10 Jan 2025
Allister Webb
Job TitleThe veterinary profession has been accused of failing in its welfare duties, and potentially being “complicit” in law breaking, over the docking of pigs’ tails.
The Animal Law Foundation, a legal research charity, has called for the RCVS to investigate what it alleged is “widespread illegality” within the sector.
The claims have been denied by the main body representing UK pig vets, which argued the procedure was an “effective deterrent” against the problem of tail biting, while the college said it would formally respond “in due course”.
But, in a letter seen by Vet Times, the foundation warned there were “reasons for the public to question” vets’ judgement in this area and public confidence could be undermined as a result.
The group urged its supporters to join it in pressing the RCVS for action in a new campaign launched last Thursday, 9 January.
Current regulations state that tail docking may only take place when “measures to improve environmental conditions or management systems have first been taken to prevent tail-biting”, but there is still evidence of bite-based injuries.
The law also requires the use of methods that lead to quick and complete severance of the tail, plus the use of anaesthetic and additional prolonged analgesia where the affected animal is more than seven days old.
The foundation’s letter highlighted evidence suggesting docking had occurred at 11 of 13 farms investigated by the campaign group Viva, along with AHDB data which recorded 72% of pigs having their tails docked between 2018 and 2020, a slight increase on previously recorded figures.
The paper argued it was “extremely unlikely” that steps to improve the animals’ environment and management would have been taken in all those cases.
It continued: “These findings suggest that widespread illegality is taking place across UK farms, which veterinary surgeons may be complicit in.
“As the regulator for the veterinary profession, the onus is on the RCVS to investigate this issue as a matter of urgency.”
The foundation added that, while it understood the RCVS only investigated when concerns were raised about an individual vet, it was not in their view “precluded” from carrying out a broader inquiry into more widespread wrongdoings.
A college spokesperson confirmed the organisation had received the foundation’s representations and would be responding in due course. But the Pig Veterinary Society (PVS), a specialist division of the BVA, insisted docking was “an effective deterrent” to the problem of tail biting, which can have significant economic consequences for farm businesses.
The group also highlighted data from Finland, where tail docking is banned, which suggested serious tail lesions could be up to 10 times more commonly observed at slaughter than is the case in the UK as it argued that management changes to prevent bites were “complex to plan, implement and evaluate”.
A spokesperson added: “For this reason, the alignment of changes in docking practices (which must be done early in life) alongside changes in management practices affecting later production stages, and measurement of success in reducing tail-biting, is a prolonged process.
“UK pig veterinarians work diligently with their clients to manage this complex production challenge, in compliance with legislation and guidance, to ensure best possible welfare outcomes for animals under their care.”
