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.

Animal welfare is multidimensional; its assessment relies on complementary measures covering all dimensions. Welfare Quality® constructed a multicriteria evaluation model for its assessment at unit level (farms, slaughterhouses). Four welfare principles are distinguished (‘Good feeding’, ‘Good housing’, ‘Good health’, and ‘Appropriate behaviour’). An animal unit receives four principle scores (expressed on a 0-100 value scale). These scores are aggregated together to form the overall assessment by sorting animal units into predefined welfare categories boundaried by reference profiles. A unit is assigned to the welfare category above the profile it is considered at least as good as. Several assignment procedures were tested on a set of 69 dairy farms and compared with observers’ general impressions. The welfare categories, reference profiles and assignment procedure were defined in consultation with social scientists, animal scientists and stakeholders. Four welfare categories were defined: ‘Excellent’, ‘Enhanced’, ‘Acceptable’, and ‘Not classified’. The reference profiles were set at 80, 55 and 20, corresponding to aspiration values for Excellent, Enhanced and Acceptable. The assignment procedure resulted from a compromise between theoretical opinion on what should be considered excellent, enhanced or acceptable, and what can realistically be achieved in practice: to be assigned to a given category, a unit must reach its aspiration value on 2 or 3 of the 4 principles, and not score below the aspiration value for the next lowest category on the other principle(s). The model can be used for several purposes, including identifying welfare problems on a farm to advise farmers, or checking compliance with certification schemes.

In the European Union, at least 1% of farms are inspected every year and sanctions are applied to those that do not comply with the legislation on animal welfare. These on-farm inspections can result in measures to correct welfare problems detected. They can also highlight major risks that will require a focus of efforts and help prevent further non-compliances. Here, we analysed the reports from inspections of French cattle farms between 2010 and 2013 to check whether inspection stimulates improvement and to propose ways to improve how animal welfare legislation is implemented through the cross-compliance system. French inspectors use 32 items to assess overall compliance of farms inspected. We found that compliance improves on farms that are re-inspected but not in other farms (8% of severely non-compliant farms). Nine items do not influence the overall assessment whereas eight have a huge impact. The importance attributed to items varies from the first to the second visit to a farm. The major risks are absence of farm records, lack of basic care (practices or enclosures likely to harm animals, insufficient feeding) and inadequate skills (no veterinarian consulted, insufficient qualified staff). To improve compliance with EU animal welfare legislation and the efficiency of the inspection system, we suggest organising consultation between inspectors, ministry central services and welfare experts to: (i) refine the checklist and harmonise interpretations of item compliance; (ii) make sure all farmers are aware of the legislative requirements and the major risks of non-compliance; and (iii) define plans for a step-wise improvement of non-compliant farms.

There is a lack of recognised markers for measuring gastrointestinal (GI) well-being and digestive symptoms in the general population. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate construct validity of a global assessment tool of GI well-being. In this randomised double-blind study, 197 adult women consumed either a probiotic fermented milk or a control dairy product daily during 4 weeks. GI well-being was assessed weekly using a single question and subjects indicated whether their GI well-being remained the same, improved or worsened compared with the baseline period. Responders for GI well-being were subjects reporting improvement for at least 2 weeks of the 4 weeks of intervention. Frequency of individual digestive symptoms was assessed weekly. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was measured at baseline and at the end of the study. Subjects reporting improvement of their GI well-being had a significantly (P< 0·05) lower frequency of combined digestive symptoms than individuals with no change, whereas subjects with worsened GI well-being had a significantly (P< 0·05) higher digestive symptom frequency. Number of weeks with reported GI well-being improvement was significantly (P< 0·05) correlated with the decrease in digestive symptoms (r 0·58) and the HRQoL digestive comfort dimension (r 0·47). When compared with non-responders, responders had significantly (P< 0·0001) fewer average digestive symptoms and higher scores on digestive comfort of the HRQoL questionnaire. The data provide construct validity for a single-item questionnaire as a measure of GI well-being improvement. These data support the use of this questionnaire as an end point for nutritional intervention in the general population.