Ref. Ares(2018)2211801 - 25/04/2018
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY
Health and food audits and analysis
DG(SANTE) 2017-6126
FINAL REPORT OF AN AUDIT
CARRIED OUT IN
SPAIN
FROM 18 SEPTEMBER 2017 TO 22 SEPTEMBER 2017
IN ORDER TO
EVALUATE MEMBER STATE ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT TAIL-BITING AND AVOID
ROUTINE TAIL-DOCKING OF PIGS
In response to information provided by the competent authority, any factual error noted in
the draft report has been corrected; any clarification appears in the form of a footnote.
Executive Summary
The report describes the outcome of an audit in Spain from 18 to 22 September 2017. This audit is
part of a Commission project aimed at improving the implementation and enforcement of Directive
2008/120/EC which lays down minimum standards for the protection of pigs in the EU.
The objective of the audit was to evaluate the suitability and effectiveness of the measures in place
to prevent tail-biting and to avoid routine tail-docking of pigs. Industry estimates the incidence of
routine tail-docking at 98.5% of all pigs.
The report concludes that the Spanish authorities have not taken effective actions to enforce the
provisions of the Directive on preventing tail-biting and avoiding routine tail-docking of pigs, but
they are becoming stricter in their interpretation of the Directive's requirement and have stated
their aims for better compliance.
Lack of detailed national guidance, failure to enforce all relevant legal provisions of Spanish
legislation and over-reliance on generic statements on the need for tail-docking from veterinarians,
has led to low levels of enforcement regarding provision of enrichment material and avoidance of
routine tail-docking. These coupled with low financial penalties have created an environment where
the threat of competent authority enforcement will not be viewed as a deterrent to industry potential
non-compliances.
There is no defined national strategy to reduce tail-biting or avoid routine tail-docking of pigs but
the central competent authorities have started an initiative and provided information to the
Autonomous Communities on risk factors which, suitably modified, could enable them to review risk
parameters laid down in the Commission Recommendation and draw up criteria for improved
compliance with Directive 2008/120/EC.
The competent authorities at central and Autonomous level have taken satisfactory first steps by
working closely with industry to gather data on evidence of tail-biting and risk factors on farms. The
involvement of industry working with competent authorities is important to ensure that effective on
farm risk assessments can be developed. These could, if they include clear and measurable criteria,
and are implemented effectively, form the basis for making changes to environmental conditions and
management systems to improve the health and welfare of pigs and potentially avoid routine tail-
docking.
The data on tail damage which are available at slaughterhouse level provide opportunities for the
competent authority to improve its system (e.g. risk selection of farms, set intervention levels and
measuring progress in reducing occurrence of tail-biting) and for using its resources more
effectively to reach the objective of reducing systematic tail-docking of pigs.
The report contains recommendations to the Spanish authorities to address the shortcomings
identified.
I
link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 19
Table of Contents
1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1
2
Objectives and scope......................................................................................................................1
3
Legal basis......................................................................................................................................2
4
Background ....................................................................................................................................2
5
Findings and conclusions ...............................................................................................................3
5.1
Implementing measures...........................................................................................................3
5.2
Economic factors ...................................................................................................................10
5.3
Official Controls....................................................................................................................11
6
Overall conclusions......................................................................................................................14
7
Closing meeting ...........................................................................................................................15
8
Recommendations ........................................................................................................................15
II
ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS REPORT
Abbreviation
Explanation
AECOSAN
The Spanish Agency for Consumer Affairs, Food Safety and Nutrition
Agencia Española de Consumo, Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición
ANPROGAPOR
National Pig Farmers' Association
Asociation Nacional de Productores de Ganado Porcino
EU
European Union
MAPAMA
Ministry of Agriculture, Fish, Food and Environment
Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca y Alimentacion y Medio Ambiente
Directive
Council Directive 2008/120/EC
The
Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 of 8 March 2016 on the
Recommendation
application of Council Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum
standards for the protection of pigs
SchwIP
Tail biting intervention programme
Schwanzbeiss-Interventions-Programm
III
1 INTRODUCTION
This audit took place in the Spain from 18 to 22 September 2017 as part of the planned audit
programme of DG Health and Food Safety. An opening meeting was held with the Spanish
competent authorities on 18 September 2017. At this meeting, the objectives of, and itinerary for, the
audit were confirmed by the audit team and additional information required for the satisfactory
completion of the audit was requested.
The audit team comprised two auditors from DG Health and Food Safety and a national expert from a
Member State and was accompanied throughout the audit by representatives from the central
competent authorities the Ministry of agriculture, fish, food and the environment (MAPAMA -
Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca y Alimentacion y Medio Ambiente) and the Spanish Agency for
Consumer Affairs, Food Safety and Nutrition (AECOSAN-
Agencia Española de Consumo,
Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición).
2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The objective of the audit was to evaluate the suitability and effectiveness of the national measures in
place to prevent tail-biting and to avoid routine tail-docking of pigs.
The scope of the audit included:
Primarily measures taken and documentation from the period March 2015 to August 2017 but
actions taken by the competent authority and others prior to this date were also included as
findings in the audit report;
Activities of competent authorities;
Activities of farmers' associations, meat and feed industry, academia and Non-Governmental
Organisations to prevent tail-biting and avoid routine tail-docking of pigs;
Voluntary (quality) schemes, financial incentives or any other factors that aim to encourage
and support farmers in avoiding tail-docking.
The main legal requirements are included in:
Council Directive 2008/120/EC1;
Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council2;
Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council3.
1 Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (OJ
L 47, 18.2.2009, p. 5)
2 Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific
rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (OJ L 139,
30.4.2004, p. 206)
3 Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls
performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules
(OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1)
1
In assessing compliance with Council Directive 2008/120/EC the audit team have taken into account
Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/3364 (hereafter the Recommendation) and the
accompanying Staff Working Document5.
In pursuit of the objectives, the following meetings were held:
Meetings with competent
Comments
authorities
Competent
Central
2
Initial and closing meetings, including meetings with
authority
representatives of pig producer associations
Autonomous
3
Meetings with two Autonomous Communities include the
Communities
meetings marked * below
Farms
2
Farm 1: 1060 breeding sows, 4000 piglets and weaners
Farm 2: 5760 fattening pigs
Slaughterhouse
1
Slaughterhouse visit
Meetings
with 4
Including representatives of pig producers associations,
representatives of relevant
animal health service veterinarians, private practitioners and
bodies*
university.
3 LEGAL BASIS
The audit was carried out under the general provisions of EU legislation and, in particular Article 45
of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls
performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal
welfare rules and Article 10 of Council Directive 2008/120/EC (hereafter the Directive) laying down
the minimum standards for the protection of pigs.
EU legal acts quoted in this report are provided in Annex I and refer, where applicable, to the last
amended version.
4 BACKGROUND
Spain is the largest producer of pigs in the EU with approximately 86,000 farms and 48 million pigs
slaughtered in 2016. The vast majority of pigs are reared under intensive conditions, extensive
4 Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 of 8 March 2016 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2016, p. 20) on the application of
Council Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs
5 Commission Staff Working Document on best practices with a view to the prevention of routine tail-docking and the
provision of enrichment materials to pigs (C(2016) 1345 final)
2
farming forming approximately 1.65-3.26% of production6. Industry estimates the incidence of
routine tail-docking at 98.5% of all pigs.
Approximately 62 % of Spanish production is controlled by integrated companies ("
integradoras")
which supply the animals, feed and management input to the owners of the farms. Farm owners raise
the animals for the integrators on a contracted basis. Integrators have control of where weaned piglets
are to be sent and could therefore have a big influence on whether pigs are tail docked at birth, as
they are in a position to know where the animals are going to be fattened, and will be in charge of the
fattening stage as well as the birth to weaning and post-weaning stage. This production system
implies that farrowing, post-weaning, and fattening farms with good environmental and management
conditions could be matched, thus providing opportunities for the rearing of pigs with intact tails.
This audit is part of a Commission project aimed at improving the implementation and enforcement
of the Directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, particularly reducing
systematic tail-docking of pigs in the EU.
In 2014, the European Parliament published a study indicating extremely low implementation of the
Directive in relation to tail-docking.
In 2016, the Commission published the Recommendation which provides guidance on best practices
as regards measures to reduce the need for tail-docking and an accompanying Staff Working
Document on best practices with a view to the prevention of routine tail-docking and the provision of
enrichment materials to pigs.
The Directive leaves to Member States the choice of appropriate form and methods of ensuring
compliance with these general conditions.
5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 IMPLEMENTING MEASURES
Legal requirements
Paragraphs 4 and 8 of Annex I of Directive 2008/120/EC
Regulation (EC) No 882/2004
Findings
1. The Royal Decree No 1135/2002 transposes the requirements of point 4 and the second
paragraph of point 8 of Chapter I of Annex I of the Directive on the provision of enrichment
material and avoidance of routine tail-docking into Spanish law. There are no additional
6 Data from ANPROGAPOR:
In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority noted that: "the concept
of “extensive” is defined in specific legislation governing extensive production (Royal Decree 1221/2009).
Pursuant to that measure, production may be considered extensive only when stocking density is fewer than 15 pigs
per hectare (2.4 livestock units (LU) per hectare). Some 750,000 acorn-fed Iberian pigs (1.65% of the total) are
produced under extensive conditions. In any discussion of free-range pigs, it is necessary to include pastured stock
and those raised under the other systems with open-air enclosures, which could amount to more than 1.5 million
pigs per annum (around 3.26% of production)”.
3
requirements in national legislation above those of the Directive laid down for these two areas.
The Autonomous Communities do not have their own legislation on this matter, national
legislation applies as above.
2. The requirements of Council Directive 98/58/EC are implemented by Royal Decree
No 348/2000.
3. The application and levels of sanctions applicable for on farm non-compliances are laid down in
Law No 32/2007 of 7 November 2007. Offences are divided into minor, severe and very severe.
Non-compliances relating to enrichment material are categorised as minor (maximum fine of
€600); non-compliances relating to mutilations are categorised as severe (maximum fine of
€6000). However, see also paragraph 45 below.
Strategy for prevention of tail-biting and avoidance of routine tail-docking
4. There is no defined national strategy to reduce tail-biting or avoid routine tail-docking of pigs.
However, the central and Autonomous levels are working closely with industry to gather data on
evidence of tail-biting and risk factors on farms. The central authority will meet with the
Autonomous Communities at the end of 2017 to review the information gathered and decide on
future actions.
5. The central and Autonomous authorities and industry have worked together to prepare a
document (hereafter Document 1), which aims to respond to the Recommendation by giving
guidance to operators and officials on risk factors for tail-biting:
characteristics of enrichment materials including assessment method for use of
enrichment
recommended values for temperature, ventilation, noxious gases and dust levels
general information on health, diet and access to water:
and additional information covering:
causes for tail-biting
a scoring system for tail lesions
management of tail-biting outbreaks
advice on minimum length of docked tails and how to dock
how to provide proof of the need for (time-limited) tail-docking by documenting measures
taken in the past and producing an action plan to improve further factors to improve farm
conditions
6. Document 1 is descriptive and does not lay down clear compliance criteria for these parameters
to assess whether identified risks have been suitably addressed and whether the requirements of
the Directive have been complied with regarding prevention of tail-biting and avoidance of
routine tail-docking.
4
7. One Autonomous Community visited (AC1) circulated in April 2017 an amended version of
Document 1 which does give basic criteria for compliance with elements of certain parameters in
the Recommendation:
temperature, humidity and ammonia levels
basic assessment of animal health and behaviour
8. These assessment criteria above (paragraph 7) are subjective and don't combine animal and
resource based indicators as indicated in Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336. For
environmental gas parameters, they rely on organoleptic and individual assessment of levels of
noxious gases (i.e. inspectors' eyes starting to produce tears, or not). There is no requirement for
a more consistent, objective level of compliance such as setting levels of gas concentrations.
Indeed there were no instruments in either of the Communities visited to measure levels of
ammonia, which is indicated in Document 1 as a possible criterion for judging whether air
quality is satisfactory. The ability to measure ammonia levels is also a requirement for competent
authorities to be able to verify compliance with other Union legislation such as Directive
2007/43/EC laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat.
9. The central authority has also developed in conjunction with industry and the Autonomous
Communities, a survey document for the collection of information on stocking density,
environmental parameters and enrichment material in farms (hereafter Document 27). This
document also requires the Autonomous Communities to collect information on the incidence of
tail-docking, the timeframe for cessation of tail-docking, and measures which have been taken to
reduce the risks to avoid tail-biting and an action plan to modify environmental factors for future
actions to reduce tail-biting. It was circulated to the Autonomous Communities for action in
April 2017.
10. The Autonomous Communities have circulated this document and modified its content in
relation to the local organisations tasked with collecting the information from farms e.g. in some
Communities information is collected by local animal health services (ADS -
Agrupación de
Defensa Sanitaria), official services at district level or delegated bodies performing official
controls. As for document 1, there are no clear compliance criteria with the requirements in
legislation and the document does not include guidance on how to carry out a risk assessment.
The two Communities visited have circulated Documents 1 and 2 to farming organisations and
posted it on their websites.
11. 65 farms were selected to be a representative sample of farming systems in AC 1. The
Autonomous authority had collated results from 49 farms by August 2017. These results
included 22 surveys which were completed at the same time as routine official controls. The
Autonomous authority will continue to do the survey when they perform official controls until
the next coordination meeting between Autonomous Communities in November 2017. Initial
results indicate:
7
In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority noted that: "Document 2 reflects a consensus for the
purpose of harmonising the collection of information, but it does not impose any obligations on the competent
authorities. It is a compilation of different aspects that may be taken into account to understand the situation on
holdings."
5
100% of weaning pigs and 98% fattening pigs were tail-docked;
during visits tail-biting was detected in about 11% of weaners and 11% of inspected
fattening pens. Lesions tended to be more severe in fattening pens (more lesions with
score 2 of the Welfare Quality© scoring system). However 76% of fattening farms and 6-
9% of farms rearing weaned pigs reported regular tail-biting outbreaks in the past;
a lack of knowledge among farmers (35%) on the causes and potential solutions for tail-
biting;
40% of sow farms declare they are tail-docking to the local authority. This declaration is
to be made in sow farms only;
a majority of farmers propose reducing stocking density and to provide more enrichment
materials as potential solutions to tail-biting; very few other options were put forward; 7
out of 49 selected farmers didn’t have any ideas regarding measures that could be taken
to prevent tail-biting;
no farmers have carried out risk-assessments;
about 50% of farms have (partly) solid concrete floors;
temperatures were within recommended range (thermoneutral zone) in about 80% of
weaner and 42% of fattener premises;
humidity levels were within the recommended range in about 50% of weaner premises
and 48% of fattener farms (in the rest of the premises humidity levels were lower than
recommended values);
levels of noxious gases were found satisfactory in almost all farms;
about 70% of materials used as enrichment in weaners and 75% of materials used as
enrichment in fattening pigs were chains and plastic pipes.
12. AC1 intends to modify the farmer's declaration on mutilations, taking into account the survey
results and farm risk analyses; It also intends to modify the checklist for official controls to have
additional inspection requirements on farms that pose a high risk of tail-biting to ensure
satisfactory measures are effectively implemented and reinforce the official control programme
of farm checks. AC 1 considers that they do not yet have sufficient tools for good enforcement of
the requirements to avoid routine tail-docking.
13. In another Autonomous Community (AC2), the collection of information on risk factors for tail-
biting is done during routine animal welfare inspections carried out under contract by a private
agro-environmental company, and in addition during a number of controls carried out by official
veterinarians at local level. Farmers are expected to fill out a form describing conditions on their
farm and in addition do an evaluation on tail-biting risks twice every year (sow farms) or every
round (fattening farms). Preliminary results of surveys on a sample of farms (140) carried out
during summer 2017 show that:
88% of farms has experienced outbreaks of tail-biting in the past
6
Tail-biting was observed in 18% of inspections
enrichment material provided: 32% chains, 19% chains with something additional, 27%
wood, 8% wood and something additional, 14% other materials
hygiene, temperature, concentration of gases and humidity were considered "good" or
"very good" in a large majority of farms
14. Both Communities visited have set up working groups to review the survey results and decide on
future actions. The groups consist of competent authorities, industry (including
integradoras),
trade unions, farmers, agri-cooperatives, research and private veterinarians.
15. The objectives of the AC1 group include:
Obtaining reliable figures for the levels of tail-biting and tail-docking.
Analysing the tail-biting/docking situation in other Member States, pilot projects in this
sector and assessing methodologies for the prevention of tail-biting.
Assessing the practicalities of farms moving to rearing pigs with intact tails (potential
partnerships with farms willing to cooperate).
Publication of a first consultative paper on the above points by mid-October 2017.
Finishing group activities by January/February 2018.
16. The objectives of the AC2 group include:
Analysing and quantifying the incidence of tail-biting and the possible consequences of
stopping tail-docking.
Analysing how to carry out on farm risk assessments and the necessary frequency.
Analysis of suitability of veterinary certificates.
Analyse how to respond to tail-biting outbreaks.
Evaluation of suitability of enrichment materials.
A three year study to implement the above points including funded pilot studies on farms.
17. Both Communities held training courses in 2017 for officials and farmers on risks linked to tail-
biting and ways to reduce the need for tail-docking.
18. The audit team reviewed farm quality assurance systems, and only one of them included
additional animal welfare requirements to those of Directive 2008/120/EC. That system had
specifications laid down for lower stocking densities and prescribed ratios of feeders and number
of drinkers per pen.
Pig sector associations
19. The national pig farmers' association (ANPROGAPOR-
Asociation Nacional De Productores De
Ganado Porcino) has been very active in the dissemination of information and in providing
guidance (e.g. many meetings and some articles) to farmers relating to the introduction of new
7
animal welfare requirements on group housing in 2012/13, the use of enrichment materials and
the Recommendation.
20. There is no specific industry guidance available on avoiding routine tail-docking of pigs or
preventing tail-biting though the industry has participated at central and Autonomous level in the
production of Documents 1 and 2, and is participating in working groups at national and
Autonomous level with these objectives.
21. ANPROGAPOR and the central authority had issued guidance on enrichment material in 2012.
It gave basic information on different materials but not on their suitability, the need for
replenishment or evaluating their uptake and use. Information on enrichment materials issued by
ANPROGAPOR follows information from the EUWelNet website. Document 1 now provides
the information contained in the Recommendation regarding enrichment material.
ANPROGAPOR intends to assess the availability and ease of use of various types of enrichment
material for Spanish pig farming systems. It also intends to request that a working group on rural
development be set up in southern Spain.
22. The industry representatives indicated they want to decrease the incidence of tail-biting and
move to avoidance of routine tail-docking using the same strategy of collaborative working
methods used before to move to the group housing of pigs. Industry wants to use the good
experience of this changeover to illustrate how animal welfare improvements helped raised
overall standards of management and production in pig premises in Spain.
23. It is less clear how this change will come about; in general the views gathered during the audit
from both industry and official staff in the Autonomous Communities demonstrated that they
consider production conditions as very good and without requiring much intervention. In their
opinion, the system works. However, according to industry sources current production
conditions mean that 98.5% of pigs need to be tail-docked to be reared in existing systems which
cannot be judged to be compliant with the Directive.
24. During one of the farm visits, two veterinarians of a large "integradora" stated that rearing pigs
with entire tails in these systems would not be possible as this would require much more space
and straw. In a recent press article and in communication to their members, ANPROGAPOR
stated that in a substantial number of units, even after implementing all recommended
improvement measures, tail-docking will continue to be inevitable. In a similar way, the
summary of the Technical Group in AC2 concluded that although the conditions on holdings are
good, it is not possible to keep undocked pigs in them.
25. Pig sector associations in the two Autonomous Communities visited have been active in the
expert groups and in disseminating information to their members. One plans to hold several
workshops on tailbiting in 2018 and is working with veterinary associations on implementing a
decision tree for tail-docking and on reducing antibiotic consumption on pig farms.
26. Industry guides in AC1 and AC 2 included stricter requirements for enrichment material than the
official guidelines on inspections in AC1 and AC2 i.e. it must be made available to all classes of
pigs. In addition, they also listed production limits for gas concentrations, and relative humidity
8
and temperature ranges which were slightly lower than specified in Document 1 and optimal
flow rates for drinkers and guidance on monitoring for consumption and to detect problems in
health.
27. The primary form of enrichment material used on farms in the two Communities are either a
single metal chain or a short chain with a piece of plastic or wood attached. In both cases,
according to the Commission's Staff Working Document and Document 1, these would only
constitute one element of enrichment material and would be considered as a material classified
as marginal (if a chain) or suboptimal if a piece of softwood on a chain where the material is at
the level of the pigs snouts and on the floor.
Veterinary Association
28. There is generic guidance available from the Spanish veterinary associations on general
principles of certification. It was stated by the central authority that principles of certification are
covered in the syllabus of the undergraduate veterinary course.
29. Veterinary statements on the need for tail-docking were not based upon any demonstrable
evidence of assessment of measures which should be taken to improve inadequate environmental
conditions or management systems that are required by point 8 of Chapter I, of Annex I to
Directive 2008/120/EC before resorting to tail-docking. Although these are not certificates
required by veterinary legislation they are not consistent with the spirit and principles of the
certification directive (Article 3 (1) and (2) of Directive 1996/93/EC8) and the general principles
of certification of the Federation of Veterinarians in Europe (FVE)9.
30. The arguments put forward in most statements on the need for tail-docking and by most
veterinarians met were that the requirements of the Directive had been met, and therefore tail-
docking was a necessity to raise pigs in Spain.
Agricultural advisory services
31. There are no state funded agri-advisory services in Spain. On-farm advice to pig farmers comes
almost exclusively from
integradoras, pig producer associations, animal health service
veterinarians (ADS) and private veterinarians. Local veterinary services together with
MAPAMA have worked with local agriculture representatives and provided some training for
the pig sector (see paragraph17).
Conclusions on implementing measures
32. There is no official government strategy to gradually keep pigs with longer tails and reach
compliance with the Directive. The commitment to introduce a programme of farm surveys to
record farm risk factors and the incidence of tail-biting and tail-docking is an important necessary
first step to improve compliance with the Directive.
8 Council Directive 96/93 of 17 December 1996 on the certification of animals and animals products (OJL 13, 16.1.97,
p. 28)
9
http://www.fve.org
9
33. The involvement of industry working with competent authorities at central and Autonomous
level is important to ensure that effective on farm risk assessments can be developed. These
assessments could, if they include clear and measurable criteria, form the basis for making
changes to environmental conditions and management systems to improve the health and welfare
of pigs and potentially avoid routine tail-docking.
34. Competent authorities have not taken effective actions to enforce the provisions of the Directive
on preventing tail-biting and avoiding routine tail-docking of pigs. In many cases reliance is
placed on generic statements from private veterinarians without any verification by the
authorities that the conditions which must be fulfilled before tail docking can take place under
point 8 of Chapter I, of Annex I to Directive 2008/120/EC are present. However, the Spanish
authorities are becoming stricter in their interpretation of the Directive's requirement and have
stated their aims for better compliance.
35. To date, all actions have had no impact in reducing routine tail-docking of piglets, which is
maintained on the industry view that:
Spanish industry is fully compliant with the Directive even though 98.5% of pigs' tails are
docked;
further actions beyond the Directive's requirements will make Spanish industry lose its
competitiveness and
tail-docking is justified by generic statements of its need issued by private veterinarians.
5.2 ECONOMIC FACTORS
Legal requirements
Regulation (EU) No 1305/201310
Findings
European and National Funding Measures in the Pig Sector
36. Spain does not have any coordinated funding strategy concerning refurbishments of
improvements to pig premises through EU Rural Development funding.
37. One Autonomous Community visited has received EU funding for improving facilities and
housing, including requirements for reductions in stocking density. Improvements to
environmental conditions and management systems (i.e. including housing) to avoid tail-docking
(as required by the Directive) are not a clearly defined part of the eligibility criteria for
acceptance into the schemes or for the provision of funding.
Other Economic Factors
10 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 (OJL 347,
20.12.2013, p.487) on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
10
38. A study by one producer group in AC 1 indicated in 2016 that 30% of carcase part-
condemnations were caused by abscesses and 16% by osteomyelitis. The Autonomous
post-
mortem reporting system indicated that abscesses were the second most common
post-mortem condition detected with 17,5% of lesions reported in 2016. This percentage refers to the presence
of abscesses on any part of the carcass and it does not solely relate to abscesses in the caudal part
of the carcass. Data on lesions linked to tail-biting is not entered into the recording systems in
the slaughterhouses of the Autonomous Communities visited, although there is strong likelihood
and research evidence11 pointing to the majority of these abscesses and cases of osteomyelitis
originating from tail-biting.
Conclusions on economic factors
39. European and national financial measures are not used in any coordinated way to reduce tail-
biting and avoid routine tail-docking of pigs. Improvements to housing enabling pigs to be raised
with intact tails are not a clearly defined part of the eligibility criteria for acceptance into the
schemes or for the provision of funding.
40. There is little incentive to farmers to reduce levels of tail-biting in the current farming systems in
Spain despite the evidence of production losses from tail-biting related injuries and
condemnations at slaughter.
5.3 OFFICIAL CONTROLS
Legal requirements
Directive 2008/120/EC
Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 in connection with Section I, Chapter II, point B(1) and
point C. of its Annex I and the relevant provisions of Section II, Chapter I of that Annex.
Article 3 and Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004
Findings
Planning and procedures for farm inspections
41. There was guidance available in both Communities for carrying out inspections but the level of
detail does not enable inspectors to consistently and effectively enforce the provisions of point 4
and the second paragraph of point 8 of Chapter I of Annex I of the Directive concerning whether
effective changes to management or environmental systems had been made on farms prior to
routine tail-docking.
42. Document 1 provides additional guidance to inspectors compared to what was previously in their
inspection manuals and includes information from the Recommendation (see paragraph 5). The
Communities' inspection guidance does not contain sufficiently clear criteria to judge
11 The EFSA Journal (2007) 611, 3-13
11
compliance with the legal requirements of Directive 2008/120/EC and the corresponding
parameters of the Recommendation for enrichment material, cleanliness, thermal comfort, air
quality, competition for food and space, health status and diet (see Annex II).
43. Regarding the checklists used for inspections: The central generic checklist sent to the
Autonomous Communities does not require permanent access to water but permits fluid
ingestion to be provided in another way (i.e. through liquid feeding) which is not in compliance
with point 7 of Chapter 1 of Annex 1 to Directive 2008/120/EC which requires that all pigs over
two weeks of age must have permanent access to a sufficient quantity of fresh water. The
checklist seen in AC 1 also did not include this requirement, but the guidance for inspectors did.
Official controls on pig farms
44. In 2016, officials inspected 8% of pig holdings in AC1 and a private company carried out
inspections on 5% of pig holdings in AC2. Levels of overall non-compliances detected were
17% in AC1 and 7% in AC2. Levels of non-compliances detected for insufficient or inadequate
enrichment materials were low (4% in AC1 and zero in AC2). This contrasts with what the audit
team saw. The farms visited by the audit team had either metal chains (sometimes with wood
attached at a high level) and not for all animals, or one or two logs in each pen (up to 120 pigs in
some pens) which cannot be considered sufficient for proper investigation and manipulation
activities and of sufficient quantity and are therefore not compliant with point 4 of Chapter I,
Annex I to the Directive. Inspectors explained that they are only now starting to deliberate on
the type, suitability, use and frequency of replenishment of enrichment material since the
introduction of the survey in 2017. Some inspectors reported that they have used measurements
of animal based interaction with enrichment material (from the Recommendation) to judge its
suitability.
45. The system for sanctions involves the local veterinary services proposing a sanction (after
detecting non-compliance during farm visits), approval of this at Autonomous level, then the
provincial legal service where the farm is located decide on the level of the fine. The proposals
for three sanctions in AC2 in 2016 were €600 for each offence related to lack of enrichment
material and insufficient access to feeding space. The sanctions levied by the legal services were
set at €60 per offence: there was no information as to why the lowest levels of penalties had been
levied. This is not a proportionate amount of money for commercial enterprises for these
deficiencies which is not in line with the requirements of Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No
882/2004.
46. The authorities in both Communities request in their procedures - and use - statements from
private veterinarians on the necessity for tail-docking to excuse farmers from complying with the
requirements to avoid routine tail-docking. These statements were, in the cases reviewed by the
audit team, either not based upon evidence of tail-biting being noted, or did not present any or
very limited evidence of improvement measures having been taken before recommending that
tail-docking be carried out. Reliance on these statements without a proper assessment of the
incidence of tail-biting and improvement measures taken on farm means that the CAs are not
ensuring the effectiveness of official controls as required in Art 4.2 (a) of Regulation (EC) No
882/2004.
12
Official controls in slaughterhouses
47. AECOSAN's instructions on the provision of food chain information states that the official
veterinarian may use the model document laid down in the Appendix to Annex I of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 to communicate the relevant inspection results to the farm where
the animals were raised before slaughter. That document (Point 2.1) has a section for
‘observations’ which specifically mentions tail-biting as an example. The competent authority in
the Communities visited and in the main pig producing Communities in Spain do not monitor
levels of tail-damage in slaughterhouses and do not set intervention levels for tail-lesions, which
is not in line with the principles of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 854/200412. They do not use
any scoring system or provide any guidance to inspectors to assess the severity of tail-lesions in
slaughterhouses. There are no measures taken to standardise scoring of tail-lesions between
different slaughterhouses.
48. The results of
ante-mortem inspections are recorded in a database in AC 1. Official veterinarians
reported that tail-biting was very infrequently seen at
ante-mortem inspection. The business
operator also checks a sample of 20 animals once per week for evidence of tail lesions but none
have been detected.
49. Official veterinarians in AC1 entered information on the incidence of a wide range of
post-
mortem conditions leading to part or full condemnation into the official database. Data on lesions
linked to tail-biting is not entered into the system. The authorities indicated that the system could
be modified with the addition of a data entry field for this, or categorisation of abscesses (spinal,
limb etc), to give useful feedback on the levels of sub-clinical lesions in the Autonomous
Community and the economic cost of tail-biting. Farmers will receive information from
slaughterhouses on carcase condemnations resulting from abscessation but there is no link made
to the presence (or not) of tail lesions.
50. In 2016, more than 22,56,454 pigs were subject to
ante-and
post-mortem inspection in AC1.
There were no official follow-up investigations of tail-damage reported from slaughterhouses in
2016.
51. In AC2, official veterinarians entered information on the incidence of a range of
post-mortem
conditions leading to part or full condemnation into an official Autonomous database. Neither
tail lesions nor abscessation are specified, but are included in the category of "other" reported.
This category is in the top three of all rejections noted and has extremely important economic
consequences. There were no official follow-up investigations of tail-damage reported from
slaughterhouses in AC2 in 2016. One other Autonomous Community C is trialling, since July
2017, a system to collect data on tail-biting and, where tail-biting lesions are detected, they will
be reported to the Livestock Farming Department for follow-up.
12 Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 requires official veterinarians to carry out inspection at slaughterhouses, to
verify compliance with relevant EU and national rules on animal welfare, and take appropriate measures as regards
the communication of these inspection results. In this case it is relevant to the prevention of tail-biting and avoidance
of routine tail-docking;
13
Conclusions on official controls
52. The current instructions and guidance are not sufficient to allow official staff to judge
compliance regarding enrichment material and other legal requirements related to cleanliness;
thermal comfort and air quality; competition for food and space; health status and diet. This, and
over-reliance on generic statements on the need for tail-docking from veterinarians hampers the
effective enforcement of provisions with regard to the avoidance of routine tail-docking of pigs.
53. The existing guidance in the Autonomous Communities for carrying out inspections does not
enable inspectors to consistently and effectively enforce the provisions of the Directive
concerning whether effective changes to management or environmental systems had been made
on farms prior to routine tail-docking.
54. Lack of detailed guidance and failure to enforce all relevant legal provisions of Spanish
legislation is leading to under detection of non-compliances and thus to low levels of
enforcement. These coupled with low financial penalties create an environment where the threat
of competent authority enforcement will not be viewed as a deterrent to industry potential non-
compliances.
55. The authorities have access to the information on serious or very serious shortcomings detected
by the official veterinary services in slaughterhouses. In light of such information, each
competent authority should take the corresponding steps on the farm concerned. Nonetheless,,
the authorities do not use available valuable tools (e.g. data on tail-damage, or from lesions very
commonly linked to it, obtained at slaughterhouse level) to measure progress with efforts to
reduce the occurrence of tail-biting on farm and to set intervention levels in slaughterhouses for
follow-up actions on farms.
6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The Spanish authorities have not taken effective actions to enforce the provisions of the Directive on
preventing tail-biting and avoiding routine tail-docking of pigs, but they are becoming stricter in their
interpretation of the Directive's requirement and have stated their aims for better compliance.
Lack of detailed national guidance, failure to enforce all relevant legal provisions of Spanish
legislation and over-reliance on generic statements on the need for tail-docking from veterinarians,
has led to low levels of enforcement regarding provision of enrichment material and avoidance of
routine tail-docking.
These coupled with low financial penalties have created an environment where
the threat of competent authority enforcement will not be viewed as a deterrent to industry potential
non-compliances.
There is no defined national strategy to reduce tail-biting or avoid routine tail-docking of pigs but the
central competent authorities have provided improved guidance to the Autonomous Communities on
risk factors which, suitably modified, could enable them to review risk parameters laid down in the
Commission Recommendation and draw up criteria for improved compliance with Directive
2008/120/EC.
14
The competent authorities at central and Autonomous level have taken satisfactory first steps by
working closely with industry to gather data on evidence of tail-biting and risk factors on farms. The
involvement of industry working with competent authorities is important to ensure that effective on
farm risk assessments can be developed. These could, if they include clear and measurable criteria,
and are implemented effectively, form the basis for making changes to environmental conditions and
management systems to improve the health and welfare of pigs and potentially avoid routine tail-
docking.
The data on tail damage which are available at slaughterhouse level provide opportunities for the
competent authority to improve its system (e.g. risk selection of farms, set intervention levels and
measuring progress in reducing occurrence of tail-biting) and for using its resources more effectively
to reach the objective of reducing systematic tail-docking of pigs.
7 CLOSING MEETING
A closing meeting was held on 22 September 2017 with representatives of the competent authorities,
at which the main findings and preliminary conclusions of the audit were presented by the audit team.
The audit team also met with industry representatives to give feedback on their findings relating to
industry. The competent authorities expressed their intent to ensure that measures would be followed
through to bring improvements in compliance with the Directive's requirements.
8 RECOMMENDATIONS
The competent authorities are invited to provide, within 25 working days of receipt of the report, an
action plan containing summary details of the actions taken and planned in all Autonomous
Communities, including deadlines for their completion, aimed at addressing the recommendations set
out below:
No.
Recommendation
1.
The competent authority should provide inspectors with suitable instructions and
guidance (compliance criteria) to enable them to effectively enforce the provision on the
prevention of tail-biting and avoidance of routine tail-docking, as laid down in the second
paragraph of point 8 of Chapter I of Annex I of Council Directive 2008/120/EC, including
how they should assess evidence of tail and ear lesions on farm and what constitutes
sufficient measures by farmers to change inadequate environmental conditions or
management systems before resorting to tail-docking of pigs, including the situation
where tail-docked pigs are purchased from rearing farms which have shown no evidence
of tail-biting. Conclusions 52, 53. Findings 41, 42
2.
The competent authority should provide inspectors with suitable compliance criteria to
enable them to effectively enforce legal requirements of Council Directive 2008/120/EC
and Council Directive 98/58/EC that are related to risk factors for tail-biting.
15
No.
Recommendation
Conclusion 52, 53. Findings 41, 42, 44.
3.
As required in Article 4.2 (a) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 The competent authority
should assess the incidence of tail-biting and the effectiveness of improvement measures
taken on farm as required in point 8 of Chapter I, of Annex I to Directive 2008/120/EC,
including when piglets are going to be sent to rearing farms for further fattening, instead
of relying on veterinary statements.
Conclusion 35, 52. Finding 29, 30 and 46.
4.
The competent authority should ensure that sanctions applicable for non-compliances
related to the implementation of Directives 2008/120/EC and 98/58/EC are applied at
levels that are effective, proportionate, and dissuasive as required by Article 55 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.
Conclusion 53. Findings 45, 46.
5.
The competent authority should ensure that the level of tail-damage and associated lesions
in slaughterhouses is monitored and that high levels trigger actions on the respective
farms, as required in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004.
Conclusion 55. Findings 47, 49 and 50.
6.
The competent authority should consider liaising with other Government Agencies
centrally and at Autonomous Community level responsible for funding new buildings
where pigs are to be kept and renovating existing ones with the assistance of European
funding under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 to ensure not only that the
relevant animal welfare payments relate such facilities are suitable to commitments going
beyond the relevant mandatory standards but that in addition the facilities, as a minimum,
comply with relevant mandatory requirements (of Directives 2008/120/EC and 98/58/EC)
including the avoidance of routine tail-docking e.g. slurry systems that can handle optimal
enrichment materials, different temperature zones, suitable flooring, feeding, space
allowances etc.
Conclusion 39. Findings and 23, 24, 36, 37, background paragraph 1.
16
ANNEX 1 – LEGAL REFERENCES
Legal Reference
Official Journal
Title
Reg. 882/2004 -
OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the
Article 45 (MS)
p. 1, Corrected and
European Parliament and of the Council of
re-published in OJ L
29 April 2004 on official controls performed
191, 28.5.2004, p. 1
to ensure the verification of compliance with
feed and food law, animal health and animal
welfare rules
Reg. 854/2004
OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the
p. 206, Corrected and European Parliament and of the Council of
re-published in OJ L
29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for
226, 25.6.2004, p. 83
the organisation of official controls on
products of animal origin intended for human
consumption
Dir. 2008/120/EC
OJ L 47, 18.2.2009,
Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18
p. 5-13
December 2008 laying down minimum
standards for the protection of pigs
ANNEX 2
Parameter
Legal requirements
AC 1 guidance on assessment of
AC 2 guidance on assessment
Commission
Directive 2008/120/EC,
compliance
of compliance
Recommendation 98/58/EC
(EU) 2016/336
Enrichment
“permanent access to a No guidance on acceptable No guidance on acceptable
material
sufficient
quantity
of materials
and
quantity
of materials
and
quantity
of
material to enable proper materials. According to inspectors materials.
According
to
investigation
and “there has to be enrichment inspectors “there has to be
manipulation
activities” material in every pen” and enrichment material in every
(Directive
2008/120/EC “enrichment material must not be pen” and “enrichment material
Annex 1, Chapter 1, 4)
harmful to the pigs” Inspectors must not be harmful to the pigs”
started to work with animal based Chains and plastic objects were
measures (formula COM REC considered adequate.
2016/336) this summer but stated No enrichment material was
that this is difficult to use in large required for individually housed
pens. Chains and plastic objects sows, boars, and suckling piglets.
were considered adequate. No
enrichment material was required
for individually housed sows,
boars, and suckling piglets.
Cleanliness
“a lying area physically and No guidance for the assessment of No guidance for the assessment
thermally comfortable as this requirement.
of this requirement.
well as adequately drained
and clean which allows all
the animals to lay at the
same
time”(Directive
2008/120/EC, Annex 1,
Chapter 1, 3)
Thermal comfort
“air circulation, dust levels, No compliance criteria for No compliance criteria for
and air quality
temperature, relative air acceptable levels have been acceptable levels have been
humidity
and
gas established.
According
to established.
According
to
concentrations must be kept inspectors assessment is done on inspectors assessment is done on
within limits which are not a sensory basis and by looking at a sensory basis and by looking at
harmful to the animals” the pigs. CA does not have the pigs taking into account
(Directive 98/58/EC Annex equipment to measure levels of animal
based
indicators
1, 10)
ammonia.
(coughing, red eyes, panting,
huddling). CA does not have
equipment to measure levels of
ammonia.
Competition for
1. “unobstructed
floor 1. Nothing
additional
in 1. Inspectors measure floor
food and space
area”
(Directive
guidance
on
inspection
surface and surface occupied
2008/120/EC, Article 3,
protocol on how to measure
by
feeders
to
assess
1a).
unobstructed floor space.
unobstructed floor area.
2. "measures taken to 2. No guidance.
2. Some guidance taking into
prevent fighting (…) 3. Not in checklist. No guidance
account the provision of
adequate opportunities
on assessment of feeding
enrichment
materials,
to escape and hide from
space or number of drinkers.
homogenous groups and
other pigs" (Directive
Inspectors assess on the basis
separation
of
aggressive
2008/120/EC, Annex 1,
of their experience.
animals.
Chapter 2, D 1, 2)
4. There has to be a drinker in 3. No guidance on assessment
3. “feeding and watering
the pen. No guidance on
of feeding space or number
equipment must be
number of drinkers or flow
of drinkers.
designed
constructed
rates. Farms using water from 4. There has to be a drinker in
and placed so that (…)
well should provide results of
the pen. No guidance on
the harmful effects of
microbiological and chemical
number of drinkers, or flow
competition
between
analysis.
rates. Organoleptic checks.
the
animals
are
Use of public water should
minimised” (Directive
be proven by bills, farms
98/58/EC, Annex, 17)
using water from wells must
4. "permanent access to a
provide
results
of
sufficient quantity of
microbiological analysis or a
fresh water" (Directive
water disinfection system
2008/120/EC, Annex 1,
must be used.
Chapter 1, 7)
Health status
1. "sufficient number of 1. The person that is responsible 1. The person that is responsible
staff who possesses the
for the farms must have a
for the farms must have a
appropriate
ability,
certificate for 20 hours of
certificate for 20 hours of
knowledge
and
training.
No
additional
training.
No
additional
professional
guidance regarding e. g.
guidance
regarding
e.g.
competence (Directive
number of staff or specific
number of staff and / or
98/58/EC, Annex, 1)
training courses.
specific training courses.
2. “sick or injured animals 2. According to inspectors there 2. According to inspectors there
shall be accommodated
are no requirements or
are no requirements or
in
suitable
guidance regarding adequate
guidance regarding adequate
accommodation with,
number of hospitable pens.
number of hospitable pens.
where appropriate, dry
Pigs in hospitable pens
Pigs in hospitable pens
comfortable
bedding.
should have access to food,
should have access to food,
(Directive
98/58/EC,
water and be able to turn
water and be able to turn
Annex, 4)
around. No further guidance
around. No further guidance
3. "specialised
housings
on design (e. g. when bedding
on design (e. g. when bedding
(for piglets weaned less
is needed)
is needed)
than 28 days of age) 3. No guidance on what can be 3. No guidance on what can be
which are separated
considered adequate housings
considered adequate housings
from housings where
for early weaned piglets.
for early weaned piglets.
sows
are
kept"
(Directive
2008/120/EC, Annex 1,
Chapter 2, C3)
Diet
“animals
are
fed
a Levels of fibre are specified for Some guidance on checking
wholesome diet appropriate different classes of sows.
body conditions score of animals
to their age and species and
and feed labels. Levels of fibre
which is fed to them in
are specified for different classes
sufficient
quantity
to
of sows.
maintain them in good
health and satisfy their
nutritional
needs.”
(Directive
98/58/EC
Annex, 14)