Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:04:53.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare outcomes assessment in laying hen farm assurance schemes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

DCJ Main ,
S Mullan ,
C Atkinson ,
A Bond ,
M Cooper ,
A Fraser  and
WJ Browne
DCJ Main*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
S Mullan
Affiliation:
University of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
C Atkinson
Affiliation:
Soil Association, South Plaza, Marlborough Street, Bristol BS1 3NX, UK
A Bond
Affiliation:
Soil Association, South Plaza, Marlborough Street, Bristol BS1 3NX, UK
M Cooper
Affiliation:
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 9RS, UK
A Fraser
Affiliation:
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 9RS, UK
WJ Browne
Affiliation:
University of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Most farm assurance schemes in the UK at least, in part, aim to provide assurances to consumers and retailers of compliance with welfare standards. Inclusion of welfare outcome assessments into the relevant inspection procedures provides a mechanism to improve animal welfare within assurance schemes. In this study, taking laying hens as an example, we describe a process for dealing with the practical difficulties in achieving this in two UK schemes; Freedom Food and Soil Association. The key challenges arise from selecting the most appropriate measures, defining sampling strategies that are feasible and robust, ensuring assessors can deliver a consistent evaluation and establishing a mechanism to achieve positive change. After a consultation exercise and pilot study, five measures (feather cover, cleanliness, aggressive behaviour, management of sick or injured birds, and beak trimming) were included within the inspection procedures of the schemes. The chosen sampling strategy of assessing 50 birds without handling provided reasonable certainty at a scheme level but less certainty at an individual farm level. Despite the inherent limitations within a time and cost sensitive certification assessment, the approach adopted does provide a foundation for welfare improvement by being able to highlight areas of concern requiring attention, enabling schemes to promote the use of outcome scoring as a management tool, promoting the dissemination of relevant technical information in a timely manner and increasing the scrutiny of standards important for the welfare of the birds.

Keywords

animal welfarefarm assurancefeather losslaying hensamplingwelfare outcomes
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue 3: Selected papers from the 5th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , August 2012 , pp. 389 - 396
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bestman, MWP and Wagenaar, JP 2003 Farm level factors associated with feather pecking in organic laying hens. Livestock Production Science 80: 133–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00314-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, L 2007 Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 225–22810.1017/S0962728600031390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenninkmeyer, C, Dippel, S, March, S, Brinkmann, J, Winckler, C and Knierim, U 2007 Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16: 127–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Channon, A, Walker, A, Pfau, T, Sheldon, I and Wilson, A 2009 Variability of Manson and Leaver locomotion scores assigned to dairy cows by different observers. The Veterinary Record 164: 388–39210.1136/vr.164.13.388CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Community 2007 Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Official Journal L189: 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.164.13.388Google Scholar
European Community 2008 Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control. Official Journal L250: 1–84Google Scholar
FAWC 2005 Report on welfare implications of farm assurance schemes. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2010 Opinion on osteoporosis and bone fractures in laying hens. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Forum 2010 Labelling food from farm animals: Method of production labels for the European Union. Farm Animal Welfare Forum, Godalming, UK. http://www.fawf.org.uk/ (Accessed 5 July 2011)Google Scholar
Green, LE, Lewis, K, Kimpton, A and Nicol, CJ 2000 Cross-sectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking in laying hens in alternative systems and its association with management and disease. Veterinary Record 147: 233–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.147.9.233CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambton, SL, Knowles, TG, Yorke, C and Nicol, CJ 2010 The risk factors affecting the development of gentle and severe feather pecking in loose housed laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123: 32–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.12.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Kent, JP, Wemelsfelder, F, Ofner, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2003 Applications for methods of on-farm welfare assessment. Animal Welfare 12: 523–52810.1017/S0962728600026129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ and Mullan, S 2012 Economic, education, encouragement and enforcement influences within farm assurance schemes. Animal Welfare 21(S1): 107–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905673881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mench, JA 2003 Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: a United States perspective. Animal Welfare 12: 493–50310.1017/S0962728600026087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Whay, HR, Butterworth, A and Main, DCJ 2011 Inter-observer reliability testing of pig welfare outcome measures proposed for inclusion within farm assurance schemes. The Veterinary Journal 190: e100–e109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.01.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, CJ, Gregory, NG, Knowles, TG, Parkman, ID and Wilkins, LJ 1999 Differential effects of increased stocking density, mediated by increased flock size, on feather pecking and aggression in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 137–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00057-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
RSPCA 2011 RSPCA welfare standards for laying hens and pullets. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Horsham, UKGoogle Scholar
Soil Association 2011 Soil Association organic standards for producers 2011 version 16.4 (updated June 2011). Soil Association, Bristol, UK. www.soilassociation.org/whatwedo/organicstandards.aspx (Accessed 5th July 2011)Google Scholar
Webster, AJF 2009 The Virtuous Bicycle: a delivery vehicle for improved farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 18: 141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® Consortium 2009a Assessment protocol for pigs. Welfare Quality®. NEN: The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® consortium 2009b Assessment protocol for poultry. Welfare Quality®. NEN: The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® consortium 2009c Assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality®. NEN: The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE, Heaven, G, Howell, H, Morgan, M, Pearson, A and Webster, AJF 2007 Assessment of the behaviour and welfare of laying hens on free range units using animal-based measurements. Veterinary Record 161: 119–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.161.4.119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, LJ, Brown, SN, Zimmerman, PH, Leeb, C and Nicol, CJ 2004 Investigation of palpation as a method for determining the prevalence of keel and furculum damage in laying hens. The Veterinary Record 155: 547–549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.155.18.547CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed