The Importance of the Social Sciences in Reducing Tail Biting Prevalence in Pigs
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Behaviour Change Research in Animal Welfare and Agricultural Research to Date
3. A Guide for Designing Behaviour Change Interventions to Reduce Tail Biting
3.1. Understand the Behaviour
3.2. Identify Intervention Options
3.3. Identify Intervention Content and Implementation Options
4. Application of Behavioural Science Theory in Animal Welfare and Agricultural Research to Date
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- D’Eath, R.B.; Arnott, G.; Turner, S.P.; Jensen, T.; Lahrmann, H.P.; Busch, M.E.; Niemi, J.K.; Lawrence, A.B.; Sandøe, P. Injurious tail biting in pigs: How can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking? Animal 2014, 8, 1479–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Taylor, N.R.; Main, D.C.J.; Mendl, M.; Edwards, S.A. Tail-biting: A new perspective. Vet. J. 2010, 186, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schrøder-Petersen, D.L.; Simonsen, H.B. Tail biting in pigs. Vet. J. 2001, 162, 196–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Seerley, R.W.; Young, H.G.; Fredrikson, J.F. Swine housing studies: Type of floors, insulation, and methods of handling waste. In South Dakota Swine Field Day Proceedings and Research Reports; South Dakota State University: Brookings, SD, USA, 1963. [Google Scholar]
- Jericho, K.W.F.; Church, T.L. Cannibalism in pigs. Canadian Vet. J. 1972, 13, 156–159. [Google Scholar]
- Van dan Berg, J. Tail-biting in pigs. Causes, effects and prevention. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde 1982, 19, 735. [Google Scholar]
- Carroll, G.A.; Boyle, L.A.; Teixeira, D.L.; van Staaveren, N.; Hanlon, A.; O’Connell, N.E. Effects of scalding and dehairing of pig carcasses at abattoirs on the visibility of welfare-related lesions. Animal 2016, 10, 460–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carroll, G.A.; Boyle, L.A.; Hanlon, A.; Collins, L.; Griffin, K.; Friel, M.; Armstrong, D.; O’Connell, N.E. What can carcass-based assessments tell us about the lifetime welfare status of pigs? Livest. Sci. 2018, 214, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marques, B.M.F.P.P.; Bernardi, M.L.; Coelho, C.F.; Almeida, M.; Morales, O.E.; Mores, T.J.; Borowski, S.M.; Barcellos, D.E.S.N. Influence of tail biting on weight gain, lesions and condemnations at slaughter of finishing pigs. Pesq. Vet. Bras. 2012, 32, 967–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Valros, A.; Munsterhjelm, C.; Puolanne, E.; Ruusunen, M.; Heinonen, M.; Peltoniemi, O.A.T.; Pösö, A.R. Physiological indicators of stress and meat and carcass characteristics in tail bitten slaughter pigs. Acta Vet. Scand. 2013, 55, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huey, R. Incidence, location and interrelationships between the sites of abscesses recorded in pigs at a bacon factory in Northern Ireland. Vet. Rec. 1996, 138, 511–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devitt, C.; Boyle, L.; Teixeira, D.L.; O’Connell, N.E.; Hawe, M.; Hanlon, A. Pig producer perspectives on the use of meat inspection as an animal health and welfare diagnostic tool in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Ir. Vet. J. 2015, 69, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gocsik, E.; Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M.; Voermans, G.; Saatkamp, H.W. Economic feasibility of animal welfare improvements in Dutch intensive livestock production: A comparison between broiler, laying hen, and fattening pig sectors. Livest. Sci. 2015, 182, 38–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chedad, A.; Moshou, D.; Aerts, J.M.; Van Hirtum, A.; Ramon, H.; Berckmans, D. Recognition system for pig cough based on probabilistic neural networks. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 2001, 79, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peden, R.S.E.; Turner, S.P.; Boyle, L.A.; Camerlink, I. The translation of animal welfare research into practice: The case of mixing aggression between pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018, 204, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van de Weerd, H.; Ison, S. Providing effective environmental enrichment to pigs: How far have we come? Animals 2019, 9, 254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bentley, J.W. Facts, fantasies, and failures of farmer participatory research. Agri. Human Val. 1994, 11, 140–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chulayo, A.Y.; Tada, O.; Muchenje, V. Research on pre-slaughter stress and meat quality: A review of challenges faced under practical conditions. Appl. Anim. Husb. Rural Develop. 2012, 5, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Wathes, C.M.; Kristensen, H.H.; Aerts, J.M.; Berckmans, D. Is precision livestock farming an engineer’s daydream or nightmare, an animal’s friend or foe, and a farmer’s panacea or pitfall? Comput. Electron. Agric. 2008, 64, 2–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weary, D.M.; Ventura, B.A.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Societal views and animal welfare science: Understanding why the modified cage may fail and other stories. Animal 2015, 10, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lahrmann, H.P.; Hansen, C.F.; D’Eath, R.B.; Busch, M.E.; Nielsen, J.P.; Forkman, B. Early intervention with enrichment can prevent tail biting outbreaks in weaner pigs. Livest. Sci. 2018, 214, 272–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wedin, M.; Baxter, E.M.; Jack, M.; Futro, A.; D’Eath, R.B. Early indicators of tail biting outbreaks in pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018, 208, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, P.K.; Bilkei, G. Tail-biting in outdoor pig production. Vet. J. 2006, 171, 367–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Briyne, N.; Berg, C.; Blaha, T.; Palzer, A.; Temple, D. Phasing out pig tail docking in the EU—Present state, challenges and possibilities. Porcine Health Manag. 2018, 8, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harley, S.; More, S.J.; Connell, N.E.O.; Hanlon, A.; Teixeira, D.; Boyle, L. Evaluating the prevalence of tail biting and carcase condemnations in slaughter pigs in the Republic and Northern Ireland, and the potential of abattoir meat inspection as a welfare surveillance tool. Vet. Rec. 2012, 171, 621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nalon, E.; De Briyne, N. Efforts to ban the routine tail docking of pigs and to give pigs enrichment materials via EU law: Where do we stand a quarter of a century on? Animals 2019, 9, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lahrmann, H.P.; Busch, M.E.; D’Eath, R.B.; Forkman, B.; Hansen, C.F. More tail lesions among undocked than tail docked pigs in a conventional herd. Animal 2017, 11, 1825–1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogden, J. Theories, timing and choice of audience: Some key tensions in health psychology and a response to commentaries on Ogden (2016). Health Psychol. Rev. 2016, 10, 274–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, R.W. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J. Psychol. 1975, 91, 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Locke, E.A.; Latham, G.P. A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Janz, N.K.; Becker, M.H. The health belief model: A decade later. Health Ed. Quart. 1984, 11, 1–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action Control; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar]
- Marks, D.F.; Murray, M.; Estacio, E.V. Theories, Models and Interventions. In Health Psychology, 5th ed.; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2018; pp. 185–208. [Google Scholar]
- Strecher, V.J.; McEvoy DeVellis, B.; Becker, M.H.; Rosenstock, I.M. The role of self-efficacy in achieving health behavior change. Health Ed. Quart. 1986, 13, 73–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webb, T.; Joseph, J.; Yardley, L.; Michie, S. Using the internet to promote health behavior change: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of theoretical basis, use of behavior change techniques, and mode of delivery on efficacy. J. Med. Internet Res. 2010, 12, e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kauppinen, T.; Vainio, A.; Valros, A.; Rita, H.; Vesala, K.M. Improving animal welfare: Qualitative and quantitative methodology in the study of farmers’ attitudes. Anim. Welf. 2010, 19, 523–536. [Google Scholar]
- Borges, J.A.R.; de Faria Domingues, C.H.; Caldara, F.R.; da Rosa, N.P.; Senger, I.; Guidolin, D.G.F. Identifying the factors impacting on farmers’ intention to adopt animal friendly practices. Prev. Vet. Med. 2019, 170, 104718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sniehotta, F.F.; Presseau, J.; Araújo-Soares, V. Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychol. Rev. 2014, 8, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sniehotta, F.F.; Scholz, U.; Schwarzer, R. Bridging the intention-behaviour gap: Planning, self-efficacy, and action control in the adoption and maintenance of physical exercise. Psychol. Heal. 2005, 20, 143–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrington, M.J.; Neville, B.A.; Whitwell, G.J. Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 97, 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude—Behavioral intention” gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2006, 19, 169–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hennessy, T.; Kinsella, A.; Thorne, F. Planned intentions versus actual behaviour: Assessing the reliability of intention surveys in predicting farmers’ production levels post decoupling. Int. J. Farm Manag. 2016, 5, 70–78. [Google Scholar]
- Lefebvre, M.; Raggi, M.; Gomez, Y.; Paloma, S.; Viaggi, D. An analysis of the intention-realisation discrepancy in EU farmers’ land investment decisions. Rev. d’Études en Agric. Environ. 2014, 95, 51–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kauppinen, T.; Mikko, K.; Valros, A. Farmer attitude toward improvement of animal welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters. Livest. Sci. 2012, 143, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kielland, C.; Skjerve, E.; Østerås, O.; Zanella, A.J. Dairy farmer attitudes and empathy toward animals are associated with animal welfare indicators. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 2998–3006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kiliç, I.; Bozkurt, Z. The relationship between farmers’ perceptions and animal welfare standards in sheep farms. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 26, 1329–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- O’Kane, H.; Ferguson, E.; Kaler, J.; Green, L. Associations between sheep farmer attitudes, beliefs, emotions and personality, and their barriers to uptake of best practice: The example of footrot. Prev. Vet. Med. 2017, 139, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Benard, M.; Schuitmaker, T.J.; de Cock Buning, T. Scientists and Dutch pig farmers in dialogue about tail biting: Unravelling the mechanism of multi-stakeholder learning. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2014, 27, 431–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lusk, J.L.; McCluskey, J. Understanding the impacts of food consumer choice and food policy outcomes. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2018, 40, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toma, L.; Stott, A.W.; Heffernan, C.; Ringrose, S.; Gunn, G.J. Determinants of biosecurity behaviour of British cattle and sheep farmers—A behavioural economics analysis. Prev. Vet. Med. 2013, 108, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Michie, S.; Johnston, M.; Abraham, C.; Lawton, R.; Parker, D.; Walker, A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: A consensus approach. BMJ Qual. Saf. 2005, 14, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Michie, S.; Van Stralen, M.M.; West, R. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement. Sci. 2011, 6, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michie, S.; Richardson, M.; Johnston, M.; Hardeman, W.; Eccles, M.P.; Cane, J.; Wood, C.E. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann. Behav. Med. 2013, 46, 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atkins, L.; Francis, J.; Islam, R.; Connor, D.O.; Patey, A.; Ivers, N.; Foy, R.; Duncan, E.M.; Colquhoun, H.; Grimshaw, J.M.; et al. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement. Sci. 2017, 12, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyson, J.; Lawton, R.; Jackson, C.; Cheater, F.; Health, A. Does the use of a theoretical approach tell us more about hand hygiene behaviour? The barriers and levers to hand hygiene. J. Infect. Prev. 2011, 12, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
- Cane, J.; Richardson, M.; Johnston, M.; Ladha, R.; Michie, S. From lists of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to structured hierarchies: Comparison of two methods of developing a hierarchy of BCTs. Br. J. Health. Psychol. 2015, 130–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- French, S.D.; Green, S.E.; Connor, D.A.O.; Mckenzie, J.E.; Francis, J.J.; Michie, S.; Buchbinder, R.; Schattner, P.; Spike, N.; Grimshaw, J.M. Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: A systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implement. Sci. 2012, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Michie, S.; Atkins, L.; West, R. The Behaviour Change Wheel. A Guide to Designing Interventions, 1st ed.; Silverback Publishing: Sutton, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Michie, S.; Johnston, M.; Francis, J.; Hardeman, W.; Eccles, M. From Theory to Intervention: Mapping Theoretically Derived Behavioural Determinants to Behaviour Change Techniques. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 57, 660–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, N.R.; Parker, R.M.; Mendl, M.; Edwards, S.A.; Main, D.C. Prevalence of risk factors for tail biting on commercial farms and intervention strategies. Vet. J. 2012, 194, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Landsberger, H.A. Hawthorne Revisited; Cornell University: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1958. [Google Scholar]
- Whay, H.R.; Barker, Z.E.; Leach, K.A.; Main, D.C.J. Promoting farmer engagement and activity in the control of dairy cattle lameness. Vet. J. 2012, 193, 617–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- University College London. Available online: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/health-psychology/bcttaxonomy/BCT_app1 (accessed on 22 July 2019).
- Mohite, D.S.; Sheikh, C.S.; Singh, S.; Kalita, J.; Williams, S.; Compston, P.C. Using qualitative methods to explore farrier-related barriers to successful farriery interventions for equine welfare in India. Animals 2019, 9, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McLeod, L.J.; Hine, D.W.; Bengsen, A.J. Born to roam? Surveying cat owners in Tasmania, Australia, to identify the drivers and barriers to cat containment. Prev. Vet. Med. 2015, 122, 339–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malik, A.; Bradbury, A.G. How can nurses improve pain management within the veterinary clinic? Vet. Nurs. J. 2016, 31, 140–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellet, C.; Woodnutt, J.; Green, L.E.; Kaler, J. Preventative services offered by veterinarians on sheep farms in England and Wales: Opinions and drivers for proactive flock health planning. J. Pre. Vet. Med. 2015, 122, 381–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, C.; Smith, M.; Currie, K.; Dickson, A.; Smith, F.; Davis, M.; Flowers, P. Exploring the behavioural drivers of veterinary surgeon antibiotic prescribing: A qualitative study of companion animal veterinary surgeons in the UK. BMC Vet. Res. 2018, 14, 332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shortall, O.; Ruston, A.; Green, M.; Brennan, M.; Wapenaar, W.; Kaler, J. Broken biosecurity? Veterinarians’ framing of biosecurity on dairy farms in England. Prev. Vet. Med. 2016, 132, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Dubois, C.; Odame, H.H.; Haley, D.B.; Merkies, K. Examining Canadian Equine Industry Participants’ Perceptions of Horses and Their Welfare. Animals 2018, 8, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pritchard, J.; Upjohn, M.; Hirson, T. Improving working equine welfare in ‘hard-win’ situations, where gains are difficult, expensive or marginal. PloS ONE 2018, 13, e0191950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McDonald, J.L.; Farnworth, M.J.; Clements, J. Integrating trap-neuter-return campaigns into a social framework: Developing long-term positive behavior change toward unowned cats in urban areas. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McDonald, J.L.; Clements, J. Engaging with socio-economically disadvantaged communities and their cats: Human behaviour change for animal and human benefit. Animals 2019, 9, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mc Sharry, J.; Murphy, P.J.; Byrne, M. Implementing international sexual counselling guidelines in hospital cardiac rehabilitation: Development of the CHARMS intervention using the Behaviour Change Wheel. Implement. Sci. 2016, 11, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murphy, P.J.; Noone, C.; D’Eath, M.; Casey, D.; Doherty, S.; Jaarsma, T.; Murphy, A.W.; O’Donnell, M.; Fallon, N.; Gillespie, P.; et al. The CHARMS pilot study: A multi-method assessment of the feasibility of a sexual counselling implementation intervention in cardiac rehabilitation in Ireland. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018, 4, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Eath, M.; Byrne, M.; Murphy, P.; Jaarsma, T.; McSharry, J.; Murphy, A.W.; Doherty, S.; Noone, C.; Casey, D. Participants’ experiences of a sexual counseling intervention during cardiac rehabilitation: A nested qualitative study within the CHARMS pilot randomized controlled trial. J. Cardiovasc. Nurs. 2018, 33, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, C.M.; Hunt, K.; Mutrie, N.; Anderson, A.S.; Leishman, J.; Dalgarno, L.; Wyke, S. Football fans in training: The development and optimization of an intervention delivered through professional sports clubs to help men lose weight, become more active and adopt healthier eating habits. BMC Public Health 2013, 13, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wyke, S.; Hunt, K.; Gray, C.M.; Fenwick, E.; Bunn, C.; Donnan, P.T.; Rauchhaus, P.; Mutrie, N.; Anderson, A.S.; Boyer, N.; et al. Football Fans in Training (FFIT): A randomised controlled trial of a gender-sensitised weight loss and healthy living programme for men—End of study report. Public Health Res. 2015, 3, 1–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Framework | Main Features | Useful for |
---|---|---|
Theoretical Domains Framework | 128 theoretical constructs from 33 theories of behaviour and behaviour change clustered into 14 domains The 14 theoretical domains are; knowledge; skills; social/professional role and identity; beliefs about capabilities; optimism, beliefs about consequences; reinforcement; intention; goals; memory, attention and decision processes; environmental context and resources; social influences; emotion and behavioural regulation | Systematic identification of potential barriers to and facilitators of a desired behaviour |
Behaviour Change Wheel | Three layers comprised of; COM-B model: Provides the basis for understanding behaviour in context and selecting appropriate intervention function Intervention functions: Broad categories of means by which an intervention can change behaviour Policy categories: Actions that can be taken by responsible authorities that enable implementation | Understanding a behaviour Designing theory-based interventions to change behaviour Increasing the replicability and efficacy of behaviour change interventions |
Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy | A comprehensive standardized list of 93 behaviour change techniques (BCTs) grouped into 16 clusters The 16 clusters are; goals and planning; feedback and monitoring; social support; shaping knowledge; natural consequences; comparison of behaviour; associations; repetition and substitution; comparison of outcomes; reward and threat; regulation; antecedents; identity; scheduled consequences; self-belief; covert learning | Creating intervention content Specifying the active ingredients of behaviour change interventions Increasing the replicability and efficacy of behaviour change interventions |
Barrier to Behaviour | Theoretical Domain | COM-B (Source of Behaviour) | Intervention Function | Policy Category | Behaviour Change Technique | Intervention Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lack of knowledge about how to prevent tail biting | Knowledge | Capability (psychological and physical) Motivation (reflective) | Education | Guidelines | Instruction on how to perform a behaviour | A document outlining recommended practices to reduce tail biting are disseminated to farmers |
Not concerned with animal welfare | Reinforcement | Motivation (automatic) | Incentivisation | Fiscal measures | Material reward (behaviour) | Inform the farmer that they will receive money if behavioural target (e.g., adding environmental enrichment) has been performed |
Unaware that tail biting has negative economic consequences | Knowledge Belief about consequences | Motivation (reflective) Capability (psychological) | Education Persuasion | Communication/Marketing | Information about social and environmental consequences Credible source | A video is shown detailing relationship between tail lesions and economic loss. A well-respected celebrity farmer presents the information |
Financial Constraints | Environmental Context and Resources | Capability (physical) Opportunity (physical) | Enablement | Fiscal measures | Material incentive (behaviour) | Farmers are given financial support to implement behavioural targets (e.g., vouchers to purchase enrichment material) |
Time constraints | Environmental context and resources Skills | Opportunity (physical) Capability (physical) | Modelling Training | Service provision | Demonstration of the behaviour Social support (practical) | Experienced peer demonstrates how to incorporate tail biting management into daily routine |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Carroll, G.A.; Groarke, J.M. The Importance of the Social Sciences in Reducing Tail Biting Prevalence in Pigs. Animals 2019, 9, 591. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090591
Carroll GA, Groarke JM. The Importance of the Social Sciences in Reducing Tail Biting Prevalence in Pigs. Animals. 2019; 9(9):591. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090591
Chicago/Turabian StyleCarroll, Grace A., and Jenny M. Groarke. 2019. "The Importance of the Social Sciences in Reducing Tail Biting Prevalence in Pigs" Animals 9, no. 9: 591. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090591