title: A survey of straw use and tail biting in Swedish pig farms rearing undocked pigs.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Tail biting is a common problem in intensive pig farming, affecting both welfare and production. Although routine tail docking is banned within the EU, it remains a common practice to prevent tail biting. Straw as environmental enrichment has been proposed as an alternative to tail docking, but its effectiveness against tail biting and function in manure handling systems have to be considered. The aim of the study was to survey how pigs with intact tails are raised and how tail biting is handled in Sweden, where tail docking is banned through national legislation. The study emphasises straw usage and its association with tail biting pigs and problems in the manure handling system. The expectation is that this information could be conveyed to the rest of the EU to reduce the need for tail docking.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In a telephone survey of randomly selected Swedish pig farmers (46 nursery and 43 finishing pig units) with at least 50 sows or 300 finishing places, it was found that straw was used by 98% of the farmers. The median daily straw ration provided was 29 g/pig for nursery and 50 g/pig for finishing pigs in systems with partly slatted flooring. The reported prevalence of tail biting was 1.6% at slaughter. The majority of farmers reported that they never had manure handling problems caused by straw (56% of nursery units and 81% of finishing pig units). A proportion of farmers (37%) also provided with additional material apart from straw on some occasions, which may have affected tail biting prevalence and manure handling problems.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Swedish farmers rear undocked pigs without large problems with tail biting. Straw is the main manipulable material used, and additional manipulable material is used to various extents. The low incidence of straw obstructing the manure handling systems implies that it is indeed possible to use straw in partly slatted flooring systems, reducing the need for tail docking. The impact of using additional manipulable material is unknown and requires more investigation to separate the impact of such material from the impact of straw.
authors.affiliation: Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO-Box 234, 532 23, Skara, Sweden. torun.wallgren@slu.se.
authors.forename: Torun
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3205-2692
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Wallgren
authors.affiliation: Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO-Box 234, 532 23, Skara, Sweden.
authors.forename: Rebecka
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Westin
authors.affiliation: Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO-Box 234, 532 23, Skara, Sweden.
authors.forename: Stefan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Gunnarsson
mesh_terms: D000822:Animal Husbandry / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D000827:Animal Welfare; D000818:Animals; D001522:Behavior, Animal; D001733:Bites and Stings / Q000662:veterinary*; D005430:Floors and Floorcoverings / Q000592:standards / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D007407:Interviews as Topic; D015995:Prevalence; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013548:Sweden; D013552:Swine; D013623:Tail / Q000293:injuries*
keywords: Enrichment; Farmer survey; Fattening pigs; Finishing herd; Growing pigs; Intact tail; Manipulable material; Manure handling system; Nursery herd; Tail docking