Sheep producers report docking tails shorter than recommended, knowledge–practice gap, and inconsistent length descriptions: an Australian survey

Introduction

Most sheep breeds in the Australian commercial meat and wool industry naturally have long tails; however, it is common for their tails to be partially removed or docked at a young age (Howard and Beattie 2018; Sloane 2018; Sheep Producers Australia 2022). This practice is primarily performed to reduce the risk of cutaneous myasis or flystrike (Webb Ware et al. 2000; Shephard et al. 2022), a disease caused when blowflies lay larvae on sheep and developing maggots attack the sheep causing subsequent infection, significant pain, and death, if not treated quickly. Flystrike is a costly and multi-factor animal welfare issue (Shephard et al. 2022), and because of the extensive nature of sheep production in Australia, prevention methods including tail docking are heavily relied on (Woodruff et al. 2020). Surveys have indicated that tails are most commonly docked using a hot knife (gas-heated), the second-most common method is elastrator bands or rings, whereas a sharp knife or shears are used less commonly (Howard and Beattie 2018; Sloane 2018; Sloane and Walker 2022). One survey found that the hot knife was used more by Merino wool and meat–wool producers, whereas rubber rings were used more by meat-focused enterprises (Howard and Beattie 2018). The use of pain relief specifically for the tail docking procedure has not been common historically and is not mandatory for lambs less than 6 months old (Animal Health Australia 2016). Few surveys have captured pain relief use related to tail docking, one captured willingness to adopt pain relief for tail docking (Howard and Beattie 2018), where 39% of producers expressed they would use pain relief for tail docking were it available. However, a recent survey indicated that the use of pain relief may be becoming more common, with 60% of Merino producers utilising pain relief at tail docking (Colvin 2022). There are various pain relief options available, including Numnuts® (https://numnuts.au/), a rubber ring applicator with built-in injection of local anaesthetic lignocaine, which is available and in use for tail docking and castration. The topical anaesthetic Trisolfen® is most commonly used for the mulesing procedure (surgical removal of wool-bearing skin on the breech and tail), alongside tail docking by using the hot knife; there are also oral and injectable analgesics (Meloxicam) available but they are less commonly used (Colvin et al. 2022; Sloane and Walker 2022). Excluding Trisolfen®, these pain relief options have been registered for use by commercial producers only over the past 10 years.

On the basis of the considerable body of research into flystrike prevention and how tail docking length factors into incidence and risk of poor health outcomes, there is a recommended minimum length to optimise sheep welfare. It is recommended to dock tails to ensure an ewe’s vulva is covered (Animal Health Australia 2016), which is approximately equal to leaving three joints of the tail intact. Scientific research demonstrates that this length not only reduces the risk of flystrike (Gill and Graham 1939; Riches 1941, 1942; Graham et al. 1947), but when compared with shorter tail lengths, also decreases the risk of cancers (Swan et al. 1984), prolapses (Windels 1990; Thomas et al. 2003), and arthritis (Lloyd et al. 2016), and improves the rate of healing (Johnstone 1944). This length was also somewhat of a compromise because several of the early studies found that tails consisting of four joints, approximately 100 mm in length, incurred the lowest flystrike incidence (Riches 1941, 1942) and this length recommendation was published in at least one newspaper in 1943 (McGarry 1943). However, it was noted that producers disapproved of a longer docked tail because of beliefs that it would increase dag formation, or faecal and urine soiling, and beliefs regarding mating interference (Riches 1942; Graham et al. 1947). It was also found that shearing and crutching inefficiency increased with this longer length of tail (Graham et al. 1947; Scobie et al. 1999; Fisher and Gregory 2007). Within and among these studies, multiple tail length descriptions were used. These included tail lengths described in relation to the vulva and its commissures (Gill and Graham 1939; Riches 1941; Johnstone 1944), joints (Riches 1941, 1942), length (Riches 1941, 1942; Johnstone 1944), amount of bare area underneath the tail (Johnstone 1944), and caudal fold attachment (Swan et al. 1984), without clear consistency among the measures.

Research into sheep tail length has identified a consistent, and in some cases high, level of sheep tails being docked shorter than recommended in Australia and in other countries known for sheep production. Industry surveys over the past two decades have demonstrated that between 22% and 55% of Australian producers report docking at shorter than the recommended length (Reeve and Walkden-Brown 2014a, 2014b; Howard and Beattie 2018; Sloane 2018; Colvin 2022). Studies measuring tails of lamb carcasses at an abattoir (Lloyd et al. 2016) and adult ewes on farm (Munoz et al. 2019) found that 22% of tails assessed had less than three coccygeal joints (Lloyd et al. 2016) and 86% of ewes had tails too short to cover the vulva (Munoz et al. 2019). A follow-up study involving the same participants from Munoz et al. (2019) used in-depth interviews and found that 57% of producers described their tail docking length to be shorter than recommended (Woodruff et al. 2020). Short tail docking length has also been found to be common in New Zealand and Chile, with 59% (Kerslake et al. 2015) and 56% (Larrondo et al. 2018) of producers reporting the practice in surveys. The reasons behind docking at a short length included high importance placed on flystrike and/or faecal soiling prevention (Kerslake et al. 2015; Larrondo et al. 2018; Woodruff et al. 2020), shearer approval (Woodruff et al. 2020, 2021) and reducing shearing/crutching time and cost (Kerslake et al. 2015), tradition (Kerslake et al. 2015) and beliefs of improved mating (Larrondo et al. 2018). Knowledge of the recommended length was positively associated with Australian producers reporting their length to be appropriate (Woodruff et al. 2020). Shearers are crucial labourers for sheep producers and sheep factors can affect their efficiency, which directly affects their own income, and therefore willingness to accept work on properties where sheep are more difficult or inefficient to shear. To avoid losing regular shearers, some producers have been influenced to dock tails short (Woodruff et al. 2021). This persistence of short tail docking compromises the welfare and health of sheep and incurs financial cost for producers (Doyle 2018); however, competing priorities, attitudes and lack of awareness appear to be contributing to the continuation of short tail docking.

The varied way in which tail length has been historically described and measured has continued in research and industry publications. Although the optimal tail docking length was recognised through scientific research conducted from the 1930s, and can be found across industry publications (Munro and Evans 2009; Suter 2016; Australian Wool Innovation 2023) and husbandry guides (Meat and Livestock Australia 2013; Lloyd and Playford 2022), there have been some conflicting literature/publications that may have led to or perpetuated misinterpretations and practices. These include publications from the development of the mulesing procedure, which prescribed tails to be docked at the ‘top of the vulva’ (Beveridge 1935; Gill and Graham 1939), and subsequent research recommended a shorter-docked tail for radically mulesed sheep (Watts et al. 1979). More recently, a best-practice Australian Wool Innovation (AWI) manual stated that the recommended docking length for mulesed wethers and rams is to cover the anus, which would approximately equal two or fewer joints being left intact (Australian Wool Innovation 2020). Similarly, even though the recommended length is reflected in the Australian Animal Welfare Guideline to leave a tail long enough to cover the vulva in ewes and equivalent length in males, the Standard requires just one joint of the tail to remain after docking (Animal Health Australia 2016). The discrepancy extends to state-level Codes of Practice, where most reflect the guideline; however, Queensland and South Australia Codes of Practice retain only the one-joint requirement (Johnston et al. 2023).

Unsurprisingly, the way tail length has been described by researchers and producers in industry and welfare research also varies. For example, industry surveys using just one description of docking length, such as the number of tail joints (Howard and Beattie 2018; Colvin et al. 2022), length in relation to the vulva (Reeve and Walkden-Brown 2014a, 2014b), or number of tail joints and having the tip of the vulva as a separate independent category (Sloane 2018). In-depth interview data found mismatches between multiple length descriptions provided by producers, where two joints and 50 mm were said to be long enough to cover the vulva by 40% of the participants (Woodruff et al. 2020). The animal-welfare indicator (AWIN) protocol developed and used for on-farm welfare assessment similarly uses just one binary description of sheep tail length (AWIN 2015). Recent research sought to assess the relationships between the common length descriptions used by measuring sheep tails by using multiple methods and found that tails that covered the vulva were longer than 50 mm, on average, by using a ruling device, and contained more than two palpable joints (Woodruff et al. 2023).

Given the persistence of short tail docking in Australia and the potential welfare implications, this study aimed to capture Australian sheep producers’ tail docking length, tail docking practices, knowledge and attitudes towards the recommended length, and to investigate any relationships or associations among farmer factors, current practice, knowledge and attitudes.

Materials and methods

A national survey on flystrike management and husbandry practices was conducted as part of an industry-funded research project on mulesing (Munoz et al. 2022). Collaboration was facilitated by the PhD candidate’s supervisors and the Animal Welfare Science Centre and resulted in the inclusion of specific questions on tail docking practice and length to be used for this study.

Although primarily focused on reaching sheep-meat producers, the survey included various production systems. Eligible participants were Australian adult producers who owned or managed a sheep flock. The aim was to reach/distribute the survey to 20% of the Australian sheep-producer population, approximately 19,687 producers (Meat and Livestock Australia 2023a), to capture a representative sample. From which, it was expected to capture a response rate of approximately 4–18% (157–709/19,687) on the basis of previous relevant research (Coleman et al. 2022; Colvin et al. 2022). The wide variation in response rate appears to be a function of sampling methodology. The survey was distributed in 2021 by using multiple modes, including through the research team’s established connections, industry networks and social media. A market research company (Australian Community Media) was engaged to further disseminate the survey via online links, mailed links and hardcopies, and by conducting computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI), to achieve a sample size of 300.

There were 44 survey questions, capturing demographic information (Table 1), current practice (Tables 2, 3), knowledge (Table 2) and attitudes (Table 4). The online/hardcopy surveys required 30–40 min to complete, depending on the level of details provided by the survey participants in the open-ended questions, and the CATI took approximately 25 min. Participants were required to indicate their own tail docking practice by selecting the method used to dock tails, who docked tails and by selecting one of three photographs that best represented their tail docking length (Fig. 1). Each photograph of sheep breeches had different length tails; Image A depicted a tail that is ‘butt-tailed’ where the tail has been docked as short as possible and the vulva and anus are exposed; Image B showed a tail extending halfway down the vulva orifice and the lower commissure of the vulva is visible; and Image C contained a tail completely covering the vulva. The images of tails were chosen as they were photographs taken by the research team as part of a previous project (Munoz et al. 2019), therefore indicative of real on-farm Australian practice. They were in greyscale because of the wide dissemination of the survey in hard copies and to reduce bias of discolouration of perineal skin in Image A. The attitudinal questions captured responses on a Likert scale (1–5) regarding their level of agreement, approval or importance. All questions were asked all participants; however, as an image could not be selected via phone, the CATI participants instead described their tail docking length in three ways, namely, in relation to the vulva, in number of joints and in estimated length measurement (Table 2). These results were analysed separately from the image-based tail length questions. The tail docking questions were developed on the basis of literature and a previous smaller-scale survey ran by the research team (Woodruff et al. 2020), in an attempt to accurately capture current practice, knowledge and attitudes. There was one question in the survey regarding use of pain relief; however, it was specific to the mulesing procedure and, therefore, it is unknown how many participants use pain relief for tail docking because people who did not mules would not have answered this question.

Fig. 1.

The images of tail lengths in the online and hardcopy surveys that producers could choose from to best represent the tail length of their sheep. (a) a tail that is ‘butt-tailed’ where the tail has been docked as short as possible and the vulva and anus are exposed; (b) a tail extending halfway down the vulva orifice and the lower commissure of the vulva is visible, and (c) a tail completely covering the vulva.

The dependent variables investigated were knowledge of the recommended length, tail length image chosen and accuracy of the description of the recommended length. Where appropriate, and to facilitate analysis, some data and categories were collapsed where the frequency of certain responses was low. The tail length image question was analysed using only Image B and C responses because of the low frequency of Image A selection. Recommended length awareness responses of ‘Not aware’ were combined into ‘No’. Qualitative data were coded into categories by using content analysis. Recommended length descriptions were coded into seven categories, but only two, ‘Accurate’ and ‘Too short’, were used for analyses because of low frequencies in other categories. For example, participants’ descriptions of the recommended length such as ‘covering the vulva’ and/or ‘3 joints of the tail’ were categorised as providing descriptions that were ‘Accurate’. However, participants who described the recommended length as being ‘2 joints’ and/or ‘2 inches’, for example, were categorised as providing descriptions that were ‘Too short’. Postcodes were used to create the variable ‘State’, using the first number of the postcode. Two categories of mulesing status were used for analyses, ‘Yes’ and ‘No’, for which participants who had never or did not currently mules were collapsed into one category.

Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (IBM Corp. Released 2020. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp) was used for data analyses. Chi-squared and Fishers exact tests (FET) were used to investigate associations with categorical demographic variables and current practices. Where relevant, overall chi-squared results were followed by Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons within groups. t-tests were used to assess significant differences relating to independent numeric variables. One-sample t-tests were used to assess significant differences between the attitudinal responses on a 5-point Likert-scale questions and the neutral value of 3; Cohen’s d (d) was used to measure effect size (Cohen 1988). It is suggested that values are loosely interpreted as small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d = 0.8) (Lakens 2013). Paired t-tests were used to compare participants’ attitudinal Likert-scale responses.

Principal-component analysis (PCA) using a varimax rotation was used to determine which questions were assessing a common attitude and could therefore be condensed into a composite variable. Loadings greater than 0.33 ensured inclusion in the composite variable (Tabachnick and Fidell 2007). Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the reliability of the attitudinal questions’ scale. Reliability was conferred where alpha was greater than 0.7 (DeVellis 2003).

Results

Discussion

The results of this study indicated that there remains a substantial proportion of producers who dock sheep tails shorter than the recommended length, despite moderate awareness of and positive attitudes towards the recommendation that tails should be long enough to cover the vulva. Given the results of previous surveys and industry reports on the sheep industry in Australia, this study achieved similar representation of participants regarding proportions from sheep-producing states/territories (Howard and Beattie 2018; Meat and Livestock Australia 2023a), age (Reeve and Walkden-Brown 2014b; Howard and Beattie 2018), gender (Howard and Beattie 2018), rainfall (Reeve and Walkden-Brown 2014b; Howard and Beattie 2018) and flock size (Reeve and Walkden-Brown 2014b; Howard and Beattie 2018).

With 57% of participants choosing Image B to represent their tail docking length, and most CATI participants equating tails covering the vulva to 50 mm in length and to contain two joints, short tail docking is likely to be an ongoing welfare issue for the Australian sheep industry. These results align with those of husbandry-practice surveys over the past 8 years where 44–57% of producers have indicated short tail docking practice, and docking tails to two joints was commonly reported by 36–55% of producers (Howard and Beattie 2018; Sloane 2018; Woodruff et al. 2020; Colvin 2022). Colvin et al. (2022) also found that South Australian producers were more likely to dock tails short. The longitudinal (Reeve and Walkden-Brown 2014a) and cross-sectional (Reeve and Walkden-Brown 2014b) surveys demonstrated a lower prevalence of short tail docking, but that there was an 11.5% increase in short tail docking over an 8-year period (Reeve and Walkden-Brown 2014b). Similar to the CATI results, Reeve and Walkden-Brown (2014a, 2014b) and Woodruff et al. (2020) also found that a high proportion of participants, between 61% and 67%, indicated that their tail docking length covered the vulva. However, Woodruff et al. (2020) found that more than half of the claims were accompanied by descriptions of docked tail length that are not likely to cover the vulva, as found in this study. The level of short tail docking reported in this study also supports animal-based Australian research into tail length and sheep welfare. The results from this survey fit with the results from several studies that included tail length assessments of sheep on farm (Munoz et al. 2019; Woodruff et al. 2023) and at an abattoir (Lloyd et al. 2016) that found that between 22% and 86% of sheep assessed had tails that either did not cover the vulva (Munoz et al. 2019; Woodruff et al. 2023) or had less than three coccygeal joints remaining (Lloyd et al. 2016). This study adds to the body of sheep tail length research conducted over the past 20 years that has highlighted the persistence of self-reported and directly observed tails docked at less than the sheep-welfare recommendation.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first Australian large-scale study to assess awareness and understanding of the recommended tail docking length. The current results indicated a misalignment between knowledge and practice, with most participants knowing there is a recommended length (74.6%) and accurately describing the recommendation (60%), yet just 39% chose the only image in which the vulva was not exposed (Image C) to represent the tail docking length at their farm. It is significant that over 20% of participants were unaware of the recommended length and that a further 25% of participants described the recommended length to be shorter than it is, despite the longstanding tail docking length recommendation. Participants who used short tail lengths to describe the recommended docking length were also more likely to select the short-tail image to represent their practice, indicating that these participants do not have the knowledge of the recommended length to then be able to implement it in practice. This reflects what has previously been found, namely that knowledge of the recommended length is an important factor in producers reporting to dock tails long enough to cover the vulva (Woodruff et al. 2020). It is well documented in psychological and behavioural research and literature that even though knowledge is an important antecedent of behaviour, simply having the required knowledge does not always translate into individuals’ behaviour (Glanville et al. 2020; Sommerville et al. 2021). This has been demonstrated in behaviour-change research in the human health field such as the case of health practitioner hand-hygiene practices, where educational campaigns have not been effective in increasing adherence to hand-hygiene protocols (Wilson et al. 2011). In their review into behaviour-change research related to animal care and welfare, Glanville et al. (2020) described increased knowledge as an interim outcome of behavioural interventions, which may be required to achieve change and may highlight why change occurs; however, it is not always succeeded by so-called primary, secondary or tertiary outcomes, which are measured behavioural changes and subsequent impact(s). Such examples by Glanville et al. (2020) included intervention strategies that demonstrated that an increase in knowledge of pig pen design (Chilundo et al. 2020) and children’s safe interactions with dogs (Schwebel et al. 2012) were not always followed by changes in behaviour. Having knowledge is just one piece of psychological capability required to perform or change behaviour (Michie et al. 2011). There are various other individual psychological, physical, environmental, and systemic factors and interactions that contribute towards behaviour and behaviour change (Michie et al. 2014). For those participants who knew the recommended length and who could accurately describe it but still chose the short tail in Image B (57% and 46% respectively), there may be other factors at play. These results highlighted a need for further knowledge exchange, education, and communication to clarify the recommended length, and could be one of the factors included in future practice-change research. No relationships were found between formal education level and knowledge of the recommended tail length or current practice; perhaps looking at the level of engagement in industry training and with peer network groups would be more relevant and useful. Some previous research has reported successful behaviour-change approaches utilising existing sheep industry extension networks to address ewe management in Australia (Trompf et al. 2011) and postal, small group, or one-on-one sessions addressing sheep lameness in the UK (Grant et al. 2018). Similar formats could be emulated for the issue of short tail docking, including educational content, involving experts and peers, using various behaviour-change techniques, and taking individual circumstances and variation into account.

When considering factors contributing to the persistence of short tail docking, the inconsistency in tail docking length practice and the recommended length as described by producers, research and industry publications should not be overlooked. An interesting result of this study was that CATI participants described tails of 50 mm and two joints to also cover the vulva. This same misconception that these lengths are sufficient to cover the ewe’s vulva was also found by Woodruff et al. (2020). However, the most recent study measuring Australian sheep tails demonstrated in a small sample of Merino ewes that tails of these lengths are too short to reliably cover the vulva (Woodruff et al. 2023). Despite the recommended length being promoted and distributed by industry for eight decades, the presence of conflicting information can still be found in an industry-published lamb-marking guide in 2020 (Australian Wool Innovation 2020). Given that sheep farming in Australia has a largely family-run business structure (Reeve 2001) and a lot of learning is passed down through generations, as found by Kerslake et al. (2015) regarding husbandry practices in New Zealand, the historical and continuing misinformation could have had lasting impacts on what knowledge and from which sources were absorbed, shared and carried down family farming lines.

Relying on self-reported practice does have inherent challenges that may lead to limitations in the interpretation of results. Tail length is difficult to describe and a measure, as discussed by Woodruff et al. (2023) in a study attempting to find comparisons between the different description and measurement methods. Despite the challenges associated with describing tail length, it was important to capture CATI participants’ current tail docking length. Using multiple methods of description was expected to be the best way to assess CATI participants’ current practice and enable comparison against the recommendation (Animal Health Australia 2016) and recent research (Woodruff et al. 2023). The use of photographic images that had been previously used in tail length research (Woodruff et al. 2020) aimed to avoid variation in participant descriptions among the online and hardcopy participants. However, it is possible that the few images were not representative of all participants’ sheep, and therefore factors not related to tail length potentially influenced choice of image, such as wool length, body condition or mulesed status. These images were presented in greyscale, which may have affected the ability of participants to identify the vulva and whether the tail depicted covered it. Furthermore, it is likely that the tail in Image C contained four joints of the tail, and producers may not have chosen this image because it may have been seen as ‘too long’. However, it is interesting that if this is the case, the question becomes as follows: when given the choice, why do producers choose a tail that is ‘too short’ over a tail that is ‘too long’? And does this translate into practice? Because the images do not indicate which joint the tails are docked to, they were selected to elicit participants’ practice in relation to vulva coverage. To account for these potential limitations in future research, it would be best to include multiple images of various tail lengths and sheep, and include participant written descriptions to allow for cross-referencing of self-reported tail docking length. It would be ideal to conduct on-farm tail length assessments of sheep by using reliable measurement methods to better understand the current state of tail docking length in Australia.

Tail docking remains an important husbandry practice for producers for flystrike risk reduction, as found by previous studies (Kerslake et al. 2015; Larrondo et al. 2018; Woodruff et al. 2020). Regardless of their awareness and accuracy of description of the recommended length, participants indicated that it was important to dock tails at the recommended length. However, it was seen by participants to be more important to dock at their chosen length than at the recommended length. This may indicate that participants feel justified in their current and chosen practice over following the minimum recommendation. Future research could address the issue of how to change these farmer attitudes around the recommended tail docking length, to encourage implementation of the minimum length.

Although producers tended to agree that shearers prefer short tails, they tended to disagree that tails of the same length as the vulva would affect shearing or crutching ease. Past findings have similarly indicated that producers commonly perceive shearers to prefer short tails (Woodruff et al. 2020). It was also found here that producers who docked tails short, reported that shearers’ approval of tail length was more important to them than it was to dock tails at the recommended length (Woodruff et al. 2020). The current research findings differ from previous findings where producers agreed that shearing and crutching sheep was easier the shorter the tails were (Woodruff et al. 2020, 2021). The mean responses to the questions in this study were nearing neutrality on the Likert scale, which may represent the lack of feedback producers have received from shearers or crutchers, and/or little first-hand experiences regarding the impact of tail length on shearing and crutching ease or difficulty, which may have resulted in producers not having strong opinions in either direction. Alternatively, the significant minority of participants who were unaware of the recommended length and how to describe it could further indicate that participants perceive tails that are actually shorter than the length of the vulva to be covering the vulva. Therefore, these lengths are not perceived to make shearing or crutching more difficult. However, there is a possibility that ‘short’ in the relevant question could have been interpreted as docked rather than undocked. Given previous research findings indicating some level of influence of perceived shearer preferences over tail docking length, and particularly short tail docking (Woodruff et al. 2020), producers’ perceptions of tail lengths that shearers prefer may be more relevant than their perception of the impact of tail length on shearing or crutching difficulty. Although studies have also found relationships between short tail docking and the influence of shearer preferences (Woodruff et al. 2020), shearing difficulty (Woodruff et al. 2020, 2021), and cost (Kerslake et al. 2015), further research is required to establish how influential shearers are in short tail docking practice.

Overall, it was most common for participants to use a hot knife to dock their sheep tails, rings were second-most common, and a small proportion of producers used other methods such as a sharp knife or shears. This order follows previous industry-survey findings (Howard and Beattie 2018; Sloane 2018; Sloane and Walker 2022). However, tail docking method was dependent on enterprise focus. Rubber rings were more likely to be used by participants with meat-focused enterprises and the hot knife was more likely to be used among meat–wool-focused enterprises. This trend, also found by Howard and Beattie (2018), is likely to be due to mulesing being more common among wool-producing enterprises with Merinos. The tail is removed as part of the mulesing process. However, tails removed with rubber rings remain intact until sloughing of the tail after days or weeks (Sutherland and Tucker 2011), and therefore this is not a suitable method when coupled with the mulesing procedure. Mulesing status was also related to who docked sheep tails when producers were not performing docking themselves. Who docks the tails is an important factor in tail length research and provides information as to who should be included in practice-change research. From these results, producers themselves are mostly responsible for tail docking and therefore tail length of their sheep. For mulesing participants, contractors were the second-most common tail docking operators. Again, this is understood to be due to the mulesing procedure and hiring of a contracting team, which often includes a tail docking team member or is completed by the mulesing contractor themselves. Therefore, individual enterprise focus, priorities and practices such as mulesing all will influence the way in which and by who sheep tails are docked and must be considered to ensure appropriate and effective outreach, extension or engagement to increase docking tails at the recommended length.

From the results of this study and previous research, the number of sheep at risk of compromised welfare as a result of short-docked tails could be in the tens of millions at present (Karanja 2021; Meat and Livestock Australia 2023b). Tail docking remains an important practice to producers as a method of flystrike prevention; therefore, research to investigate, encourage, support, and maintain docking tails at the recommended length retains relevance and importance for sheep welfare and the industry. For practice-change research, industry extension and outreach, the multiple and varying factors contributing to short tail docking length need to be integrated and accounted for. The finding that approximately a quarter of participants did not know and/or could not accurately describe the recommended length elicits concern that the established optimal length has not reached or been adopted by a significant proportion of producers, yet there is hope that awareness could be raised. In this case, although we acknowledge that knowledge is not the only factor in achieving a higher-welfare tail docking length, it is an important finding to inform future research and industry-wide change.

The multiple ways in which tail length was described by participants and the frequency of contradictory descriptions reflect previous research into the inconsistency and variation of how tail docking length and the recommended length are described by producers and industry publications. Although having multiple tail length descriptors is useful for both practice and research, it is important that the joint, length and other such descriptions are accurately representative of a tail that covers the vulva of ewes and to an equivalent length in males. These results further demonstrated that knowing that it is recommended to cover the vulva, what that looks like in practice and having accurate alternative measurements or descriptors may be key elements in being able to achieve it and should be considered for future research.

Although the recommended tail length was not perceived to affect shearing or crutching, the attitude that shearers prefer shorter tails may be indicative of an ongoing level of influence and impact on tail docking practice. The existence and level of this potential barrier to docking tails at the recommended length will vary among individual producers and regions, and, as such, would need to be considered in the development of any extension strategy. Furthermore, depending on enterprise focus and mulesing status, who should be involved in extension and education should be considered and tailored, such as the involvement of contractors for mulesing enterprises and lamb-marking helpers and/or family members for non-mulesing enterprises.

Conclusions

Given that more than half of the participants indicated that they docked tails shorter than recommended, either by image choice or contradicting length descriptions, the longstanding issue of short tail docking remains a welfare concern for the Australian sheep industry. A proportion of participants was unaware of and/or unable to accurately describe the recommended length and a level of incorrect short-length descriptions that were said to be long enough to cover the vulva. Tail docking remains a relied-on practice for reducing the risk of flystrike, therefore ensuring that producers are supported to dock tails at the optimal length for sheep welfare is relevant and important. The results of this study highlighted that there is still research required in this space to better understand why some producers are docking tails shorter than recommended, to ensure successful extension for improved tail docking length and sheep welfare.