s, such as he s udy by B acke e al. [28] compa ing he ou comes o 54 di e en ma e ials. The anking also co esponds o he inding ha pigs p e e ma e ials ha a e complex, inges ible, odo ous, chewable, de o mable and des uc - ible and con ain spa sely dis ibu ed edible pa s [29, 30]. Simila c i e ia we e also conside ed impo an by expe s in he s udy by B acke e al. [31]. Sligh ly su - p isingly, chains we e anked ela i ely high in he cu en s udy, e en hough hey do no mee he be o e- men ioned c i e ia e y well, and ha e been sugges ed no o be su icien o mee he need o manipula ion in pigs [32]. Howe e , chain was one o he mos com- monly used o he manipulable ma e ials, only s aw and newspape was used by a ew mo e o he esponden s. I migh hus be ha he high anking is pa ly due o he p oduce s being used o using chains, and his in lu- ences hei esponse. Also in he Ne he lands, a me s use chains e y equen ly (52–63 %), while s aw was used by only 2.1–3.1 % o he a me s [3]. E en hough Finnish a me s seldom use s aw bedding, and as e- po ed in his s udy, a he mode a e amoun s o bedding- ype ma e ial, he egula addi ion o his ype o ma e ial migh be c ucial o aising long- ailed pigs success ully. The a i ude owa ds ail docking in he cu en s udy was di ided: he majo i y did no a ou ail docking, bu a conside able p opo ion (21 %) o he esponden s would p e e o aise docked pigs i i we e possible. This pola iza ion o opinions migh pa ly be due o he ques- ionnai e being o ally olun a y and open o anyone in- e es ed, which migh cause people wi h s ong opinions o be mo e inclined o answe . The di e en iew on ail docking compa ed o he s udy by B acke e al. [3], whe e a me s sco ed on a e age 4.9 on he s a emen ‘Docking is necessa y o p e en ail bi ing’, on a scale om one (comple ely disag ee) o six (comple ely ag ee) migh be explained by he a me s de ending wha hey cu en ly do in bo h coun ies [21]. I migh also be ha his in he case o he Du ch a me s, who a e used o docking ails, he e iciency o ail docking migh be sligh ly o e a ed, as ecen s udies indica e ha ail bi - ing is a majo p oblem also in docked pigs [5]. Howe e , he Du ch a me s ha epo ed ha ing ied o s op ail docking did o en encoun e p oblems [3], which migh Val os e al. Po cine Heal h Managemen (2016) 2:2 Page 7 o 11 s eng hen his opinion e en u he . I needs o be e- membe ed ha he Finnish p oduce s a e used o no docking. The ac ual le el o ail bi ing on he a m is ela ed o he a i udes o he a me : he highe he epo ed ail bi ing, he highe he pe cei ed se iousness o he p ob- lem, and he highe he p obabili y o wan ing o dock i i was allowed. As we base ou da a on ail bi ing occu - ence on he esponses in he ques ionnai e, and no on mo e objec i e da a, we canno , howe e exclude he ac ha he link he e migh no be he opposi e: he mo e se ious a p oblem he a me pe cei es ail bi ing o be, he mo e he/she ocuses on i , and hus pe cei es he e o be mo e ail bi ing on his/he a m han a a me pe cei ing he p oblem as less se ious. While he Du ch a me s ag eed e y much wi h he s a emen ha ‘I is be e o dock all ails han o un he isk o ail bi ing e en i i conce ns jus one bi en pig’(Sco e 5 on he scale men ioned abo e), he espon- den s in he cu en s udy seem o hink i is be e o accep some ail bi ing han o dock all pigs. The majo - i y o he esponden s hink a ce ain amoun o ail bi - ing is accep able, while he as majo i y do no hink ail bi ing is a se ious p oblem on hei a m. Again, his is e y di e en om Du ch a me s, which, despi e ais- ing ail-docked pigs, hink bi ing is he main wel a e p oblem on a ms [3]. The mo i a ions o how p obably he esponden would aise docked pigs i i was legal we e e y di e en depending on he sco e gi en: Responden s who sco ed he p obabili y o aising ail docked pigs high mo i a ed his by p ac ical, u ili a ian easons. On he o he hand, sco ing he p obabili y o wan ing o dock low was e- quen ly mo i a ed by easons such as he pig ha ing a igh o i s ail, and by docking being c uel. On he con- a y, con en ional Du ch pig a me s seemed o mainly disag ee wi h he s a emen ha a cu ly ail is impo an o sus ainable pig husband y (2.7 on a scale one (com- ple ely disag ee) o six (comple ely ag ee)) [3]. In e es - ingly, simila mo i a ions bo h o docking, and agains docking, we e also used, one example being ha an in- c eased in ec ion isk was men ioned bo h due o dock- ing, and due o no docking (as a consequence o inc eased ail bi ing). The ail bi ing le el (a e age 2.3 %, median 1 %) on he a ms in his is close o wha has been epo ed by Finnish slaugh e houses (2.3 % in 2013, [8]), using he same de ini ion o se e i y. I needs o be no ed howe e , ha his, by de ini ion, only includes se e e, clinical cases, and o al ail lesion le el (including milde lesions) is p obably much highe , as epo ed ecen ly by Ha ley e al. 2014 [5] and in a s udy o Finnish pigs in 2000 [33]. This also co esponds a he well wi h he le el conside ed accep able by he majo i y o he esponden s (50 % said ha 1–2 % is manageable), suppo ing he ac ha he esponden s did no pe cei e ail bi ing as a e y big p oblem on hei a ms. The mo e ail bi ing oc- cu ed on he a m, he highe he limi o wha was hough o be accep able was; showing ha a me s a e used o wha hey ha e now. The high ag eemen by Du ch a me s wi h he s a e- men ‘I is be e o dock all ails han o un he isk o ail bi ing e en i i conce ns jus one bi en pig’in he s udy by B acke e al. [3] indica es ha hey a e e y dependen on ail docking as a measu e o p e en ing ail bi ing. As long as his is he case, i will be e y di i- cul o implemen a o al ban on ail docking. Ins ead, i is impo an o communica e ha a me s should no expec ail bi ing o disappea be o e ail docking can be banned [8], bu ha he e is a need o ind a le el wi h which he p oduce s can manage. This accep ance o a ce ain le el o ail bi ing migh be ano he ac o why Finnish a me s manage wi h he ail docking ban. E en hough 90 % o he esponden s in his s udy epo ed some le el o ail bi ing on hei a m, he majo i y did no hink his was a se ious p oblem. In he s udy by B acke e al. [3], only 35–50 % o he a me s epo ed ail bi ing o occu on hei a ms, and a a le el o 1– 5 %. In he s udy by B acke e al. [3], ail bi ing was no de ined in de ail, bu as ‘ ail wounds’. This s udy u he shows ha he e is a need o ealise ha a me s migh no always ag ee wi h, o accep sci- en i ic esul s, as also sugges ed by Be na d e al. [20]. Fa me s migh no obse e as scien is s, bu hey a e p esen on hei a ms se en days a week, and migh ha e a mo e holis ic app oach, ins ead o ocusing on de- ails [20]. Howe e , a high le el o p oduc ion has been connec ed o a posi i e a i ude owa ds esea che s as a sou ce o knowledge in pigle p oducing a ms [34]. The e migh hus be a connec ion be ween a p o essional a i- ude owa ds pig p oduc ion and an in e es in scien i ic knowledge, which indica es he impo ance o a dialogue be ween scien is s and p oduce s. As sugges ed in he EFSA opinion om 2014 [2], ail bi ing p e en ion needs o be conside ed on an indi id- ual a m le el. Taylo e al. [13] showed ha when apply- ing he HAT ool on- a m he e is a big a ia ion be ween a ms wi h simila o al sco es in how he di - e en subca ego ies a e sco ed. They also showed ha easonably low isk sco es can be achie ed in di e en ypes o sys ems, e.g. wi h and wi hou s aw bedding, and ha isk sco es can be educed success ully on exis - ing a ms wi hou majo changes o he housing sys em. The impo ance o indi idually ailo ed ail bi ing p e- en ion o di e en a ms is also indica ed by a me s in ou ques ionnai e sugges ing opposi e measu es o educing he isk o ail bi ing in some cases: o ex- ample, some unde lined he impo ance o eeding Val os e al. Po cine Heal h Managemen (2016) 2:2 Page 8 o 11 enough, e en o e he ecommended no m, while one a me clea ly s a ed he eeding oo much is a isk ac- o . Ano he example was ela ed o he ca e ake : some a me s said you need o spend lo s o ime wi h he pigs, while o he s indica ed he impo ance o no being in he pigge y mo e han necessa y. Howe e , an al e na- i e explana ion o hese con adic i e s a emen s is ha a me s migh no always know hemsel es, which measu es ac ually wo k on hei a m. Conclusions Responden s sco ed eeding- ela ed issues o be mos impo an o p e en ion o ail bi ing, iden i ying and emo ing he bi ing pig as mos impo an in e en ion measu es, and s aw as he mos impo an manipulable ma e ial when p e en ing ail bi ing. Tail bi ing was no pe cei ed as a e y se ious p oblem, e en hough dock- ing is no allowed, and was epo ed o occu close o a le el which was also conside ed accep able by he e- sponden s. Mos esponden s did no hink i is p obable hey would aise ail docked pigs i i we e possible, bu abou 21 % p obably would. In compa ison wi h o he au ho s’ indings, he anking o impo ance o isk ac- o s o ail bi ing di e s be ween scien is s and a me s, and be ween a me s in di e en cul u es o pig p oduc- ion. In addi ion, he a i ude owa ds ail bi ing and ail docking appea s o be e y di e en in p oduce s wi h di e en expe iences o ail docking. These esul s indi- ca e ha a scien is - a me dialogue, as well as in e - na ional communica ion is impo an when ying o educe he isk o ail bi ing, and subsequen ly he need o ail docking. Me hods An online ques ionnai e was dis ibu ed in he sp ing o 2015 ia p oduce -aimed webpages o he h ee bigges slaugh e houses in Finland, as well as ia he web-pages o he Finnish Pig En ep eneu Associa ion (Suomen Sikay i äjä y) and se e al social media. The ques ion- nai e was also ad e ised ia he na ional p oduce s’ newspape (Maaseudun ule aisuus). The ques ionnai e was open o esponses o 1 mon h (May 18 h o June 19 h 2015). Due o he open me hod o da a collec ion, he ques- ionnai e was heo e ically a ailable o he en i e Finnish pig p oduce communi y. In o al, he e we e 932 a ms wi h pig p oduc ion as hei main sou ce o income in Finland in 2014 [35]. These a ms, which ep esen all a m ypes and p oduc ion phases, had on a e age 1336 pigs pe a m. This numbe is highe han he es ima e o he size o a ening pig a ms in Finland by D’Ea h e al. [12], which was 485 animals on a e age in 2010. This disc epancy is due o he o me numbe including pigle p oducing a ms, wi h all p oduc ion phases, as well as pa ly due o a con inuing inc ease in a m size. The ques ionnai e was designed o be as sho , and as easy as possible o he p oduce s o ill in. I included a ew gene al ques ions ( a m ype and size o uni , a me expe ience), and esponden s we e asked o eply con- ce ning one p oduc ion phase only pe ques ionnai e (weaning pigs, a ening pigs o b eeding gil s). The ques ionnai e u he included se s o ques ions o e alua e he pe cei ed impo ance o p e en i e mea- su es (Table 2) and in e en ion measu es (Table 3), using a scale om 1 (no impo an a all) o 7 ( e y im- po an ). The p e en i e measu es we e di ided in o ou subca ego ies: Housing and en i onmen ; Pig be- ha iou ; Feed and wa e ; Animals. Fu he mo e, a me s we e asked o e alua e he e iciency o di e en ma- nipulable ma e ials in p e en ing ail bi ing (Table 4) on he scale 1 (no a all e icien ) o 7 ( e y e icien ), and o es ima e how much bedding- ype ma e ial hey use pe pig pe day. P oduce s we e also gi en he oppo un- i y o w i e open commen s and sugges ions on all he abo e opics. In he las pa o he ques ionnai e, p oduce s we e asked how se ious a p oblem hey pe cei e ail bi ing o be on hei a m (1: no a se ious p oblem a all–7: a e y se ious p oblem) (TB p oblem), and how much ail bi ing hey ind o s ill be accep able (TB accep able). Fi- nally, we asked how p obably he a me s would aise ail-docked pigs i i was allowed in Finland (TD p ob- abili y) (1: no a all p obable–7: e y p obable), and asked hem o mo i a e hei answe . Responden s we e also asked abou he le el o ail bi ing on hei a m (TB le el), ei he by using eedback om he slaugh e - house o heal h ca e egis a ions, o es ima ed by hem- sel es. The esponden s we e old o de ine ail bi ing as a ail wi h clea bi ing ma ks and / o blood, o he ail is clea ly sho ened due o bi ing. S a is ical analyses All s a is ical analysed we e pe o med wi h IBM SPSS s a is ics 21. Desc ip i e da a is gi en bo h as median and in e - qua ile ange and as a e age and s anda d de ia ion. All s a is ical es s a e pe o med using non-pa ame ic es s, as mos a iables we e non-no mally dis ibu ed, and as he majo i y o he a iables a e non-con inuous. Because he median is a he in a iable, and hus does no disc imina e di e ences e y well in da a based on a ca ego ical scale, he pe cei ed e iciency o he di e en measu es o p e en ail bi ing and in e en ion mea- su es a e anked using a e age alues. The di e ence in he a e age sco e o he p e en ion measu e subca ego ies, as well as he di e ence in pe - cei ed impo ance o in e en ion measu es was es ed Val os e al. Po cine Heal h Managemen (2016) 2:2 Page 9 o 11