Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol Research Articles

Application of a welfare assessment protocol for Australian lot-fed cattle: The effect of time and frequency of assessment

Farm animal welfare assessment protocols enable the capture and reporting of information to address any concerns raised by the industry or the public alike. To underpin commercial protocols, research to address validity, repeatability, and practicality, including studies to determine appropriate sampling methodology, is needed. For protocols that adopt an animal outcome-based approach, including the proposed protocol for Australian lot-fed cattle, appropriate sampling is required to ensure validity of observations. The aim of this study was to determine optimal timing and frequency of pen-side assessments. The proposed welfare assessment protocol was applied at four time points for 208 sample pens at four feedlots during a seven-month period. To determine the effect of time of day, the number of behavioural measures were reduced using Principal Component (PC) analysis, and then a Generalized Linear Mixed Model applied to consider relevant resource and environmental factors. Three primary components of cattle behaviour and demeanour were identified. PC 1 (17.61 % of total variation in the observed cattle behaviour) related to activity and rest, with cattle most active at 08:00 h and 17:00 h, and least active at 14:00 h. PC 2 (10.15 % variation) related to engagement with environment and feeding. At 17:00 h more cattle were observed to express positive welfare outcomes, such as engagement and feeding behaviours. PC 3 (7.07 % variation) captured behaviour and demeanour that reflected cattle mental state, but minimal variation was identified related to time of day. PC 1–3 varied by feedlot and visit number, and PC 1 scores also differed by cattle feeding program. Results indicate that to capture variation in cattle activity and rest, repeated assessments at two key time points; early-morning and early afternoon, are required for accurate pen-side welfare assessments of lot-fed cattle. These findings suggest further refinement of the welfare assessment protocol for lot-fed cattle is recommended to facilitate commercial adoption.

Reliability, practicability and farmers’ acceptance of an animal welfare assessment protocol for broiler chickens and turkeys

This study presents an evaluation of on-farm self-assessment using animal-based indicators to support fattening poultry farmers in managing the welfare of their animals. Self-assessment guidelines elaborated by a German expert group were evaluated together with 11 trained broiler and 11 trained turkey farmers. The participating farmers tested a protocol with 18 indicators for broilers and a protocol with 20 indicators for turkeys on their farms for 1 y. The reliability of individual animal scoring, the practicability of the protocols, their implementation, and acceptance were then evaluated. Reliability was tested during 2 farm visits by the accompanying scientists, using the scientist as a silver standard. On average, the farmers achieved very good reliability (mean PABAK - prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa, broilers: 0.90; turkeys: 0.86), with no detectable influence of the previous training method (online versus in-person), the first versus the second visit of the scientists, the fattening stage of the animals scored, number of animals on the farm or the farmers' professional background. The assessment took longer at the end of the fattening period for both animal species. On farms with more personnel and for farmers with a higher position on farm, the assessment was easier to integrate into their work. Most farmers did not fully document their self-assessment and almost no farmer processed and evaluated the data properly, even though it seemed interesting to them. Overall, there was only moderate acceptance of the welfare self-assessment approach, with mixed responses as to whether it provided early warning information or benefits to animal management. Farmers often pointed to the increased cost associated with carrying out self-assessments in terms of the additional working time required, which is likely to be an important barrier to continuing. Digital applications for data recording, processing and evaluation may help to overcome barriers. Overall, it appears unlikely that the welfare self-assessment approach will be widely implemented in the poultry fattening sector without further incentives.

A comparison of three animal welfare assessment protocols applied to Swedish dairy cow herds

ABSTRACT This study compared the outcome of the Swedish Official Control (OC) with that of two other well-established protocols for assessing animal welfare in dairy cows, ‘Ask the Cow’ (AC) and Welfare Quality (WQ). Forty-one farms already scheduled for an official control were assessed by the three protocols on the same day. The hypothesis was that farms would be ranked similarly in terms of best and worst, irrespective of the protocol used. A second aim was to explore whether any of the animal-based quantified measures in AC and WQ could be candidates to improve OC. The eight farms with most remarks in OC (3–5) were ranked in the range 19–40 in AC and 5–37 in WQ. The only correlation observed (r = 0.40, P = 0.009) was between the rankings in AC and OC. Candidate measurements to improve OC taken from AC and WQ are quantifying individual body condition and cleanliness and recording skin lesions.

Developing a welfare assessment protocol for Australian lot-fed cattle

Lot feeding of cattle has gained momentum in recent years to improve efficiency in meeting market demands for high quality protein. Concurrently, societal concern for the welfare of animals raised in intensive farming systems has increased. Thus, the reporting of animal health and welfare measures is a key goal for the Australian cattle lot-fed industry. Although feedlots vary in location, climate, capacity, cattle genotype, and feeding programs, many welfare concerns are applicable across the industry. Despite this, no recognised standardised animal welfare assessment protocol exists for the Australian lot-fed industry. This study aimed to identify relevant measures to develop an assessment protocol, by identifying key welfare issues and their relevant measures, considering the validity, reliability, and practicality of each when applied to the feedlot context. An advisory model was derived after reviewing the relevant literature and five international protocols for the assessment of beef cattle (Welfare Quality®, AssureWel, US Beef Quality Assurance assessment tool, Canadian Feedlot Animal Care Assessment program, and an Australian Live Export industry protocol), followed by stakeholder consultation. A total of 109 measures were evaluated, with 99 environmental-, management-, resource- and animal-based measures being proposed. Piloting of the protocol on commercial feedlots will enable further refinement and validation, to provide an evidence-based, practical protocol to facilitate standardised monitoring of cattle welfare. Such a protocol could promote continued advances in animal welfare at a feedlot level and support a sustainable industry by addressing societal concerns.

Animal Welfare Assessment Protocols for Bulls in Artificial Insemination Centers: Requirements, Principles, and Criteria

Animal welfare is a complex subject; as such, it requires a multidimensional approach with the main aim of providing the animals with the "five freedoms". The violations of any one of these freedoms could have an influence on animal wellbeing on different levels. Over the years, many welfare quality protocols were developed in the EU thanks to the Welfare Quality® project. Unfortunately, there is a lack of such summarized information about bull welfare assessment in artificial insemination stations or about how disturbed welfare can be reflected in their productivity. Animal reproduction is the basis for the production of meat and milk; therefore, factors contributing to reduced fertility in bulls are not only indicators of animal welfare but also have implications for human health and the environment. Optimizing the reproductive efficiency of bulls at an early age can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In this review, welfare quality assessment will be evaluated for these production animals using reproduction efficiency as a key area, focusing on stress as a main effect of poor animal welfare and, thereby, reduced fertility. We will address various welfare aspects and possible changes in resources or management to improve outcomes.

Ackonc-AWA: A multi-species animal welfare assessment protocol for wild animals under human care to overcome the use of generic welfare checklists.

Maintaining a high level of animal welfare is essential in zoos, sanctuaries and aquaria for ethical, legislative and functional reasons. Therefore, it is necessary to have welfare assessment protocols that can be incorporated into daily management programs. Currently, there are different approaches to assessing animal welfare in zoos. Those that can be applied to multiple species consist of checklists or qualitative assessments, with limitations, especially regarding the lack of guidance in the selection and interpretation of indicators. Validated protocols also exist, but they are for very few wild species. This study aimed to develop, test in the field, and describe an animal welfare assessment protocol for wild animals under human care, that can be applied to multiple species, intended to overcome the use of generic welfare checklists and offer an alternative to challenging and time consuming species-specific tools. The development process consisted of the elaboration of a protocol, substantiated by published literature on zoo animal welfare and multidisciplinary focus group work, and its on-field feasibility test. This was performed on 14 species of different taxa housed in an Argentinian zoo. The protocol was structured in two forms: an initial form to serve as scan using various animal-based (ABM), resource-based (RBM), and management-based measurements (MBM), and a follow-up form using exclusively ABM. The protocol also included a user's manual with information about preliminary preparation, equipment required, steps from arrival until completion, and details on how to assess each indicator. The scoring method consisted in rating each indicator on a 3-point scale. 23 ABM, 19 RBM, and three MBM were tested and selected to integrate Ackonc-AWA, a multidimensional protocol covering the five animal welfare domains and applicable to multiple species. This protocol was entirely developed in Spanish and can be applied noninvasively and at a low cost, which constitute features of high relevance for Latin America. Further applications of the described welfare assessment tool in other species and different institutional contexts will reinforce the validation of the proposed measurements and allow the systematic and routine evaluation of animal welfare in zoos.

A fast technique to induce and measure anticipatory behavior in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)

ABSTRACT Anticipatory behavior describes the actions taken to prepare for an upcoming event. It is considered a promising tool for welfare assessment, but it is not fully applied in zoos and other facilities. This is probably due to the need to train animals, which can take a long time and make its use impractical. In this work, we tested, on a group of six dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), the effectiveness of a new technique to induce and measure anticipatory behavior without training animals. Our results show how this new methodology, which we called The Fast Technique (TFT), has been able to induce and measure anticipatory behavior toward the event studied, i.e., the play sessions with objects (PSO). Furthermore, it has produced the same result obtained with The Classical Technique (TCT), which requires a training phase. Therefore, our finding demonstrates the efficacy of a new technique that could facilitate the use of anticipatory behavior for both research and animal welfare assessment protocols.

Welfare of Farmed Crocodilians: Identification of Potential Animal-Based Measures Using Elicitation of Expert Opinion.

Simple SummaryThis study focuses on an elicitation of expert opinion to identify a toolbox of animal-based measures that can be used to assess the welfare of farmed crocodilians. This is the initial step towards identifying an animal-based assessment protocol that could be used to support the international outcome-based standard developed by the crocodilian farming industry. Potential measures were identified and aligned with the four animal welfare principles and twelve criteria developed by Welfare Quality®, focusing primarily on practical measures that could be used for monitoring farm processes or during external verification activities. The proposed measures were presented to a panel made up of animal welfare specialists (farmers, veterinarians and scientists) for judgment and scoring. Twenty-eight experts scored the proposed measures for validity (that being the relevancy to the welfare criterion and usefulness as a measure) and feasibility (that being how easy it is to observe and assess, for example, during an on-farm animal welfare assessment or routine monitoring). Future studies, involving the preliminary testing of the measures on a commercial crocodile farm, are planned to confirm validity and establish the reliability of the identified measures.Animal-based measures are the measure of choice in animal welfare assessment protocols as they can often be applied completely independently to the housing or production system employed. Although there has been a small body of work on potential animal-based measures for farmed crocodilians, they have not been studied in the context of an animal welfare assessment protocol. Potential animal-based measures that could be used to reflect the welfare state of farmed crocodilians were identified and aligned with the Welfare Quality® principles of good housing, good health, good feeding and appropriate behaviour. A consultation process with a panel of experts was used to evaluate and score the potential measures in terms of validity and feasibility. This resulted in a toolbox of measures being identified for further development and integration into animal welfare assessment on the farm. Animal-based measures related to ‘good feeding’ and ‘good health’ received the highest scores for validity and feasibility by the experts. There was less agreement on the animal-based measures that could be used to reflect ‘appropriate behaviour’. Where no animal-based measures were deemed to reliably reflect a welfare criterion nor be useful as a measure on the farm, additional measures of resources or management were suggested as alternatives. Future work in this area should focus on the reliability of the proposed measures and involve further evaluation of their validity and feasibility as they relate to different species of crocodilian and farming system.

Welfare Assessment of 30 Dairy Goat Farms in the Midwestern United States.

Dairy goat animal welfare assessment protocols have been developed and conducted in Europe and the United Kingdom for dairy goats; however, there are no published reports of large-scale welfare assessment for dairy goats on farms in the Midwestern United States (US). Therefore, the objective of this study was to perform welfare assessment of lactating dairy goats and identify the most prevalent welfare issues on 30 farms across the Midwestern US. Thirty dairy goat farms (self-selected) were enrolled in the study if they shipped milk for human consumption (regardless of herd size). The number of lactating does on each farm ranged from 34 to 6,500 goats, with a median number of 158 lactating does (mean ± SD: 602 ± 1,708 lactating does). The protocol used was developed from available literature on goat welfare assessment but modified for use in the Midwestern US. Observations were made without handling the animals and included 22 animal-based indicators evaluated at the group- and individual-level. The observations were conducted during ~3–5 h during a milking session (either morning or afternoon) and time in the home pen. Principal components analysis (PCA) was carried out on the welfare assessment data from each farm. The first two dimensions of the PCA explained 34.8% of the variation. The PCA biplot indicated correlations between indicators. The most prevalent conditions observed across the 30 farms included any knee calluses (80.9%), any claw overgrowth (51.4%), poor hygiene (14.9%), skin lesions (8.9%), poor hair coat condition (8.3%) and any ear pathology (8.0%). These results are the first to provide the Midwestern US dairy goat industry with information to improve commercial dairy goat welfare.

Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia: Part 1: Comparison Between Farm Production System's Effect on the Welfare of Beef Cows.

Simple SummaryNamibia is in the process of updating animal welfare legislation. This needs to include an assessment protocol for beef cattle production systems that is sufficiently rigorous for the country to gain and maintain access to high-value beef export markets. Beef is produced in commercial and semi-commercial systems and in communal village farms. Privately owned commercial farms allow maximum herd and rangeland management to ensure optimum productivity and profitability. Village farms (semi-commercial and communal) have limited grazing land, with consequent challenges of grazing and water management, as well as traditional customs of cattle management. A protocol was developed to assess the welfare of beef cattle in the context of these production systems. The application of the welfare assessment protocol indicated that the standards of welfare differed across production systems, with commercial farms achieving the best standard of welfare, followed by semi-commercial, then communal village farms. The greatest opportunity for change exists within the semi-commercial village farms, which need to attain to the requirements imposed by international markets to maximize their returns; hence herd management and welfare status is better than in the purely communal farms. This suggests that commercialization of communal farming may have benefits for animal welfare.A proposed animal welfare assessment protocol for semi-arid rangeland-based cow–calf systems in Namibia combined 40 measures from a protocol developed for beef cattle in New Zealand with additional Namibia-specific measures. Preliminary validation of the protocol had been undertaken with five herds in one semi-commercial village. The aim of the current study was to apply this protocol and compare animal welfare across three cow–calf production systems in Namibia. A total of 2529 beef cows were evaluated during pregnancy testing in the yards of 17 commercial, 20 semi-commercial, and 18 communal (total: 55) herds followed by an assessment of farm resources and a questionnaire-guided interview. Non-parametric tests were used to evaluate the difference in the welfare scores between the production systems. The results indicated a discrepancy of animal welfare between the three farm types, with a marked separation of commercial farms from semi-commercial, and communal village farms in the least. The differences in these production systems were mainly driven by economic gains through access to better beef export market for commercial farms and semi-commercial villages, as well as by the differences in the available grazing land, facility designs/quality, and traditional customs in the village systems. The results indicate an advantage of commercialization over communalization.

Feasibility and reliability of a German guideline for farm's self-monitoring in sows and piglets.

The present study's aim was to test a German guideline for farm's self-monitoring in sows and piglets for its feasibility as well as its interobserver and test-retest reliability. The study was performed between September 2016 and April 2018 on 13 farrowing farms in Northern Germany. Contrary to the guideline, the testing was not carried out by the farmers themselves but by 2 observers with experience in pigs representing common farmers. For the interobserver reliability study, the observers performed 20 joint farm visits independently assessing the same animals. For the test-retest reliability study, each farm was visited 5 times by 1 observer (day 0, day 3, week 7, month 5, month 10). Farm visit 1 (day 0) was used as reference and compared with the remaining farm visits. The reliability was evaluated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and limits of agreement (LoA). As results, the guideline's feasibility was limited. The indicators' reliability also presented divergent results: All indicators in piglets revealed acceptable to good interobserver reliability (RS 0.64 to 0.77 ICC 0.33 to 0.48 LoA between the intervals -0.02 to 0.13 and -0.02 to 0.00). Contrarily, interobserver reliability was low for indicators in sows (e.g., claw alterations: RS -0.41 ICC 0.00 LoA -0.97 to 0.68). Overall acceptable test-retest reliability could be assigned to all indicators although no exact agreement existed but only the pursuit of trends is indicated. On the basis of the present results, the guideline in its present form cannot be recommended for farms' self-monitoring. Given the restricted applicability, it should be reconsidered whether it might not be more appropriate to use scientifically tested and generally accepted animal welfare assessment systems such as the Welfare Quality animal welfare assessment protocols, although their application is also time-consuming.

Developing an Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Cows in Extensive Beef Cow-Calf Systems in New Zealand. Part 1: Assessing the Feasibility of Identified Animal Welfare Assessment Measures.

Simple SummaryIt is not feasible to transfer animal welfare assessment protocols developed for intensive systems to extensive systems or from rangeland- to pasture-based cattle because each system needs a different protocol. In a previous study, we combined selected measures from the Welfare Quality protocol for beef cattle and the UC Davis Cow-Calf Health and Handling protocol with additional measures specific to New Zealand to create a welfare assessment protocol for pasture-based cow–calf systems that had 50 measures. In this study, the feasibility of this protocol was assessed during routine yardings of cows and a questionnaire. Individual measures that were deemed unsuitable were eliminated or modified. At the end of the process, a robust, achievable protocol with 32 measures for use on pasture-based extensive cow–calf farms was created.Potential measures suitable for assessing welfare in pasture-based beef cow–calf systems in New Zealand were identified from Welfare Quality and UC Davis Cow-Calf protocols. These were trialled on a single farm and a potential protocol of 50 measures created. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of the measures included in this protocol on multiple farms in order, to develop a credible animal welfare assessment protocol for pasture-based cow–calf farms systems in New Zealand. The assessment protocol was trialled on 25 farms over two visits and took a total of 2.5 h over both visits for a 100-cow herd. The first visit in autumn included an animal welfare assessment of 3366 cows during pregnancy scanning, while the second visit in winter included a questionnaire-guided interview to assess cattle management and health, and a farm resource evaluation. Through a process of eliminating unsuitable measures, adjustments of modifiable measures and retaining feasible measures, a protocol with 32 measures was created. The application of the protocol on the farms showed that not all measures are feasible for on-farm assessment, and categorisation of identified animal welfare measures into scores that indicate a threshold of acceptable and non-acceptable welfare standards is necessary.

Developing an Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Cows in Extensive Beef Cow-Calf Systems in New Zealand. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures.

Simple SummaryAnimal welfare assessment protocols use different methods to categorise and score animal welfare. This study has demonstrated the feasibility of developing standards for a welfare assessment protocol of cow-calf farms in New Zealand by validating potential categorisation thresholds for measures of assessment on 25 beef farms. Imposed thresholds of categorisation and derived thresholds based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of farms for each measure were compared to see which was the most appropriate to the range of observations and the significance of the welfare implications of the measure. For measures with significant welfare implications, the stricter threshold was retained, while derived thresholds appeared more appropriate for commonly occurring traits but of less welfare importance for the production system at hand. The intention of this study was to develop standards for a welfare assessment protocol by validating potential categorisation thresholds for the assessment of beef farms in New Zealand. Thirty-two measures, based on the Welfare Quality and the University of California (UC) Davis Cow-Calf protocols, plus some indicators specific to New Zealand, that were assessed during routine yardings of 3366 cattle on 25 cow-calf beef farms in the Waikato region were categorised on a three-point welfare score, where 0 denotes good welfare, 1 marginal welfare, and 2 poor/unacceptable welfare. Initial categorisation of welfare thresholds was based upon the authors’ perception of acceptable welfare standards and the consensus of the literature, with subsequent derived thresholds being based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of farms for each measure. Imposed thresholds for lameness, dystocia, and mortality rate were retained in view of the significance of these conditions for the welfare of affected cattle, while higher derived thresholds appeared more appropriate for dirtiness and faecal staining which were thought to have less significant welfare implications for cattle on pasture. Fearful/agitated and running behaviours were above expectations, probably due to the infrequent yarding of cows, and thus the derived thresholds were thought to be more appropriate. These thresholds provide indicators to farmers and farm advisors regarding the levels at which intervention and remediation is required for a range of welfare measures.

Testing an Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Growing-Rabbits Reared for Meat Production Based on the Welfare Quality Approach.

Simple SummaryAnimal welfare assessment protocols allow one to understand the level of welfare and to identify the main parameters to improve on farms. Accordingly, farmers have the possibility to use these tools for implementing corrective measures to improve animal welfare. This study was performed through the application of an animal welfare assessment protocol for growing-rabbits in 32 farms from Spain and Portugal. The scores obtained ranged from 44 to 82 points out of 100, depending on the farm, showing a good discriminative capacity among the 32 farms assessed. However, some key points for improving were identified in most of the farms. These points were to provide more space for the animals, improve the protocols for emergency killing due to health problems or any other cause, and to provide the farmers proper training in animal welfare.The objective of the present study is to present an animal welfare assessment protocol for growing-rabbits for discussion after its implementation in 32 farms from Spain and Portugal. The protocol comprises the principles of Good Feeding, Good Housing, Good Health and Appropriate Behaviour of the Welfare Quality protocols and includes 36 welfare parameters. Overall, the protocol showed a good capacity for discrimination between farms, with scores ranging 44 to 82 points. The protocol seems reliable for the assessment of animal welfare after proper training of auditors. However, for the criteria social behaviour and other behaviours, further research is needed to ascertain if the methodology and times of observation used are appropriate. Some farms had high mortality rates with a low prevalence of health problems, while others had low mortality rates with high prevalence of health problems due to different managements of culling. The protocol should be improved, to impede farms with high mortality rates but a low prevalence of health issues the day of the audit from obtaining better scores than the second type of farms, by limiting the compensation in key measures. The main points to be solved in the growing-rabbit farms were: to provide more space to the animals; register the number of animals culled accurately; change cervical dislocation for another killing method and provide the farmers training in animal welfare.

Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Does, Bucks, and Kit Rabbits Reared for Production.

Rabbits are the third species in terms of number of animals reared for meat production in the world. However, in comparison to other species, very few studies have focused on their welfare. The aim of the present study is to implement an animal welfare-assessment protocol developed through a multidimensional approach and containing a number of animal-based measures for bucks, does, and kit rabbits. Thirty Spanish farms with conventional cages in the first year of integration in an animal welfare certification scheme were visited during 2019 and audited by the same auditor. The protocol is divided into four principles and 11 criteria. The Good Feeding principle includes eight parameters (one animal-based), Good Housing includes 15 parameters (six animal-based), Good Health includes 26 parameters (16 animal-based), and Appropriate Behavior contains nine parameters (four animal-based). In general, the main problems found were the absence of platforms, low space allowance and low height of the cage, inappropriate systems for performing emergency killing, insufficient protection of does from other adjacent does when housed individually, and absence of enrichment material. To a minor degree, but also found in an important number of farms, was a lack of temperature data records, high replacement rates of does, and lack of mortality-rate data records. However, in general, most of the farms obtained a good overall score, the maximum found being 73 out of 100 points. Nevertheless, none of the farms reached an excellent score, and four farms were scored below the 55 points required in the animal welfare certification scheme. The Good Feeding principle obtained the highest score, reaching excellent in all farms, and Appropriate Behavior the lowest one, with values ranging from 21 to 41 points out of 100. The results probably show how, for years, rabbit producers have been very focused on feeding needs and very little attention has been paid to behavioral needs.

Interobserver reliability of measures of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment protocol for sows and piglets

AbstractThe aim of this study was to assess the interobserver reliability of the measures forming the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment protocol for sows and piglets. The study was carried out at nine farms in Northern Germany. Two trained observers evaluated identical animals simultaneously but independently in 40 joint farm visits. Interobserver reliability was calculated at individual animal level using Cohen's kappa, weighted kappa and the prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) and at farm level using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (RS), the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), smallest detectable change (SDC) and limits of agreement (LoA). While a direct comparison of the adjectives of the qualitative behaviour assessment showed poor interobserver reliability, a Principal Component Analysis detected good interobserver reliability. The assessment of social and exploratory behaviours showed acceptable interobserver reliability, while the assessment of stereotypies displayed good interobserver reliability. The human-animal relationship test showed only poor interobserver reliability at individual animal and farm levels. In most cases, measures of health and physical state assessed in sows and piglets exhibited acceptable or good interobserver reliability. In conclusion, after some measures are revised, particularly those examining the human-animal relationship, the Welfare Quality® protocol for sows and piglets will represent a reliable approach in terms of interobserver reliability to assess the welfare of sows and piglets.

Developing an Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Livestock Transported by Sea.

Simple SummaryAustralia exports large numbers of live cattle and sheep by sea to many destinations. Increasingly high animal welfare standards are being required of all livestock industries, and reports of substantial mortality events on some voyages have raised public concerns regarding animal welfare. Mortality rates alone do not assure stakeholders that livestock experience adequate welfare throughout the voyage. Determining the animal welfare status of large animal consignments is complex and requires many measures that are focused on the environment and resources provided, and also on how the animals respond to their surroundings. A list of measures, appropriate for use on cattle and sheep that enter the livestock export supply chain, was determined by reviewing three international welfare assessment protocols, and consulting the Australian livestock export standards and an animal health handbook used by shipboard veterinarians and stockpersons. After preliminary testing of the measures on a sheep and cattle voyage, we propose a protocol that is potentially practical and applicable for pen assessments for both species at pre-export and destination feedlot facilities and during sea transport. Proposing a protocol is the first step towards developing a system that evaluates livestock welfare throughout the export supply chain, and will contribute to improved industry transparency.Australian livestock industries face increased scrutiny from animal welfare groups and society, and the long-distance transport of livestock by sea has recently gained particular attention. Other than non-compliance with broad regulatory standards and voyage mortality rates, there is minimal information to ascertain the welfare of exported livestock. There is currently no standardised, validated animal welfare assessment protocol for livestock on-farm prior to live export or when undergoing transport. This study describes a novel assessment protocol suitable for use on live feeder and slaughter animals exported by sea from Australia. Health and welfare indicators for use in the livestock export supply chain were identified by reviewing three internationally recognised animal welfare assessment protocols for livestock; Welfare Quality®, AWIN and AssureWel, as well as consulting with industry compliance standards and guidelines. This paper proposes a welfare protocol designed to assess sheep and beef cattle exported by sea from Australia, and incorporates environmental-, resource-, management- and animal-based measures. In collaboration with industry, this welfare protocol can be tested on commercial livestock consignments, and be used for ongoing management, for increased transparency and to provide feedback to operators for continuous improvement.

Calf- and herd-level factors associated with dairy calf reactivity

A positive relationship between handlers and animals in farm systems is essential because the human-animal relationship has implications for welfare and productivity. For this reason, on-farm animal welfare assessment protocols often include the behavioral response of animals to humans to measure the quality of the human-animal relationship. The existing literature has described this relationship as being multifactorial in nature. In the current study, we aimed to investigate the potential influence of farm management and infrastructure characteristics, calf manager traits, and intrinsic features of dairy calves on the human-animal relationship. To this end, an escape test was conducted with 698 calves on 30 dairy farms in Chile. This test measured the calf's response to the active approach of an unfamiliar human (and was scored from 0 [fearful] to 4 [friendly]). The explanatory variables used to predict calves' response in the escape test were grouped according to the following categories: (1) farm management and infrastructure (e.g., calf-dam separation age, space allowance); (2) calf manager (e.g., attitudes, behavior, and background); and (3) calf (e.g., breed, sex, age). We concluded that calf managers with additional jobs on the farm, no training, low job satisfaction, a greater proportion of negative contacts, and more negative attitudes were predictive of fearfulness in the escape test. Holstein breed (compared with Holstein and Jersey crossbreeds) was associated with greater odds of fearful calves. Our study confirms the association between animals' fear and handlers' features, which can potentially be used to select employees on a farm. Understanding the factors that influence fear responses in calves may highlight ways to improve the relationship between animals and humans.

Frothy saliva—A novel indicator to assess stereotypies in sows?

The present study aimed at introducing a reliable and more feasible indicator to evaluate stereotypies in sows in comparison with the ‘Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment protocol for sows and piglets’. Therefore, the indicators for the assessment of stereotypies of the Welfare Quality® protocol for sows and piglets as the gold standard (sham chewing, tongue rolling, teeth grinding, bar, drinker, trough biting and floor licking) were tested in relation to the potential indicator ‘frothy saliva’ in an on-farm study on farrowing farms. The analysis included the correlation between indicators, their interobserver agreement and test-retest reliability. Therefore, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), smallest detectable change (SDC) and limits of agreement (LoA) were used. As results, the potential indicator ‘frothy saliva’ showed an acceptable correlation with the most observed indicator sham chewing (RS 0.42), which was in turn correlated to the indicator tongue rolling (RS 0.35). ‘Frothy saliva’ showed similar interobserver agreement as the indicators for the assessment of stereotypies, e.g. ‘frothy saliva’ (RS 0.90 ICC 0.93 SDC 0.16 LoA [−0.18;0.14]) and sham chewing (RS 0.96 ICC 0.94 SDC 0.11 LoA [−0.08;0.13]). Concerning its test-retest reliability, the results showed that the potential indicator ‘frothy saliva’ can be used to differentiate between farms (RS 0.61-0.87 ICC 0.74-0.91 SDC 0.20-0.35 LoA [−0.16;0.24]–[−0.46;0.25]), which matched the results of the indicators for the assessment of stereotypies, e.g. sham chewing (RS 0.81-0.93 ICC 0.80–0.91 SDC 0.16-0.23 LoA [−0.22;0.10]–[−0.24;0.21]). Sensitivity, specificity and regarding result parameters confirmed the usefulness of the potential indicator ‘frothy saliva’ on-farm (sensitivity 0.86, specificity 0.62, positive likelihood ratio 2.26, negative likelihood ratio 0.23). However, organic enrichment material can be a confounding factor. So does the currently still unknown relationship between ‘frothy saliva’ and non-stereotypic foraging or eating activities of sows. Besides that, the potential indicator ‘frothy saliva’ proved to be as reliable as the indicators for the assessment of stereotypies and demonstrated higher feasibility. Hence, the use of the potential indicator ‘frothy saliva’ is recommended to assess stereotypies in sows. Thereby, it could contribute to an improvement of the Welfare Quality® protocol for sows and piglets.

Overview of indicators to assess on-farm welfare of sheep and goats

The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of a number of useful indicators to assess on-farm welfare of sheep and goats in commercial systems. Assessing the welfare of production animals is vital to ensure that optimal conditions are provided by animal managers. Welfare is a multifactorial concept that is difficult to describe as there are multiple definitions and interpretations. However, welfare is generally concerned with an animal’s quality of life and includes natural living, affective state, and biological functioning. Animal welfare assessment protocols for sheep and goats use a variety of animal-, management- and resource-based indicators of welfare. Management- and resource-based indicators are useful for on-farm welfare assessments, as they can be reliably and quickly measured; however, animal-based indicators may give a more accurate indication of specific welfare conditions, as they directly focus on the animal. Useful indicators should be valid, reliable, and feasible, and some examples include body condition scoring, hair/fleece condition, skin lesions, claw overgrowth, lameness, and the human-animal relationship. Identification of areas of welfare compromise is the first step in order to improve the welfare of sheep and goats on-farm.