The actions of farmers and agro-cooperatives to reduce tail-biting and prevent routine tail-docking of pigs

Transcription

1 Copa-Cogeca: The united voice of farmers and their cooperatives in the European Union The actions of farmers and agro-cooperatives to reduce tail-biting and prevent routine tail-docking of pigs Margareta Åberg Miguel Higuera Vice-Chair of Copa and Cogeca Working Party on Pigmeat

2 Agriculture 4.0 Feeding the next generation 1. Copa and Cogeca 2. Context 3. The actions of farmers and agro-cooperatives to reduce tail-biting and prevent routine tail-docking of pigs 4. What is missing?

3 Who are Copa and Cogeca? Two organisations. Copa Created in 1958, Copa represents 23 million European farmers and family members. Cogeca Created in 1959, Cogeca represents 22, 000 European agricultural cooperatives. Copa and Cogeca In 1962, a joint Secretariat was created, making it one of the biggest and most active lobby organisations in Brussels

4 The actions of farmers and agro-cooperatives to reduce tailbiting and prevent routine tail-docking of pigs Good animal health is a significant part of animal welfare and is also important for ethical and practical productions reasons. Therefore, a good level of welfare for pigs is of the utmost importance to European producers. - In recent years, the sector has made important investments in animal welfare; - As result, and according to a recent study on Assessing farmers cost of compliance with legislation in the fields of environment, animal welfare and food safety, the EU pigmeat faces the highest costs of compliance with legislation related to environment, animal welfare and food safety. - Non-compliance distorts competition. European producers are committed to complying with the legislation and creating conditions to stop tail docking and tail biting. - Copa and Cogeca welcomed and participated in the elaboration of the Commission guidelines on enrichment material and reduce tailbiting, because... farmers need clarity on the use of enrichment material. and need practical set of tools to help them to implement directive on protection of pigs

5 European producers are committed to complying with the legislation and creating conditions to stop tail docking and tail biting. Tail biting is a multifactorial problem (EFSA Journal 2007/611, 1-3) and often several causes trigger the problem, such as climate, water conditions, nutrition, health, breeding, type of production facility, health conditions, materials, social structure of each herd, available resources, etc. This has been the conclusion of several studies, including Hunter et al., 2001: Given that the risk of tail biting is multifactorial, no single reliable alternative solution has been developed and previously successful treatments may be ineffective with later outbreaks. (Hunter et al., 2001; Schrøder-Petersen & Simonsen, 2001) The welfare issues are areas where ongoing intensive efforts are being made to find practical solutions through different initiatives across Europe: 92% of UK pigs are assessed 3-4 times per year for a range of welfare measures as standard via an independently audited assurance scheme (Red Tractor). (Could you clarify wether tail docking is part of this scheme?)

6 Copa - Cogeca survey about tail docking tail biting and use of enrichment material results

7 LUXEMBURG SLOVENIA ESTONIA LATVIA SLOVAKIA BULGARIA LITHUANIA GREECE CROATIA ROMANIA BELGIUM ITALY POLAND No information provided to Copa-Cogeca survey COUNTRIES: Non reporting countries: 13 Reporting countries: 15 Participation: 50% MALTA CYPRUS FINLAND SWEDEN CZECK REP IRELAND PORTUGAL AUSTRIA HUNGARY UNITED K NETHERLAND DENMARK FRANCE GERMANY SPAIN Information provided to Copa-Cogeca survey PIG POPULATION: Non reporting pigs: 35,2 * 10 6 Reporting pigs: 112 * 10 6 Share: 76,02% 0, , , , , , , ,00

8 1.- Are your members aware of Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 and the accompanying Commission Staff Working Document? Answers: 86,6% YES; 69,20% No; 30,80% 0,00% 10,00% 20,00% 30,00% 40,00% 50,00% 60,00% 70,00% 80,00% 90,00% 100,00%

9 2.- Has your Member state made your own Guideline based in Recommendation (UE) 2016/336? Answers: 86,6% YES; 69,20% No; 30,80% 0,00% 10,00% 20,00% 30,00% 40,00% 50,00% 60,00% 70,00% 80,00% 90,00% 100,00%

10 3.- Does your country specific subsidies/funds allocated to farmers to implement more requirements that Directive 120/2008? Answers: 93,33% YES; 21,42% No; 78,58% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

11 4.- Do you have a written document to risk assessment protocol to prevent tail biting and avoid tail docking? Answers: 93,33% YES; 64,30% No; 35,70% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

12 5.- How make the risk assessment: Farmer or veterinarian or both? Answers: 86,33% Farmers Vets Both % 0% 15,4% 85,6 Vets; 15,40% Both; 84,60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

13 6.- Do you have a written protocol with minimal conditions to prevent tail biting and avoid tail docking in your country? Answers: 86,33% YES; 25,0% No; 75,0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

14 7.- Prevalence of tail docking in your country? Answers: 93,33% A B C D E F G H I J K L M N % , Av. Av. Country Census % 77,89 90,77

15 8.- Tail biting on entire tails: Prevalence: Answers: 66,33% Av. Countries: 29,45% Av. Census: 45,97% "76-100" "51-75" Increasing; 0% Decreasing; 50% Evolution: Answers: 53,33% Stable; 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% "26-50" "11-25" "6-10" Nurserires; 0% Fatteners; 20% Location (nursery, Fattening, Both) Answers: 66,67% Both; 80% "0-5" 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

16 9.- Tail biting on docked tails: Prevalence: Answers: 66,33% Av. Countries: 5,6% Av. Census: 5,5% "26-100" Increasing; 0% Decreasing; 57% Evolution: Answers: 46,66% Stable; 43% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% "11-25" "6-10" Location (nursery, Fattening, Both) Answers: 53,33% "3-5" Nurserires; 13% Fatteners; 25% Both; 63% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% "0-2" 0% 20% 40% 60%

17 10.- Facilities at nurseries in your country: % Automatic Air Controlling Answers: 100% 95,00% Answers: 93,33% % of different floor surface by country: 100% Concrete; 9,50% 100% Slatted; 48,40% Mix Floor; 42,10% 85,00% 75,00% 65,00% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 55,00% % of different floor surface by total animals: 100% Concrete; 4,90% 100% Slatted; 53,80% Mix Floor; 41,30% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 45,00% 35,00% 25,00% Av. Av. Farms Animals % AC 84,14% 91,62%

18 11.- Facilities at fatteners in your country: % Automatic Air Controlling Answers: 100% 85,00% Answers: 86,66% % of different floor surface by country: 75,00% 100% Concrete; 100% Slatted; 39,8% % of different floor surface by total animals: Mix Floor; 44,3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 65,00% 55,00% 45,00% 100% Concrete; 9,4% 100% Slatted; 45,2% Mix Floor; 45,4% 35,00% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 25,00% Av. Farms Av. Animals % AC 70,60% 77,12%

19 12.- What is the estimated prevalence of farms with suitable enrichment material? : Answers: 80% 85,00% ,00% ,00% 80 55,00% 60 45,00% 40 35,00% 20 0 A B C D E F G H I J K L % ,00% Av. Av. Country Census %EM 68,10% 76,47%

20 13.- Enrichment material used in nurseries: Answers: 80% % of metal chains or plastic toys 44,8 % of mixter of above 18,5 % of material located in floor (minced straw, sawdust, sand ) % of bedding (straw ) 11,6 11,3 % of disposal divices (Straw, hay, mushroom compost ) % suspended wood 6,8 6,7 % of others 0,4

21 14.- What are the main challenges farmers are facing to avoid tail docking? 1 to 10 (1 less importance, 10 much importance) Answers: 86,66% High risk of tail biting Changes in pig density Unsuitable or insufficient enrichment material Change in air conditions (ventilation, air quality ) Changes in facilities: floor surface, pen design Changes in feed supply Avoid mixture of pigs Lack of training Lack of information Aggressive genetics Changes in water supply 6,46 6,31 6,00 5,92 5,58 5,46 5,00 4,83 4,75 4,08 9,46 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 7,00 8,00 9,00 10,00 Other: Animal Health; Aids for farmers; Interest from consumers

22 Answers: 100% 15.- From a farmer point of view what are the key factors to prevent tail biting. 1 to 10 (1 less importance, 10 much importance) Housing Environment Water and Feed Supply Animal Health Behaviour of the pigs 8,47 7,93 7,87 7,53 7,33 Enrichment materials (quantity) Enrichment materials (location) 5,60 5,29 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 7,00 8,00 9,00 Others: Stocking density; spotting and removing of biters

23 Answers: 100% 16.- Does your country or national farmer organization have a strategy to prevent tail biting and avoid tail docking? YES ; 53,33% NO; 46,67% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

24 17. What tools are available for farmers to prevent tail biting? Answers: 73,33% % free answer frequency Envioroment conditions Tail Biting Manual - Guidelines Network groups Management recomendations Check llist Share information along the chain Pig Health Improve behaviour Stock density Enrichment Material More Studies Experience Remove biters On line information 0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00 12,00 14,00

25 18.- What tools farmers need to stop routine tail biting? Answers: 80% Enrichment material More Studies Training Market acceptation Housing Action in TB outbreal Remove biters Repeatable success Aids / Funds Sedatives Cost production study Stocking density Econimic incentive % free answer frequency

26 Answers: 100% 19.- For communication proposal. What are the most effective ways to arrive to farmers. 1 to 10 (1 less importance, 10 much importance) Face to Face training with spcecialist Writtehn guidelines in their ouw language Articles in national farmer's magazines Website in their own language with examples TV material in treir own language Website in English with examples Conferences, meetings by streamer in English Written guidelines in English 2,53 8,40 7,47 6,60 5,93 5,29 4,40 4,13 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 7,00 8,00 9,00 Other: Sharing knowledge between farmers; examples from the same country; Adviser for good and best practices

27 Answers: 100% 20.- The measures implemented to prevent tail biting and avoid tail docking: increase, reduce or not affect the production cost Increase; 86,66% Decrease; 0% Do not affect; 13,34% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

28 21.- Placing in the market products coming from pig with entire tail: Answers: 100% Consumers will pay more for pig meat and pork products 13,33% Consumers are not going to pay more 60,00% I really do not know if consumer are aware about tail docking 26,67% 0,00% 25,00% 50,00% 75,00%

29 Netherlands Some Member States, such as the Netherlands (Dalfsen Declaration ), have introduced voluntary plans to phase out tail docking step by step in a responsible manner, aiming to abolish it completely in the long run. A study group called curly tail with representatives stakeholders of the pig farming sector (LTO and NVV, the Dutch Society for the protection of Animals, Ministry of Economic Affairs, veterinarians, breeding organization, animal feed industry and slaughter, worked together on a program to attempt to reach a breakthrough in stopping tail docking. Scientists from the disciplines of health, welfare and enrichment materials, breeding, feeding, housing and climate and economy have indicated that scientifically the effect on tail biting an the possibilities to prevent or combat possible outbreaks. After the inventory the signed the declaration of Dalfsen (Appendix). The declaration of Dalfsen describes the route map of the Netherlands how the work on with high ambition and responsibility to incrementally part and eventually stop docking completely.

30 In Finland and Sweden is not allowed to dock the tails. These MS have valuable experience on using enrichment material and successfully managing to reduce tail biting and to achieve profitable pig production systems. Enrichment material makes a positive contribution to decreasing the stress of the pig and is important in the prevention of tail biting, but unfortunately does not guarantee the full elimination of this problem.

31 The actions of farmers and agro-cooperatives to reduce tailbiting and prevent routine tail-docking of pigs Development management- to decrease tailbiting Animal Welfare Platform know how Rekommendations farmlevel Eviroment-ammonia-heat -cold Enrichement material All in all out prevent infections Space Use of anthibiothics Presency in the stables stop before tailbiting start

32 What is missing & conclusions - It is important to support initiatives that can ensure a market-driven development in animal welfare in the future and at the same time the sustainability of the pigmeat market. - Involve farmers in the early stages of development of workable and more effective solutions that would fit the specific production and edaphic-climatic conditions of each European region. - farmers must be given sufficient flexibility to implement necessary requirements based on sound scientific evidence on the actual impact on the pig rather than on human perception. - Additional research based on missing knowledge driven by farmer s needs - More training and Educational materials in opposite to punishment approach - we call for the enforcement of existing animal welfare legislation in all Member States before new animal welfare requirements are even considered. - Ensure coherence with trade policy respect same welfare standards than EU farmers higher production costs due to the implementation of the EU welfare legislation will be transmitted along food chain;

33 Thanks for listening Follow #dynamicagri