English
French
Danish
Romanian; Moldavian; Moldovan
Italian
Bulgarian
Czech
Estonian
Finnish
Lithuanian
Latvian
Swedish
1454176
1454168
1454175
1454167
1454173
1454166
1454165
1454164
1454163
1454265
1454276
1454264
1454275
1454236
1454235
1454251
1454243
1454250
1454242
1454249
1454241
1454248
1454255
1454257
1454254
1454256
1454253
1454247
1454252
1454274
1454262
1454272
1454261
1454270
1454260
1454268
1454259
1454266
1454281
1454271
1454280
1454269
1454279
1454267
1454239
1454244
1454238
1437127
1437117
1437126
1437118
1188254
1188258
1188255
1188259
1188266
1188260
1188268
1188269
1188261
1188270
1188263
1188271
1188264
1188272
1188265
1193589
1193580
1193590
1202878
1202821
1202813
1202822
1202815
1202823
1202817
1202824
1202825
1202826
1202880
1202872
1202881
1202874
1202882
1202876
1202883
1188722
1188742
1188723
1188744
1188724
1188746
1188725
1188748
1188727
1437131
1437121
1437130
1437120
1437129
1437119
1437128
1203227
1203219
1203228
1203220
1203229
1203221
1203230
1203615
1203601
1203616
1203602
1453631
1453636
1453629
1013017
1013018
1013019
1013022
1013023
1021224
1021225
1021229
1021230
1193482
1193483
1193490
1193485
1193492
1193511
992530
992529
992526
992528
992525
992527
993479
996661
1000358
992524
992523
993472
996651
996647
996634
1203753
1010393
1202574
1202580
1030885
1030889
1030893
1030892
1030891
1030890
1030886
1202809
1202819
1202810
1202820
1203567
1203570
1203577
1203571
1203579
1203572
1203581
  • report
    Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, Directie Industrie en Handel
    2007
  • article
    The EFSA journal 611: 1 - 13
    2007
  • article
    The EFSA journal 9 (1):1966: 1 - 125
    2011

    Scientific opinion concerning the welfare of animals during transport

    The Scientific Opinion on the welfare of animals during transport reviewed the most recent scientific information concerning the main farm species. New scientific evidence and consequent conclusions and recommendations were arranged following the structure of Annex I of EC Regulation 1/2005.

  • report
    Rapport / Livestock Research, Wageningen UR 543.
    2011

    Financiële consequenties van staartbijten bij varkens

    Report on the financial consequences of tail damage due to tail biting among pigs in conventional pig farms in the Netherlands.

  • website
    EUWelnet
    2013

    EUWelnet pigtraining

    Understanding environmental enrichment and tail docking requirements for finisher pigs. This training is available in 7 languages: English, French, German, Polish, Italian, Spanish and Dutch.

  • report
    Rapport / Wageningen UR Livestock Research 605.
    2012

    Transport conditions of fattening pigs from farm to slaughterhouse : transport of pigs for more than 8 hours at two space allowances

    An investigation of travelling conditions of slaughter pigs during 8 long (>8h) journeys across Germany. Animals were transported at two loading densities. Observations of physiological (heart activity, blood parameters, body temperature) and behavioural responses (posture, fighting) weremade together with registration of environmental aspects (including indoor and outdoor temperature, wind speed, humidity, weather conditions). Driving conditions were also registered.

  • report
    Livestock research report 764.
    2014

    Note on minimum space allowance and compartment height for cattle and pigs during transport

    Graphical presentation of guidelines for minimum space allowances for cattle and pigs during transport.

  • website
    AHDB Pork
    2019

    AHDB Tail Biting WebHAT

    The Tail Biting “WebHAT” (Web based Husbandry Advisory Tool) is a website designed to be an interactive resource providing information about the key risks for tail biting in pigs and practical suggestions to help reduce these risks on-farm. Taking information from evidence based sources and scientific literature, this WebHAT identifies a number of risks associated with tail biting (a key pig behaviour), and can be used to generate a report of prioritised, key tail-biting risks found on a farm and obtain suggestions to address the specific risks identified.

  • website
    Landbouwleven
    2019
  • website
    Bundesverband Rind und Schwein e.V. (BRS)
    2018

    Kupierverzicht

    Schwanzbeißen ist eine weit verbreitete Verhaltensstörung bei Schweinen. Alle Haltungssysteme und Produktionsformen sind mehr oder weniger stark betroffen. Die Ursachen sind vielfältig (multifaktoriell). Viele Risikofaktoren sind bereits bekannt. Sie wirken jedoch auf jedem Betrieb anders und in verschiedenen Konstellationen. Daher gibt es keine Standard-Problemlösung.

  • website
    Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung
    2017

    Netzwerke 3 + 4: Aufzucht und Haltung unkupierter Schweine

    Langtitel: Verbesserung tierschutzrelevanter Haltungsbedingungen in der Schweinehaltung unter Berücksichtigung der Senkung des Risikos des Auftretens von Schwanzbeißen.

  • article
    The EFSA journal 12 3702: 1 - 101
    2014

    Scientific Opinion concerning a Multifactorial approach on the use of animal and non‐animal‐based measures to assess the welfare of pigs

    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.

  • website
    Bundesverband Rind und Schwein e.V.
  • presentation
    Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή
    2018
  • presentation
    Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή
    2018
  • presentation
    Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή
    2018
  • presentation
    Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή
    2018
  • report
    Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση
    2018
  • video
    European Union
    2018
  • article
    Porcine health management 4 27: 1 - 9
    2018

    ‘Phasing out pig tail docking in the EU - present state, challenges and possibilities’

    Background: European legislation dictates that pig tail docking is not allowed to be performed routinely (European Union. Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. OJ L 47, 18.2.2009). Nevertheless, tail docking is still practiced routinely in many European countries, while four countries stopped routine tail docking completely. Tail docking is also practiced in many countries outside Europe. The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE), the European Association of Porcine Health Management (EAPHM) together with the European Commission carried out an online survey to investigate the situation regarding the practice of pig tail docking and the provision of enrichment material across 24 European countries. It also focuses on the role of the veterinary profession and gives an overview on published literature regarding the challenges and possibilities related to the raising of pigs with intact tails. Results: Fifty-seven (57) usable survey responses from 24 countries were received. On average 77% (median = 95%) of pigs are routinely tail-docked. In Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, less than 5% of the pigs are tail-docked. According to the respondents, 67% of pigs (median = 76%) across the 24 EU countries surveyed are given suitable enrichment materials. Training of veterinary practitioners, their role in advising the producer and undertaking a risk assessment of tail biting were more positively valued in countries that stopped routine tail docking than in countries that had not stopped routine tail docking. Initiatives such as training from national authorities to encourage abandoning tail docking and routine recording of tail biting at the slaughterhouse were identified as two successful items to promote the raising of pigs with entire tails. Conclusion: In many European countries the majority of the pigs are still routinely tail-docked, which is a violation of the European legislation. To stop routine tail docking it is necessary to raise the awareness and education about risk factors to prevent tail biting. The growing knowledge about the reasons for failing voluntary national initiatives as well as about successful measures taken by some countries to make pig production with intact tails feasible should be distributed throughout the EU pig producing community. The veterinary profession has a significant role to play in raising awareness, facilitate knowledge transfer and to identify risk factors and solutions on farm level for the benefit of pig health and welfare. Keywords: Animal welfare, Enrichment materials, Mutilations, Straw, Swine, Tail biting, Veterinarian.

1 2 3 ... 53