1. Objectives & expectations for workshop 4-6th October 2016: Actions to Prevent Tail biting and Reduce Tail docking of Pigs Terence Cassidy DG Health and Food Safety

2. Musical evening

3. Directive 2008/120/EC
1991
2001
2008
In '91 requirement that routine tail docking only if evidence of tail biting and measures taken to prevent it

4. Overview of farm inspections in EU (2013) 4.3 % farms checked
19.2 % non-compliant
Record keeping
15.5 %
Buildings and accommodation
27.5 %
Manipulable materials
8.4 %
Feed, water and other substances
11.8 %
Mutilations
2.2 %
only 80% comply & our audits find inspections are far from perfect Bldg NC rose to over 28% in 2014
Automatic and mechanical equipment 4.2% NC – but Ovs assessing this?
Also EFSA don’t agree "Despite strong commercial opinion, there is insufficient experimental evidence that poor air
quality is a hazard for tail biting. The evidence of artificial ventilation being a hazard for tail biting is limited and probably
confounded." And
Feed and Water v EFSA - we will hear about this from scientists:
"There is limited evidence for a hazard associated with water provision, although impaired
quality of drinking water or a cut in water provision can become a hazard for tail biting
during summer." Also no evidence on feed type.
pig:stockperson ratio, is essential EFSA – so what is it in CH FI and SE

5. Commission Recommendation 2016
Recommendation (EU) 2016/336
Staff working document SWD(2016)49 final

6. What do Commission/MS want to achieve?
Discuss what needs to be done to: change farm management and environmental factors to reduce stress for pigs, prevent tail biting and avoid tail docking.
Expectations to be written down
two million pig holdings in 2013 while Member States report 700 000 pig holdings subject to animal welfare inspections.

7. Workshop to direct actions
Improve application of Council Directive 2008/120/EC by considering:
Farm risk assessment/compliance criteria
CA monitoring
Measures to ensure compliance
EU actions

8. The Risk Assessment Recommendation (EU) 2016/336
How does a farmer carry out "the risk assessment" on tail-biting using:
animal indicators and
non-animal based indicators?
How to interpret the results: compliance criteria?
(a) the enrichment materials provided; (b) cleanliness; (c) thermal comfort and air quality (OC focus on alarms rather than humidity, drafts which are the stressors in this context) (d) health status; (e) competition for food and space; (f) diet. What changes should be made at farm level based on these results?

9. Monitoring application of requirements
To discuss how MS:
Ensure compliance with requirements - Article 4 Directive 2008/120/EC
Organise inspections - Article 8 Directive 2008/120/EC and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004
Pigs
Pigs one of the worst performing sector - 4.3 % farms with 80.8 % compliant (goats also 80%?? other sectors >85%)
Need for calibration of inspections also as MS report shows Member States' reports show a low rate of non-compliances concerning pigs and the provision of manipulable material - 8.4% the . For mutilations (i.e. tail-docking but also castration and teeth clipping) the rate of non-compliance registered by the Member States was 2.2%.
(Ensure and can demonstrate this – impt for benchmarking)
In fact there was frequently a lack of insistence by the competent authority to try other measures, such as changes to environmental conditions or management systems. In addition, unsuitable materials such as metal chains were considered acceptable by a majority of the Member States’ officials while suitable materials were e.g. considered incompatible with drainage systems.

10. MS ensure compliance (not just inspections)
Farmer
Vet
Slaughter
house
Peers
Farm Advisor
MS ensure compliance (not just inspections)
Art 4 "ensure"
Whats
at MS level?
How to measure progress?

12. What value can be added at EU level?
Political and technical meetings
Audits
A "task force"
A communication strategy