Search

Since 2012, pig farming in Israel started to be regulated for minimal standards for pig protection. In September 2012, the "Guidelines for Pig Farming", were issued by the Veterinary Services of Ministry of Agriculture of the State of Israel. This was replaced by the "Regulations against cruelty to animals" (Protection of Animals) (Pigs Farming for Agricultural Purposes) on May 2015, issued by the same Ministry after approval by a special Commission of the Israeli Parliament. Among other aspects, current legislation deals with a problematic aspect relative to pig farming: accomplishment of euthanasia or emergency killing. The purpose of several articles of the current regulations, was to minimize or avoid unnecessary pain and sufferance in pigs, caused by injuries or diseases or any other traumatic events. This article examines practical implications of euthanasia or emergency killing of pigs at the farm level, and addresses solutions for consideration in the local pig industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 2012, pig farming in Israel started to be regulated relative to minimal standards for pig protection. On September 2012, the "Guidelines for Pig Farming", were issued by the Veterinary Services of the Ministry of Agriculture, which were replaced by the "Regulations against cruelty to animals (Protection of Animals) (Pig Farming for Agricultural Purposes)" on May 2015, issued by the same Ministry after approval by a specific Commission of the Israeli Parliament. Among other aspects, current legislation deals with the problematic aspect relative to pig farming: implementation of mutilations (tail docking, castration, teeth clipping). The purpose of several articles of the current Regulation was to minimize or avoid unnecessary pain and sufferance in pigs, caused by practices of mutilations. This article examines practical implications of mutilations and addresses potential solutions for consideration in the local pig industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Scientific Opinion considers the welfare of domestic fowl (Gallus gallus) related to the production of meat (broilers) and includes the keeping of day‐old chicks, broiler breeders, and broiler chickens. Currently used husbandry systems in the EU are described. Overall, 19 highly relevant welfare consequences (WCs) were identified based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: 'bone lesions', 'cold stress', 'gastro‐enteric disorders', 'group stress', 'handling stress', 'heat stress', 'isolation stress', 'inability to perform comfort behaviour', 'inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour', 'inability to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour', 'locomotory disorders', 'prolonged hunger', 'prolonged thirst', 'predation stress', 'restriction of movement', 'resting problems', 'sensory under‐ and overstimulation', 'soft tissue and integument damage' and 'umbilical disorders'. These WCs and their animal‐based measures (ABMs) that can identify them are described in detail. A variety of hazards related to the different husbandry systems were identified as well as ABMs for assessing the different WCs. Measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate each of the WCs are listed. Recommendations are provided on quantitative or qualitative criteria to answer specific questions on the welfare of broilers and related to genetic selection, temperature, feed and water restriction, use of cages, light, air quality and mutilations in breeders such as beak trimming, de‐toeing and comb dubbing. In addition, minimal requirements (e.g. stocking density, group size, nests, provision of litter, perches and platforms, drinkers and feeders, of covered veranda and outdoor range) for an enclosure for keeping broiler chickens (fast‐growing, slower‐growing and broiler breeders) are recommended. Finally, 'total mortality', 'wounds', 'carcass condemnation' and 'footpad dermatitis' are proposed as indicators for monitoring at slaughter the welfare of broilers on‐farm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of CECIL Cahiers d'etudes des cultures ibériques et latino-américaines is the property of Revue Cahiers d'etudes des cultures iberiques et latino-americaines (CECIL) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

HSAN II, keratoconus, keratoconus progression, mutilations Keywords: HSAN II; keratoconus; keratoconus progression; mutilations EN HSAN II keratoconus keratoconus progression mutilations 2629 2632 4 07/15/22 20220701 NES 220701 Hereditary sensory and autonomic neuropathies (HSANs) are a group of an extremely rare inherited disorder of the peripheral nervous system with heterogeneous clinical presentations and genetic causes.[[1]] They are classified into types I-V based on the age at onset, inheritance pattern, clinical presentation, and genetic background.[[1]] HSAN II is a very rare autosomal recessive disease with unknown prevalence. [Extracted from the article]

We analyze the experiences of suffering of Central American migrants who suffer mutilations as a consequence of events that occurred in their displacement through Mexican territory using freight trains, destined for the transfer of goods, as a means of transport. Method that has been used clandestinely by irregular migration to reach the border with the United States. The empirical material is the product of a multi-sited qualitative research with an ethnographic approach, during 2016 to 2020, where 12 cases of mutilated migrants were reconstructed through in-depth interviews and participant observations. We reflected on the ways they found to reconfigure their subjectivity since the physical injuries exposed them to death and interrupted their migratory trajectories, sometimes permanently. We will focus on the role that the sacred, as a dimension of meaning that helped to understand the event suffered, played in order to resume their lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background European legislation dictates that pig tail docking is not allowed to be performed routinely (European Union. Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. OJ L 47, 18.2.2009). Nevertheless, tail docking is still practiced routinely in many European countries, while four countries stopped routine tail docking completely. Tail docking is also practiced in many countries outside Europe. The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE), the European Association of Porcine Health Management (EAPHM) together with the European Commission carried out an online survey to investigate the situation regarding the practice of pig tail docking and the provision of enrichment material across 24 European countries. It also focuses on the role of the veterinary profession and gives an overview on published literature regarding the challenges and possibilities related to the raising of pigs with intact tails. Results Fifty-seven (57) usable survey responses from 24 countries were received. On average 77% (median = 95%) of pigs are routinely tail-docked. In Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, less than 5% of the pigs are tail-docked. According to the respondents, 67% of pigs (median = 76%) across the 24 EU countries surveyed are given suitable enrichment materials. Training of veterinary practitioners, their role in advising the producer and undertaking a risk assessment of tail biting were more positively valued in countries that stopped routine tail docking than in countries that had not stopped routine tail docking. Initiatives such as training from national authorities to encourage abandoning tail docking and routine recording of tail biting at the slaughterhouse were identified as two successful items to promote the raising of pigs with entire tails. Conclusion In many European countries the majority of the pigs are still routinely tail-docked, which is a violation of the European legislation. To stop routine tail docking it is necessary to raise the awareness and education about risk factors to prevent tail biting. The growing knowledge about the reasons for failing voluntary national initiatives as well as about successful measures taken by some countries to make pig production with intact tails feasible should be distributed throughout the EU pig producing community. The veterinary profession has a significant role to play in raising awareness, facilitate knowledge transfer and to identify risk factors and solutions on farm level for the benefit of pig health and welfare.

Copyright of Religião e Sociedade is the property of Instituto de Estudos da Religiao and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Droit et Cultures is the property of Revue Droit et Cultures - Universite Paris Nanterre and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the European Commission must ensure that Member States enforce EU law within their territories. If adequate enforcement is found to be wanting, the Commission also has the power to take infringement procedures as a corrective measure. The case of Directive 120/2008/EC on the protection of pigs is problematic, as only a few Member States are respecting the ban on routine tail docking, whilst not all pigs are given (adequate) enrichment materials. Twenty-five years after the first EU-wide legal ban on routine tail docking came into force, we are faced with an unprecedented situation that may lead to infringement procedures against more than 20 Member States. This paper describes the various steps that led to the development of the EU law designed specifically to safeguard the welfare of pigs. It lists the numerous efforts (research studies, study visits, recommendations, audits, reports, factsheets, action plans, etc.), undertaken by European decision makers to assist Member States in their efforts to better implement and enforce the relevant rules. Finally, the paper further analyses the current state of play and presents a reflection on possible future scenarios.

Few studies have registered signs of mutilation on cetaceans in Brazil, especially from shark attacks. This work describes interactions between cookiecutter sharks Isistius spp. and cetaceans through the analysis of bite records for cetacean carcasses washed ashore on the Bahia coast between 1996 and 2005. Twenty bite records were analyzed in 13 cetacean species, of which the Delphinidae family was the most frequent. After the analysis, Isistius plutodus was identified as the aggressor species on 80% of the records, followed by I. brasiliensis (20%), based on the characteristic shape of the mutilations. The areas most subject to attack in cetaceans were: flanks 40%; head and abdomen 20% each; dorsal 15%; and genital with 5%. The relatively high number of bites on the flanks was probably due to its larger area, which offered greater opportunities to the cookiecutter shark. At least three bite records were related to the possible causes of strandings in delphinids. We recommend further studies on interactions between sharks and cetaceans along the Brazilian coast.

Between 1914 and 1918, French visual culture was saturated with photographs of amputees: ex-combatants who had lost an arm or a leg, and had substituted them for prosthetic devices. However, these pictures were all about body mutilations. Facial injuries were also profusely photographed, but barely penetrated into the French visual culture. This article explores the reasons behind this invisibility. It maintains that, during the war, bodily mutilations were associated with discourses on re-education, while facial wounds were connected to the rhetoric of reconstruction. This distinction, grounded on concerns about the function of the limbs and the appearance of the face, was the source of the sparse dissemination of photographs of facial injuries. It will be argued that these wounds became visible only when the focus shifted from the appearance to the social function of the face, and facial injuries began to be understood as ‘disfigurement’. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Questo articolo esamina la narrativa di Laura Pugno secondo elementi del postumano, quali tatuaggi, mutilazioni del corpo e mutazioni di specie, che marcano molte delle creature femminili di Pugno. La mia analisi si concentra sulla riconversione dell'identità femminile in termini di materia corporale, la cui matrix postumana in Laura Pugno diventa territorio simultaneo di sopruso e affermazione, egemonia ed eteroglossia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Enforcing legislation on the welfare of pigs is currently one of the European Commission's priorities in the area of animal welfare. This article focuses on the legal ban on the routine docking of tails and the provision of enrichment to pigs within the European Union. It provides a chronological overview of the steps that have been taken by European policy makers to promote the correct implementation and enforcement of the law. In addition, it analyses the current state of play, and presents a reflection on possible future scenarios. In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the European Commission must ensure that Member States enforce EU law within their territories. If adequate enforcement is found to be wanting, the Commission also has the power to take infringement procedures as a corrective measure. The case of Directive 120/2008/EC on the protection of pigs is problematic, as only a few Member States are respecting the ban on routine tail docking, whilst not all pigs are given (adequate) enrichment materials. Twenty-five years after the first EU-wide legal ban on routine tail docking came into force, we are faced with an unprecedented situation that may lead to infringement procedures against more than 20 Member States. This paper describes the various steps that led to the development of the EU law designed specifically to safeguard the welfare of pigs. It lists the numerous efforts (research studies, study visits, recommendations, audits, reports, factsheets, action plans, etc.), undertaken by European decision makers to assist Member States in their efforts to better implement and enforce the relevant rules. Finally, the paper further analyses the current state of play and presents a reflection on possible future scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: European legislation dictates that pig tail docking is not allowed to be performed routinely (European Union. Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. OJ L 47, 18.2.2009). Nevertheless, tail docking is still practiced routinely in many European countries, while four countries stopped routine tail docking completely. Tail docking is also practiced in many countries outside Europe. The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE), the European Association of Porcine Health Management (EAPHM) together with the European Commission carried out an online survey to investigate the situation regarding the practice of pig tail docking and the provision of enrichment material across 24 European countries. It also focuses on the role of the veterinary profession and gives an overview on published literature regarding the challenges and possibilities related to the raising of pigs with intact tails. Results: Fifty-seven (57) usable survey responses from 24 countries were received. On average 77% (median = 95%) of pigs are routinely tail-docked. In Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, less than 5% of the pigs are tail-docked. According to the respondents, 67% of pigs (median = 76%) across the 24 EU countries surveyed are given suitable enrichment materials. Training of veterinary practitioners, their role in advising the producer and undertaking a risk assessment of tail biting were more positively valued in countries that stopped routine tail docking than in countries that had not stopped routine tail docking. Initiatives such as training from national authorities to encourage abandoning tail docking and routine recording of tail biting at the slaughterhouse were identified as two successful items to promote the raising of pigs with entire tails. Conclusion: In many European countries the majority of the pigs are still routinely tail-docked, which is a violation of the European legislation. To stop routine tail docking it is necessary to raise the awareness and education about risk factors to prevent tail biting. The growing knowledge about the reasons for failing voluntary national initiatives as well as about successful measures taken by some countries to make pig production with intact tails feasible should be distributed throughout the EU pig producing community. The veterinary profession has a significant role to play in raising awareness, facilitate knowledge transfer and to identify risk factors and solutions on farm level for the benefit of pig health and welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]