The welfare of animals in extensive systems has received little attention despite significant welfare challenges in these environments. Additionally, recent reform of Common Agricultural Policy payments in the EU have put increasing financial emphasis on farmers to attain improved levels of animal welfare, although suitable methodologies for assessing animal welfare are lacking. Assessment of welfare in intensive systems frequently involves assessing compliance with buildings and space requirements, as well as behavioural observations of animals in their home pens and monitoring of health records. In extensive systems, however, many of these measures are inappropriate or impossible. Environments are often heterogeneous, animals may be difficult to observe, individuals may not be identifiable and health records may be limited or completely lacking. The expression of fear by extensive animals, which rarely come into close contact with humans, often limits the value and practicality of behavioural observations as welfare indicators. Currently, welfare audits of extensive farms rely greatly on mortality and morbidity records to determine welfare status. Whilst these measures are important, the strong health monitoring bias does not adequately allow an interpretation of the emotional experiences of extensive animals. We suggest that developing methodologies based on assessing key features of the environment, such as handling facilities, assessment of the skills, knowledge and planning of the stockperson, and assessing the animal at key points in the production cycle when they are gathered may allow a workable methodology for assessing animal welfare to be developed for extensive systems.

Feasibility and validity of protocols used to assess welfare were evaluated in two fattening rooms in twenty farms, chosen according to the group size, pen shape, floor and space per animal. The two rooms contained animals at the beginning or at the end of the fattening period, respectively. Behaviour was recorded either through direct observations of the pens (3 times per minute, at 5 min intervals), 15 minutes after entering the room (B1) or after the removal of an object given at the end of the visit (B3). The third protocol consisted of a 2 minute observation inside the pen (B2). To evaluate the human-animal interaction, the time to adapt to the presence of the operator in the corridor (HA1) was measured, as well as the reaction of the group when the operator entered the pen (HA2) or walked slowly through the pen (HA3), the time taken by the first five pigs to approach the operator (HA4) and the reaction of the animals when the operator tried to catch an ear (HA5). Lesion scoring was carried out inside the pen on a sample of 60 individual fatteners or at pen level on most of the pigs from the corridor. The occurrence of the main active behaviours is assessed similarly over time by B1 and B3. Behavioural observations are then possible in an on-farm welfare assessment. Lesion scoring from the corridor tends to under estimate the number of lesions (scratches, tail wounds). The HA3 test appears to be the best one to evaluate the relationship towards humans but has to be validated.

It was the purpose of this study to assess the consistency of selected animal-based welfare parameters for dairy cattle throughout a one-year period. Eight cubicle-housed dairy herds were visited five times, at two-monthly intervals. At each visit, lameness, injuries to the carpal and tarsal joints, cleanliness, social behaviour and the avoidance distance towards an unknown person were assessed by the same observer in a random sample.

At herd level, lesions of the carpal joints, udder cleanliness and frequencies of agonistic and cohesive behaviour showed low consistency. However, correlations between consecutive recordings as well as between single visits and the average were moderate to satisfactory for lameness prevalence, lesions of the tarsal joints, cleanliness of the hind leg and avoidance distances towards an unknown person in two different locations. The integration of these parameters into on-farm welfare assessment protocols seems to be justified.

New transport legislation and society demands may increase the need for a ‘fast’ method to assess animal welfare at the abattoir. The objective of this study was to identify valid and feasible parameters which could be easily assessed at slaughterline in pigs. Eight transports (4 ‘far’ and 4 ‘near’ the abattoir) were evaluated using a questionnaire which included both animal-based and environment-based parameters. A ‘welfare index’ (WI) (0 = worst to 1 = best) was estimated for each transport based on the questionnaire. Lean and fat content, skin lesions, pH and electrical conductivity (PQM) were measured in 120 or 60 pigs per transport. When pH > 6 the meat was considered dry, firm and dark (DFD) and when PQM > 9 μs meat was pale, soft and exudative (PSE). Odds ratio between welfare index and slaughterline recordings was estimated. Differences in WI between the different transports were smaller than expected (WI ranged from 0.4 to 0.6). However, a significant relationship between higher percentage of DFD meat and lower welfare index (odds ratio: 2.25) was found. These results suggest that parameters like DFD meat could be used at the abattoir to perform a ‘snapshot’ welfare evaluation.

Several studies have shown that finishing bulls kept in housing systems with fully slatted concrete floors are impaired in their lying behaviour and locomotion due to the hardness and slipperiness of the ground. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of floor quality (straw-bedded lying area, rubber-coated slats, concrete slats) on the lying behaviour of finishing bulls. The floor type did not influence the total lying duration, but the number of lying bouts and the number of short standing periods decreased with increasing hardness of the floor in the lying area. In addition, bulls showed more interrupted lying-down and standing-up movements on concrete and rubber-coated slats than on straw bedding. On the other hand, atypical lying-down and standing-up instances, slipping and falling were reduced on rubber-coated slats and on straw bedding compared to concrete slats. Displacements of lying animals were observed more often on rubber-coated slats than on concrete slats or straw bedding. In conclusion, rubber-coated slats improve traction on the ground but are not able to provide as soft a lying area as straw bedding. Rubber coating can thus serve to improve welfare for finishing bulls kept on concrete slats but cannot be considered equivalent to straw bedding.

A preliminary investigation was undertaken to evaluate a series of animal-based welfare measures for the assessment of finishing pigs in units that were members of the RSPCA Freedom Food farm assurance scheme. A total of 20 finishing pig units were visited in the summer of 2002 and 14 of these were revisited in late winter 2003. Behavioural observations of the pigs, both undisturbed and disturbed by the observer, were made in 128 pens containing 9,444 pigs and the physical condition of 650 individuals was examined. A range of event behaviours were observed including social interactions. Play behaviour was observed in 66% of pens during ten-minute observation periods. The prevalence of physical conditions varied greatly between units. The most prevalent skin lesion was on the flank (40.8%) however, only 4.5% of pigs had both fresh and healed flank lesions suggestive of persistent fighting.

A welfare indicator protocol integrating a total of 38 measures from 4 information sources: housing system, management, animal behaviour and clinical health has been developed for decision support in Automatic Milking System (AMS) herds. Two expert opinion studies focusing on the relevance of the welfare indicator protocol as basis for on-farm welfare assessment have been carried out; one study focused on the opinion of 21 AMS researchers; the other on that of 14 AMS production advisors and 15 veterinary practitioners. The researchers were asked to score the individual welfare relevance of the 38 measures. Furthermore, both the panels were asked to prioritise the 10 most important measures. The 21 researchers generally appreciated the listed protocol measures as highly relevant. The researcher and advisor panels agreed on prioritised measures from all 4 information sources among the 10 most important welfare indicators. In summary, researchers as well as production advisors and veterinarians supported the suggested measures for inclusion in a welfare assessment system. This has demonstrated that integration of different information is considered decisive for operational welfare assessment at herd level.

The aim of this study was a comparison of Animal Needs Index (ANI) data, derived from annual inspections by a control agency, with data collected from 164 selected on-farm flocks concerning feather damage, injuries, egg production, mortality, bodyweight, foot pad dermatitis, keel bone deviations and reactions towards humans (eg flock showed marked avoidance when the observer walked through the hen-house [yes/no]).

Analysis of data showed a low number of significant correlations with total ANI scores and category scores: 1) Locomotion, 2) Social interaction, 3) Flooring, 4) Light, air and noise and 5) Stockmanship. Correlations found were low and total ANI score showed only a positive correlation with egg production at week 52. Category 3 scores correlated positively with egg production at week 70 and negatively with the percentage of hens with featherless areas and total pecking injuries. Category 5 scores showed positive correlations with egg production at week 52 as well as week 70 and negative correlations with mortality at week 52, the percentage of hens with featherless areas, pecking injuries < 0.5 cm and total pecking injuries.

Flocks showing marked avoidance had a lower total ANI score and lower category 3 and category 5 scores.

In conclusion, welfare-related animal-based parameters are poorly reflected by the ANI-35-L/2001. To assess animal welfare more adequately, animal-based parameters have to be considered additionally in a welfare assessment scheme.

The Animal Needs Index (ANI) is used for on-farm assessment of welfare in Austria. However, no synthetic welfare assessment system exists in Japan. We performed a welfare assessment of Japanese dairy farms using the ANI scoring system. On 25 farms, 36 dairy herds were assessed using the ANI35L/2000-cattle survey. On 10 dairy farms, 16 herds were housed in free-stall barns. The other 20 herds of 15 dairy farms were housed in tie-stall barns. This study was conducted between December 2004 and January 2005. The ANI scores ranged from 6.0 to 40.0 points (mean 17.8 points). The four high ranking herds on ANI value were housed in free-stalls and allowed the use of outside areas. The 13 low ranking herds were housed in tie-stalls and were not allowed the use of outside areas. The free-stall herds had significantly higher ANI scores than tie-stall herds. The ANI scores of herds having access to outside areas were significantly higher than those of herds having no outside access. This scoring system might be useful for Japanese dairy farms. However, some assessment parameters contain subjective criteria such as cleanliness, floor slipperiness, and animal health. Further studies are necessary to improve the scoring system, in particular clarifying criteria related to those parameters.

Welfare is multidimensional, comprising good health, comfort, expression of behaviour, and so on. Its overall assessment therefore requires a multicriteria evaluation. The set of criteria shall be exhaustive (no missing item), minimal (only necessary items), agreed by stakeholders, and legible (a limited number of criteria). Furthermore, the interpretation from one criterion shall not depend on that from another. We propose a set of 12 subcriteria grouped into four criteria: feeding, housing, health and optimised emotional states. This work will assist in developing measures to be used on-farm to form a European standard for overall assessment of animal welfare.

On-farm monitoring of animal welfare is an important, present-day objective in animal welfare science. Scientists tend to focus exclusively on animal-based parameters, possibly because using environment-based parameters could be begging the question why welfare has been affected and because animal-based parameters would be better indicators of welfare. However, selection of even the best animal-based parameters that have conventionally been used in experiments could have unacceptable consequences. Systems that are generally considered to be poor welfare systems may generate unacceptably high welfare scores. The monitoring systems could fail to match basic intuitions in society and the scientific community. In order to avoid this problem, available knowledge, eg about animal motivation derived from consumer demand studies and knowledge about the natural behaviour of the animals, should be used explicitly in welfare assessment. This requires making welfare inferences from knowledge about the relationships between environment-based and animal-based parameters using standard operating procedures. The on-farm measurement of animal-based parameters may be regarded as the measurement of critical control points, which must be compared and reconciled with predictions based on available scientific knowledge. For this purpose the formalisation of welfare assessment should be developed further.

Providing assurance of improvement in welfare outcomes is the desire of some UK certification schemes. However, this is only likely to be achieved if such schemes monitor welfare outcomes rather than rely on defining welfare resources that should be provided. The University of Bristol has developed protocols for the on-farm evaluation of animal-based welfare parameters for incorporation into certification schemes. The assessment system is designed to provide credible (repeatable, valid and feasible) evidence for assessment of compliance with welfare standards in organic and conventional farming systems. For issues identified as causing potential concern the assessor is encouraged to conduct further investigations of the relevant resource standards and, where appropriate, management requirements. Furthermore the assessment tool enables certification bodies and relevant third parties to monitor the ability of schemes to deliver good welfare outcomes. Finally, it provides a mechanism for farmers to review their own health and welfare performance. The practical application of these systems is now being pursued by some UK certification bodies.

To illustrate that different approaches lead to different costs a cost calculation on four different welfare assessment systems for four different animal species has been carried out; an integrated pig herd (450 sows), a dairy cattle herd with automatic milking (90 cows), an organic egg production system (3000 layers) and a mink farm (1000 mink). We calculated the cost to be: €375 per annum for the mink farm and €2205, €2430 and €2435 for the egg production system, the AMS dairy herd and the integrated pig farm, respectively. The costs can be reduced by: reducing the number of indicators and/or the recording frequency, reducing sample sizes, more intensive use of existing data and by exchanging external for internal recordings.

Globally, veterinarians and professionals in animal-related industries are faced with growing public concern for the welfare of animals, particularly those in production. To prepare professionals, courses in animal welfare should be created to provide consistent education on a global scale in an efficient and cost-effective manner. However, a creative approach to welfare education is needed to reduce the disparity between supply and demand for instruction in animal welfare. Michigan State University (MSU) is piloting a graduate-level, online interactive course in animal welfare assessment to provide students with high-quality science-based education from renowned international animal welfare experts at numerous institutions. Innovative use of technology enables students to interact with material, each other and instructors. Students actively apply their accumulated skills to hypothetical scenarios, enhancing learning effectiveness. Student performance and opinion were examined to determine whether the course meets the stated objectives. Twenty-three students from four institutions enrolled in the pilot course. In the first month, the majority of students found the online course easy to use and material appropriate for a graduate-level course. The students agreed that scenarios helped them integrate lecture material. The MSU course will serve as a model for collaboration in content assembly and course delivery, using technology to leverage global expertise to create educational equity.

It is not sufficient to merely publish regulations and strictly control them to improve the living conditions of farm animals. The farmer must receive precise information, understand the individual measures and be able to act with personal responsibility. A new animal welfare law has been in force in Austria since the 1st of January 2005. A system of self-evaluation is being developed for putting these new legal requirements into practice. The aim of this self-evaluation system is to enable every farmer to personally check his animal housing system against the given standards. This independent work motivates the farmer and makes him aware of animal welfare issues. This new strategy for the implementation of animal welfare law was originally developed, tested and found to be successful by the Federal Administration of the Austrian Province of Vorarlberg. Self-evaluation is to be carried out by means of specific checklists and manuals. Checklists and manuals are currently being drawn up for cattle, pigs, poultry, sheep and goats. The checklists and manuals will include all of the requirements of Austrian animal welfare legislation and will be formulated in easily understandable questions with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. The manuals will describe the methods for assessing legal requirements on the farm as well as the conditions for compliance with legislation, and give advice on how to improve the state of animal welfare on the farm. This paper gives an example of the self-evaluation system for cattle farming.

The present study aims to assess the relationship between consumer perception and on-farm assessment of animal welfare performed using the Animal Needs Index 35L (ANI). Two tie-stall, 2 straw yard and 2 cubicle farms were scored by trained assessors using the ANI and filmed to produce six 3.5 min videos. Each of them contained 4 clips: barn overall view, feeding, milking and individual animals. Ten untrained observers were asked to elicit terms describing how they perceived the observed farming systems to affect animal welfare using Free Choice Profiling (FCP). Data from FCP were subjected to Generalised Procrustes Analysis (GPA). GPA showed a significant consensus among observers. Observers characterised the first dimension with terms ranging from constrictive to comfortable conditions and the second one in terms of cleanliness/dirtiness. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted using the scores of the farms on the first two dimensions of GPA and the data gathered through the ANI. The first dimension of GPA (Comfortable), ANI's sheet 1 (Locomotion), sheet 2 (Social interaction) and sheet 6 (Total score) showed high loadings on the first component of PCA, whereas the second dimension of GPA (Clean), sheet 3 (Flooring) and sheet 4 (Stockmanship) were correlated with the second component of PCA. We concluded that FCP may be used to elicit lay person perception of welfare-related characteristics of dairy cattle farming systems, thus providing a tool to study the relationships between consumer perception and on-farm assessment of animal welfare.

The present study covers rank correlated use of soft flooring during partial replacement (45% of the total floor space) of concrete slatted floor by rubber covering. For this purpose, the rank position of 19 cows within a 50 Brown Swiss dairy cattle herd was evaluated by calculating the individual dominance index. A clear rank affiliation could be found for 16 cows (eight cows with a rank index 0.67 – 1.0 (ie high ranking) and eight cows with a rank index 0.0 – 0.25 (ie low ranking). Using focal sampling, the 16 cows were observed with time-lapse video recording before and after floor replacement (8.5 hours per day for 10 days with each floor kind). After replacing 45% of the concrete floor surface with soft flooring in a test area far from the milking parlour, high ranking cows used this area significantly longer ie 105.5 ± 36.2 min more than before compared with lower ranking herd members, who did so 17.6 ± 24.6 min less. Before replacement, low ranking cows spent significantly more time on the concrete slatted floor of the test area (147.6 ± 13.2 min) than high ranking cows (80.9 ± 17.3 min). The results of the observation demonstrate that the extent of use of soft rubber flooring correlates to rank-order and illustrates the importance of barn designs in terms of meeting their specific needs in spite of an existing rank order.

Our aim was to evaluate the effects of single or mixed sex fattening of boars and split marketing (SM) on pig welfare. Female (n = 10), male (n = 10) and mixed sex (n = 10) groups were fattened to 105 kg. Two focal pigs per pen were selected for continuous behaviour observations and skin lesion inspections. Aggressive and sexual behaviours were recorded during feeding. One week prior to slaughter the three heaviest pigs in half of the pens were marketed. There was more sexual behaviour in mixed and male groups. However, there was less agonistic behaviour in mixed and female compared to male groups. SM male groups tended to have higher lesion scores than non-SM male groups. There was more mounting in non-SM mixed groups than in both SM and non-SM female groups. The welfare of boars was improved in mixed sex groups but females fared better in single sex groups. Split marketing reduced the welfare of pigs in male groups but improved pig welfare in mixed groups.

The number of group-housed, non-lactating sows is increasing rapidly in Europe. However, systematic information of the between-sow variation in animal welfare related factors under various on-farm conditions is lacking. Indicators of feed intake, fear of humans and social behaviour in non-lactating, group-housed sows were monitored in 14 herds. Regarding indicators of feed intake, the results revealed that back fat gain increased with increased parity number to a larger extent in group feeding than in individual feeding systems. Furthermore, behavioural observations showed that sows older than third parity spent significantly more time eating than younger sows during feeding in group feeding systems. With respect to indicators of social behaviour, first parity sows had significantly more skin lesions than older sows in herds with no escape possibilities (small group sizes and no feeding stalls), whereas second and third parity sows had the highest number of skin injuries in herds with escape possibilities. The results emphasise a need for management initiatives to consider the requirements of especially young sows in group housing. This is of particular importance in systems with small group sizes and group feeding systems.

The point of the Piglet Scream Test is to identify those sows that increase the survival of their piglets through good maternal behaviour. For this to work, sows must be shown to differ in their test responsiveness, for differences to be consistent across parities and for responsiveness to be associated with piglet survival. Our data provide some first evidence that outdoor sows, kept under commercial production conditions, differ consistently from each other in their test responsiveness across parities. However, there was no evidence that this was associated with the survival of their litters. This, together with the lack of consistent evidence from other studies for a relationship between Piglet Scream Test responsiveness and piglet survival and concerns about its possible causes, cautions against the use of the test to enhance piglet survival on farms without further study. The paper highlights lack of standardisation of the test and pseudoreplication as concerns.