Welfare Assessment System Research Articles

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.

A Review of Welfare Indicators of Indoor-Housed Dairy Cow as a Basis for Integrated Automatic Welfare Assessment Systems.

Simple SummaryMany techniques have been developed to measure single indicators of reduced welfare in farm animals, such as changes in the walking pattern to detect lameness in dairy cows. However, there is still a need to combine these single measurements to get a more complete picture of the wellbeing of an animal. Based on a literature review on dairy cow welfare, this review provides a basis for the development of an integrated automatic system to assess the welfare of dairy cows on the farm. It provides an overview of the main welfare issues for dairy cows, such as lameness, heat stress, or pain and of the most established indicators that could help to detect these welfare issues on the farm. We found that there are several indicators, such as reduced feed intake, that are common to most welfare issues and that are therefore suitable to detect reduced welfare in general, while other indicators mainly identify one welfare issue, such as increased respiratory rate, as an indicator of heat stress. Combining these different types of indicators would provide a good basis to develop an integrated automatic system that could assist farmers in the detection of reduced welfare on their farms.For on-farm welfare assessment many automatic methods have been developed to detect indicators of reduced welfare. However, there is still a need to integrate data from single sources to obtain a complete picture of the welfare of an animal. This review offers a basis for developing integrated automatic systems to assess dairy cow welfare by providing an overview of the main issues that challenge cow welfare (e.g., lameness) and of well-established indicators that could detect these issues on the farm. Based on a literature review of 4 reviews on cow welfare in general and 48 reviews on single welfare issues, we identified 18 different major welfare issues and 76 matching indicators that could be detected automatically on the farm. Several indicators, e.g., feed intake, showed a consistent association with welfare across many different issues. Although some of these indicators are discussed critically, this means there are many indicators that potentially could detect reduced welfare in general. Other types of indicators could detect one specific welfare issue, e.g., increased respiratory rate for heat stress. These different types of indicators combined provide a basis to develop integrated automatic systems that ultimately would help farmers to detect welfare problems at an early stage.

A weak point analysis of welfare in Danish dairy herds using two different welfare assessment systems

AbstractThis study aimed to identify current weak points in animal welfare in Danish dairy production at herd level using the Welfare Quality® (WQ) protocol, and at national level using the Danish Animal Welfare Index (DAWIN) protocol. The DAWIN was developed as a monitoring tool for the welfare of the Danish dairy cow population, derived from the aggregation of DAWIN assessments at herd level. The DAWIN dairy cow protocol covers 29 measures (13 resource- and 16 animal-based measures) that were weighted and aggregated into a final overall population welfare score. A total of 3,591 cows from 60 dairy herds were assessed throughout 2015. Results from both the WQ and DAWIN were presented at six criteria levels in order to identify specific areas of concern relating to animal welfare at herd versus population level. Both protocols indicated a good general level of welfare across study herds, but also identified insufficient water supply as the main area of concern. In addition, resting comfort (ie time needed to lie down, collisions with barn equipment, cleanliness of rear body parts, animals lying outside of the designated lying area) and disease (in terms of the proportion of cows with chronically elevated somatic cell counts) were identified as problematic areas. The two assessment protocols both identified behavioural deficits, but in the WQ it was due to zero-grazing systems in contrast to the insufficient numbers of cow brushes in the DAWIN protocol. Despite differences in the aggregation, similar areas of concern were identified at criteria level.

Using precision farming to improve animal welfare

Abstract Animal welfare is a multidimensional phenomenon and currently its on-farm assessment requires complex, multidimensional frameworks involving farm audits which are time-consuming, infrequent and expensive. The core principle of precision agriculture is to use sensor technologies to improve the efficiency of resource use by targeting resources to where they give a benefit. Precision livestock farming (PLF) enables farm animal management to move away from the group level to monitoring and managing individual animals. A range of precision livestock monitoring and control technologies have been developed, primarily to improve livestock production efficiency. Examples include using camera systems monitoring the movement of housed broiler chickens to detect problems with feeding systems or disease and leg-mounted accelerometers enabling the detection of the early stages of lameness in dairy cows. These systems are already improving farm animal welfare by, for example, improving the detection of health issues enabling more rapid treatment, or the detection of problems with feeding systems helping to reduce the risk of hunger. Environmental monitoring and control in buildings can improve animal comfort, and automatic milking systems facilitate animal choice and improve human-animal interactions. Although these precision livestock technologies monitor some parameters relevant to farm animal welfare (e.g. feeding, health), none of the systems yet provide the broad, multidimensional integration that is required to give a complete assessment of an animal’s welfare. However, data from PLF sensors could potentially be integrated into automated animal welfare assessment systems, although further research is needed to define and validate this approach.

Different assessment systems fail to agree on the evaluation of dairy cattle welfare at farm level

As different animal welfare assessment schemes are based on different assumptions but all have similar welfare claims, we studied the degree of agreement among three systems, two mainly based on resource-based measures: Animal Needs Index (ANI) and Lombardy Extension Service Index (IBS) and one mainly based on animal based-measures (i.e. Welfare Quality®). Thirty-three dairy cattle farms were assessed by one trained assessor. In order to make the welfare categories of the different welfare assessment systems comparable with one another the first three welfare categories of the ANI scheme were merged into a not acceptable category so that a score scale with 4 welfare categories was obtained. Then, we calculated the Cohen's weighted kappa (k) to assess the degree of agreement between the three welfare assessment systems in terms of welfare categories. In addition, the correlation between pair of systems in terms of total scores (the mean of the four principles of the Welfare Quality® was used for this calculation) was calculated using the Spearman correlation coefficient (rs). Our results showed that only few farms were scored in the same welfare category of different welfare assessment systems as only 12.1% of the farms were scored as enhanced and 3% of the farms were scored as acceptable according to all three welfare assessment systems. Based on k statistics, the degree of agreement in terms of welfare categories was not significant for the pairs IBS – ANI (k = 0.128; P = 0.130) and WQ – ANI (k = 0.014; P = 0.850), whereas it tended to be significant for the pair WQ - IBS (k = 0.256; P = 0.070). The Spearman correlation coefficient of the total scores confirmed the low agreement among the three systems. In particular, the correlation coefficients between ANI-IBS, IBS-WQ and ANI-WQ were rs = 0.022, 0.208 and −0,068, respectively, and none of them was significant (P = 0.905, P = 0.246 and P = 0.707, respectively). Significant correlations were only observed between the Welfare Quality® principle “Good health” and the somatic cell counts (rs = −0.500; P = 0.003), the number of lactating animals (rs = −0.360; P = 0.040), the total number of cows per herd (rs = −0.339; P = 0.053), whereas the correlation of the same principle with mortality (rs = −0.315; P = 0.074) and calving interval ((rs = −0.330; P = 0.070) tended to be significant. We conclude that different schemes based on different assessment criteria yield different results albeit making similar welfare claims.

Changes in the welfare of mink (Neovison vison) with date of assessment in the winter and growth periods have limited effects on the overall WelFur categorisation

AbstractIn this study we investigated the robustness of the WelFur welfare assessment system for farmed mink (Neovison vison) to date of assessment in the winter and growth assessment periods. The prevalence of occurrences of certain measurements was hypothesised to increase with date of assessment (too thin, fur-chewing and stereotypic behaviour in the winter period and injuries, diarrhoea and exploratory mink in the growth period). The welfare was assessed on eight Danish mink farms according to the WelFur-Mink protocol. Each farm was assessed once in the nursing period (to be able to calculate WelFur-Mink scores), four times in the growth period and three times in the winter period. WelFur scores were calculated based on the assessments in the three periods: one calculation for each assessment in the winter and growth periods. The odds of fur-chewing increased with date of assessment in the winter period, and the odds of injuries, diarrhoea and exploratory mink increased with date of assessment in the growth period. The odds of too thin mink in the winter period decreased, ie the change was in the opposite direction to what was expected. The effect of these changes on the aggregated WelFur scores on the higher levels was limited, but could potentially lead to changes in the overall welfare categorisation of farms if the principle scores were close to a threshold between two categories. A potential way to eliminate the effect of date of assessment could be to develop a correction factor for the measurements that can be expected to change within each assessment period.

Animal Welfare Assessment System for Sustainable Cattle Production in Indonesia

.

Multi-Operator Qualitative Behavioural Assessment for dogs entering the shelter

This study aimed to develop and validate a fast and straightforward welfare assessment system to help shelter staff in decision-making processes. For newly captured dogs entering the shelter, the animal control officer (at capture time) and the veterinary officer (at entrance examination) compiled a form attributing a qualitative score for the overall Stress level and for 5 Descriptors of dog behavioural traits. Furthermore, a tester filled out the same form by subjecting the dog to a test battery in his pen, besides performing behavioural observations. The veterinary officer and the tester repeated the evaluation protocol after four weeks of acclimatisation in the shelter. The analysis evaluated inter-observer and test–retest reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of qualitative scores. Overall, we collected 258 forms regarding 189 dogs. Principal component (PC) extracted by Descriptors showed a good correlation with the Stress level score for veterinary and tester confirming the internal consistency of these scales while it was low for animal control officer form. Moreover, qualitative evaluations of the veterinarian and the tester showed congruent correlations with behavioural observations supporting their construct validity. Conversely, the scores expressed by the animal control officer were not consistent with quantitative observations. Then, the veterinary officer and tester forms could be validated and further simplified including only Stress level score while the control officer form requires a revision as it does not seem reliable. We did not find agreement between the Stress level scores expressed by animal control officer, veterinary and tester suggesting that the three contexts represent different stress stimuli to which the same dog reacts differently. The point of view of the three evaluators can increase the reliability of the assessment. Static but vigilant behaviours prevailed in newly sheltered dogs but activity, interactions and behavioural diversity increased in the second behavioural observation when the dogs were kept in multiple cages and four weeks of adaptation had passed. Stress level reduced and PCs tended towards the pole of sociability suggesting a reduction of stress after the period of adaptation to the socio-environmental conditions of the shelter. On the other hand, the considerable inter-individual variability in behaviours reflects differences in coping strategies and or in the manifestation of stress. Our simple tool can not replace a multidisciplinary approach to welfare assessment but could help shelter staff for individual management of dogs complying with their different adaptation skills.

Mapping farm animal welfare research in an enlarged Europe: international collaboration, bibliometric output, research resources and relation to economic indices

Against the background of divergent political developments across Europe, farm animal welfare (FAW) science has evolved during the last three decades as an inter-disciplinary research area. Recent achievements include pan-European research projects and the implementation of animal welfare assessment systems on-farm. The aim of this study was mapping activities for FAW science and investigating geographical differences in FAW research in Europe (EU28 + candidate countries and the European Economic Area) with regard to available resources (e.g. human resources, infrastructure, funding) and research output (e.g. collaborations and publications). Further, we enquired if economic attributes such as the Coefficient of National Innovation Capacity (NIC) were associated with the reported available resources and research output factors (publications and collaborations) of FAW research. Based on questionnaires sent out to a wide researcher network in regions of an enlarged Europe, we found differences with regard to ‘input factors’ such as human resources, animal and laboratory facilities and national and international research funding and ‘output factors’ such as inter/national collaboration, participation in EU-funded projects related to FAW and number of publications. Respondents were allocated to 4 Western and 4 Eastern geographical clusters of countries (‘hubs’). There were a larger number of researchers, students and technical staff per laboratory in Western compared to Eastern hubs. A pronounced difference was found for funding, as 35% of respondents in the Eastern hubs stated that they lack funded FAW projects compared to 4% in the West. In general, respondents from the Western hubs stated significantly more often that they run projects in the field of FAW research (p = 0.034). Furthermore they were significantly more involved in EU-funded schemes, such as FP7 (EU’s Research and Innovation Funding Programme for 2007–2013) with 24% (p = 0.013) and in ERA-NET Cofund projects (European Research Area—Coordination of Research Programmes) with 5.7% (p = 0.042). The average sum of impact factors from 5 self-named citations was 3.0 ± 2.8 (mean, SD) in the Eastern hubs and 7.5 ± 4.4 in the Western Hubs. When investigating associations of the economic status of EU countries with resource factors and achievements in FAW research, the ‘Coefficient of National Innovation Capacity (NIC)’ was moderately correlated with the input factors for FAW research such as the average number of PhDs currently employed in the institutions (r s = 0.66; p < 0.001) and the total number of employed researchers (r s = 0.56; p < 0.01). Stronger associations were found between the scientific output and the economic ranking, here represented by the cumulative impact factor of their published papers (r s = 0.74; p < 0.001), and between the number of EC-project reports published in CORDIS 2015 with NIC (r s = 0.67; p < 0.001). We conclude that due to economic disadvantages as represented by the lower NIC or rare participation in EU-funding schemes, the Eastern Hubs could not reach the same level of output factors as the Western Hubs, which negatively impacts on the number of young researchers (PhDs) and impact factors, thus resulting in lower visibility and influence.

Sensitivity of the Welfare Quality® broiler chicken protocol to differences between intensively reared indoor flocks: which factors explain overall classification?

There is a large demand for holistic welfare assessment systems that result in a singular balanced summary of welfare. The Welfare Quality® (WQ) broiler protocol summarizes 18 welfare measures into four principles (‘good feeding’, ‘good housing’, ‘good health’ and ‘appropriate behaviour’), which are then integrated into one overall category (‘excellent’, ‘enhanced’, ‘acceptable’ or ‘not classified’). But the protocol is time consuming which hampers implementation. Furthermore, WQ’s aim to assess animal welfare in a wide range of husbandry systems may decrease its ability to discriminate between flocks from the same system. We applied the protocol in the context of intensive indoor rearing to assess whether it discriminated sufficiently between flocks, could be shortened without losing essential information, and provided a balanced summary of welfare. The vast majority of the flocks (88%) received the same overall classification (acceptable) whilst all other flocks received an adjacent classification (enhanced), suggesting poor discriminative capacity. For 95% of the flocks overall classification was explained by two measures only (‘drinker space’ and ‘stocking density’). A system based on these two measures would reduce assessment time from 3.5 h to a few minutes. However, both measures’ validity can be questioned as they are risk factors for poor welfare rather than animal-based outcome measures and they suffer from methodological weaknesses. Furthermore, the possibility for such an extreme simplification raises doubts on whether the overall classification reflects a balanced summary of different welfare aspects. In line with this, overall classification was not affected by replacing single measures within the ‘good health’ and ‘appropriate behaviour’ principles with realistically attainable minima or maxima for intensively reared flocks. Even replacing either of these two principles entirely with their realistically obtainable minimum or maximum did not affect classification. Such insensitivity to change may discourage attempts to improve the welfare of intensively reared flocks when assessments are made based on the overall classification. This calls for an adjustment of the classification system, which is currently being developed by the Welfare Quality Network.

Application of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment system in Finnish pig production, part I: Identification of principal components

AbstractThe Welfare Quality® (WQ) on-farm welfare assessment protocols for fattening pigs (n = 95 farms) and sows, as well as suckling piglets (n = 103 farms), were applied on Finnish farms. In order to identify distinct types of welfare problems (WPTs) Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied to the pooled animal-based items within both categories of animals. Measures describing suckling piglets did not contribute to the WPTs. The main WPTs (seemingly) reflected fighting in fattening pigs and lack of bedding in both fattening pigs and sows. The results imply that WQ includes biologically plausible shortlists of animal-based measures with decent to good internal consistency describing distinct types of welfare problems in growing pigs and in sows. The 20 descriptors of Qualitative Behavioural Assessment were analysed similarly to identify distinct mood types, which were named active positive, passive positive and passive positive behaviours. The different mood types had close to identical build-up in both fattening pigs and in sows and suckling piglets.

Application of the Welfare Quality®animal welfare assessment system in Finnish pig production, part II: Associations between animal-based and environmental measures of welfare

AbstractThis study aimed to establish associations between the environment and animal-based measures of welfare collected on 158 Finnish farms according to the Welfare Quality® systems for pigs. The data consisted of 95 welfare assessments in fattening pigs and 103 in sows, including suckling piglets. Principal Component Analysis had previously been applied to animal-based welfare measures (ABWM) and to the 20 descriptors of QBA to identify distinct types of welfare problems (WPT) and mood (MT), respectively. Generalised linear modeling was used to investigate environmental (space allowance, group size, feeding arrangement, floor type and use of enrichment or bedding) effects on WPT and MT scores. Those ABWMs not contributing to the major WPTs, but occurring on more than 40% of the farms, were considered important and used as outcome variables as well. The most important environmental determinants of pig welfare were space allowance for fattening pigs, group size in gestation and in the use of bedding for both fattening pigs and gestating sows. Bedding decreased tail biting and signs of fighting when used as a fairly thick layer for fattening pigs. In sows, the benefits of bedding, including less frustration and bursitis, required a smaller amount of material than in fattening pigs. An increasing space allowance was advantageous for fattening pigs, although signs of fighting increased in very spacious bedded pens. The positive effects of space, including a decrease of tail lesions and a more positive mood continued at least up to 1.5 m2per fattening pig. Signs of resource shortage in sows increased with a growing group size according to a steepening curve.

Assessing animal welfare in sow herds using data on meat inspection, medication and mortality

This paper aims to contribute to the development of a cost-effective alternative to expensive on-farm animal-based welfare assessment systems. The objective of the study was to design an animal welfare index based on central database information (DBWI), and to validate it against an animal welfare index based on-farm animal-based measurements (AWI). Data on 63 Danish sow herds with herd-sizes of 80 to 2500 sows and an average herd size of 501 were collected from three central databases containing: Meat inspection data collected at animal level in the abattoir, mortality data at herd level from the rendering plants of DAKA, and medicine records at both herd and animal group level (sow with piglets, weaners or finishers) from the central database Vetstat. Selected measurements taken from these central databases were used to construct the DBWI. The relative welfare impacts of both individual database measurements and the databases overall were assigned in consultation with a panel consisting of 12 experts. The experts were drawn from production advisory activities, animal science and in one case an animal welfare organization. The expert panel weighted each measurement on a scale from 1 (not-important) to 5 (very important). The experts also gave opinions on the relative weightings of measurements for each of the three databases by stating a relative weight of each database in the DBWI. On the basis of this, the aggregated DBWI was normalized. The aggregation of AWI was based on weighted summary of herd prevalence’s of 20 clinical and behavioural measurements originating from a 1 day data collection. AWI did not show linear dependency of DBWI. This suggests that DBWI is not suited to replace an animal welfare index using on-farm animal-based measurements.

Colostrum Management in Calves’ Welfare Risk Assessment

Successful milk production is based on proper calf rearing, especially the youngest categories. However, the intensive production can result in oversights that can have very negative effects on the survival of calves and their further growth. In order to reduce mortality and to improve rearing conditions for calves, different welfare assessment systems have been offered. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has developed a risk analysis approach to analysis of calf welfare. In this paper, data on young calves’ mortality, morbidity and elements regarding colostrum management risk assessment at three Serbian large dairy farms were considered. The study was carried out during one year and data were collected from the farm records and by survey of employees. According to the results, calves mortality in the first 7 days of life ranged from 1.57% to 3.79% at the year level, and the most frequent causes of death were enteritis and bronchopneumonia. Risk related to colostrum management in all three farms was present, and may affect the quantity and quality of colostrum that calves received were not adequate. As the major failures at most of the farms the follows can be highlighted: lack of monitoring of ingested colostrum quantity and assessment of colostrum quality with a colostrometer and lack of routine supply of adequate stocks of frozen colostrum. The results pointed on procedures of colostrum management in which changes should be made, in aim to improve health and welfare of calves and production results as well.

On-farm animal welfare assessment in beef bulls: consistency over time of single measures and aggregated Welfare Quality® scores

Consistency over time of (on-farm) animal welfare assessment systems forms part of reliability, meaning that results of the assessment should be representative of the longer-term welfare state of the farm as long as the housing and management conditions have not changed considerably. This is especially important if assessments are to be used for certification purposes. It was the aim of the present study to investigate consistency over time of the Welfare Quality® (WQ®) assessment system for fattening cattle at single measure level, aggregated criterion and principle scores, and overall classification across short-term (1 month) and longer-term periods (6 months). We hypothesized that consistency over time of aggregated criterion and principle scores is higher than that of single measures. Consistency was also expected to be lower with longer intervals between assessments. Data were obtained using the WQ® protocol for fattening cattle during three visits (months 0, 1 and 7) on 63 beef farms in Austria, Germany and Italy. Only data from farms where no major changes in housing and management had taken place were considered for analysis. At the single measure level, Spearman rank correlations between visits were >0.7 and variance was lower within farms than between farms for six and two of 19 measures after 1 month and 6 months, respectively. After aggregation of single measures into criterion and principle scores, five and two of 10 criteria and three and one of four principles were found reliable after 1 and 6 months, respectively. At the WQ® principle level, this was the case for three and one of four principles. Seventy-nine per cent and 75% of the farms were allocated to the same overall welfare category after 1 month and 6 months. Possible reasons for a lack of consistency are seasonal effects or short-term fluctuations that occur under normal farm conditions, low prevalence of clinical measures and probably insufficient sample size, whereas poor inter-observer agreement leading to inflation of correlation can be ruled out. At the criterion and principle level, aggregation of information into scores appears to partly smoothen undirected variation at the single measure level without losing sensitivity in terms of welfare evaluation. Reliable on-farm animal welfare assessments should therefore be based on repeated assessments. Further long-term studies are recommended to better understand the factors influencing consistency over time.

Application of the Welfare Quality® assessment system on European beef bull farms

Welfare concerns for intensive beef production have often been raised, but on-farm welfare assessment studies are rare. The aim of this study was to apply the Welfare Quality® (WQ) welfare assessment system for fattening cattle on beef bull farms to evaluate the state of welfare at the level of WQ measures and of aggregated scores, as well as overall classification. In addition, the purpose was to evaluate two ways of providing feedback information to the farmers with regard to possible welfare improvements on the farms. The study was conducted in Austria, Germany and Italy on a total of 63 beef bull farms with deep litter or cubicle-housing systems. Assessments were carried out 3 times (1 month and 7 months apart from the initial visit). In every country, farmers were assigned to two treatment groups (feedback from initial visit as written report, F, written feedback plus oral advice, FA) and a control group (C), which did not receive any feedback. At the criterion level, the highest average welfare scores were obtained from ‘Absence of prolonged hunger’ (94/100 points) followed by ‘Absence of pain induced by management procedures’ (88/100) and ‘Comfort around resting’ (77/100). Most welfare concerns related to the criteria ‘Absence of disease’ (40/100), ‘Expression of social behaviour’ (44/100) and ‘Positive emotional state’ (48/100), thus indicating room for improvements. Two-thirds of the farms achieved the ‘Enhanced’ level, about one-third was judged ‘Acceptable’ and only one farm ‘Excellent’. After 6 months of monitoring period, there was no significant welfare improvement in both the treatment groups as compared with the control group. Reasons for the lack of effect may mainly be seen in the short monitoring period and a lack of external incentives. In conclusion, the WQ assessment system revealed areas for improvement, but longer term studies and investigations on alternative ways of transferring outcomes from on-farm welfare assessments to farmers should be carried out in future.

Attitudes and expectations of beef farmers in Austria, Germany and Italy towards the Welfare Quality® assessment system

Farmers' attitudes and expectations towards mainly animal-based welfare assessment tools such as the Welfare Quality® protocol are regarded important for successful implementation. The objectives of this study with beef farmers in Austria, Germany and Italy were to investigate farmers' willingness to join such a comprehensive assessment system and their expectations towards expected benefits, practicalities of the assessment procedure and respective feedback mechanisms. For this purpose, questionnaire-guided interviews were carried out with in total 90 beef farmers with alternative housing conditions for beef production, i.e. straw bedding or soft rubber mats at least in the lying area. 65% of the beef farmers were motivated to join a system such as WQ on a regular basis. About three quarters of all farmers considered as important, that the system is able to detect deficiencies in housing and management. Further benefits were expected in terms of profitability, state of animal welfare as well as personal job satisfaction. Regarding the willingness to implement measures to improve the welfare state, 92% of farmers agreed to change management routines and 67% would invest more labour. Only few objections were raised which mainly addressed the fear of new regulations, higher production costs and the reliability of the results. Nevertheless farmers agreed to a large extent to the practicalities of the protocol and would be willing to contribute to data provision. In conclusion, apart from the use for labelling purposes, beef farmers in this study regard a welfare assessment system such as Welfare Quality® as a valid basis for advice. Beyond assessing animals' state, information needed for improvement strategies may therefore be considered. Farmers' trust in the assessment system may be increased by further research with regard to reliability aspects.

Evaluating the likelihood of the adoption of an animal welfare assessment system in European agri‐food supply chains

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyse the likelihood of adoption of a recently designed Welfare Assessment System in agri‐food supply chains and the factors affecting the adoption decision. The application is carried out for pig and poultry chains.Design/methodology/approachThis research consisted of two main components: interviews with retailers in pig and poultry supply chains in eight different EU countries to explore their perceptions towards the adoption possibilities of the welfare assessment system; and a conjoint analysis designed to evaluate the perceived adoption likelihood of the assessment system by different Standards Formulating Organisations (SFOs).FindingsStakeholders were found to be especially concerned about the costs of implementation of the system and how it could, or should, be merged with existing assurance schemes. Another conclusion of the study is that the presence of a strong third independent party supporting the implementation of the welfare assessment system would be the most important influence on the decision whether, or not, to adopt it.Originality/valueThis research evaluates the adoption possibilities of a novel Welfare Assessment System and presents the views of different supply chain stakeholders on an adoption of such a system. The main factors affecting the adoption decision are identified and analysed. Contrary to expectations, the costs of adoption of a new welfare assessment system were not considered to be the most important factor affecting the decision of supply chain stakeholders about the adoption of this new welfare system.

A scenario analysis on the implementation of a farm animal welfare assessment system

AbstractThere have been important developments in the measurement of farm animal welfare in recent years. Measuring animal welfare is one thing, implementing a farm animal welfare assessment system another. The implementation of such a system occurs in an environment that is influenced by economic, political, technological and socio-cultural factors which interact with each other. This creates enormous complexity, generates a huge number of different potential ‘futures’, and makes the eventual impact that the system will have on the welfare of farm animals uncertain. This article draws upon strategic management literature to apply scenario analysis as a technique to help understand the variance of the uncertainty associated with the implementation of an animal welfare assessment scheme. Specifically, it develops two extreme scenarios based on a theoretical European-wide implementation: one scenario in which all uncertain factors influence the implementation of the assessment system in a negative way, and one scenario in which all these factors have positive impacts. These scenarios provide insight into the variance of possible futures in which the system may have to function. Although consumers are an important stakeholder group, their role in creating uncertainty for the system may be overestimated; it is apparent that the roles of companies, brands and certification organisations deserve significant attention, as well as any relevant institutional structure.

Welfare assessment in pet rabbits

AbstractOne million pet rabbits are kept in The Netherlands, but there are no data available on their behaviour and welfare. This study seeks to assess the welfare of pet rabbits in Dutch households and is a first step in the development of a welfare assessment system. In an internet survey, housing systems, general up-keep and behaviour of pet rabbits were reported by their owners. The answers of 912 respondents were analysed with behavioural observations carried out on 66 rabbits in as many households. The rabbits were observed in their home cage and during three fear-related tests: a contact test, a handling test and an open-field test. The survey revealed that the average lifespan of the rabbits is approximately 4.2 years (the maximum potential lifespan is 13 years) and solitary housing appears to reduce lifespan. Close to half of respondents subjected their rabbit(s) to solitary housing and the majority housed them in relatively small cages (&lt; 5,000 cm2). Health risks may arise from a failure to inoculate rabbits and via inappropriate diet. During the contact test, solitary-housed rabbits made more contacts with a human than group-housed rabbits and rabbits in a small housing system made more contacts than those in a large system. Observations in the home cage differed greatly compared with the natural time budget of rabbits, ie displaying increased stereotypic behaviour and decreased foraging and, in solitary-housed rabbits, a complete lack of social behaviour. Nearly 25% of rabbits displayed strong resistance to being picked up, indicating socialisation problems. During the open-field test, solitary-housed rabbits sat up more than social-housed rabbits suggesting increased fearfulness. These findings indicate that the conditions in which pet rabbits are kept often have a negative impact on their welfare, further underlining the need to study this in greater detail.