To limit tail biting incidence, most pig producers in Europe tail dock their piglets. This is despite EU Council Directive 2008/120/EC banning routine tail docking and allowing it only as a last resort. The paper aims to understand what it takes to fulfil the intentions of the Directive by examining economic results of four management and housing scenarios, and by discussing their consequences for animal welfare in the light of legal and ethical considerations. The four scenarios compared are: ‘Standard Docked’, a conventional housing scenario with tail docking meeting the recommendations for Danish production (0.7 m2/pig); ‘Standard Undocked’, which is the same as ‘Standard Docked’ but with no tail docking, ‘Efficient Undocked’ and ‘Enhanced Undocked’, which have increased solid floor area (0.9 and 1.0 m2/pig, respectively) provision of loose manipulable materials (100 and 200 g/straw per pig per day) and no tail docking. A decision tree model based on data from Danish and Finnish pig production suggests that Standard Docked provides the highest economic gross margin with the least tail biting. Given our assumptions, Enhanced Undocked is the least economic, although Efficient Undocked is better economically and both result in a lower incidence of tail biting than Standard Undocked but higher than Standard Docked. For a pig, being bitten is worse for welfare (repeated pain, risk of infections) than being docked, but to compare welfare consequences at a farm level means considering the number of affected pigs. Because of the high levels of biting in Standard Undocked, it has on average inferior welfare to Standard Docked, whereas the comparison of Standard Docked and Enhanced (or Efficient) Undocked is more difficult. In Enhanced (or Efficient) Undocked, more pigs than in Standard Docked suffer from being tail bitten, whereas all the pigs avoid the acute pain of docking endured by the pigs in Standard Docked. We illustrate and discuss this ethical balance using numbers derived from the above-mentioned data. We discuss our results in the light of the EU Directive and its adoption and enforcement by Member States. Widespread use of tail docking seems to be accepted, mainly because the alternative steps that producers are required to take before resorting to it are not specified in detail. By tail docking, producers are acting in their own best interests. We suggest that for the practice of tail docking to be terminated in a way that benefits animal welfare, changes in the way pigs are housed and managed may first be required.

No abstract

Structural equation modelling and survey data were used to test determinants' influence on farmers' intentions towards Escherichia coli O157 on-farm control. Results suggest that farmers more likely to show willingness to spend money/time or vaccinate to control Escherichia coli O157 are those: who think farmers are most responsible for control; whose income depends more on opening farms to the public; with stronger disease control attitudes; affected by outbreaks; with better knowledge and more informed; with stronger perceptions of biosecurity measures' practicality; using a health plan; who think farmers are the main beneficiaries of control; and whose farms are dairy rather than beef. The findings might suggest that farmers may implement on-farm controls for E. coli O157 if they identify a clear hazard and if there is greater knowledge of the safety and efficacy of the proposed controls.

SUMMARYThe latest Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms could bring substantial changes to Scottish farming communities. Two major components of this reform package, an introduction of environmental measures into the Pillar 1 payments and a move away from historical farm payments towards regionalized area payments, would have a significant effect on altering existing support structures for Scottish farmers, as it would for similar farm types elsewhere in Europe where historic payments are used. An optimizing farm-level model was developed to explore how Scottish beef and sheep farms might be affected by the greening and flat rate payments under the current CAP reforms. Nine different types of beef and sheep farms were identified and detailed biophysical and financial farm-level data for these farm types were used to parameterize the model. Results showed that the greening measures of the CAP did not have much impact on net margins of most of the beef and sheep farm businesses, except for ‘Beef Finisher’ farm types where the net margins decreased by 3%. However, all farm types were better off adopting the greening measures than not qualifying for the greening payments through non-compliance with the measures. The move to regionalized farm payments increased the negative financial impact of greening on most of the farms but it was still substantially lower than the financial sacrifice of not adopting greening measures. Results of maximizing farm net margin, under a hypothetical assumption of excluding farm payments, showed that in most of the mixed (sheep and cattle) and beef suckler cattle farms the optimum stock numbers predicted by the model were lower than actual figures on farm. When the regionalized support payments were allocated to each farm, the proportion of the mixed farms that would increase their stock numbers increased whereas this proportion decreased for beef suckler farms and no impact was predicted in sheep farms. Also under the regionalized support payments, improvements in profitability were found in mixed farms and sheep farms. Some of the specialized beef suckler farms also returned a profit when CAP support was added.

Extensive sheep farming systems make an important contribution to socioeconomic well-being and the 'ecosystem services' that flow from large areas of the UK and elsewhere. They are therefore subject to much policy intervention. However, the animal welfare implications of such interventions and their economic drivers are rarely considered. Under Defra project AW1024 (a further study to assess the interaction between economics, husbandry and animal welfare in large, extensively managed sheep flocks) we therefore assessed the interaction between profit and animal welfare on extensive sheep farms. A detailed inventory of resources, resource deployment and technical performance was constructed for 20 commercial extensive sheep farms in Great Britain (equal numbers from the Scottish Highlands, Cumbria, Peak District and mid-Wales). Farms were drawn from focus groups in these regions where participative research with farmers added further information. These data were summarised and presented to a panel of 12 experts for welfare assessment. We used two welfare assessment methods one drawn from animal welfare science ('needs' based) the other from management science (Service Quality Modelling). The methods gave complementary results. The inventory data were also used to build a linear programme (LP) model of sheep, labour and feed-resource management monthby-month on each farm throughout the farming year. By setting the LP to adjust farm management to maximise gross margin under each farm's circumstances we had an objective way to explore resource allocations, their constraints and welfare implications under alternative policy response scenarios. Regression of indicators of extensification (labour per ewe, in-bye land per ewe, hill area per ewe and lambs weaned per ewe) on overall welfare score explained 0.66 of variation with labour and lambs weaned per ewe both positive coefficients. Neither gross margin nor flock size were correlated with welfare score. Gross margin was also uncorrelated with these indicators of extensification with the exception of labour/ewe, which was negatively correlated with flock size and hence with gross margin. These results suggest animal welfare is best served by reduced extensification while greater profits are found in flock expansion with reduced labour input per ewe and no increase in other inputs or in productivity. Such potential conflicts should be considered as policy adjusts to meet the requirements for sustainable land use in the hills and uplands.