Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135 (2011) 179–191

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/applanim

Review

The long and short of it: A review of tail docking in farm animals
Mhairi A. Sutherland a , Cassandra B. Tucker b,∗
a
AgResearch Ltd., Hamilton, New Zealand
b
Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Tail docking involves amputating a portion of the tail for a variety of reasons. We review the
Available online 15 November 2011 scientific evidence for the rationale for tail docking, a description of the different methods
used, the pain response to the procedure and the effectiveness of pain alleviation, and,
Keywords: finally, the alternatives to tail docking and policy regarding the practice. We focus on the
Cattle
three main agricultural species that are tail docked as a management practice: pigs, sheep,
Pain
and dairy cattle. Methods of tail docking include cutting with a knife or scalpel, cutting with
Pig
Sheep
a hot docking iron, or application of a constrictive rubber ring. All methods are commonly
Tail docking performed without analgesia or anaesthesia, and all likely result in some degree of pain.
As with any procedure that alters the integrity of an animal, it is important to consider
the rationale behind docking in order to evaluate if it is necessary. Tail docking in pigs is
routinely conducted on commercial swine farms because it can reduce the incidence of tail
biting, an injurious and undesirable behaviour. Both behavioural and physiological changes
indicate that tail docking is painful in pigs, but until robust and consistent methods for
preventing tail biting are identified, this procedure is likely to continue as a management
practice. This approach is reflected in public policy about the procedure. There is both
behavioural and physiological evidence that tail docking is painful for sheep; both responses
are reduced when pain relief is provided. Prevention of fly strike is the primary reason given
for tail docking sheep, but the scientific evidence to support this rationale is surprisingly
sparse. Further research is required to justify tail docking of sheep as a routine practice.
Dairy cattle are docked because this practice is thought to improve cow cleanliness and
udder health, however, there is no scientific evidence supporting this rationale. Tail docking
cattle results in relatively few behavioural or physiological indicators of pain, but docked
cows are unable to effectively remove flies from their hind end. The practice of tail docking
dairy cattle is banned, discouraged or declining in most industrialized countries except
the US. The long-term pain associated with tail docking is not well understood in pigs,
sheep or cattle. In cases where tail docking may be justified by demonstrated benefits for
the animal (possibly in case of pigs and sheep), further research is needed to find either
practical alternatives or ways to alleviate the pain associated with this procedure.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
2. Pigs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
2.1. Rationale and justification of the procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
2.2. Description of tail docking in pigs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 530 754 5750.

E-mail address: cbtucker@ucdavis.edu (C.B. Tucker).

0168-1591/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2011.10.015
180 M.A. Sutherland, C.B. Tucker / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135 (2011) 179–191

2.3. Pain and methods of alleviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

2.4. Alternatives and public policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
3. Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
3.1. Rationale and justification of the procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
3.2. Description of tail docking in sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
3.3. Pain and methods of alleviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
3.4. Alternatives and public policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
4. Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
4.1. Rationale and justification of the procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
4.2. Description of tail docking in dairy cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
4.3. Pain and fly load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
4.4. Alternatives and public policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Conflict of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

1. Introduction and Simonsen, 2001; Taylor et al., 2010). This section will
briefly summarize some of the factors involved in tail bit-
Removal of a portion of the tail is a procedure performed ing. Tail biting is an abnormal behaviour that is a welfare
for a variety of reasons. In farm animals such as pigs, sheep, and economic concern for pig producers. Van Putten (1980)
and cattle, docking is a management practice performed to suggested that tail biting behaviour is redirected explo-
prevent tail biting in pigs, fly strike in sheep and to improve ration behaviour and Fraser et al. (1991) suggested that
cleanliness, and reduce mastitis in dairy cattle. Other ani- this behaviour may develop as the result of frustration if
mals, such as dogs, are also tail docked for cosmetic reasons. pigs are unable to perform natural behaviours such as root-
Tail docking is also performed on some farm animals as ing or suckling. Interestingly, there is no evidence that this
a veterinary procedure, for example, when the tip of the behaviour occurs in other non-domesticated Suids or Pec-
tail becomes damaged and infected in beef cattle (Schrader caries kept in captivity or in the wild (Taylor et al., 2010).
et al., 2001). Even though tail docking is a husbandry prac- To date, the cause of tail biting has been difficult to iden-
tice used with pigs, sheep and cattle (Fig. 1) this procedure tify, but a considerable number of risk factors are known,
is controversial and scientific evidence for the justification including the environment (floor type, stocking density,
of this practice can play an important role in the discussion ventilation, lack of enrichment: Guy et al., 2002; Scott et al.,
about this topic. This is the focus of our review. 2006; Zonderland et al., 2008), nutrition (Fraser, 1987;
As with any procedure that alters the integrity of an Jankevicius and Widowski, 2003, 2004), gender (Hunter
animal, it is important to consider the rationale behind et al., 1999; Walker and Bilkei, 2006), genetics (Breuer et al.,
docking in order to evaluate if it is necessary. If justi- 2005), tail length (Hunter et al., 1999), and health status
fied, it then becomes important to understand the negative (Moinard et al., 2003). We provide more detail on two of the
side effects associated with tail amputation including both most common aspects of the physical environment often
acute and chronic pain, and the effectiveness and availabil- associated with tail biting: enrichment and management
ity of pain mitigation. Other negative side effects of tail of social groups.
docking include inability to use the tail for other purposes, Enrichment can influence tail biting behaviour. A range
such as fly removal. For each species, we review a descrip- of objects (such as chains, rubber hose, or car tires) and
tion and justification for the practice, including prevalence rooting materials (such as straw, earth, or peat) have
of the practice in developed countries (when information is been studied. For example, Van de Weerd et al. (2003)
available), the evidence of acute and long-term pain asso- investigated pig preference for 74 different enrichment
ciated with the procedure and alternatives to the practice. objects and found that pigs preferred objects that had
In each species, we also describe examples of public policy traits of ingestibility, chewing properties, and destructibil-
about tail docking, with emphasis on the European Union, ity. However, pigs quickly lost interest in all novel objects,
United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Finally, regardless of the physical properties. Similarly, Scott et al.
we will identify gaps in knowledge where further research (2007) found that pigs spent less than two percent of
is needed for each species. their time manipulating a hanging toy but at least 20% of
their time manuipulting straw. Pigs provided with straw
2. Pigs spent a large proportion of time maniuplating this mate-
rial whereas pigs housed in fully-slatted pens spent more
2.1. Rationale and justification of the procedure time performing behaviours directed towards other pigs
(Scott et al., 2006). Providing pigs with straw or other
Tail docking is routinely conducted on pig farms world- rooting materials appears to more effectively reduce tail
wide (Fig. 2) to reduce tail biting behaviour. There are biting behaviour compared to provision of environmental
many papers in the literature that address the problem and enrichment in the form of toys. For example, Zonderland
causes of tail biting in pigs (reviewed by Schrøder-Petersen et al. (2008) found that providing pigs with straw was
 M.A. Sutherland, C.B. Tucker / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135 (2011) 179–191 181

Fig. 1. Photographs of intact and docked tails of pigs (panels A and B), lambs (panels C [intact], D [conventional length, to the caudal fold] and E [ultra-short])
and dairy cattle (panels F and G). Photo credits: 1 Pamela Bryer; 2 Andrea Rogers; 3 Jim Webster; 4 Cassandra Tucker; 5 Marcia Endres.

more effective at reducing tail biting behaviour than other
non-destructable objects, such as a chain or rubber hose.
Indeed, the probability of tail biting was reduced by
approximately 50% when pigs were provided with light
amounts of straw (Hunter et al., 2001; Zonderland et al.,
2008). Straw is the most studied rooting material used
for enrichment of pigs in the literature (Studnitz et al.,
2007), but the effect of other rooting materials such as peat
(Beattie et al., 1996), mushroom compost (Beattie et al.,
2001), and maize silage (Jensen et al., 2010) have also
been studied in relation to pig behaviour and also reduce
behaviours directed towards pen mates. However, the
provision of straw or other rooting materials does not nec-
essarily assure that tail biting behaviour will be eliminated
(e.g. Walker and Bilkei, 2006; Zonderland et al., 2008),
nor is straw easily incorporated into all manure handling
systems.
Other aspects of the social environment, such as stock-
ing density and gender, can also influence tail biting
behaviour. It has been suggested that stocking pigs at
higher densities increases tail biting behaviour because of
the greater likelihood that the snout of a pig will come
182 M.A. Sutherland, C.B. Tucker / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135 (2011) 179–191
Fig. 2. The percentage of docked pigs in countries surveyed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA, 2007).
into intact with another pig’s tail. Increased stocking den-
sity may also reduce the amount of room available for pigs
to escape from pen mates if they are been bitten. How-
ever, the literature regarding the effect of space allowance
or stocking density on the occurrence of tail biting
behaviour is inconclusive (EFSA, 2007; Schrøder-Petersen
and Simonsen, 2001). A postal survey conducted by
Chambers et al. (1995) found that stocking density was not
associated with the incidence of tail biting, but increasing
herd size appeared to be a factor. However, Moinard et al.
(2003) found that a stocking density of 110 kg/m2 or more
in growing and finishing operations increased the risk of
tail biting by an odds ratio of 2.7. The reason for the discrep-
ancy between these two studies (stocking density is a risk
factor in one, but not the other) is unclear. Pig gender has
been associated with the incidence to tail biting. Male pigs
are more likely to show signs of tail damage compared with
females in abattoir-based studies (Kritas and Morrison,
2007; Penny, 1981) and in a controlled study female pigs
appeared to tail bite more than males (Zonderland et al.,
2010). One explanation for this difference is that female
pigs are more active than males, especially as they reach
sexual maturity and become more interested in the ano-
genital area earlier than castrated males (Sambraus, 1985;
Schrøder-Petersen and Simonsen, 2001).
Despite the uncertainty regarding the underlying
causes of tail biting behaviour, there is no doubt that
it is undesirable. Tail biting can result in injuries rang-
ing from minor to severe lesions, to the point where
the tail is bitten to the rump and the animal may
need to be euthanized. Furthermore, wounds caused
by tail biting can lead to an increased risk of infec-
tion. Acute phase proteins, a measure of infection and
inflammation, are positively correlated with the sever-
ity of the tail bite lesion (Heinonen et al., 2009;
Sutherland et al., 2009). Severe tail lesions are also
associated with reduced weight gain and body weight
(Sutherland et al., 2009; Wallgren and Lindahl, 1996).
Infection from the tail wound can also result in abscesses
in the hindquarters and the posterior segment of the
spinal column as well as secondary infections in the
lungs and other organs (Kritas and Morrison, 2007;
Schrøder-Petersen and Simonsen, 2001). Therefore, tail
biting behaviour is likely to cause both acute pain in bit-
ten pigs and result in longer-term consequences such as
weight loss and secondary infections.
There is considerable variation in the amount of tail
biting reported across studies (Table 1, also reviewed by
Taylor et al., 2010). The percentage of tail-bitten pigs can
range from extremely rare (0.1%) to very common (72%)
and the majority of farms report at least some tail damage
due to tail biting (Table 1). One explanation for this vari-
ation may be due to how data are collected. For example,
information collected from abattoirs may under represent
the number of tail-bitten pigs as severely tail-bitten pigs
maybe culled or die on the farm before being transported
for slaughter (Taylor et al., 2010). Producers may be less
likely to send tail-bitten pigs to the slaughter plant because
some plants will reject pigs with obvious abscesses and
may penalize producers for this type of problem, thus
reducing the number of tail-bitten pigs seen in surveys of
this type of facility. Indeed, even within the same facility
and under similar management systems, tail biting is spo-
radic, making outbreaks difficult to predict and understand.
As a result, pigs are routinely tail docked in many coun-
tries to prevent this problem. In the majority of studies
where the incidence of tail biting was compared between
docked and undocked pigs (Table 1), a larger percentage
of undocked pigs had damaged tails and more severe tail
lesions compared to docked animals (Hunter et al., 1999,
2001; Krider et al., 1975; McGlone and Nicholson, 1992;
Penny and Hill, 1974; Sutherland et al., 2008, 2009), sug-
gesting that tail docking can reduce tail biting behaviour.
However, other studies have found the opposite pattern:
farms that docked had a higher incidence of tail damage
compared to operations that did not engage in this practice
(Chambers et al., 1995; Moinard et al., 2003). From this type
of epidemiological evidence it is difficult to know if farms
dock in response to a pre-existing problem of tail biting or
vice versa. Comparisons between studies are further com-
plicated by differing data collection methods (survey data
at abattoirs vs. survey data from farms) and differing defi-
nitions of tail biting behaviour or tail lesions (Taylor et al.,
2010). Tail docking appears to reduce tail biting in studies
with undocked controls kept in the same conditions, but it
does not eliminate this detrimental behaviour.
 M.A. Sutherland, C.B. Tucker / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135 (2011) 179–191 183

Table 1
The effect of tail docking and tail length on the incidence of tail biting in pigs.

Docked Undocked P-value Reference

a
Short Long Docked

Percentage of pigs with tail damage

Records from abattoirs
11,811 pigs 0.1 11.6 0.001 Penny and Hill (1974)
62,971 pigs 3.1 9.2 0.001 Hunter et al. (1999)
2855 pigs 1.2 4.3 0.001 Hunter et al. (2001)
Experimental trials
200 pigs 2 72 0.001 Krider et al. (1975)

Percentage of farms with tail damage

40 farms 79 25 0.001 Chambers et al. (1995)
101 farms 87 53 37.5 0.01 Moinard et al. (2003)

Average lesion scores as a result of tail biting

Experimental trials
60 pigs 1 1.5 0.05 McGlone and Nicholson (1992)
80 pigs 3.1 7.5 0.001 Sutherland et al. (2009)
80 pigs 1.1 1.3 0.001 Sutherland et al. (2009)

Adapted from EFSA (2007).

a
Tail length not stipulated in the paper.

2.2. Description of tail docking in pigs
Tail docking in pigs can be performed with teeth clip-
pers, cutting pliers, scissors, a scalpel blade, and a gas or
electrical cautery iron. The length of the tail stump can
vary considerably and various organizations make rec-
ommendations about tail length. The New Zealand Code
of Welfare for pigs (MAF, 2005b) recommends that one-
third to one-half of the tail should be removed, the UK
authorities recommend leaving 2 cm, the Canadian Code
of Practice (1993) recommends removal of the last third of
the tail, and the American Veterinary Medical Association
(AVMA) give no recommendations for tail length (AVMA,
2010). It is common practice to cut the tail such that the
remaining stump is approximately 2 cm long or so that the
tail stump covers the vulva in females and the equivalent
length in males (Fig. 1). It has been suggested that tail dock-
ing increases sensitivity at the tip of the tail (Simonsen
et al., 1991), which may cause pigs to react more vigorously
to pen mates chewing on their tails and thereby moti-
vate them to move away, preventing further tail biting and
potential injury. The evidence to support this idea is lim-
ited. The incidence of tail biting lesions is reduced in pigs
with ‘long’ tails (tip or distal third removed) compared with
pigs with intact tails (Hunter et al., 1999; Sutherland et al.,
2009), however, tail biting was not completely prevented
in pigs with ‘long’ tails.
2.3. Pain and methods of alleviation
Physiological and behavioural changes have been used
to measure the acute response to tail docking in pigs.
Description of the physiological response to tail docking
in pigs is limited and mixed. Adrenocorticotropin hor-
mone (ACTH), and lactate concentrations do not differ
between tail-docked and control-handled pigs at 1 day of
age (Prunier et al., 2005). The cortisol response to docking
differs with the method used. Cortisol concentrations do
not differ between docked and control-handled pigs at 1
or 6 days of age when tails were cut using a cautery iron
(Prunier et al., 2005; Sutherland et al., 2008). In contrast,
cortisol concentrations are higher in pigs tail docked using
cutting pliers compared with control-handled pigs 60 min
after docking at 6 days of age (Sutherland et al., 2008).
The behavioural response to tail docking has been
more extensively described. Tail jamming (clamping of tail
stump between the hind limbs without side to side move-
ment, Noonan et al., 1994), tail wagging (Noonan et al.,
1994), and posterior scooting (Sutherland et al., 2008) are
all more common in tail-docked compared with control-
handled pigs. Furthermore, tail-docked pigs produce more
grunts and squeals (Marchant-Forde et al., 2009; Noonan
et al., 1994) and higher peak vocal frequencies during this
procedure (Marchant-Forde et al., 2009) compared with
control pigs. These behavioural results suggest that pigs
experience acute pain in response to tail docking.
Currently, there is no evidence of long-term pain as a
result of tail docking. However, neuromas have been found
in the tail stumps of tail-docked fattening pigs (Simonsen
et al., 1991). Neuromas are bundles of nerve fibres that
develop when axons are severed and can cause increased
sensitivity to pain at the site of the amputation (Lewin-
Kowalik et al., 2006), suggesting that these animals may
experience increased sensitivity to pain and chronic dis-
comfort due to tail docking. Improved understanding of
the long-term consequences of husbandry procedures such
as tail docking, especially the possibility of chronic pain is
needed.
Pigs are commonly tail docked without analgesia or
anaesthesia. There is relatively little research comparing
the various methods of tail docking in pigs and the exist-
ing research provides conflicting information. As described
above, docking with cutting pliers increased the corti-
sol response compared to docking with a cautery iron
184 M.A. Sutherland, C.B. Tucker / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135 (2011) 179–191
(Sutherland et al., 2008). In contrast, Marchant-Forde et al.
(2009) found that docking using a cautery iron tended
to increase the number of squeals during the docking
procedure compared with docking using cutting pliers.
Marchant-Forde et al. (2009) also reported that tail dock-
ing took longer when using the cautery iron compared with
conventional cutting, and this increased handling time may
account, in part, for the more marked vocal response to this
procedure. Based on the evidence described here, tail dock-
ing causes pain, and it would be beneficial to the welfare of
the pigs if practical methods to alleviate the pain caused by
tail docking were evaluated and available for use on farm.
2.4. Alternatives and public policy
Tail docking is commonly practiced by pig producers
worldwide as a preventative measure for tail biting. Results
from a survey conducted by the European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA, 2007) reported that tail docking predomi-
nantly occurs in countries where it is allowed and the small
percentage of pigs that are undocked in these countries are
not docked because of specific organic regulations (Fig. 2).
Several countries have policies regarding the implementa-
tion of tail docking in pigs. For example, the New Zealand
Code of Welfare for pigs (MAF, 2005b) states that tail dock-
ing can only be performed when tail biting is prevalent.
Current EU legislation (Council of Europe, 2001) also autho-
rizes pig producers to perform tail docking within certain
limits (EFSA, 2007). The legislation states that “Neither
tail docking nor reduction of corner teeth must be car-
ried out routinely but only where there is evidence that
injuries to the sow’s teats or to the other pig’s ears or
tail have occurred. Before carrying out these procedures,
other measures shall be taken to prevent tail biting.” The
Canadian Code of Practice (Canadian Federation of Humane
Societies, 1993) recommends avoiding the practice of tail
docking unless necessary, while the AVMA (2010) recom-
mends that the procedure occur by 14 days of age. Several
of the end points used in these policies are not well defined,
for example, it is unclear when tail biting would be consid-
ered necessary. This uncertainty makes it unclear when tail
docking would be considered acceptable.
Tail docking tends to reduce the incidence of tail bit-
ing in pigs (Table 1), but the procedure itself causes acute
pain, therefore it is important to find alternatives to the
practice. Due to the complicated and multi-factorial nature
of tail-biting behaviour, consistent and robust methods of
preventing this behaviour in pigs have been elusive. To
date, the most common management strategies are to add
environmental enrichment to the pens before or after the
onset of tail biting behaviour or to isolate the tail bitter
(Zonderland et al., 2008). As discussed above, there is some
evidence that systems using straw have less tail biting, but
many manure systems are unable to handle this additional
material. Removal of the tail bitter is another manage-
ment option, but this strategy is plagued by the difficulty
in identifying these individuals (Zonderland et al., 2008).
Improvements in our understanding of tail biting along
with the interactions between management practices, such
as docking, are needed.
3. Sheep
3.1. Rationale and justification of the procedure
Prevention of fly strike is the primary reason given for
tail docking sheep. During a fly or blowfly strike (Cutaneous
myiasis) eggs are deposited and the resulting larvae burrow
into the tissue of the animal. Fly strike occurs quickly, with
the animal being free from the initial infestation after 4
to 6 days. However, Heath et al. (1987) found that even
this short exposure resulted in considerable weight loss
in induced cases of fly strike. The most common clinical
signs of fly strike include restlessness and reluctance to
graze (Farkas et al., 1997). The percentage of the sheep
population affected by fly strike varies by region. Overall,
regardless of tail length, in the UK, between 0.7 and 2.8%
of the population is affected (French et al., 1992), while in
Australia between 0.3 and 4.1% of sheep are struck (Reeve
and Thompson, 2005). In Europe, some countries report
comparable levels (2.9% of sheep in the Netherlands, Snoep
et al., 2002), but other nations, like Hungary, have consid-
erably more fly strike (17.6% of sheep, Farkas et al., 1997).
Tail docking is thought to reduce the risk of fly strike
by preventing build-up of fecal material on the tail and
hindquarters. This fecal material is called “dags” or “daggi-
ness” and the hindquarters, tail and breech, are a common
location for fly strike (Snoep et al., 2002). While some stud-
ies show that daggy sheep are more likely to be struck
(French et al., 1996; Leathwick and Atkinson, 1995), the
relationship between tail docking and dags is unclear.
Indeed, some studies find increased dagginess with rela-
tively longer tails (Fisher and Gregory, 2007; Scobie et al.,
1999), some find no relationship between tail length and
cleanliness (Scobie et al., 1999), and others report more
dags and fly strike on sheep with very short tails, at least
when diarrhoea was induced (Watts and Marchant, 1977).
Older research also concludes that very short tails may
increase the risk of strike relative to a slightly longer tail,
but no statistical comparisons were carried out in this work
(Graham et al., 1947). Thus, based on this mixed evidence,
it is unclear if and when tail docking reduces dags in sheep.
Similarly, there is only limited evidence evaluating the
reduction in fly strike associated with tail docking, and only
one of three experimental studies demonstrate reduced
strike in docked sheep compared to undocked controls
(French et al., 1994b; Riches, 1942; Webb Ware et al., 2000).
In addition, the link between cleanliness and fly strike in
these three studies is also mixed. As there is relatively lim-
ited evidence evaluating this primary rationale for docking
sheep, we will discuss the findings of each of these studies
in turn. In the most recent work, French et al. (1994b) found
that five of seven farms had reduced levels of fly strike in
docked animals, compared to undocked controls (French
et al., 1994b). However, this difference was unlikely to
be mediated by differences in cleanliness, as docking only
reduced dagginess in one of the seven farms (French et al.,
1994b). The number of fly strike cases was self-reported by
farmers in this study, and this methodology, while practi-
cal, introduces the possibility of bias, particularly if farmers
were more likely to look for strike in undocked lambs.
Two other Australian studies have found limited, if any,
 M.A. Sutherland, C.B. Tucker / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135 (2011) 179–191
reduction in fly strike associated with docking. In the most
recent of the two studies, docking reduced fly strike on only
one out of three farms studied (Webb Ware et al., 2000),
despite the fact that docked lambs were of similar clean-
liness on two of the three operations, including the one
where the difference in fly strike was found. Secondly, the
earliest work on tail docking shows that sheep with short
or medium tails were more likely to be struck than those
with 10 cm or undocked tails (statistical comparison gener-
ated from results presented in Table 4 in Riches, 1942). This
study was conducted in conditions where the prevalence
of strike was high, 21% across treatments (Riches, 1942). In
summary, only one of three studies comparing the effect of
tail docking with undocked controls, found a clear reduc-
tion of self-reported levels of fly strike in docked sheep.
In addition to experimental work comparing docked
and undocked animals, tail docking does not explain the
variation in fly strike in the UK (French et al., 1994a) or
in the Netherlands (Snoep et al., 2002) in epidemiological
studies. It is possible that the high prevalence of tail dock-
ing (e.g. 90% of farms, French et al., 1994a) is confounded
with regional differences in fly strike risk (French et al.,
1992) which could potentially limit the usefulness of the
epidemiological approach to address this question. Given
these conflicting and limited results from both experi-
mental and epidemiological studies, more experimental
research quantifying the effects of tail docking on both
cleanliness and fly strike is needed.
In addition to prevention of fly strike, ease of shearing
is also cited as an advantage of docked tails. Only limited
scientific evidence is available to support this idea: shear-
ing time increased with tail length from 60 s/sheep with
ultra-short tails to 72 s/sheep with tails docked at the hock
(Scobie et al., 1999).
3.2. Description of tail docking in sheep
Several methods are used to dock tails in sheep: surgical
(knife), a docking iron, or a constrictive rubber ring. The sur-
gical method involves severing the tail using a sharp knife
or scalpel. Use of a docking iron is similar to the surgical
approach, except that the iron simultaneously cauterizes
the wound as it cuts. Tail docking using a constrictive rub-
ber ring involves placing a rubber ring on the tail with an
applicator that spreads the ring wide enough to fit over
the tail. The ring reduces blood flow to the distal portion of
the tail, which eventually becomes necrotic and sloughs off.
Tail docking is fairly common; for example, 90% of UK farm-
ers and 96% of US operations use this procedure (French
et al., 1994a; USDA, 2003a). The method of docking varies,
for example, in the UK, the rubber ring is the most popular
method (86%), followed by surgical (3%) and other methods
(2%, French et al., 1992).
The length of the docked tail (Fig. 1) varies considerably.
Convention differs among countries, and US surveys report
tail length relative to the caudal fold, while Australian
statistics provide tail length relative to the vulva. In the
latter, the equivalent length is used with males. In the US
and Australia, the most common length is equal to the tip
of the vulva or the distal end of the caudal fold (Fig. 3, Reeve
and Thompson, 2005; USDA, 2003b). Ultra-short docking is
185
used in combination with mulesing, removal of portions of
the hindquarter skin, (Graham and Johnstone, 1947) and in
purebred sheep to enhance the appearance of the lamb’s
rump and rear leg area (Goodwin et al., 2007). Ultra-short
docking increases the risk of rectal prolapse relative to
longer tails (Thomas et al., 2003), reduces the weight of
the recto-coccygeal muscles (Fisher and Gregory, 2007) and
increases the risk of both gross and precursor squamous
cell carcinoma lesions in the perineal region when used in
combination with mulesing (Swan et al., 1984). To date,
there is no work evaluating other negative side effects of
short docking, such as changes in defecation and urination
behaviour (Fisher et al., 2004).
The age of docking varies between country and farming
system. For example, in the UK, 90% of lambs are docked
within the first week, although the range was between 1
and 56 days of age (French et al., 1992). In the US, only
55% of operations dock within the first week, 26% within
the second and third week of life and 19% dock after 22
days of age (USDA, 2003b). Docking older animals is asso-
ciated with more extensive farming systems, for example,
in open range operations 69% of US farmers dock after 3
weeks of age compared to 13% of confinement operations
(USDA, 2003b).
3.3. Pain and methods of alleviation
Tail docking causes acute pain in lambs as measured
by physiological and behavioural changes. For the pur-
poses of this review, we have limited our discussion to
the experimental work evaluating tail docking only; lambs
are often castrated and tail docked at the same time
and many studies evaluate these procedures together.
Behavioural changes commonly used to assess the nox-
iousness of tail docking in lambs include active behaviours
(such as restlessness, roll/jump, foot stamping/kicking,
easing quarters, tail wagging, and head turning, Graham
et al., 1997; Grant, 2004; Kent et al., 1998) and changes in
posture (e.g. normal and abnormal lying, ventral lying, nor-
mal and abnormal walking, and statue standing, Graham
et al., 1997; Grant, 2004; Kent et al., 1998; Lester et al.,
1996). The method of docking affects the behavioural
response to the procedure likely because of the differ-
ent kinds of noxious sensory input elicited with each
method. Lambs tail docked with rubber rings spend more
time in abnormal postures and active behaviours associ-
ated with restlessness in the hours following application
of the ring (Graham et al., 1997, 2002; Grant, 2004;
Kent et al., 1998; Lester et al., 1996; Mellor and Murray,
1989a). These behavioural changes are likely associated
with ischaemic pain which is experienced until the noci-
ceptors distal to the ring become anoxic and tissue death
occurs. In contrast, amputating the tail using a knife results
in an immediate nociceptor barrage, and the behavioural
response to this method is characterized by lambs spending
more time performing abnormal standing and walk-
ing postures, but minimal time performing behaviours
indicative of restlessness (Lester et al., 1996). Lambs tail
docked using a cautery iron vocalize during the proce-
dure (Grant, 2004), however the frequency of total active,
or restless, behaviours and the time spent in abnormal
186 M.A. Sutherland, C.B. Tucker / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135 (2011) 179–191
Fig. 3. Distribution of different tail lengths in Australia (panel A, Reeve and Thompson, 2005) and the United States (panel B, USDA, 2003b). Tail lengths
are reported either relative to the tip of the vulva (Australia) or the caudal fold (US).
postures are similar between lambs tail docked using a
docking iron and control lambs (Graham et al., 1997; Grant,
2004). Cauterizing the wound after cutting may cause third
degree burns resulting in the destruction of the dermis.
Destruction of the nociceptors within the dermis would
result in a loss of sensation in the damaged area (Bonica,
1990) and may reduce the pain experienced. Due to the
procedure-specific nature of the behavioural response to
tail docking in lambs it is difficult to directly compare the
noxiousness of these different methods. All tail-docking
methods resulted in behavioural changes that are indica-
tive of acute pain, particularly the rubber ring and the
surgical methods.
Cortisol is the most commonly used physiological
measure used to assess the response to docking in
sheep. Cortisol concentrations increase in lambs after ring
application and remain elevated for 1–2 h compared to
control-handled lambs (Graham et al., 1997; Kent et al.,
1998; Mellor and Murray, 1989a,b; Morris et al., 1994).
Cortisol concentrations also increase in lambs in response
to surgical tail docking, and remain elevated for up to 4 h
after the procedure (Lester et al., 1991; Morris et al., 1994),
but return to baseline values by the third day after docking
(Rhodes et al., 1994). Cauterizing the wound after severing
the tail reduce the cortisol response to tail docking to lev-
els similar to that of control-handled lambs (Graham et al.,
1997; Lester et al., 1991).
Local anaesthetic and analgesia successfully alleviate
the pain caused by tail docking in lambs in some situ-
ations. Local anaesthetic injected into the left and right
dorsal-lateral tissues of the tail with either a high-pressure
needless injection system or using a conventional needle
and syringe 1–2 min before or immediately after appli-
cation of the rubber ring reduces both the cortisol and
behavioural response to this procedure (Graham et al.,
1997; Kent et al., 1998). Other methods used to alleviate the
pain caused by docking include oral (Graham et al., 1997) or
intramuscular administration (Pollard et al., 2001) of a non-
steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, intramuscular injection
of an opioid (e.g. methadone, Morris et al., 1994), applica-
tion of an analgesic spray and epidural administration of
local anaesthetic (Graham et al., 1997; Morris et al., 1994),
but these methods were not as effective as local anaesthetic
in reducing the response to docking. Although administra-
tion of local anaesthetic currently appears to be the most
effective method to reduce the acute pain associated with
tail docking, there is considerable scope for additional work
evaluating other forms of analgesia.
Application of a clamp (bloodless castrator or Burdizzo
clamp) across the width of the tail has also been used to
alleviate the pain associated with ring tail docking in lambs
(Graham et al., 1997; Kent et al., 1998). The clamp is applied
before or after the rubber ring as a method to crush and
thereby destroy the underlying nerves. It is thought that
 M.A. Sutherland, C.B. Tucker / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135 (2011) 179–191
destroying these nerves will prevent the lamb from expe-
riencing noxious sensory input due to ischaemic pain once
the tail distal to the ring becomes hypoxic, although the
lamb will still experience a nociceptor barrage as a result
of the ring and the clamp being applied. The clamp is usu-
ally applied for 10 s, after ring application, across the full
width of the tail proximal to the ring (Kent et al., 1998).
Application of the clamp reduces the cortisol response at 40
and 60 min after ring docking compared with control lambs
(docked with a ring, but without the clamp), but cortisol
concentrations are still elevated 20 min after ring applica-
tion (Graham et al., 1997; Kent et al., 1998). Fewer active
behaviours and abnormal postures are observed in lambs
docked using the combined ring and clamp method com-
pared with the ring alone (Kent et al., 1998) and the time
spent performing total active, or restless, behaviours are
similar to control-handled lambs in both studies (Graham
et al., 1997; Kent et al., 1998). Administration of local anaes-
thetic further reduced the incidence of active or restless
behaviours, but not the cortisol response or time spent
in abnormal postures caused by ring docking followed by
application of the clamp, possibly due to the local anaes-
thetic not having sufficient time to take full effect (Kent
et al., 1998). The pain associated with the use of the clamp
in the days immediately following the procedure has not
been evaluated.
Relatively little is known about the long-term implica-
tions of tail docking sheep. There is evidence of neuroma
formation in docked tails (Fisher and Gregory, 2007; French
and Morgan, 1992), but the perceived pain associated
with a healed, docked tail is not known. Mortality (French
et al., 1994b) and production parameters, such as aver-
age daily gain (French et al., 1994b; Rhodes et al., 1994)
are not affected by tail docking. Little is known about the
importance of the tail in other contexts, such as social com-
munication or fly control, in sheep.
3.4. Alternatives and public policy
Prevention of fly strike is the primary justification for
tail docking. A number of other factors influence fly strike
in sheep including cleanliness of the breech area, weather,
fly load and animal health (reviewed by Phillips, 2009).
Management tools such as crutching, or removal of the
wool in the breech area, and fly traps, reduce fly strike
(e.g. Broughan and Wall, 2006). There is growing interest
in genetic selection for animals that are less susceptible
to fly strike (reviewed by James, 2006) and in a vaccine
against blowfly strike (reviewed by Elkington and Mahony,
2007). Research into the effectiveness of these alternatives
is needed, especially in light of the limited scientific evi-
dence justifying tail docking as a strategy to prevent fly
strike.
Public policy about tail docking often addresses the age,
method of docking, use of pain relief, and the length of the
tail. These policies vary between countries. In New Zealand,
sheep may only be docked when intact tails pose a signifi-
cant risk to the health or financial well-being of the system;
lambs should be docked as young as possible (MAF, 2005a).
The Council of Europe recommends that docking with rub-
ber rings is to be avoided and, if rings must be used, that
187
pain relief should be provided. In contrast, the Council of
Europe does not explicitly recommend pain relief when
docking with the cautery iron (1992). In Australia, tail dock-
ing is recommended for lambs between 2 and 12 weeks of
age (Primary Industries Standing Committee, 2006). Pain
relief should be used when docking animals over 6 months
of age in both Australia and New Zealand (MAF, 2005a;
Primary Industries Standing Committee, 2006). Rather than
make recommendations about provisions for older ani-
mals, Canada recommends that the procedure occur within
the first week of life (Canadian Agri-Food Research Council,
1995). The EU, New Zealand, Australia and the AVMA
recommend that the tail stump covers the vulva and/or
anus or are docked at the distal end of the caudal tail
fold (AVMA, 2000; Council of Europe, 1992; MAF, 2005a;
Primary Industries Standing Committee, 2006).
4. Cattle
4.1. Rationale and justification of the procedure
Cow cleanliness and worker comfort are the two pri-
mary reasons cited for tail docking dairy cattle (Barnett
et al., 1999; Fulwider et al., 2008). Tail docking is thought
to improve cow cleanliness and udder health by preventing
transfer of debris and feces from the tail to the udder. Udder
cleanliness is positively related to pathogens in milk or on
teats; milk from dirtier udders are more likely to contain
mastitis-causing pathogens (Munoz et al., 2008; Schreiner
and Ruegg, 2003). However, tail docking does not influence
udder cleanliness (Eicher et al., 2001; Schreiner and Ruegg,
2002a; Tucker et al., 2001). Indeed, in a recent survey of
265 US freestall dairy farms, operations that docked tails
had a higher percentage of very dirty udders (8.8%) com-
pared to farms that do not engage in the practice (5.7%,
Lombard et al., 2010). In addition, docked cows are not
any more likely to be treated for mastitis than undocked
cows, nor are there differences in somatic cell counts (an
indicator of inflammation in the udder) associated with
tail docking (Fulwider et al., 2008; Schreiner and Ruegg,
2002b; Tucker et al., 2001). Together, this experimental
(Eicher et al., 2001; Schreiner and Ruegg, 2002b; Tucker
et al., 2001) and epidemiological (Fulwider et al., 2008;
Lombard et al., 2010) evidence suggests that the notion
that tail docking improves udder cleanliness and health is
misguided. No peer-reviewed research has evaluated the
effects of tail docking on worker comfort, although farm-
ers that dock are more likely to perceive an improvement
in milker comfort and speed associated with docking than
farmers that do not engage in the practice (Barnett et al.,
1999). Finally, some livestock producers report tail dock-
ing incoming cattle upon arrival at their facility in order to
decrease lameness, tail injury and improved performance
(Miller, 2010). There is no scientific information available
to evaluate these ideas.
4.2. Description of tail docking in dairy cattle
Tail docking in dairy cattle typically involves removal
of the tail below the sixth or seventh vertebrae, a few cen-
timetres below the vulva (Fig. 1). Several methods are used
188 M.A. Sutherland, C.B. Tucker / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135 (2011) 179–191
Fig. 4. Distribution of age tail docking is performed on United States dairy operations estimated by USDA (2010) and a survey of North Central and North
Eastern dairies in the USA (Fulwider et al., 2008).
to remove this portion of the tail. The most popular method
involves applying a tight rubber ring around the tail,
eliminating or reducing the blood supply to the tissue dis-
tal to the ring (87–92.5% of US dairy operations and 75% of
Australian farms engaging in this practice use this method,
Barnett et al., 1999; Fulwider et al., 2008; USDA, 2010).
The ring can be placed on or between vertebrae (for radio-
graph images of these two locations see Wilson, 1972). The
necrotic tissue below the ring is cut off 1 to 2 weeks after
initial application in some situations, but will also even-
tually fall off (e.g. Schreiner and Ruegg, 2002a; Tom et al.,
2002a). A much smaller proportion of farmers amputate
the lower portion of the tail without use of a ring. A hot
iron can be used to severe the tail and cauterize the exposed
tissue, similar to the procedure used with lambs, although
this procedure is uncommon on US dairy operations (0%,
USDA, 2010). Finally, a small percentage of dairy operations
sever the tail without cauterization (e.g. with tree pruners,
Fulwider et al., 2008). The age of docking varies from young
animals to just before calving (Fig. 4) and pain relief is
rarely, if ever, provided (Fulwider et al., 2008; USDA, 2010).
4.3. Pain and fly load
There is only some evidence of discomfort associated
with the process of tail docking in cattle, as measured
by changes in behaviour and physiology. Application of
the rubber ring results in an short-term increase in tail
grooming, turning the head towards the tail and restless
behaviour in calves (Eicher and Dailey, 2002; Tom et al.,
2002a) and changes in tail position in cows (Tom et al.,
2002b). In each case, it is unclear whether either of these
changes is associated with pain as the rubber ring treat-
ment did not differ from animals receiving an epidural or
pain relief was not included as a treatment in the study.
Others have found no difference in tail movement after
application of a rubber ring (Eicher et al., 2000; Schreiner
and Ruegg, 2002a) or have not provided statistical
comparisons between groups (Petrie et al., 1995; Wilson,
1972). There are no changes in the total time spent engaged
in standing or lying after band application (Eicher and
Dailey, 2002; Tom et al., 2002b). Some studies have iden-
tified changes in eating behaviour associated with band
application or tail removal (Eicher et al., 2000), while
others report no differences in this parameter (Schreiner
and Ruegg, 2002a; Tom et al., 2002a,b). Thus, behavioural
changes associated with tail docking occur in some situa-
tions, but not others, providing only limited evidence that
this procedure consistently causes pain.
Physiological responses to docking are also mixed. One
study found an immediate increase in cortisol concen-
trations in calves docked with a hot iron and given an
epidural, calling into question if this difference is due to
pain (Petrie et al., 1996), while others have found no evi-
dence of elevated cortisol associated with docking (Eicher
et al., 2000, 2001; Schreiner and Ruegg, 2002a; Tom et al.,
2002a). Docking does not result in a change in heart or
respiration rate (Schreiner and Ruegg, 2002a) nor weight
gain, milk production or feed intake (Tom et al., 2002a,b).
The effects of docking on body temperature are mixed and
unlikely to be biologically significant (Schreiner and Ruegg,
2002a; Tom et al., 2002a), and haematological changes do
not result from the procedure (Eicher et al., 2000; Schreiner
and Ruegg, 2002a).
In contrast, there is evidence that docked cows are less
effective at fly removal. In the afternoon, when fly num-
bers are higher, docked dairy cattle have more flies land
on their hind legs than animals with intact tails (Eicher
and Dailey, 2002; Eicher et al., 2001; Phipps et al., 1995).
There are no differences in the fly load on the front of the
animals associated with docking (Eicher and Dailey, 2002;
Eicher et al., 2001; Phipps et al., 1995), indicating that an
intact tail is important for fly removal from the hind end of
the body. The patterns with fly removal behaviours (e.g.
 M.A. Sutherland, C.B. Tucker / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135 (2011) 179–191
moving the tail) are less clear. In some cases increased
fly load corresponds with more fly removal behaviour in
docked animals (Phipps et al., 1995), but in other work,
there are either no consistent differences between docked
and intact cows in these behaviours (Eicher et al., 2001) or
control animals moved their tail more than docked calves
(Eicher and Dailey, 2002). Regardless of stump movement,
the impaired ability to remove flies from the hind end of
the body may be particularly problematic when fly loads
are high and when biting type flies, such as the stable fly
Stomoxys calcitrans are present.
Other long-term implications of docking have not been
well studied. Docked cows are not any more or less respon-
sive to a challenge, such as an injection of ACTH, compared
to cows with intact tails (Phipps et al., 1995), nor do their
baseline levels of cortisol or immune function differ (Eicher
et al., 2001). There is evidence that the tail stump is more
sensitive to heat and cold than when the tail remains intact
(Eicher et al., 2006), but the implications of this sensitivity
are unclear. Finally, there is evidence of neuroma formation
in docked tails (Eicher et al., 2006), but, as with increased
sensitivity, little is known about the chronic pain associated
with this procedure.
4.4. Alternatives and public policy
There is little scientific evidence supporting tail docking
in cattle and this practice has been banned in New Zealand
(MAF, 2005a) and is not recommend in Europe (Council of
Europe, 1988). A number of organizations also oppose the
practice of tail docking cattle, including the American Vet-
erinary Medical Association and Dairy Farmers of Canada
(AVMA, 2004; National Farm Animal Care Council, 2009).
In both the US and Australia, tail docking has been banned
in specific states. For example, the practice has recently
become illegal in California (California Penal Code Section
597n, 2009). Based on available data, in the countries where
it is permitted, tail docking is either relatively common (US)
or declining (Australia). For example, according to the 2007
survey of US dairy operations, 49% of dairy farms or 39%
of dairy animals are docked (USDA, 2010), up from 33% of
cows in 2002 (USDA, 2009). In Australia, in 1999, 35% of
Victorian dairy farmers docked tails (Barnett et al., 1999),
but more recent nationwide estimates indicate that only
10% of operations engaged in the practice in 2008 (Dairy
Australia, 2008).
Trimming the switch is the primary, minimally invasive
alternative to tail docking. Interestingly, in New Zealand,
“partial” docking, or removal of the two to three terminal
vertebrae is still permitted (MAF, 2005a) and is thought to
eliminate the need to trim the hair, or switch, at the end of
the tail. No published, peer-reviewed work has evaluated
the effect of switch trimming or “partial” docking on cow
cleanliness, health or worker comfort.
5. Conclusions
Tail docking results in mild to considerable discomfort
in farm animals. As with any management practice that
alters the integrity of the animal, it is important to consider
the rationale behind docking in order to evaluate if it is
189
necessary. In pigs, docking tends to reduce tail biting, and
until this behaviour is further understood and preventative
measures adopted, it seems likely that amputation of the
tail will continue to be used as a management practice. This
position is reflected in the public policy about docking in
pigs, despite the fact that the procedure results in acute
pain. In sheep, docking causes mild to moderate acute pain
and there is surprisingly little evidence that docked sheep
are less susceptible to fly strike, the primary reason given
for this procedure. Further research is required to justify tail
docking lambs. Tail docking dairy cattle appears to cause
relatively little pain, but results in higher fly loads on the
hind end of the animal. Furthermore, there is no evidence
that docking provides any benefit to dairy cattle and this
practice has been banned, discouraged or is declining in all
developed countries outside of the US. Docking can result in
neuroma formation in all three species, but the long-term
pain associated with tail docking is not well understood.
For the species where the practice of docking is likely to
continue (pigs, sheep), further research on chronic pain,
alternative methods and methods of pain relief are needed.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflict of interest, financial,
personal or other relationships with other people or orga-
nizations within three (3) years of beginning of this work
that would inappropriately influence (bias) their work.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to both Karen Thodberg (Aarhus Uni-
versity) and David Fraser (University of British Columbia)
for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this
manuscript.
References
AVMA, 2000. Tail Docking Policy, http://www.avma.org/
issues/policy/animal welfare/sheep.asp (accessed May 2010).
AVMA, 2004. Tail Docking Policy, http://www.avma.org/issues/ pol-
icy/animal welfare/tail docking cattle.asp (accessed May 2010).
AVMA, 2010. Tail Docking and Teeth Clipping of Swine Policy,
http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal welfare/tail docking
teeth clipping swine.asp (accessed May 2010).
Barnett, J.L., Coleman, G.J., Hemsworth, P.H., Newman, E.A., Fewings-Hall,
S., Ziini, C., 1999. Tail docking and beliefs about the practice in the
Victorian dairy industry. Aust. Vet. J. 77, 742–747.
Beattie, V.E., Walker, N., Sneddon, I.A., 1996. An investigation of the effect
of environmental enrichment and space allowance on the behaviour
and production of growing pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 48, 151–158.
Beattie, V.E., Sneddon, I.A., Walker, N., Weatherup, R.N., 2001. Environ-
mental enrichment of intensive pig housing using spent mushroom
compost. Anim. Sci. 72, 35–42.
Bonica, J., 1990. The Management of Pain. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Breuer, K., Sutcliffe, M.E.M., Mercer, J.T., Rance, K.A., O’Connell, N.E., Sned-
don, I.A., Edwards, S.A., 2005. Heritability of clinical tail-biting and its
relation to performance traits. Livest. Prod. Sci. 93, 87–94.
Broughan, J.M., Wall, R., 2006. Control of sheep blowfly strike using fly-
traps. Vet. Parasitol. 135, 57–63.
California Penal Code Section, 597n, 2009. Senate Bill 135; Animal abuse:
cattle: tail docking.
Canadian Agri-Food Research Council, 1995. Recommended Code of Prac-
tice for the Care and Handling of Sheep. Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
190 M.A. Sutherland, C.B. Tucker / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135 (2011) 179–191
Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, 1993. Recommended Code of
Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals: Pigs. Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Chambers, C., Powell, L., Wilson, E., Green, L.E., 1995. A postal survey of
tail biting in pigs in South West England. Vet. Rec. 136, 147–148.
Council of Europe, 1988. Recommendation Concerning Cattle, Article 17.
Council of Europe, 1992. Recommendation Concerning Sheep, Article 30.
Council of Europe, 2001. Council Directive 2001/88/EC, Article 8.
Dairy Australia, 2008. Animal Husbandry Survey – 2008. Dairy Australia,
Victoria, Australia.
EFSA, 2007. Scientific report on the risks associated with tail biting in pigs
and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the
different housing and husbandry systems. Annex. EFSA J. 611, 1–13.
Eicher, S.D., Dailey, J.W., 2002. Indicators of acute pain and fly avoidance
behaviors in Holstein calves following tail-docking. J. Dairy Sci. 85,
2850–2858.
Eicher, S.D., Morrow-Tesch, J.L., Albright, J.L., Williams, R.E., 2001. Tail-
docking alters fly numbers, fly-avoidance behaviors, and cleanliness,
but not physiological measures. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 1822–1828.
Eicher, S.D., Cheng, H.W., Sorrells, A.D., Schutz, M.M., 2006. Behavioral
and physiological indicators of sensitivity or chronic pain following
tail docking. J. Dairy Sci. 89, 3047–3051.
Eicher, S.D., Morrow-Tesch, J.L., Albright, J.L., Dailey, J.W., Young, C.R.,
Stanker, L.H., 2000. Tail-docking influences on behavioral, immuno-
logical, and endocrine responses in dairy heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 83,
1456–1462.
Elkington, R.A., Mahony, T.J., 2007. A blowfly strike vaccine requires
an understanding of host-pathogen interactions. Vaccine 25, 5133–
5145.
Farkas, R., Hall, M.J.R., Kelemen, F., 1997. Wound myiasis of sheep in
Hungary. Vet. Parasitol. 69, 133–144.
Fisher, M.W., Gregory, N.G., 2007. Reconciling the differences between the
length at which lambs’ tails are commonly docked and animal welfare
recommendations. Proc. NZ Soc. Anim. Prod. 67, 32–38.
Fisher, M.W., Gregory, N.G., Kent, J.E., Scobie, D.R., Mellor, D.J., Pollard, J.C.,
2004. Justifying the appropriate length for docking lambs’ tails – a
review of the literature. Proc. NZ Soc. Anim. Prod. 64, 293–296.
Fraser, D., 1987. Attraction to blood as a factor in tail-biting by pigs. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 17, 61–68.
Fraser, D., Phillips, P.A., Thompson, B.K., Tennessen, T., 1991. Effect of straw
on the behaviour of growing pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 30, 307–318.
French, N., Wall, R., Cripps, P.J., Morgan, K.L., 1994a. Blowfly strike in Eng-
land and Wales: the relationship between prevelance and farm and
management factors. Med. Vet. Entomol. 8, 51–56.
French, N.P., Morgan, K.L., 1992. Neuromas in docked lambs’ tails. Res. Vet.
Sci. 52, 389–390.
French, N.P., Wall, R., Morgan, K.L., 1994b. Lamb tail docking: a controlled
field study of the effects of tail amputation on health and productivity.
Vet. Rec. 134, 463–467.
French, N.P., Parkin, T.D., Morgan, K.L., 1996. A case control study of blowfly
strike in lambs. Vet. Rec. 139, 384–388.
French, N.P., Wall, R., Cripps, P.J., Morgan, K.L., 1992. Prevelance, regional
distribution and control of blowfly strike in England and Wales. Vet.
Rec. 131, 337–342.
Fulwider, W.K., Grandin, T., Rollin, B.E., Engle, T.E., Dalsted, N.L., Lamm,
W.D., 2008. Survey of dairy management practices on one hundred
thirteen North Central and Northeastern United States dairies. J. Dairy
Sci. 91, 1686–1692.
Goodwin, J., Murphy, T., Jacobson, R., Jenson, J., Woloshuk, J., Peterson, B.,
Lemaster, J.W., Shulaw, B., Ott, T., Busboom, J., Newman, J., Cosner,
B., 2007. A path to resolution regarding the show lamb tail docking
controversy. J. Ext. 45, 4FEA8.
Graham, M.J., Kent, J.E., Molony, V., 1997. Effects of four analgesic treat-
ments on the behavioural and cortisol responses of 3-week-old lambs
to tail docking. Vet. J. 153, 87–97.
Graham, M.J., Kent, J.E., Molony, V., 2002. The influence of the site of appli-
cation on the behavioural responses of lambs to tail docking by rubber
ring. Vet. J. 164, 240–243.
Graham, N.P.H., Johnstone, I.L., 1947. Studies on fly strike in Merino sheep.
8. A surgical operation for the control of tail strike. Aust. Vet. J. 23,
59–65.
Graham, N.P.H., Johnstone, I.L., Riches, J.H., 1947. Studies on fly strike in
Merino sheep. 7. The effect of tail-length on susceptibility to fly strike
in ewes. Aust. Vet. J. 23, 31–37.
Grant, C., 2004. Behavioural responses of lambs to common painful hus-
bandry procedures. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 87, 255–273.
Guy, J.H., Rowlinson, P., Chadwick, J.P., Ellis, M., 2002. Behaviour of two
genotypes of growing-finishing pig in three different housing systems.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 75, 193–206.
Heath, A.C.G., Bishop, D.M., Tenquist, J.D., 1987. The effects of artificially-
induced fly-strike on food intake and liveweight gain in sheep. NZ Vet.
J. 35, 50–52.
Heinonen, M., Orro, T., Kokkonen, T., Munsterhjelm, C., Peltoniemi,
O., Valros, A., 2009. Tail biting induces a strong acute phase
response and tail-end inflammation in finishing pigs. Vet. J. 184,
303–307.
Hunter, E.J., Jones, T.A., Guise, H.J., Penny, R.H.C., Hoste, S., 1999. Tail bit-
ing in pigs 1: The prevalence at six UK abattoirs and the relationship
of tail biting with docking, sex and other carcass damage. Pig J. 43,
18–32.
Hunter, E.J., Jones, T.A., Guise, H.J., Penny, R.H.C., Hoste, S., 2001. The rela-
tionship between tail biting in pigs, docking procedure and other
management practices. Vet. J. 161, 72–79.
James, P.J., 2006. Genetic alternatives to mulesing and tail docking in
sheep: a review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 46, 1–18.
Jankevicius, M.L., Widowski, T.M., 2003. Does balancing for color affect
pigs’ preference for different flavored tail-models? Appl. Anim. Behav.
Sci. 84, 159–165.
Jankevicius, M.L., Widowski, T.M., 2004. The effect of ACTH on pigs’ attrac-
tion to salt or blood-flavored tail-models. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 87,
55–68.
Jensen, M.B., Studnitz, M., Pedersen, L.J., 2010. The effect of type of rooting
material and space allowance on exploration and abnormal behaviour
in growing pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 123, 87–92.
Kent, J.E., Molony, V., Graham, M.J., 1998. Comparison of methods for the
reduction of acute pain produced by rubber ring castration or tail
docking of week-old lambs. Vet. J. 155, 39–51.
Krider, J.L., Albright, J.L., Plumlee, M.P., Conrad, J.H., Sinclair, C.L.,
Underwood, L., Jones, R.G., Harrington, R.B., 1975. Magnesium sup-
plementation, space and docking effects on swine production and
behavior. J. Anim. Sci. 40, 1027–1033.
Kritas, S.K., Morrison, R.B., 2007. Relationships between tail biting in pigs
and disease lesions and condemnations at slaughter. Vet. Rec. 160,
149–152.
Leathwick, D.M., Atkinson, D.S., 1995. Dagginess and flystrike in lambs
grazed on Lotus corniculatus or ryegrass. Proc. NZ Soc. Anim. Prod. 55,
196–198.
Lester, S.J., Mellor, D.J., Ward, R.N., Holmes, R.J., 1991. Cortisol responses
of young lambs to castration and tailing using different methods. NZ
Vet. J. 39, 134–138.
Lester, S.J., Mellor, D.J., Holmes, R.J., Ward, R.N., Stafford, K.J., 1996.
Behavioural and cortisol responses of lambs to castration and tailing
using different methods. NZ Vet. J. 44, 45–54.
Lewin-Kowalik, J., Marcol, W., Kotulska, K., Mandera, M., Klimczak, A.,
2006. Prevention and management of painful neuroma. Neurol. Med.
Chir. 46, 62–67.
Lombard, J.E., Tucker, C.B., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Kopral, C.A., Weary,
D.M., 2010. Associations between cow hygiene, hock injuries, and free
stall usage on US dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 93, 4668–4676.
MAF, 2005a. Animal Welfare (Painful Husbandry Procedures) Code of Wel-
fare 2005. MAF, Wellington, New Zealand.
MAF, 2005b. Animal Welfare (Pigs) Code of Welfare 2005. MAF, Welling-
ton, New Zealand.
Marchant-Forde, J.N., Lay Jr., D.C., McMunn, K.A., Cheng, H.W., Pajor, E.A.,
Marchant-Forde, R.M., 2009. Postnatal piglet husbandry practices and
well-being: the effects of alternative techniques delivered separately.
J. Anim. Sci. 87, 1479–1492.
McGlone, J.J., Nicholson, R.I., 1992. Effects of limited floor and feeder space
on pig performance and tail biting. Texas Tech Uni. Agric. Sci. Technical
Report T-5-317, pp. 26–27.
Mellor, D.J., Murray, L., 1989a. Effects of tail docking and castration on
behaviour and plasma cortisol concentrations in young lambs. Res.
Vet. Sci. 46, 387–391.
Mellor, D.J., Murray, L., 1989b. Changes in the cortisol responses of lambs
to tail docking, castration and ACTH injection during the first seven
days after birth. Res. Vet. Sci. 46, 392–395.
Miller, S.R., 2010. Survey of tail docking practices of Michigan livestock
producers. Center for Economic Analysis report. Michigan State Uni-
versity.
Moinard, C., Mendl, M., Nicol, C.J., Green, L.E., 2003. A case–control study
of on-farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
81, 333–355.
Morris, D.G., Kuchel, T.R., Maddocks, S., 1994. Stress responses in lambs
to different tail docking methods. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 20,
202–205.
Munoz, M.A., Bennett, G.J., Ahlstrom, C., Griffiths, H.M., Schukken, Y.H.,
Zadoks, R.N., 2008. Cleanliness scores as indicator of Klebsiella expo-
sure in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 91, 3908–3916.
 M.A. Sutherland, C.B. Tucker / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135 (2011) 179–191
National Farm Animal Care Council, 2009. Code of Practice for the Care and
Handling of Dairy Cattle. Dairy Farmers of Canada, Ottowa, Ontario.
Noonan, G.J., Rand, J.S., Priest, J., Ainscow, J., Blackshaw, J.K., 1994.
Behavioural observations of piglets undergoing tail docking, teeth
clipping and ear notching. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 39, 203–213.
Penny, R.H.C., 1981. Tail-biting in pigs: a sex frequency between boars and
gilts. Vet. Rec. 108, 35.
Penny, R.H.C., Hill, F.W.G., 1974. Observations of some conditions in pigs at
abattoir with particular reference to tail biting. Vet. Rec. 94, 174–180.
Petrie, N.J., Mellor, D.J., Stafford, K.J., Bruce, R.A., Ward, R.N., 1995. The
behaviour of calves tail docked with a rubber ring used with or without
local anaesthesia. Proc. NZ Soc. Anim. Prod. 55, 58–60.
Petrie, N.J., Mellor, D.J., Stafford, K.J., Bruce, R.A., Ward, R.N., 1996. Corti-
sol responses of calves to two methods of tail docking used with or
without local anaesthetic. NZ Vet. J. 44, 4–8.
Phillips, C.J.C., 2009. A review of mulesing and other methods to control
flystrike (Cutaneous myiasis) in sheep. Anim. Welf. 18, 113–121.
Phipps, A.M., Matthews, L.R., Verkerk, G.A., 1995. Tail docked dairy cattle:
fly induced behaviour and adrenal responsiveness to ACTH. Proc. NZ
Soc. Anim. Prod. 55, 61–63.
Pollard, J.C., Roos, V., Littlejohn, R.P., 2001. Effects of an oral dose of acetyl
salicylate at tail docking on the behaviour of lambs aged three to six
weeks. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 71, 29–42.
Primary Industries Standing Committee, 2006. Model Code of Practice for
the Welfare of Animals: The Sheep. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood,
Victoria.
Prunier, A., Mounier, A.M., Hay, M., 2005. Effects of castration, tooth resec-
tion, or tail docking on plasma metabolites and stress hormones in
young pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 83, 216–222.
Reeve, I., Thompson, L., 2005. Integrated Parasite Management in Sheep
Project: Benchmark Survey. Australia Wool Innovation.
Rhodes, R.C., Nippo, M.M., Gross, W.A., 1994. Stress in lambs (Ovis aries)
during a routine management procedure: evaluation of acute and
chronic responses. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part A Physiol. 107,
181–185.
Riches, J.H., 1942. Futher observations on the relation of tail length to the
incidence of blowfly strike of the breech of Merino sheep. J. Counc. Sci.
Ind. Res. 15, 3–9.
Sambraus, H.H., 1985. Mouth-based anomalous syndromes. In: Fraser, A.F.
(Ed.), Ethology of Farm Animals. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 391–422.
Schrader, L., Roth, H.R., Winterling, C., Brodmann, N., Langhans, W., Geyer,
H., Graf, B., 2001. The occurrence of tail tip alterations in fattening bulls
kept under different husbandry conditions. Anim. Welf. 10, 119–130.
Schreiner, D.A., Ruegg, P.L., 2002a. Responses to tail docking in calves and
heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 3287–3296.
Schreiner, D.A., Ruegg, P.L., 2002b. Effects of tail docking on milk quality
and cow cleanliness. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 2503–2511.
Schreiner, D.A., Ruegg, P.L., 2003. Relationship between udder and
leg hygiene scores and subclinical mastitis. J. Dairy Sci. 86,
3460–3465.
Schrøder-Petersen, D.L., Simonsen, H.B., 2001. Tail biting in pigs. Vet. J.
162, 196–210.
Scobie, D.R., Bray, A.R., O’Connell, D., 1999. A breeding goal to improve the
welfare of sheep. Anim. Welf. 8, 391–406.
Scott, K., Taylor, L., Gill, B.P., Edwards, S.A., 2007. Influence of different
types of environmental enrichment on the behaviour of finishing pigs
in two different housing systems: 2. Ratio of pigs to enrichment. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 105, 51–58.
Scott, K., Chennells, D.J., Campbell, F.M., Hunt, B., Armstrong, D., Tay-
lor, L., Gill, B.P., Edwards, S.A., 2006. The welfare of finishing pigs in
two contrasting housing systems: fully-slatted versus straw-bedded
accommodation. Livest. Sci. 103, 104–115.
Simonsen, H.B., Klinken, L., Bindseil, E., 1991. Histopathology of intact and
docked pigtails. Br. Vet. J. 147, 407–412.
Snoep, J.J., Sol, J., Sampimon, O.C., Roeters, N., Elbers, A.R.W., Scholten,
H.W., Borgsteede, F.H.M., 2002. Myiasis in sheep in the Netherlands.
Vet. Parasitol. 106, 357–363.
191
Studnitz, M., Jensen, M.B., Pedersen, L.J., 2007. Why do pigs root and in
what will they root? A review on the exploratory behaviour of pigs
in relation to environmental enrichment. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 107,
183–197.
Sutherland, M.A., Bryer, P.J., Krebs, N., McGlone, J.J., 2008. Tail docking
in pigs: acute physiological and behavioural responses. Animal 2,
292–297.
Sutherland, M.A., Bryer, P.J., Krebs, N., McGlone, J.J., 2009. The effect of
method of tail docking on tail-biting behaviour and welfare of pigs.
Anim. Welf. 18, 561–570.
Swan, R.A., Chapman, H.M., Hawkins, C.D., Howell, J.M., Spalding, V.T.,
1984. The epidemiology of squamous cell carcinoma of the perineal
region of sheep: abattoir and flock studies. Aust. Vet. J. 61, 146–151.
Taylor, N.R., Main, D.C.J., Mendl, M., Edwards, S.A., 2010. Tail-biting: a new
perspective. Vet. J. 186, 137–147.
Thomas, D.L., Waldron, D.F., Lowe, G.D., Morrical, D.G., Meyer, H.H., High,
R.A., Berger, Y.M., Clevenger, D.D., Fogle, G.E., Gottfredson, R.G., Loerch,
S.C., McClure, K.E., Willingham, T.D., Zartman, D.L., Zelinsky, R.D., 2003.
Length of docked tail and the incidence of rectal prolapse in lambs. J.
Anim. Sci. 81, 2725–2732.
Tom, E.M., Rushen, J., Duncan, I.J.H., de Passillé, A.M., 2002a. Behavioural,
health and cortisol responses of young calves to tail docking using a
rubber ring or docking iron. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 82, 1–9.
Tom, E.M., Duncan, I.J.H., Widowski, T.M., Bateman, K.G., Leslie, K.E., 2002b.
Effects of tail docking using a rubber ring with or without anesthetic on
behavior and production of lactating cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 2257–2265.
Tucker, C.B., Fraser, D., Weary, D.M., 2001. Tail docking dairy cattle: effects
on cow cleanliness and udder health. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 84–87.
USDA, 2003a. Part II: Reference of Sheep Health in the United States, 2001.
USDA:APHIS:VS, CEAH, National Animal Health Monitoring System,
Fort Collins, Colorado.
USDA, 2003b. Part III: Lambing Practices, Spring 2001. USDA:APHIS:VS,
CEAH, National Animal Health Monitoring System, Fort Collins, Col-
orado.
USDA, 2009. Dairy 2007, Part V: Changes in Dairy Cattle Health and Man-
agement Practices in the United States, 1996–2007. USDA:APHIS:VS,
CEAH, National Animal Health Monitoring System, Fort Collins, Col-
orado.
USDA, 2010. Dairy 2007, Heifer Calf Health and Management Practices on
U.S. Dairy Operations. USDA:APHIS:VS, CEAH, National Animal Health
Monitoring System, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Van de Weerd, H.A., Docking, C.M., Day, J.E.L., Avery, P.J., Edwards,
S.A., 2003. A systematic approach towards developing environmental
enrichment for pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 84, 101–118.
Van Putten, G., 1980. Objective observations on the behaviour of fattening
pigs. Anim. Regul. Stud. 3, 105–118.
Walker, P.K., Bilkei, G., 2006. Tail-biting in outdoor pig production. Vet. J.
171, 367–369.
Wallgren, P., Lindahl, E., 1996. The influence of tail biting on performance
of fattening pigs. Acta Vet. Scand. 37, 453–460.
Watts, J.E., Marchant, R.S., 1977. The effects of diarrohea, tail length, and
sex on the incidence of breech strike in modified mulesed Merino
sheep. Aust. Vet. J. 53, 118–123.
Webb Ware, J.K., Vizard, A.L., Lean, G.R., 2000. Effects of tail amputa-
tion and treatment with an albendazole controlled-release capsule
on the health and productivity of prime lambs. Aust. Vet. J. 78,
838–842.
Wilson, G.D.A., 1972. Docking cows’ tails. In: Proc. Ruakura Farmers’ Conf,
pp. 158–166.
Zonderland, J.J., Bracke, M.B.M., den Hartog, L.A., Kemp, B., Spoolder,
H.A.M., 2010. Gender effects on tail damage development in
single- or mixed-sex groups of weaned piglets. Livest. Sci. 129,
151–158.
Zonderland, J.J., Wolthuis-Fillerup, M., van Reenen, C.G., Bracke, M.B.M.,
Kemp, B., Hartog, L.A.D., Spoolder, H.A.M., 2008. Prevention and treat-
ment of tail biting in weaned piglets. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 110,
269–281.